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 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.
Claim 22 is 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. It is unclear if both limitations are required or just one.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-24, 27, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grohowski (US20100094420A1).
Regarding Claims 1-4 and 20-22, Grohowski teaches a method of forming an object by consolidating powder comprising:
Providing a former member made from a soluble material (salt) soluble in a non-hazardous solvent for shaping the object (water) [0059] compacted at the same time as the powder (reading on claim 22);
A former member may be surrounded by or isolated by a solid powder material [0095];
The object may be densified by presintering prior to removing the extractable phase [0080] to separate the object from the former member.
Regarding Claim 4, the presintering involves heating [0110]
Regarding Claims 9-14, 24, 27 and 29, the solid layer may form a as a mating surface in a thermal management device(part of a heat exchanger as required by claim 27) and the porous material as a high surface area heat dissipating device [0095] (the porous material is considered to form the recesses or internal passages of the mating surface projections) and the patterns are considered complementary Regarding Claim 15-18, salt is considered compatible with the applied heat and pressure has a higher melting point than the exemplary metals
Regarding Claim 19, the salt may be a composite material including soluble salt and binder and metal powder [0113] which is considered to impart an increase in compressive strength and tensile strength.
Regarding Claim 23, the porous portion is molded and cast before machining [0115]
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) 5-6 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grohowski (US20100094420A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Grohowski teaches sintering may be performed with hot isostatic pressing but does not explicitly teach the presintering may be performed with hot isostatic pressing. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a hot isostatic pressing as a means to presinter for the purpose of forming a partially consolidated preform before removing soluble filler material.
Regarding Claim 6, HIP of powdered materials by definition requires a canister to hold to the object, the surfaces of both object is considered to form space S and space F by being arranged in the sintering device.
Regarding Claims 25 and 26, Grohowski broadly teaches the metal portion may be a mating surface for a heat dissipating device but does not teach the internal passage is tortuous. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use tortuous or winding flow paths for the purpose of improving thermal performance by increasing the surface area of the heat sink area. Internal passages of the heat sink are considered enclosed.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grohowski (US20100094420A1) in view of Paulus et al. (US20180304362A1).
Regarding Claims 7, Grohowski teaches sintering but does not teach FAST sintering may be used specifically. However, Paulus teaches a method of forming a sintered object comprising contacting a fugitive (sacrificial salt material) tool with a powdered parent material; densifying; and destricutively removing the fugitive portion (abstract) where the sintering may be FAST sintering [0003]; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to presinter the compact of Grohowski using FAST sintering for the purpose of rapidly forming a desired partially consolidated product.
Regarding Claim 8, FAST sintering of powdered materials by definition requires a set of mold or dies to hold to the object, the surfaces of both object is considered to form space S and space F by being arranged in the sintering device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 28 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.
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