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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 10 – 11 and 13 are 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.
Regarding claim 10 and 11, the phrase “the shaping of the green part or the brown part in step b.” indefinite. The phrase is unclear because step b requires forming a green body. As such, the phrase is makes it unclear as to whether a green part is formed or whether a brown part can be formed in step b, or whether the limitation is specifying that the forming of the green body (the brown body having the same shape) is formed by processes specified in claim 10 or 11. For purposes of examination, the latter interpretation is taken.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “wherein the metal powder is more reactive compared with steel” is indefinite. The phrase is indefinite because steel encompasses a wide range of compositions and moreover, “more reactive” is subjective as it does not clearly define what it is reactive to. As such, the metes and bounds sought for phrase are indefinite. For purposes of examination, any titanium/titanium alloy, aluminum/aluminum alloy, and magnesium/magnesium alloy will be interpreted as meeting the claim.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §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 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.
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.
Claims 1 – 9, 11 – 16, and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata (US 6,350,407, cited in the IDS of 04/14/23 as EP0995525) in view of Adachi (US 5,043,117)
Regarding claim 1, Sakata teaches a method of producing a sintered product by the method steps of:
Mixing a powder with an organic binder [Col 7, 50 – 53], wherein the powder can be a metal or metal alloy [Col 7, line 55 – 60], meeting the claimed limitation of metal powder, or a cemented carbide or cermet [Col 8, line 1 – 6], meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of ceramic powder (these powders being a combination of metal and ceramic). This step meets the limitation of “step a”
Preparing a green body [Fig 11] wherein it can be formed by metal injection molding (MIM) [Col 7, line 40 – 43], meeting the limitation of “step b”
A first debinding step [Fig 11], wherein the debinding can be conducted using a solvent [Col 14, line 46 – 49], meeting the claimed limitation of “step c”
A step of pressing the green body [Fig 11], wherein the pressing can be isostatic pressing [Col 14, line 60 – 65 and Col 13, line 22 – 24] and wherein a coating film with liquid barrier properties is included (implying that a liquid is used as a medium) [Col 9, line 20 - 23], meeting the claimed limitation of subjecting a brown part to isostatic pressing via a medium at elevated pressure.
A second debinding treatment [Fig 11], wherein the debinding can be conducted using heat [Col 15, line 50 – 60]
Sintering the body [Fig 11], meeting the claimed limitation of “step e”, wherein shrinkage is experienced during sintering [Col 3, line 46 – 47], meeting the claimed limitation of “consolidation”
Sakata does not explicitly teach adding a plasticizer to soften the binder after debinding and before isostatic compacting.
Adachi teaches a method of forming powder material into a product, in particular ceramics [Title]. Adachi discloses that the method includes mixing a powder material with a binder (and other organic materials [Col 2, line 34 – 60], forming a shaped green body [Col 2, line 65 – 68], and drying [Col 3, line 1 – 4]. Adachi teaches that the formed product can undergo shaping again by immersing the product in a second solvent which doesn’t dissolve the binder but softens it so that the product can be reshaped [Col 3, line 6 – 37]. Additionally, Adachi teaches that when pressing is used as the shaping step it reduces the pressure necessary to form the new shape [Col 3, line 49 – 53].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Sakata and added a step of immersing the body in a solvent prior to isostatic pressing/repressing such that the binder is softened, as taught by Adachi. While Sakata is mostly directed to metal material and Adachi to ceramics, the benefits of softening the binder to allow for easier reshaping including reducing the pressure necessary would be recognized by an ordinarily skilled artisan as applicable and beneficial to the method disclosed by Sakata. Furthermore, because Sakata and Adachi are directed to the production of sintered products from powdered material with a binder via formation of green body, reforming/repressing, and lastly sintering, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in applying the teachings of Adachi to the method of Sakata.
Regarding claim 2, Sakata in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Adachi teaches that a second solvent (interpreted as the claimed plasticizer) is added to soften the compact, meeting the claimed limitation that the plasticizer is liquid [Col 3, line 7 – 11].
Regarding claim 3, Sakata in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Sakata teaches that the isostatic pressing can be performed close to room temperature and teaches a particular example of 5 – 60°C [Col 9, line 9 – 12], which overlaps with the claimed range of “increased relative to room temperature”.
With regards to the overlapping ranges taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected overlapping ranges as disclosed. Selection of overlapping ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05 I). “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”
Regarding claim 4, Sakata in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Sakata teaches the pressure used for isostatic pressing is not limited but an example can be 1 – 10 ton/cm2 (~980.7 – 9807 bar) [Col 9, line 28 – 30], which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Sakata in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Sakata teaches that a coating film with liquid barrier properties is added prior to isostatic pressing, implying that a liquid is used as a medium [Col 9, line 20 - 23], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 6, Sakata in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Sakata teaches that a coating film with liquid barrier properties is added prior to isostatic pressing [Col 9, line 20 - 23], meeting the claimed limitation of surrounding the outer surface of the part. Additionally, given that the solvent of Adachi is used to soften the molded body prior to reforming, an ordinarily skilled artisan possessing ordinary creativity would reasonably understand that the solvent (i.e. plasticizer) would be added prior to the coating film.
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. (MPEP 2141.03 I)
Regarding claim 7, Sakata in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 6. Sakata teaches that the coating film can be removed by thermal treatment [Col 9, line 62 – 67], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 8, Sakata in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 6. Sakata teaches that the coating film can be removed by peeling [Col 9, line 62 – 67], meeting the claimed limitation of mechanically removing the coating prior to debinding (i.e. second debinding step d).
Regarding claim 9, Sakata in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Adachi teaches that the second solvent (interpreted as the claimed plasticizer) is removed by drying prior to the removing the binder/organic component and sintering [Fig 1], meeting the claimed limitation of removing plasticizer before performing step d (thermal debinding).
Regarding claim 11, Sakata in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Sakata teaches that the green body can be formed by metal injection molding [Col 7, line 40 – 43], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 12, Sakata in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Sakata teaches that the powder for mixing can be a metal or metal alloy [Col 7, line 55 – 60], meeting the claimed limitation of metal powder and that the green can be formed by metal injection molding (MIM) [Col 7, line 40 – 43], meeting the limitation of “shaped part is produced by powder metallurgy”.
Regarding claim 13, Sakata in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 12. Sakata teaches that there is no restriction on the metal or metal alloy used in the process [Col 7, line 55 – 60] and specifically teaches using titanium/titanium alloys [Col 8, line 4] and aluminum and alloys thereof [Col 7, line 58].
Regarding claim 14, Sakata in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 12. Sakata teaches that there is no restriction on the metal or metal alloy used in the process [Col 7, line 55 – 60] and specifically discloses using Ni cermet [Col 8, line 5] meeting the claimed limitation of “hard metal powder”
Regarding claim 15, Sakata in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Sakata teaches that the powder for shaping can be a cemented carbide or cermets, wherein these compositions contain a ceramic particle/compound, meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of containing ceramic powder and shaping a ceramic part.
Regarding claim 16, Sakata in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 3. Sakata teaches that the isostatic pressing can be performed close to room temperature and teaches a particular example of 5 – 60°C [Col 9, line 9 – 12], which overlaps with the claimed range of “30 – 200°C”.
With regards to the overlapping ranges taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected overlapping ranges as disclosed. Selection of overlapping ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05 I). “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”
Regarding claim 19, Sakata in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 6. Sakata teaches that the coating film can be isoprene rubber [Col 9, line 25 – 27], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 20, Sakata in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 9. Adachi teaches that the second solvent (interpreted as the claimed plasticizer) is removed by drying prior to the removing the binder/organic component and sintering [Fig 1], meeting the claimed limitation of removing plasticizer before performing step d (thermal debinding).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata (US 6,350,407, cited in the IDS of 04/14/23 as EP0995525) in view of Adachi (US 5,043,117), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Meissner (WO2020104334, using espacenet translation)
Regarding claim 10, Sakata in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Sakata teaches that the green body formed is not limited to a particular forming method [Col 7, line 40 – 41], but does not explicitly teach that an additive shaping method can be used.
Meissner teaches a method of producing a material from metal or ceramic [Title, 0001]. Meissner teaches that the method includes the steps of producing a green body from a powder/binder mixture via additive manufacturing, subjecting it to isostatic compaction in a partially debound state, and sintering [0033], wherein fully debinding can occur prior to sintering and after isostatic compaction [0049]. As disclosed by Meissner, additive manufacturing allows for the production of complex shapes that cannot be produced by other forming methods [0012].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Sakata as-modified by Adachi and used additive manufacturing to produce the green body, as taught by Meissner. Sakata and Meissner are directed to the same field of endeavor of producing powered components via green body, compaction, and sintering. Moreover, as disclosed by Meissner using additive manufacturing to form a green body produces a body that can be subjected to debinding and isostatic compaction. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results. A simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP 2143 B).
Further still, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Meissner expressly teaches that additive manufacturing allows for the production of complex shapes that cannot be achieved by other production methods.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata (US 6,350,407, cited in the IDS of 04/14/23 as EP0995525) in view of Adachi (US 5,043,117), as applied to claim 4 above, in further view of MPIF (“Isostatic Pressing”, NPL, 2019)
Regarding claim 17, Sakata in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 4. Sakata states that the pressure used for isostatic pressing is not limited but does not teach using pressure below 500 Bar.
MPIF teaches information regarding isostatic pressing, both cold and hot. MPIF states that pressure for cold isostatic pressing range from less than 5000 psi (34.5 MPa or 345 Bar) to more than 10,000 psi (690 MPa or 6900 Bar) [page 1], which overlaps with the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Sakata and used the pressure range of 345 – 6900 Bar, as disclosed by MPIF, as the pressure range in Sakata. Given that Sakata does not explicitly limit the pressure used in the cold isostatic pressing, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in using the pressure range disclosed by MPIF in the method of Sakata.
The combination of prior art elements to yield predictable results is a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP 2143 A). “The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art”. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata (US 6,350,407, cited in the IDS of 04/14/23 as EP0995525) in view of Adachi (US 5,043,117), as applied to claim 5 above, in further view of Mashl (“Powder Metallurgy Processing by Hot Isostatic Pressing”, NPL, 2015)
Regarding claim 18, Sakata in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 5. Sakata suggests that a liquid is used as the medium in cold isostatic pressing but does not explicitly teach that inert gas can be used. Sakata discloses that hot-isostatic can be used [Col 9, line 10 – 14].
Mashl teaches information regarding the use of hot isostatic pressing in powder metallurgy [Title]. Mashl discloses that during HIP, inert gas surrounds the workload to induce hydrostatic compressive load [page 3, right column].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Sakata in view of Adachi and used hot isostatic pressing as process, as disclosed by Sakata. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used an inert gas as the pressure medium in hot isostatic pressing, as taught by Mashl, to achieve predictable results. Mashl discloses the inert gas is a common pressure medium used in hot isostatic pressing and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using it in the method of Sakata.
The combination of prior art elements to yield predictable results is a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP 2143 A). “The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art”. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976)
Claims 1 – 2, 5 – 10, 12, 15, and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meissner (WO2020104334, using espacenet translation) in view of Adachi (US 5,043,117)
Regarding claim 1, Meissner teaches a method of producing a sintered product by the method steps of:
Mixing a powder with a binder [0033], wherein the powder can be metal, meeting the claimed limitation of metal powder, or a ceramic [0033], meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of ceramic powder. This step meeting the limitation of “step a”
Preparing a green body by additive manufacturing [0033], meeting the limitation of “step b”
Compacting in a partially debound state, implying a first debinding step [0033] meeting the claimed limitation of “step c”. Wherein a coating is applied prior to compaction [0050] and Meissner states that the coating is removed by pyrolysis or solvent, same as the debinding [0050], meeting the claimed limitation debinding by chemical/solvent.
Wherein the compaction is wet isostatic compaction, meeting the claimed limitation of isostatic compression with a medium [0043].
A second debinding treatment [0049], wherein the debinding can be conducted using pyrolysis (i.e. heat/thermal treatment) [0050]
Sintering the body [0033], meeting the claimed limitation of “step e”, wherein shrinkage is experienced during sintering [0013], meeting the claimed limitation of “consolidation”
Meissner does not explicitly teach adding a plasticizer to soften the binder after debinding and before isostatic compacting.
Adachi teaches a method of forming powder material into a product, in particular ceramics [Title]. Adachi discloses that the method includes mixing a powder material with a binder (and other organic materials [Col 2, line 34 – 60], forming a shaped green body [Col 2, line 65 – 68], and drying [Col 3, line 1 – 4]. Adachi teaches that the formed product can undergo shaping again by immersing the product in a second solvent which doesn’t dissolve the binder but softens it so that the product can be reshaped [Col 3, line 6 – 37]. Additionally, Adachi teaches that when pressing is used as the shaping step it reduces the pressure necessarily to form the new shape [Col 3, line 49 – 53].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Meissner and added a step of immersing the body in a solvent prior to isostatic pressing/repressing such that the binder is softened, as taught by Adachi. While Meissner is directed to additive manufacturing of metals or ceramics and Adachi to forming ceramics, Meissner and Adachi are directed to the production of sintered products from powdered material with a binder via formation of green body, reforming/repressing, and lastly sintering. As such, the benefits of softening the binder to allow for easier reshaping, including reducing the pressure necessary, would be recognized by an ordinarily skilled artisan as applicable and beneficial to the method disclosed by Meissner. Furthermore, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in applying the teachings of Adachi to the method of Meissner.
Regarding claim 2, Meissner in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Adachi teaches that a second solvent (interpreted as the claimed plasticizer) is added to soften the compact, meeting the claimed limitation that the plasticizer is liquid [Col 3, line 7 – 11].
Regarding claim 5, Meissner in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Meissner teaches that wet isostatic compression with a liquid medium is used [0043].
Regarding claim 6, Meissner in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Meissner teaches that a coating film with liquid barrier properties is added prior to isostatic pressing [0046], meeting the claimed limitation of surrounding the outer surface of the part. Additionally, given that the solvent of Adachi is used to soften the molded body prior to reforming, an ordinarily skilled artisan possessing ordinary creativity would reasonably understand that the solvent (i.e. plasticizer) would be added prior to the coating film.
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. (MPEP 2141.03 I)
Regarding claim 7, Meissner in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 6. Meissner teaches that the coating film can be removed by thermal treatment [0055], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 8, Meissner in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 6. Meissner teaches that the coating can be removed by thermal or solvent [0055], meeting the claimed limitation of chemically, thermally, or using a solvent to remove the coating.
Regarding claim 9, Meissner in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Adachi teaches that the second solvent (interpreted as the claimed plasticizer) is removed by drying prior to the removing the binder/organic component and sintering [Fig 1], meeting the claimed limitation of removing plasticizer before performing step d (thermal debinding).
Regarding claim 10, Meissner in view of Adachi Teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Meissner teaches that the green body is formed by additive manufacturing [0033], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 12, Meissner in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Meissner teaches that the powder for mixing can be a metal [0033], meeting the claimed limitation of metal powder and that the green can be formed by additive manufacturing [Col 7, line 40 – 43], meeting the limitation of “shaped part is produced by powder metallurgy”.
Regarding claim 15, Meissner in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Meissner teaches that the powder for shaping can be a ceramic [0033], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 19, Meissner in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 6. Meissner teaches that the coating film can be polyurethane [0046], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 20, Meissner in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 9. Adachi teaches that the second solvent (interpreted as the claimed plasticizer) is removed by drying prior to the removing the binder/organic component and sintering [Fig 1], meeting the claimed limitation of removing plasticizer before performing step d (thermal debinding).
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meissner (WO2020104334, using espacenet translation) in view of Adachi (US 5,043,117), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Sakata (US 6,350,407, cited in the IDS of 04/14/23 as EP0995525)
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Meissner in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Meissner does not teach a temperature of the isostatic pressing.
Sakata teaches a method of producing a sintered product including the method steps of mixing a powder with an organic binder [Col 7, 50 – 53], preparing a green body, a first debinding step, pressing the green body [Fig 11], wherein the pressing can be isostatic pressing [Col 14, line 60 – 65 and Col 13, line 22 – 24], a second debinding treatment, and sintering the body [Fig 11]. Sakata teaches that the isostatic pressing can be performed close to room temperature and teaches a particular example of 5 – 60°C [Col 9, line 9 – 12], which overlaps with the claimed range of “increased relative to room temperature” and the claimed range of claim 16.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Meissner and used a temperature range of 5 – 60°C, as disclosed by Sakata, as the temperature of the isostatic pressing in Meissner. Meissner and Sakata are directed to the same field of endeavor of forming sintered products and disclose use similar methods including formation of a green body, partial debinding, compacting, debinding, and sintering. Further still, both Sakata and Meissner teach isostatic pressing with a liquid medium. Lastly, Meissner does not explicitly limit the temperature used in the isostatic pressing. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings to use the temperature range of isostatic pressing disclosed by Sakata in the method of Meissner.
The combination of prior art elements to yield predictable results is a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP 2143 A). “The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art”. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976)
With regards to the overlapping ranges taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected overlapping ranges as disclosed. Selection of overlapping ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05 I). “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meissner (WO2020104334, using espacenet translation) in view of Adachi (US 5,043,117), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of MPIF (“Isostatic Pressing”, NPL, 2019)
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Meissner in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Meissner does not teach a pressure for the isostatic pressing.
MPIF teaches information regarding isostatic pressing, including cold and hot. MPIF states that pressure for cold isostatic pressing range from less than 5000 psi (34.5 MPa or 345 Bar) to more than 10,000 psi (690 MPa or 6900 Bar) [page 1], which falls within the claimed range of claim 4 and overlaps with the claimed range of claim 17.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Meissner and used the pressure range of 345 – 6900 Bar, as disclosed by MPIF, as the pressure range in Meissner. Given that Meissner does not explicitly limit the pressure used in the cold isostatic pressing, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in using the pressure range disclosed by MPIF in the method of Meissner.
The combination of prior art elements to yield predictable results is a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP 2143 A). “The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art”. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976)
With regards to the overlapping ranges taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected overlapping ranges as disclosed. Selection of overlapping ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05 I). “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”
Claims 13 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meissner (WO2020104334, using espacenet translation) in view of Adachi (US 5,043,117), as applied to claim 12 above, in further view of Prichard (US 12,005,504)
Regarding claims 13 – 14, Meissner in view of Adachi teaches the invention as applied in claim 12. Meissner does not teach that the metal or ceramic can be one of the alloys listed, nor that a hard metal can be used in the additive manufacturing process.
Prichard teaches a method for forming a product via additive manufacturing [Title] including forming a green body [Col 3, line 29 – 30], coating the green body with a protective coating in order to perform cold isostatic pressing [Col 3, line 44 – 48], and sintering the pressed body [Col 7, line 23 – 24]. Wherein the additive manufacturing can use metal, ceramic, or cermet powder (meeting the claimed “hard metal” with a binder [Col 2, line 38 – 41]. The metal powder may be titanium or titanium alloys, meeting the claimed limitation [Col 2, line 44 – 49].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Meissner and used cermet or titanium/titanium alloy powder as the feedstock, as disclosed by Prichard. Meissner and Prichard are in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing and teach similar methods of forming a green body, pressing, and sintering. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Meissner and Prichard to achieve predictable results.
The combination of prior art elements to yield predictable results is a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP 2143 A). “The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art”. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976)
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US2025/0229329 – Producing a component from both injection molding and additive manufacturing, forming a green and brown part, by two separate debinding processes
US2010/0111745 – Forming a component by injection molding, forming a brown part, impregnating the brown part with particles and solution to impart desirable properties
US2008/0075622 – Forming a green body, two separate debinding steps, sintering
WO2009030291 – Submerging a brown body in lubricant prior to a pressing/calibration step after dewaxing
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN POLLOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-5602. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8 - 5).
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 on (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
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738