Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-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
Priority
This office action is regarding application number 17/927,358. This application claims foreign priority of JP2020-105151, filed on 06/18/2020. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Restriction/Election
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1 – 8 in the reply filed on 09/03/2025 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Claims 9 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 – 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 7 – 8, the units of pressure, temperature, and density have brackets around their units. The brackets should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yashiro (JP2014001427, using espacenet translation)
Regarding claim 1, Yashiro teaches a method of producing a sintered component [Title]. The method includes:
Compressing raw material to produce a compact using a molding die [0010, 0011], meeting the limitation of step (a)
Placing the green compact in a separate sintering die [0010, 011], meeting the claimed limitation of step (c)
Wherein the limitations of step (b) of releasing the body from the molding die is implied by Yashiro by using a separate sintering die.
Regarding claim 7, Yashiro teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Yashiro teaches an example in which a powder compact is formed at room temperature at 588 MPa [0055, Example 1], meeting the parameters of step (a), and sintering at 1000°C [0055, Example 1] with essentially no pressure applied [0055, Example 2], meeting the parameters of step (c). The examiner notes that Yashiro states the pressure during sintering should be as small as possible [0015], therefore, any pressure applied in the sintering step of Yashiro is considered “unavoidable” by its plain meaning.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yashiro (JP2014001427, using espacenet translation), as evidenced by Rahaman (“Sintering Theory and Fundamentals”, NPL, 2015)
Regarding claim 5, Yashiro teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Yashiro teaches that the powder compact is subjected to sintering [0015], wherein as evidenced by Rahaman, sintering involves a thermal process of diffusion where individual particles form necks and thereby bond [Page 1, left – middle col, Fig 1]. As such, the application of sintering to the green body in Yashiro would meet the claimed limitations of claim 5.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoch (US 11,056,633)
Regarding claim 1, Hoch teaches a method of producing a sintered component [Abstract]. Hoch teaches that the method includes the steps of:
Charging a material into a mold and pressing with an upper and lower punch [Col 2, line 57 – 62; Fig 2a – 2d], meeting the claimed limitation of step (a)
Releasing the molded component from the mold [Col 2, line 57 – 62; Fig 2e], meeting the claimed limitation of step (b)
Exposing the green bodies to an electric current flowing between two electrodes to sintering the green body [Col 3, line 6 – 15, Fig 5], meeting the claimed limitation of step (c)
Regarding claim 8, Hoch teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Hoch teaches that the bulk density of the powder used is 30 – 50%, which falls within the claimed range of below 60% [Col 4, 33 – 35]. Hoch teaches that following the compression the density is 75 – 85% [Col 4, line 22 – 25], which falls within the claimed range of greater than 60%. Hoch teaches that following the sintering the density is 90 – 97% [Col 6, line 8 – 11], which falls within the claimed range of maintaining the density above 60%.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoch (US 11,056,633), as evidenced by Rahaman (“Sintering Theory and Fundamentals”, NPL, 2015)
Regarding claim 5, Hoch teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Hoch teaches that the green bodies are subjected to sintering, wherein as evidenced by Rahaman, sintering involves a thermal process of diffusion where individual particles form necks and thereby bond [Page 1, left – middle col, Fig 1]. As such, the application of sintering to the green bodies in the method of Hoch would meet the claimed limitations of claim 5.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §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.
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.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yashiro (JP2014001427, using espacenet translation), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Yoshiro teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Yashiro does not explicitly teach that in parallel with the formation of a compact in the molding die, a second compact is sintered in the sintering die. However, Yoshiro teaches that the molding/molding die and sintering/sintering die are separate [0011] and as such, a powder compact can be formed in the molding step while a sintered compact is formed in the sintering step. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Yoshiro and used it in a continuous manner such that one compact is formed in the molding step while a previously molded compact is sintered in the sintering die. Given that these steps are distinctly separate in the method Yoshiro, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to use Yoshiro in this manner in order to increase the throughput rate. Lastly, the use of a batch process in a continuous manner is a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP 2144.04 V E)
In re Dilnot, 319 F.2d 188, 138 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1963) (Claim directed to a method of producing a cementitious structure wherein a stable air foam is introduced into a slurry of cementitious material differed from the prior art only in requiring the addition of the foam to be continuous. The court held the claimed continuous operation would have been obvious in light of the batch process of the prior art.).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yashiro (JP2014001427, using espacenet translation), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Robinson (“Powder Metallurgy Presses and Tooling”, NPL, 2015)
Regarding claim 2, Yashiro teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Yashiro teaches that the molding die has upper and lower punches as well a mold [Fig 3, 0068], meeting the claimed limitation of pressing by insertion of first and second punches.
Yashiro does not explicitly teach that the mold is cylindrical, however, Yashiro teaches that the molding step is used to make the powder compact into the desired shape of the final product [0012, 0042]. As such, it would have been obvious to have made the mold cylindrical (or any other shape) based on the shape that a person of ordinary skilled in the art desired for the product. Changes to size and shape are a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.04 IV B).
“In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.”
Yashiro states “the molding die used in the molding process is not subject to material restrictions like the sintering die used in spark plasma sintering (SPS), and can be made from an inexpensive and highly workable material.” [0011], but does not expressly teach that the mold is made of a material containing metal.
Robinson discloses information regarding powder metallurgy compaction and tooling used for it [Title]. Robinson states that the die material is typically constructed from tungsten carbide or high alloy tool steel [page 8, right column], meeting the claimed limitation of the mold containing a metal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used a tungsten carbide or tool steel as the mold material in the method of Yashiro to achieve predictable results. Yashiro explicitly discloses that the mold die material is not limited and Robinson teaches that tungsten carbide and tool steel are commonly used for die material. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying the teachings of Robinson to the method of Yashiro.
“The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)” (MPEP 2144.07)
Regarding claim 4, Yashiro in view of Robinson teaches the invention as applied in claim 2. Yashiro teaches that the molding die has upper and lower punches as well a mold [Fig 3, 0068]. Yashiro teaches that the sintering die is separate/different step [0011]. As such, the compact would be separated from the upper and lower punch as well as the mold when moving it to the sintering die, meeting the claimed limitation. Yashiro teaches that current is fed through two sintering punches [0012], meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of current being fed through first and second terminals.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoch (US 11,056,633), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Hoch teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Hoch does not explicitly teach that in parallel with the formation of a compact in the molding die, a second compact is sintered in the sintering die. However, Hoch teaches that the molding step and sintering step are separate and as such, a powder compact can be formed in the molding step while the sintered compacts are formed in the sintering step [Claim 1]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Hoch and used it in a continuous manner such that a compact is formed in the molding step while a previously molded compact(s) is/are sintered in the sintering step. Given that these steps are distinctly separate in the method Hoch, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to use Hoch in this manner in order to increase the throughput rate. Lastly, the use of a batch process in a continuous manner is a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP 2144.04 V E)
In re Dilnot, 319 F.2d 188, 138 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1963) (Claim directed to a method of producing a cementitious structure wherein a stable air foam is introduced into a slurry of cementitious material differed from the prior art only in requiring the addition of the foam to be continuous. The court held the claimed continuous operation would have been obvious in light of the batch process of the prior art.).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoch (US 11,056,633), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Robinson (“Powder Metallurgy Presses and Tooling”, NPL, 2015)
Regarding claim 2, Hoch teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Hoch teaches that the green body is formed into a cylindrical shape [Col 6, line 25 – 30], meeting the claimed limitation. Hoch teaches that the molding die has top and bottom punches as well a mold to which they are both inserted [Fig 2a – 2d; Col 9, line 20 – 37], meeting the claimed limitation of pressing by insertion of first and second punches into the mold.
Hoch does not expressly teach that the mold is made of a material containing metal.
Robinson discloses information regarding powder metallurgy compaction and tooling used for it [Title]. Robinson states that the die material is typically constructed from tungsten carbide or high alloy tool steel [page 8, right column], meeting the claimed limitation of the mold containing a metal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used a tungsten carbide or tool steel as the mold material in the method of Hoch to achieve predictable results. Hoch does not limit the mold material and Robinson teaches that tungsten carbide and tool steel are commonly used for die material. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying the teachings of Robinson to the method of Hoch.
“The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)” (MPEP 2144.07)
Regarding claim 4, Hoch in view of Robinson teaches the invention as applied in claim 2. Hoch shows that the green body (i.e. powder compact) is detached from the top and bottom punches as well as the mold [Fig 2f] and sintering is performed by feeding current through two electrodes [Fig 6, 12a and 12b], meeting the claimed limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art does not anticipate or reasonably render obvious the cumulative limitations of claim 3. In particular, the prior art does not teach that, prior to electric current being fed through a first and second punch, a powder compact is released from the mold by pushing the powder compact out of the mold by the first punch. The closest prior art is Aalund (US20100155993) which teaches a spark plasma sintering system wherein a powder compact is formed by lower and upper rams and then sintering is performed via electric current energizing [0021]. Aalund teaches that the sintered compact is removed via the ram pushing the compact out of the mold while still hot to prevent damage to the die [0023, 0024]. However, Aalund does not teach or reasonably suggest first removing the compacted powder from the mold/die then conducting spark plasma sintering. Furthermore, the prior art does not teach or suggest the limitation nor teach or suggest modifying Aalund to perform the method steps in said order.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20080131719 – Producing aluminum composite material by forming a preformed compact and then electrical sintering with upper and lower punches
JP2000239707A – Adding powder to mold with upper and lower sections, compacting the powder out of the upper section, then electric current sintering in the lower mold.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Austin M Pollock whose telephone number is (571)272-5602. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (11 - 8 ET).
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/AUSTIN POLLOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/ALEXANDRA M MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738