DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-3, 8, 9 in the reply filed on 6/10/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 4-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/10/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claimed composition is not taught arguing various physical properties of (A), (B), (C) and that the component parts of Han do not teach these features. However, the examiner has pointed out within the rejection how same chemical compounds are recited. As the same compositions are the same as those recited they would have the same physical properties claimed by applicant, see MPEP 2112.01 II. Applicant has made no argument as to the specific compounds recited within Han. Furthermore, Han teaches that additional LDPE, HDPE, or PP copolymer may be used [0017] and that the amount of each component influences mechanical properties, flow, viscosity [0006, 0035, 0044], adhesion [0036, 0047], propensity to crack [0037], hence the proportions of each component are a results effective variable and it would be routine experimentation to optimize the proportions to the ranges claimed by applicant in order to achieve the properties desired by the user. Applicant further makes no argument as the results effective variable analysis the examiner recited in the previous office action. Applicant argues that there would be no reason to combine Han with Nahas due to their different compositions, but neglects the breadth of the compositions claimed and furthermore combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is a motivation, see MPEP 2143 1 A. ]. Nishio notes that dewaxing under heat was carried out for 11 hours [col 3 line 34-40] and can include heating top a maximum of 600 C for 30 min [col 4 line 20-27].
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 2018/0327579) in view of Nishio (US 5188793) and Nahas (US 9309155).
As to claims 1-3, 8, Han teaches a method for producing a ceramic [0050] sintered body from a composition for molding [0041], the composition for molding comprising 30 to 70% by volume of a sinterable ceramic powder [0050, 0020, 0002, 0011, 0019] having an average particle size of 1.0 μm or less and 30 to 70% by volume of an organic binder [0020], The organic binder (C) includes 50-94 wt % paraffin wax and microcrystalline wax [0014] thermoplastic resin (A) comprises one thermoplastic resin or a mixture of thermoplastic resins selected from the group consisting of high-density polyethylenes, polypropylene homopolymers (polyolefin wax is inclusive of polypropylene homopolymer), polypropylene block copolymers [0015, 0017], the thermoplastic resin (B) comprises one thermoplastic resin or a mixture of thermoplastic resins selected from the group consisting of ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymers, low-density polyethylenes, and polypropylene random copolymers [0015, 0017]. As the same compositions are the same as those recited they would have the same physical properties claimed by applicant, see MPEP 2112.01 II. Han teaches that resins A and B are provided at .3-35 wt %, but notes that an additional resin which would correspond to A can be provided [0017] and that polypropylene phrased as polyolefin wax is provided at 15% or up to 20% (which would meet B as random copolymer polypropylene is a type of polyolefin) [0048, 0016, 0013]. While these percentages are provided in wt percentages PP wax and paraffin wax (components C and A) have a density roughly around .9 g/cc as does the backbone polymer (components A and B see [0015]) so the wt% and vol% are roughly the same, hence these are overlapping ranges. It has been held that choosing the over lapping portion of the range taught in the prior art is a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.05 I. Even taking the backbone polymer component which can comprise elements of both resins (A and B) [0015], utilizing art recognized equivalents in combination is prima facie obvious, see MPEP 2144.06. The simplest way to do so would to just use 2 of the backbone polymers in equal proportions which would suggest 17.5% each which would overlap with the claimed range of claim 1. Furthermore, Han teaches that additional LDPE, HDPE, or PP copolymer may be used [0017] and that the amount of each component influences mechanical properties, flow, viscosity [0006, 0035, 0044], adhesion [0036, 0047], propensity to crack [0037], hence the proportions of each component are a results effective variable and it would be routine experimentation to optimize the proportions to the ranges claimed by applicant in order to achieve the properties desired by the user. Han teaches preparing a green body from the composition for molding by using an injection molding machine [0041, 0001], heating to debind the green bodies [0070], and sintering the ceramic green body to produce a ceramic sintered body [0070, 0075]. Han teaches mixing phrased as kneading wherein the alloy/ceramic powder and binder composition are mixed in a ratio of 70 to 30 [0024].
Han does not teach that the ceramic powder has an average particle size of 1 micrometer or less
Nahas teaches a ceramic powder and binder composition for creating sintered parts [Abstract] wherein the average particle size of less than 1 um [Claims 1, 4, col 21 line 10-25, Table 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Han and utilized ceramic powder with a particle size 1 um or less, as suggested by Nahas, as this particle size had proven successful at creating sintered ceramic objects. Moreover this is mere combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP 2143 1 A.
Han does not explicitly state solvent-debinding the organic compound (C) in an amount equivalent to 30% by volume or more of the organic binder in the composition for molding, at a temperature of 40°C or more and 80°C or less with a solvent capable of eluting the organic compound (C) in the prepared green body, heating a green body after the solvent-debinding to debinder the organic binder remaining in the green body to prepare a ceramic green body or that solvent is acetone, methanol, ethanol, or isopropyl alcohol.
Nishio teaches a method for dewaxing ceramic molded bodies [Abstract] wherein acetone, methanol, ethanol, and isopropyl alcohol (phrased as propanol) are utilized as a solvent bath to extract binder/ paraffin wax from a ceramic molded body [col 2 line 30-42, col 2 line 4-13] and this process is preferably performed at 20-60C [col 2 line 24-25] to remove at least 40% of the binder [col 2 line 14-22]. The solvent debinding is subjected to further heat debinding in order to avoid damaging the sintering furnace [col 3 line 20-26]. This allows for short extraction time and avoids cracking or expansion of the part [col 3 line 34-42]. Nishio notes that dewaxing under heat was carried out for 11 hours [col 3 line 34-40] and can include heating top a maximum of 600 C for 30 min [col 4 line 20-27]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Han and included solvent-debinding the organic compound (C) in an amount equivalent to 30% by volume or more of the organic binder in the composition for molding, at a temperature of 40°C or more and 80°C or less with a solvent capable of eluting the organic compound (C) in the prepared green body, heating a green body after the solvent-debinding to debinder the organic binder remaining in the green body to prepare a ceramic green body or that solvent is acetone, methanol, ethanol, or isopropyl alcohol and carried out heating for 11 hours and can include heating to a maximum of 600 C for 30 min, as suggested by Nishio, as this had demonstrated success at avoiding damage to the furnace and performing extraction in a short time without inducing crack or expansion.
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 ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights