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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 09/02/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 13-22 and 25 is/are pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 13-14, 16-19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nufer (US5798469) in view of Barsoum et al. (US5942455).
Regarding Claims 1, 5, 8, and 10, Nufer teaches a method of sintering a green powdered material comprising the steps of:
Forming a green body out of a first material of green metallurgical powdered material with a first sintering temperature, a second material which does not fuse with the first material (inert); and sintering to a temperature of the first material before removing the second material (See claim 19) where the green body 91 may comprise channels of apertures filled with the second material 92 which is then subsequently removed after sintering (See Figures 9A-9B and Col. 11, Lines 45-53), reading on claim 5.
However, the prior art does not teach the sintered green body comprises a MAX phase structure. However, Barsoum teaches a method of forming a sintered MAX phase product comprising the step of forming a mixture of M, A, and X components (M, X and Z) components and reactive hot pressing at 1000-1800 C and pressure of 5-200 MPa (See Claim 1) for the purpose of forming a single-phase MAX product with excellent shock resistance, oxidation resistance, and machinability (See Abstract).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form a MAX phase product using the process of Nufer with sintering including by applying pressure through the mold (including the inert powder) for the purpose of forming a product with excellent shock resistance, oxidation resistance and machinability.
The 312 phase (a type of MAX phase) of Barsoum has a formular of M3X1Z2, where M is an early transition element such as titanium (See claim 10), reading on claim 8, X (claimed as A) is Si (reading on claim 10), and Z is C (See Claim 1).
Regarding Claims 2 and 6, Barsoum teaches sintering at 1300-1600 C (See claim 2), encompassing the claimed range of 1300-1500 C. In the case where a claimed range lies inside of a range taught by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding Claim 3, Barsoum teaches sintering at 35-45 MPa (See claim 2), overlapping with the claimed range of 5 to about 40 MPa. In the case where a claimed range overlaps with a range taught by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding Claim 4, Barsoum teaches the sintering is performed under a vacuumed (evacuated chamber) (Col. 11, Lines 15-30)
Regarding Claim 7, the insert powder of Nufer is alumina or boron nitride (see claim 18) (reading on boron nitride)
Regarding claim 13, Barsoum teaches Ti2SiC2 specifically (See Col. 10, Lines 45-50)
Regarding Claims 14, 16-18, Barsoum teaches the mixed powder may comprise (i) transition metal (such as Ti); (ii) silicon; and (iii) carbon species (See claim 1) where the carbon species may comprise transition metal carbide) (See Claim 13); regarding claims 16-18, the ratio of 0.4-0.9 of transition metal and 0.1-0.6 of Si is considered to overlap or encompass the claimed weight ranges of M carbide and A as claimed. In the case where a claimed range overlaps with a range taught by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding Claim 19, Nufer teaches the green body may be a tubular shaped bellows product including a central aperture (see Figures 12A-12B, and col. 11, lines 20-34).
Regarding Claim 21, Barsoum teaches the sintering comprising hot isostatic pressing (Col. 11, Lines 15-20).
Claim(s) 20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nufer (US5798469) in view of Barsoum et al. (US5942455) and further in view of Liu et al. ("Microstructure and properties of Al2O3-TiC-Ti3SiC2 composites fabricated by spark plasma sintering." Advances in Applied Ceramics 109.7 (2010): 394-398.)
Regarding claims 20 and 22, Nufer and Barsoum are silent regarding field assisted (spark plasma) sintering specifically as the sintering method. However, Liu teaches a method of forming ceramic composites with Ti2SiC2 MAX phase by spark plasma sintering and teaches in synthesizing MAX phase powder, bulk material and composites, many synthesis routes can be used such as hot pressing, hot isostatic pressing, and spark plasma sintering, and teaches the advantage of SPS is that densification can be performed at a lower temperature with short holding time (See Introduction); regarding claim 22, Liu teaches the powders may be mixed in an alcohol to form a slurry, where it is then dried and sieved before sintering (See Material preparation)
Regarding the voltage and current limitations, one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation would have been motivated to discover workable ranges of current and voltage to use capable of densifying a green body in a relatively short amount of time. (See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A))
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 and 25 are 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.
The closest prior art of record is Nufer et al. and Barsoum et al. as used above, however, the prior art does not teach each and every claimed limitation of claims 15 and 25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the combination of Nufer and Barsoum, applicant argues that Nufer teaches green body sheets and non-sintered sheets are used, forming a laminate structure and only describes formation of a powder in the non-sintered material after sintering.
This is not persuasive, the prior art teaches the insert material fills one or more apertures, and the material may be pressed or molded into the desired shape (Col. 1, Lines 25-28) where the material is a mold blank is made of powder material (Col. 6, lines 35-40); the powder mold blank fills the one or more apertures (See Figures 8-9), and this is done before sintering; reading on the claimed limitations despite the fact that the powder being filled is not taught to be in loose powder form.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RICARDO D MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-6691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 am- 4 pm.
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 5712726297. 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.
/RICARDO D MORALES/Examiner, Art Unit 1738