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 5/21/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 5-7, 10, 12 and 19-20 have been amended; and claims 13-17 have been canceled. Applicant’s amendment to the Claims and Specification have overcome each and every objection and 112b rejection set forth in the non-Final Office action previously mailed on 2/24/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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) 1-12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witkin (US 3,869,233 A), in view of Fujikawa (US 5,798,126 A) and Asari (JP-01127198-A; of record).
Regarding claim 1, Witkin teaches a cold isostatic pressing apparatus (10 in Figure 1; col. 6, lines 15-20, standard cold isostatic press), comprising:
a container including a container body (hollow cylindrical body 12),
wherein the container body comprising a cavity configured to receive a pressure medium (as shown in Figures, container has internal cavity; col. 6, line 30, pumping a liquid such as water…into the pressure vessel),
wherein the cavity comprises at least one opening including a first opening (as shown in Figures; col. 6, lines 23-27, while a top opening vessel is shown…a pressure vessel having a bottom opening may be utilized),
wherein the cavity is configured to receive at least one sample through the first opening (workpiece 46 in Figure 2; col. 7, lines 28-36);
a closure member configured to seal the first opening after introduction of the sample (closure plug 16; col. 6, lines 20-22, to close, seal and lock the vessel),
and at least one high pressure pump (pump 22 in Figure 3; col. 6, lines 35-42) in fluid communication with the container through a second opening (port 20; col. 6, lines 28-29, pressure vessel is connected at port 20 to a pumping system),
wherein the high pressure pump comprises a reservoir (liquid supply 24 in Figure 3; col. 6, lines 41-42),
wherein the high pressure pump is configured to deliver the pressure medium, and pressurize the pressure medium to isostatically compress and compact the sample (col. 6, lines 37-40).
Witkin teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose a piston seal disposed at the closure member and a rod seal disposed at the container body; nor the at least one high pressure pump in fluid communication with the container through a second opening is defined in the closure member.
Fujikawa teaches a sealing device (Figure 3-10) for preventing of leakage of pressure in a pressure-processing a workpiece (Abstract), comprising: a container body having a cavity and opening (pressure cylinder 21, shown having cavity and opening); and a closure member (cover 23) configured to seal the opening during an isostatic process (col. 5, lines 47-62, discloses use in a cold isostatic pressing apparatus). Fujikawa further discloses various embodiment wherein the sealing device comprises both a piston seal (O-ring 29C) and a rod seal (U-ring 29B), which improve the sealing performance (col. 6, lies 54-57) as well as extending the life of said seals (col. 5, lines 5-10, can thus significantly decrease abrasion damage due to sliding, thereby improve the life). Further, Fujikawa discloses providing backup rings to each of the O-rings or U-rings (col. 6, lines 42-49) as well as the piston seal is configured at the closure member (as shown in Figure 2C, seal ring 18 is provided on plug 14). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a rod seal (i.e., U-ring) along with the piston seal (i.e., O-ring) for the benefits disclosed by Fujikawa. Further, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have provided backup rings, as disclosed by Fujikawa, to ensure sufficient sealing pressures.
Asari teaches a cold isostatic apparatus (Figures 1-4; paragraph 0001), comprising: a container body with a cavity (walls of pressure vessel 3 having cavity contained therein) and having a first opening for receiving a sample (compacts 6 in Figure 4; paragraph 0001, the compacts 6 are inserted into the pressure vessel 3 through the upper opening ); a closure member (upper lid 1, lower lid 2) configured to seal the first opening (paragraph 0001, the upper and lower lids 1, 2 are fitted to the pressure vessel 3 so as to be freely insertable and detachable); and at least one pressure pump (pressure pump 22, water supply pump 21) in fluid communication with the container (lines 16, 26) via a second opening (1a, 2a). Further the second opening is provided at the closure member (as shown in Figures 1-2, 1a is provided in upper lid 1; 2a is provided in lower lid 2). Hence, providing an opening in a closure member of a cold isostatic pressing apparatus configured to receive a pressure medium from a pressure source is well known and conventional in the art. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the second opening of modified Witkin at the closure member, as disclosed by Asari, as said configuration is conventional in the art. One would have been motivated to provide the second opening in the closure member (i.e., plug 14) of modified Witkin to improve efficiency of the isostatic pressing; for example, the pressure medium supply line can be disconnected in the same operation of removing the plug.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the limitations “wherein the cavity is at least partially filled with the pressure medium before pressurization of the container”; and “wherein the cavity is unfilled with the pressure medium before pressurization of the container” pertains to the specific way the apparatus is operated; this is intended use of the apparatus, and is given little patentable weight. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP §2114 II. In the instant case, Witkin, as modified by Fujikawa and Asari, discloses all the structural elements of claims 2 and 3.
Regarding claim 4, Witkin, as modified by Fujikawa and Asari, further discloses the high pressure pump is configured to deliver the pressure medium to the cavity from the reservoir (col. 6, lines 28-43 of Witkin). Claim 4 additional recites “wherein the reservoir is at least partially filled with the pressure medium” and pertains to the specific way the apparatus is operated; this is intended use of the apparatus, and is given little patentable weight. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP §2114 II. In the instant case, Witkin, as modified by Fujikawa and Asari, discloses all the structural elements of claims 4.
Regarding claim 5, Witkin, as modified by Fujikawa and Asari, further discloses the at least one high pressure pump is configured to deliver the pressure medium to the cavity from an external source (liquid supply 24 in Figure 3; col. 6, lines 41-42, 47-50 of Witkin, permits liquid from source 24 to be pumped into the pressure vessel).
Regarding claim 6, Witkin, as modified by Fujikawa and Asari, further discloses a fluid line extending between the second opening of the container and the at least one high pressure pump (high pressure piping 30 in Figure 3 of Witkin, shown between port 20 and pump 22; col. 6, lines 48-49 of Witkin).
Regarding claim 7, Witkin, as modified by Fujikawa and Asari, further discloses the at least one high pressure pump and the container is an integral unit (as shown in Figure 3 of Witkin).
Regarding claim 8, Witkin, as modified by Fujikawa and Asari, further discloses the cavity has at least one of cylindrical, ellipsoid, spherical, rectangular, irregular 3D shape, or one or more sections having different shapes (Figure 1; col. 6, lines 16-17 of Witkin, hollow cylindrical body; col. 8, lines 1-2, the second space will also…be annular).
Regarding claim 9, Witkin, as modified by Fujikawa and Asari, further discloses pressure medium comprises at least one of hydraulic fluid and water (col. 6, line 30 of Witkin, pumping a liquid such as water…into the pressure vessel).
Regarding claim 10, Witkin, as modified by Fujikawa and Asari, further discloses the at least one high pressure pump is at least one of a hydraulic pressure pump, a hydraulic hand pump, a hydraulic electric pump, a hydraulic pneumatic pump, an electric pump and a hydraulic intensifier (col. 10, lines 46-48 of Witkin).
Regarding claim 11, Witkin, as modified by Fujikawa and Asari, further discloses the closure member comprises a body complementary to the first opening of the container (as shown in Figures of Witkin) and a plurality of first threads (threads 16 in Figure 2C of Witkin).
Regarding claim 12, Witkin, as modified by Fujikawa and Asari, teaches all the elements of claim 11, and further discloses the container body comprises a base, a plurality of sidewalls extending from the base to define the cavity with the first opening (as shown in Figures 1-2) and a plurality of second threads (threads 16 in Figure 2C), wherein the plurality of first threads of the closure member are configured to lock with the plurality of second threads on the container (Figure 2C; col. 6, lines 17-22 of Witkin).
Regarding claim 18, Witkin, as modified by Fujikawa and Asari, further discloses at least one seal disposed at a portion proximal to a rim of the container body to lie between the closure member and the sidewalls of the container body, wherein the seal is a circular ring member (seal ring 18 in Figures 1-2 of Witkin, lies between plug 14 (i.e., closure member) and sidewalls of container body 12)).
Regarding claim 19, Witkin, as modified by Fujikawa and Asari, further discloses at least one seal disposed at a portion proximal to the rim of the container and at least one seal disposed over the body of the closure member, wherein the seals are configured to engage to one another on sealing the cavity of the container body with the closure member, wherein each of the seals is a circular ring member.
However, Fujikawa teaches a sealing device (Figure 12; col. 2, lines 11-32) for preventing of leakage of pressure in a pressure-processing a workpiece (Abstract), comprising: a container body having a cavity and opening (pressure cylinder 1 having chamber 5 in Figure 12, shown having cavity and opening); and a closure member (lower plug 3) configured to seal the opening during an isostatic process (col. 5, lines 47-62, discloses use in a cold isostatic pressing apparatus; col. 2, lines 11-32s). Further, the sealing device comprises at least one seal disposed at a portion proximal the rim of the container body (annular ring 7 being proximal to edge of pressure cylinder wall) and at least one seal disposed over the body of the lower plug (seal ring 8) such that the seal ring and annular ring are configured to engage to one another on sealing of the pressure cylinder (i.e., container body) with the lower plug (i.e., closure member). Said sealing structure provides improved sealing axially at higher pressures (col. 2, lines 50-52). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Witkins and provided at least one seal disposed at a portion proximal to the rim of the container configured to engage with seal ring of Witkin to increase the sealing efficiency and pressures, as disclosed by Fujikawa.
Regarding claim 20, Witkin, as modified by Fujikawa and Asari, teaches all the elements of claim 12 and further discloses a third opening configured at a portion of the sidewall (port 34 in Figure 1; col. 6, lines 58-60) proximal to the second threads (as shown in Figure 1, port 34 being proximal to threads 16), and a valve to open and close the third opening (pressure release device 36; col. 6, lines 63-64, may be a quick release valve or the like), wherein the third opening is configured to enable free movement of air during sealing and opening the cavity (col. 7, lines 2-5, to rapidly vent any vapor formed within the vessel).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-14, filed 5/21/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-13, 18 and 20 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Fujikawa (US 5,798,126 A) and Asari (JP-01127198-A; of record). Specifically, Fujikawa is relied on to teach “a piston seal disposed at the closure member and a rod seal disposed at the container body”; and Asari is relied on teach “a second opening defined in the closure member”.
With respect to Asari, Applicant argues, see page 15, Asari does not disclose a pressure inlet or second opening configured through the closure member nor provides any motivation or expectation of success for reconfiguring Witkin’s system as such; Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the prior Office Action, Asari teaches a cold isostatic apparatus (Figures 1-4; paragraph 0001), comprising: a container body having a first opening for receiving a sample (compacts 6 in Figure 4; paragraph 0001); a closure member (upper lid 1, lower lid 2) configured to seal the first opening (paragraph 0001, the upper and lower lids 1, 2 are fitted to the pressure vessel 3 so as to be freely insertable and detachable). Further a second opening is provided at the closure member (as shown in Figures 1-2, 1a is provided in upper lid 1; 2a is provided in lower lid 2). Likewise, as noted, providing the second opening in the closure member (i.e., plug 14) of Witkin would improve efficiency of the isostatic pressing; for example, the pressure medium supply line can be disconnected in the same operation of removing the plug as previously stated in the prior Office Action. Hence, Applicant’s argument with respect to Asari is not persuasive.
With respect Fujikawa, Applicant argues, see page 16, Fujikawa relates to a pressure-sealing plug assembly in an autoclave-type structure does not relate to an isostatic pressing system. However, it is noted Fujikawa discloses the invention being applied to a cold isostatic pressing apparatus (col. 5, lines 47-62). Hence, Applicant’s argument that Fujikawa does not relate to isostatic pressing is not persuasive. Applicant further argues Fujikawa does not disclose a piston seal and rod seal at respective closure and container body locations; Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the prior Office Action, Fujikawa teaches a container body (pressure cylinder 21); and a closure member (cover 23) configured to seal the opening during an isostatic process (col. 5, lines 47-62, discloses use in a cold isostatic pressing apparatus). Fujikawa discloses various embodiment wherein the sealing device comprises both a piston seal (O-ring 29C) and a rod seal (U-ring 29B), which improve the sealing performance (col. 6, lies 54-57) as well as extending the life of said seals (col. 5, lines 5-10, can thus significantly decrease abrasion damage due to sliding, thereby improve the life). Further, Fujikawa discloses providing backup rings to each of the O-rings or U-rings (col. 6, lines 42-49). Applicant also argues Fujikawa does not relate to powder compaction by isostatic pressure; hence, a person skilled in the art would not reasonably combine teaches with Witkin or Asari. Examiner respectfully disagrees; Fujikawa discloses an embodiment wherein a workpiece powder being compacted via an isostatic pressing apparatus the invention being applied to a cold isostatic pressing apparatus (col. 5, lines 47-62). Hence, Applicant’s argument that Fujikawa does not relate to an isostatic pressing system is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Virak Nguon whose telephone number is (571)272-4196. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (and alternate Fridays) 7:30-5:00.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/V.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1741 9/05/2025
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748