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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1 December 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Responsive to the amendment filed 1 December 2025 claim 1 is amended. Claims 1-4 are currently under examination.
Status of Previous Rejections
Responsive to the amendment filed 1 December 2025 new grounds of rejection are presented.
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, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220105563 A1 (hereinafter “Cornell”), in view of US 20100038012 A1 (hereinafter “Tucker”).
Regarding claim 1, Cornell teaches a method of manufacturing binder jet parts (see title)> Cornell teaches making a precursor of a part (“green component”) that is later sintered (see SUMMARY, figure 1). Cornell teaches that the part has an opening portion that communicates with hollow internal space (See Fig 4 and Figs 5-8, [0053]-[0057]). Cornell teaches forming a plug that is assembled with the opening portion (See [0050]-[0060], Figs 5-6). Cornell teaches that the unbonded powder from the powder bed of the binder jetting process is removed (See BACKGZROUND and [00501]-[0053]). Cornell teaches assembling the plug and sintering to form a sealed opening (See [0050]-[0060] and Figs 5, 6, 8, and 9). Cornell teaches that a peripheral wall of an opening contacts a peripheral wall of a plug and sinters together to bond(see [0057], Figs 6A and 6B). Cornell teaches that a volumetric shrinkage results in a metallurgical bond (see [0011] and [0051]-[0052] and [0057]-[0058]).
Cornell describes various embodiments of the plug to seal the opening of the green part (see [0049]-[0064]). At least one such embodiment includes a flange portion and an insertion portion configured to be inserted into the internal space (See Fig 11A thru 11F). Cornell describes that the flange fits into an inner periphery wall and the flange portion closes the opening portion (Figs 11A thru 11F).
Cornell teaches that in some cases a filler material or infiltrant may be used (see [0051]). Cornell does not embellish on the filler or infiltrant. Cornell does not teach that the binder is applied to the surfaces prior to the sintering.
Tucker teaches a method of joining concentric tubes (see title). Tucker teaches that a shrinkage of a tubular body is used advantageously to bond tubes together (see SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION, Figs 1-2, and [0030]). Tucker teaches that in the case of bonding, a non metal particle may be added (“decorated”) onto the surface of the tubes to enhance the bond strength by creating additional friction and mechanical interlocking ([0042]). Tucker teaches that a binder may be added in this case to agglomerate the nonmetal ([0042]).
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan at time of filing to have practiced the method of Cornell, and further to have added the binder and a non metallic particle, as taught by Tucker (cited above), because Tucker teaches that this can enhance the bond strength by creating additional friction and mechanical interlocking ([0042]). The combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been prima facie obvious.
Regarding wherein the flange portion has truncated shape and the insertion portion has a coaxial cylindrical shape, Cornell teaches a truncated flanged plug (Figs 11A thru 11F). Cornell envisions that the flanged plug has a slotted shape (”T-shaped plug”), and does not show a cylindrical shape as claimed (Figs 11A thru 11F, [0059]). However, Cornell teaches that the shape of the cross sections of the parts may be a desired circular or non-circular shape (see [0058]). It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan to have chosen a circular (cylindrical) cross section because Cornell teaches that these are suitable for the purpose of sealing ([0058]). For example Cornell envisions generally cylindrical shapes at Fig 4.
Regarding claim 3, Cornell teaches a truncated flanged plug (Figs 11A thru 11F). Cornell envisions that the flanged plug has a slotted shape (”T-shaped plug”), and does not show a cylindrical shape as claimed (Figs 11A thru 11F, [0059]). However, Cornell teaches that the shape of the cross sections of the parts may be a desired circular or non-circular shape (see [0058]). It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan to have chosen a circular (cylindrical) cross section because Cornell teaches that these are suitable for the purpose of sealing ([0058]). For example Cornell envisions generally cylindrical shapes at Fig 4.
Regarding claim 4, Cornell teaches that the inner peripheral wall has a truncated shape so that the plug abuts it, and has a smaller dimension (see [0058]-[0063] and Figs 11A thru 11F).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220105563 A1 (hereinafter “Cornell”), in view of US 20100038012 A1 (hereinafter “Tucker”), and further in view of US 20100043944 A1 (hereinafter “Jensen”).
Cornell in view of Tucker does not teach applying alcohol to a surface to be joined.
Jensen teaches a method of joining metallic components (See title, SUMMARY). Jensen teaches that an adjuvant may be applied (SUMMARY). Jensen teaches to clean the surfaces for joining with ethanol prior to the application (see [0030]-[0033]).
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan at time of filing to have practiced the method of Cornell, and further to have added the binder and a non metallic particle, as taught by Tucker (cited above), because Tucker teaches that this can enhance the bond strength by creating additional friction and mechanical interlocking ([0042], and further to have applied alcohol to the surfaces in order to clean them, as taught by Jensen ([0030]-[0033]). The combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Cornell in view of Tucker does not teach the features of amended claim 1. Specifically applicant argues that the embodiments of Fig 11 of Cornell are not descriptive of the claimed shape of the plug and flange portions. Applicant argues that the embodiments of Cornell also do not teach the claimed feature.
The applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive because they are not commensurate in scope with the prior art. It is agreed that the slot itself in fig 11 of Cornell is not cylindrical. However the skilled artisan would not have been limited to merely repeating the drawings of Cornell, especially based on the teachings of Cornell as cited. The skilled artisan would have created new shapes based on the cited teachings as a routine investigation of the prior art. Further the mere shape of the plug, by itself, is not considered as patentably distinguishing over the plug shapes of Cornell. Cornell teaches a variety of shapes and geometries, manufactured in similar way, and to achieve the same purpose. What is claimed is considered to have been obvious over Cornell. When all of the evidence is considered as a whole, evidence of obviousness outweighs evidence of patentability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Curt 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.
CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1759