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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed 06/02/2026 responsive to the Office Action filed 03/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 9 have been amended. Claims 1-9 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Claim 9 has been amended to address the indefiniteness, thus the rejection of claim 9 under 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed 06/02/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 102 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia-Perez et al. (“Agglomeration of alumina submicronparticles by silica nanoparticles: Application to processing spheres by colloidal route”, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, vol 313, 2, 2007, 527-536) in view of Hensen et al. (US 2021/0268729) (All of record).
With respect to claims 1 and 7, Garcia-Perez teaches a method for preparing a composition, comprising:
a step of introducing two suspensions each comprising particles, and a step of assembling the suspensions so as to form said composition and so that this composition includes aggregates or agglomerates of said particles (“A high purity (99.9%) alumina powder (AKP30, Sumitomo, Japan) was used (d50 = 400 nm, 7 m2g−1). An aqueous suspension of this powder… Silica nanoparticles (Ludox TM50, Grace Davison USA, d50 = 25 nm, 140 m2g−1) were dispersed in an alkaline medium”, pg 528, 2.1. Raw materials; “To induce the growth of agglomerates and the formation of spheres, the mixture (50 cm3) was stirred under a controlled speed (3.3 min−1) until all the powder was agglomerated. The cylindrical vessel (h = 60 mm, d = 30 mm), put horizontally, is submitted to a continuous movement with a stirrer”, pg 528, 2.2. Methods).
Garcia-Perez teaches shaping ceramic powders by colloidal route (pg 536, 5. Summary), but does not explicitly teach a step of introducing two suspensions into a channel, these suspensions penetrate the channel by flowing towards an outlet according to a flow direction, a step of assembling the suspensions within the channel so as to form, upstream of the outlet with respect to the flow direction, said composition, a step of expelling the composition from the channel, the movement of the suspension along the channel in the flow direction results in a progressive expulsion of the composition through the outlet.
Hensen relates to additive manufacturing techniques for forming ceramic articles and teaches that the article is formed of a material which is prepared in a slurry with a dispersant used to coagulate the material to promote solidification of the slurry and provide a material which has properties suitable for extrusion-based three-dimensional printing, and that retains near-net geometry of the article after printing, and in one form, the material includes ceramic nanoparticles and the dispersant coagulates the ceramic nanoparticles (Pa [0007]). Hensen further teaches that an extrusion-based three-dimensional printing apparatus 100 includes an extruder 102 into which a slurry 104 may be delivered, the extruder includes a nozzle 106 and is configured to force slurry 104 through nozzle 106 for discharge in a manner that forms article 112 in a desired shape (Pa [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of invention to modify Garcia-Perez with the teachings of Hensen and use the composition prepared by Garcia-Perez’s method in Hensen’s additive manufacturing technique, i.e., performing introducing the composition into the extruder and discharging it through the nozzle, in order to form a ceramic article in a desired shape by additive manufacturing.
With respect to claim 2, Garcia-Perez as applied to claim 1 teaches that the particles comprise a first type of particles (“alumina powder”) and a second type of particles (“Silica nanoparticles”) selected so as to be able to develop bonds, therebetween during the assembly step, in order to form said aggregates or agglomerates (“Doing gentle stirring caused by a controlled movement of rotation, electrostatic attractions between silica and alumina induce the growth of the agglomerates until spheres are obtained.”, pg 528, 1. Introduction).
With respect to claim 3, Garcia-Perez as applied to claim 2 teaches that during the introduction step, one of the suspensions comprises the particles of the first type and the other one of said suspensions comprises the particles of the second type (“A high purity (99.9%) alumina powder (AKP30, Sumitomo, Japan) was used (d50 = 400 nm, 7 m2g−1). An aqueous suspension of this powder… Silica nanoparticles (Ludox TM50, Grace Davison USA, d50 = 25 nm, 140 m2g−1) were dispersed in an alkaline medium”, pg 528, 2.1. Raw materials).
With respect to claim 4, Garcia-Perez as applied to claim 2 teaches that the particles of the first type and the particles of the second type have surface electrical charges of opposite signs (“A high purity (99.9%) alumina powder (AKP30, Sumitomo, Japan) was used (d50 = 400 nm, 7 m2g−1). An aqueous suspension of this powder exhibits a natural pH of 6.5 and a positive zeta potential with a high amplitude (+50 mV). Silica nanoparticles (Ludox TM50, Grace Davison USA, d50 = 25 nm, 140 m2g−1) were dispersed in an alkaline medium which reacts at the surface to produce a negative charge and a zeta potential of −35 mV.”, pg 528, 2.1. Raw materials).
With respect to claim 5, Garcia-Perez as applied to claim 1 teaches that said suspensions are colloidal suspensions (“The present work proposes the study of the agglomeration of colloidal alumina particles by silica addition. By using the phenomenon of heterocoagulation, it is possible to destabilize an alumina suspension by colloidal silica particles.”, pg 527, 1. Introduction).
With respect to claim 6, Garcia-Perez as applied to claim 1 teaches that the particles are selected so that the composition expelled from the channel forms an element made of ceramic (“to shape ceramic powders by colloidal route.”, pg 536, 5. Summery).
With respect to claim 8, Garcia-Perez as applied to claim 2 teaches that the bonds are electrostatic bonds (“Doing gentle stirring caused by a controlled movement of rotation, electrostatic attractions between silica and alumina induce the growth of the agglomerates until spheres are obtained.”, pg 528, 1. Introduction).
With respect to claim 9, Garcia-Perez as applied to claim 4 teaches that the surface electrical charges of opposite signs are a zeta potential of opposite signs (“A high purity (99.9%) alumina powder (AKP30, Sumitomo, Japan) was used (d50 = 400 nm, 7 m2g−1). An aqueous suspension of this powder exhibits a natural pH of 6.5 and a positive zeta potential with a high amplitude (+50 mV). Silica nanoparticles (Ludox TM50, Grace Davison USA, d50 = 25 nm, 140 m2g−1) were dispersed in an alkaline medium which reacts at the surface to produce a negative charge and a zeta potential of −35 mV.”, pg 528, 2.1. Raw materials).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1176. 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.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights