Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 remain for examination, wherein claims 1, 11, and 16 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3-4, 7-8, 11,13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In the instant case, The term “about” in the claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Proper amendments are necessary.
Claim 10-11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In the instant case, The term “UHTC” in the claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ultra-high temperature” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Proper amendments are necessary.
Claims 11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In the instant case, A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 11 and 14-15 recite the broad recitation “transition metal carbide boy”, and the claim also recites “UHTC body” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Proper amendments are necessary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Peters et al (US-PG-pub 2022/0324758 A1, thereafter PG’758).
Regarding claim 1, PG’758 teaches an additive manufacturing (AM) processes having metal powder and binder with selective laser sintering (SLS) under inert atmosphere or powder bed fusion (PBF) processes to create non-oxide ceramic object with reactant gas (Figs, par.[0013]-[0015], [0145], table 1, claims, and examples of PG’758), which reads on all of the essential AM process steps including provide powder and binder, laser sintering with inert gas, and forming carbide body with alkane gas. Since PG’758 teaches all limitations in the instant claim, Claim 1 is anticipated by PG’758.
Regarding claim 2, PG’758 teaches precursor powder including Ti and/or Zr and including binder or resin (cl.12, par.[0060] and [0071] of PG’758).
Regarding claim 3, PG’758 provides example having a mole fraction of the one or more metals or metalloids in the composite precursor powder is one of 0.67, 0.84, 0.86, 0.87, 0.89, 0.90 and including binder (cl.7 and par.[0071] of PG’758).
Regarding claim 4, PG’758 teaches metal particle size range of 5-20 mm (par.[0120] of PG’758).
Regarding claim 6, PG’758 specify applying gas-solid conversion in the process (par.[0076]-[0080] of PG’758).
Regarding claims 7-8, PG’758 provides examples having “process at a reaction temperature of 950° C. for 0.1 hours in a horizontal quartz tube furnace (CM Furnace, 60×64×1300 mm) in reactant gas atmospheres with the following compositions: [0183] Reactant Gas I: 80 volume % Ar, 20 volume % CH.sub.4, at 250 SCCM; [0184] Reactant Gas II: 76 volume % Ar, 4 volume % H.sub.2, 20 volume % CH4, at 250 SCCM” (par.[0182] of PG’758), which reads on the flowrate and alkane gas amount (cl.7) and conversion temperature and duration (cl.8).
Regarding claims 9-10, PG’758 provides examples to form refractory transition metal carbide object (table 1 of PG’758).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PG’758 in view of Lee et al (US-PG-pub 2018/0126586 A1, thereafter PG’586).
Regarding claim 5, PG’758 specify that applying SLS (selective laser sintering) systems, a non-oxide ceramic object 600 is created layer by layer from exposing the thin film of composite precursor powder to a heat source (provided by the laser source) and the laser power can be adjusted from about 0.1 watts to about 1000 watts (par.[0147] of PG’758). But PG’758 does not specify the specific laser sintering temperature. PG’586 teaches an additive manufacturing forming a first mixture comprising carbide ceramic particles by additive manufacturing process with metal powder and polymer (Abstract, par.[0005], [0033], and [0041] of PG’586). PG’586 teaches applying lower temperature sintering to adapt AM process a bonding tape for joining of carbide ceramics (par.[0005] of PG’586). PG’586 provides example heating at temperature 1150-1400oC, which below the eutectic liquid temperature (Abstract, examples, and claims of PG’586). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the sintering temperature as demonstrated by PG’586 in the process of PG’758 in order to obtain the desired carbide ceramic by AM process.
Regarding claims 11 and 16, as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-9, PG’758 teaches all of the essential manufacturing process steps and operation parameters as claimed transition metal carbide (cl.11) and/or UHTC body (cl.16). PG’758 does not specify the specific laser sintering temperature as claimed in the instant claims. PG’586 teaches an additive manufacturing forming a first mixture comprising carbide ceramic particles by additive manufacturing process with metal powder and polymer (Abstract, par.[0005], [0033], and [0041] of PG’586). PG’586 teaches applying lower temperature sintering to adapt AM process a bonding tape for joining of carbide ceramics (par.[0005] of PG’586). And PG’586 provides example heating at temperature 1150-1400oC, which below the eutectic liquid temperature (Abstract, examples, and claims of PG’586). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the sintering temperature as demonstrated by PG’586 in the process of PG’758 in order to obtain the desired carbide ceramic by AM process.
Regarding claim 12, PG’758 indicates applying argon in the process (par.[0135], [0145], and [0152]-[0153] of PG’758).
Regarding claim 13, PG’758 indicates the process layer with 100-250 mm thickness (par.[0144] of PG’758), which is within the claimed layer height range.
Regarding claims 14, 18 and 20, PG’758 provides relationship between molar fraction of Cr in precursor and net volume change (Fig.1-2 and par.[0090]-[0094] of PG’758), which reads on the claimed volume change as claimed in the instant claims.
Regarding claim 15 and 19, PG’758 provides example of UHTC body with low porosity (Fig.8 of PG’758), which is within the claimed porosity range.
Regarding claim 17, PG’758 teaches precursor powder including Ti and/or Zr and including binder or resin (cl.12, par.[0060] and [0070]-[0071] of PG’758).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-18 of copending application No. 18/719328 (US-PG-pub 2025/0058378 A1).
Regarding claims 1-20, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentable distinct from each other with Claims 1-18 of copending application No. 18/719328 (US-PG-pub 2025/0058378 A1). All of the essential AM process steps for ceramic application with reactant gas in Claims 1-18 of copending application No. 18/719328 (US-PG-pub 2025/0058378 A1) reads on the claimed processes. Thus, no patentable distinction was found in the instant claims compared with the Claims 1-18 of copending application No. 18/719328 (US-PG-pub 2025/0058378 A1).
This is a provisional obvious-type double patenting rejection since the conflict claims in the co-pending application have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights