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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 4 uses the term “including” and claim 5 uses the term “include”. These terms are interpreted to be synonymous with “comprising” per MPEP 2111.03(I) which means the list of “alumina, mullite, and cordierite” only requires 1 of those components until depending claim 5 requires alumina and cordierite. Due to how claim 5 is written, mullite can be an optional component.
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.
Claims 1-6 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.
Claim 1 recites “a fired product-derived raw material” which is subsequently referred to as “raw materials” (claim 1, 3, 4, 5) or “the fired product-derived raw material” (claims 1, 2, 3, 4); Claim 6 recites “a raw material for the fired product-derived raw material”. There is definite correlation between the first and third iteration. How does the second iteration differ from the first or fourth iteration? There is antecedent basis issue caused by the generic “raw materials/a raw material”. Dependent claims 2-6 are rejected because they depend from and thus include all the limitations of claim 1 and do not solve the deficiencies thereof. Furthermore, claim 1 recites “a fired product-derived raw material derived from a lithium-containing fired product”, “a fired raw material”, and “to be fired” and claim 4 recites “unfired raw materials”. The relationship between what is fired, already fired, originally derived from being fired, or intended to be fired is given broadest reasonable interpretation. Are the raw materials originally a product of being fired that is further processed and fired again?
Claim 3 recites “the raw materials… contain a coarse-grained component” and “raw material is prepared so as to form the coarse-grained component”. Firstly, “coarse” is a relative term and the claims do not recite the metes or bounds of what is considered to be “coarse”. Second, grain size and particle size are differentiated in the ceramic/crystallographic art; for example, grain size is the size of the crystals whereas particle size is the size of the pulverized raw material as implied in claim 1. The Examiner believes the latter is the intended interpretation in which coarse-grained is an improper translation; however, the latter “wherein” clause implies the former interpretation. If the coarse-grain limitation is referring to the particle diameter, then the prior relative term rejection is withdrawn. Clarification is required.
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 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isoda et al (US-20160264471-A1) and further in view of Wang et al (CN-113372105-B-A, English translation provided by Espacenet).
Regarding claim 1, Isoda teaches a method for manufacturing, the method comprising a fired product-derived raw material forming step of forming a fired product-derived raw material [0034-37] that has Al2O3, SiO2, and MgO as main components [0038]; a fired raw material preparing step of preparing raw materials to be fired including the fired product-derive raw material that has been obtained in the fired product-derived raw material forming step including Al2O3, SiO2, and MgO at a predetermined ratio as main components [0038] (table 1); a kneading step of kneading the raw materials to be fired that have been prepared in the fired raw material preparing step [0038] (mixing); a molding step of molding the raw materials to be fired that have been kneaded in the kneading step [0040]; and a firing step of firing the raw materials to be fired that have been molded in the molding step under predetermined firing conditions [0041].
Isoda teaches the method manufactured a fired body for high heat stability and high heat shock resistance [0032]. Isoda implies high-heat application for their product without specifically stating the product is for a heat treatment jib. Isoda also does not teach that the fired product-derived raw material has a lithium-containing fired product that contains a lithium-containing compound. In related firing of Al2O3, SiO2, and MgO main components art (Line 146-156, 113-115), Wang teaches of including a lithium-containing compound (Line 173-175) as a raw material for the production of a heat treatment jig (Line 138-144, sagger). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Isoda by adding a lithium-containing compound to the fired product-derived raw material from a lithium-containing fired product to increase lithium ion corrosion resistance and increase the service life of a heat treatment jig (Line 265-267).
Regarding claim 2, depending from claim 1, Isoda teaches of pulverizing the raw material [0035] and relies on the addition of the lithium-containing compound of Wang (Line 173-175).
Regarding claim 3, depending from claim 1, Isoda teaches the raw materials are pulverized to a particle size of 2 μm or less [0036]. Wang teaches the raw materials have a particle size of 300-2500 μm (Line 322-324). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected a particle size of raw materials that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05. Though both Isoda and Wang do not teach the average particle diameter, the workable ranges (as state above) of the particle size optimized for the process would directly correlate to the average particle diameter and be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding claim 4, depending from claim 1, Isoda teaches the raw materials to be fired are prepared by mixing alumina and cordierite which undergo the forming step [0035-36].
Regarding claim 5, depending from claim 4, Isoda teaches the ratio of 13.8 mass% MgO, 34.9 mass% Al2O3, and 51.3 mass% SiO2 [0035] and workable ranges in Table 1 and 2. Isoda does not expressly state the nominal mass percentage in terms of alumina, mullite, and cordierite. Wang teaches of all the raw materials for their heat treatment jig (Line 322-333) which amounts to 30 kg (out of 193 kg total) of cordierite, 15 kg (out of 193 kg total) of mullite, and 20 kg (out of 193 kg total) of alumina (including α-alumina). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected alumina, mullite, and cordierite mass percentage that corresponds to the claimed range as taught by Wang to achieve the lithium ion corrosion resistance to the method step of Isoda. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, depending from claim 1, modified Isoda relies on the lithium-containing compound of Wang (Line 251-255) which adheres to the Al2O3, SiO2, and MgO base material (Line 230-242).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP-2010247999-A teaches the combination of Al2O3, SiO2, MgO, and lithium-containing compound
US-20120100982-A1 teaches mullite is formed when sintering cordierite
US-20140021661-A1 teaches sintering alumina, mullite, and cordierite for the production of a heat treatment container
JP-2014227327-A, CN-106946553-A, US-20210300824-A1 teaches heat treatment jig derived from alumina, mullite, and cordierite has lithium resistance
CN-110105060-A teaches pulverizing mullite, cordierite, and lithium pottery for the manufacturing of a heat treatment jig
CN-113603469-A teaches pulverizing mullite, alumina, cordierite in the instantly claimed ratio for lithium-resistant heat treatment jig
CN-115003644-A is a suitable primary reference teaching crushing fired lithium-containing compound with ceramics such as alumina, mullite, and cordierite which is then molded and fired to manufacturing a container for firing lithium-containing material, combinable with the relied upon references for the 103 rejection
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2645. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Mon-Thurs.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/STEVEN S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights