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
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 8/8/25 is acknowledged.
Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/8/25.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites at line 2 “In an embodiments” which appears to be a misstatement of “In an embodiment”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 14, lns 4-5 and claim 15, lns 5-6 recite “with the second surface of the second metallic plate with the second surface” which appears to be a misstatement of “with the second surface of the second metallic plate”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-7 and 14-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
For claim 6, it is unclear what is meant by “a second region including at least a portion of the solidified sacrificial powder and spaced from the microchannel by the first region” because the first region includes the microchannel so how can the second region be spaced from the microchannel by the first region?
For claim 7, it is unclear what is meant by “at a predetermined time of at least one hour” because “at a predetermined time” implies event scheduling, not duration.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "disposing a metallic lid plate over the first metallic plate and the second metallic plate with the second metallic plate being positioned between the first metallic plate and the second metallic plate" and it is unclear how the second metallic plate can be positioned between the first metallic plate and the second metallic plate. Claims 15-16 are similarly unclear as claim 14 because they depend from claim 14.
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schick et al (US 2014/0170433).
For claim 1, Schick et al teach a method for fabricating a microchannel in metal, the method comprising: providing a first metallic plate having a first surface with an elongated slot recessed therein (Fig. 2 - elements 30 & 32); providing a second metallic plate having a second surface (elements 20 & 26); interfacing the first surface of the first metallic plate with the second surface of the second metallic plate with the second surface effective to cover the elongated slot to form a microchannel between the first metallic plate and the second metallic plate; and thermal bonding the first metallic plate to the second metallic plate to form a metallic body having the microchannel extending therethrough ([0036]-[0037]).
For claim 10, Schick et al teach the microchannel has a width of less than about 1000 µm ([0019]).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 2-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schick et al (US 2014/0170433) in view of Langensiepen et al (US 5119864).
Schick et al teach the invention as discussed above.
Schick et al do not teach infiltrating the metallic body with an infiltrant; wherein infiltrating the metallic body with an infiltrant includes infiltrating the metallic body with the infiltrant in the presence of a sacrificial powder; and before infiltrating the metallic body with the infiltrant in the presence of a sacrificial powder, disposing the sacrificial powder adjacent the metallic body.
However, in a related field of endeavor pertaining to use of a gating means in combination with a spontaneous metal infiltration process to produce a metal matrix composite body, Langensiepen et al teach infiltrating the metallic body with an infiltrant (col 13 lns 62-65); wherein infiltrating the metallic body with an infiltrant includes infiltrating the metallic body with the infiltrant in the presence of a sacrificial powder (col 14 lns 44-49); and before infiltrating the metallic body with the infiltrant in the presence of a sacrificial powder, disposing the sacrificial powder adjacent the metallic body (col 15 lns 9-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Langensiepen et al with those of Schick et al by infiltrating the metallic body with infiltrant in the presence of a sacrificial powder in order to strengthen the metallic body in a preferred region.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schick et al (US 2014/0170433) in view of Langensiepen et al (US 5119864) and further in view of McAlea et al (WO 9530503).
The previous combination teaches the invention as discussed above. In addition, further regarding infiltrating the metallic body with infiltrant in the presence of a sacrificial powder taught as obvious by Langensiepen et al above, Langensiepen et al also teach infiltrating under vacuum (col 1 lns 63-67).
The previous combination does not teach the infiltrant includes a bronze powder and the sacrificial powder includes a stainless steel powder; and infiltrating the metallic body with the infiltrant in the presence of a sacrificial powder includes infiltrating the metallic body with the infiltrant in the presence of a sacrificial powder at a predetermined time, at a predetermined pressure of about – 1 kPa or less, and at a predetermined temperature of at least 1000°C to melt the infiltrant.
However, in a related field of endeavor pertaining to selective laser sintering processes, McAlea et al teach the infiltrant includes a bronze powder (pg 26 lns 8-10) and stainless steel powder may be used as inorganic substrate (pg 18 lns 23-24); and infiltrating the metallic body at a predetermined temperature of at least 1000°C to melt the infiltrant (pg 26 lns 13-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of McAlea et al with those of the previous combination by infiltrating the metallic body with the infiltrant in the presence of stainless steel powder as a sacrificial powder at a predetermined time, at a predetermined pressure of about – 1 kPa or less, and at a predetermined temperature of at least 1000°C to melt the infiltrant since the previous combination is silent to such process detail and one would desire to use proven process parameters and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to perform routine experimentation for the purpose of optimizing the vacuum level to obtain effective infiltration. Please see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 for further details.
Claims 9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schick et al (US 2014/0170433).
Schick et al teach the invention as discussed above.
For claim 9, Schick et al teach thermal bonding the first metallic plate to the second metallic plate to form a metallic body having the microchannel extending therethrough includes sintering the first metallic plate to the second metallic plate at a predetermined temperature of at least 700°C for a predetermined time of at least one hour to form the metallic body having the microchannel extending therethrough ([0037]). Though Schick et al do not teach sintering in an atmosphere of hydrogen and argon, Schick et al do teach sintering in a non-oxidizing atmosphere ([0037]) and since it is well-known that an atmosphere of hydrogen and argon is non-oxidizing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to sinter in an atmosphere of hydrogen and argon.
For claim 11, Schick et al teach infiltration is absent from the method and though Schick et al do not teach thermal bonding the first metallic plate to the second metallic plate includes sintering the first metallic plate to the second metallic plate at a predetermined temperature of at least 1250°C, Schick et al do teach sintering the first metallic plate to the second metallic plate at a temperature of about 1120°C to about 1280°C ([0037]), and since the claimed ranges overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) and In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) for further details.
For claim 12, though Schick et al do not teach disposing a weight on at least one of the first metallic plate or the second metallic plate before thermal bonding the first metallic plate to the second metallic plate, it is well-known to place a weight on objects to facilitate bonding them together, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose a weight on at least one of the first metallic plate or the second metallic plate before thermal bonding the first metallic plate to the second metallic plate.
For claim 13, Schick et al teach the first and second metallic plates can comprise an iron-based superalloy ([0018] and [0025]) which would include a stainless steel material, and though Schick et al do not teach three-dimensional printing the first metallic plate and the second metallic plate with a stainless steel material, Schick et al do teach the first metallic plate comprising a plurality of layers ([0032]) and since it is well-known that three-dimensional printing builds articles from a plurality of layers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to three-dimensionally print the first metallic plate and the second metallic plate with a stainless steel material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-7007. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Galen Hauth can be reached on 571-270-5516. 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.
/JAMES SANDERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743