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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 1-12 directed to a method of producing a hybrid component in the reply filed on December 12, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Applicant respectfully submits that, with such amended set of claims, Group II and Group I fulfil the requirements as provided in 37 CFR 1.475(b) as they relate. to "a product and a process specially adapted for manufacturing said product" “. This is not found persuasive because the present application was filed under 35 USC 111, for which restriction is determined by independent/distinct analysis. 37 CFR 1.475 (b) sets forth conditions for unity of invention analysis, which applies to national stage applications filed under 35 USC 371. This can be seen in the heading for 37 CFR 1.475 which states “Unity of invention before the International Searching Authority, the International Preliminary Examining Authority and during the national stage”. The present application directly claims priority under 35 USC 119 to foreign application EP22175520.0. The present application is not a US national stage entry of a PCT application. As the structure of the product as claimed in claim 13 can still be produced by a process other than that claimed in claim 1, the groups are still distinct see MPEP 806.05(f). In addition to MPEP 806.05(f), applicant is encouraged to review MPEP 2113 and 608.01(n) for further discussions on how a product claim per se, even when defined as a product which depends on a process of making, is still a product claim for which patentability is determined by the structure of the product and not by manipulation of the steps for producing the product.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant withdraws claims 13-15 from further consideration by amendment, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on December 12, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 2 contains non-English text in the right-most image. Please replace “T3 bis T0” with “T3 to T0”. See MPEP 507(C) and 37 CFR 1.84(p)(2).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 3 claims “the powder blank is manufactured by means of metal injection molding”. The limitation recites the word “means”, the limitation modifies the means by functional language, and the limitation does not include structure capable of performing the function. The present specification states “[i]n metal injection molding, fine metal powder is generally mixed with an organic binder and then shaped with the aid of an injection molding machine. The intermediate product thereby formed is mostly referred to as a green part. In the green part, the metal powder particles may adjoin one another, and the binder may provide an additional force-based connection between adjacent metal powder particles. The binder is then removed to produce a brown part, and the component so formed is sintered at high temperature in a furnace” (page 16 lines 22-28 of the specification). In view of the specification, the claimed means of metal injection molding will be interpreted as a combination of an injection molding machine, binder, and a furnace or an equivalent of the combination. Note that as claim 3 is a process (method) claim for which patentability is defined as a series of steps, applicant may claim the powder blank is manufactured by metal injection molding, instead of by means of metal injection molding, thereby removing claim dependence on particular means of metal injection molding.
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.
Claims 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the component constituent in question" in the last two lines of the first page of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 introduces first, second, and third component constituents, and it cannot be determined from claim 1 as worded, which of the first, second, or third component constituent is the component constituent in question.
Claims 2-12 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) because they depend on claim 1.
The term “a maximum operating temperature up to which the hybrid component is able to be operated when used as intended” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “maximum operating temperature up to which the hybrid component is able to be operated when used as intended” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In limiting the sintering temperature to an individual’s intent as opposed to an objective range of temperatures, claim 7 limits the claimed process by a subjective desire and not by a defined range of specific activity. Such limitation, wherein a given series of steps does or does not meet claim 7 depending on an individual’s intention, raises uncertainty as to whether a given series of steps would or would not meet claim 7. See MEPP 2173.05(b)(IV) for a further discussion on why defining a claim limitation according to subjective standards without setting forth objective guidance for that metric can raise uncertainty.
Further, claim 7 claims a temperature in producing the hybrid component entirely by reference to a temperature at which the product component is used. Claim 7, and claim 1 on which claim 7 depends, do not limit the component formed by the claimed method to a specific use, or even claim that the component is a particular product. As whether a given series of steps for producing a hybrid component meets claim 7 depends on the unknown method of using the component and not on the actual method of producing the component the sintering temperature recited in claim 7 has multiple, differing, plausible interpretations which renders the range of activity encompassed by claim 7 uncertain. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(II) for further discussion on how reference to a limitation which is a variable may render a claim indefinite.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin (US6009843) in view of Schunk Sintermetalltechnik (WO2021047784A1). Schunk Sintermetalltechnik is cited in the IDS filed May 17, 2023. References to Schunk Sintermetalltechnik are directed to the examiner-supplied English language translation.
Regarding claim 1, Griffin discloses a method for producing a hybrid component (densified component/composite body, abstract, column 1 lines 5-10, column 2 lines 39-56, column 4 lines 5-7, column 8 lines 62-64, column 12 lines 40-44, Figs. 1-10). Griffin discloses providing a first component constituent (inner region 34 Fig. 2, inner tube 66 Figs. 4-6) made of a metallic first material (titanium-based metal) (column 3 lines 63-67, column 6 lines 22-26, column 8 lines 49-56, column 9 lines 27-37). Griffin discloses providing a second component constituent made of reinforcing fibers (refractory reinforcing nanofilaments 26 in matrix 24 Figs. 1-6, column 3 lines 59-67, column 10 lines 15-33). Griffin discloses that the fibers (monofilaments) may be formed from materials include silicon carbide, boron, or α-Al2O3 (column 4 lines 57 to column 5 line 1). The present disclosure indicates that the second component may consist of only fiber materials (page 20 line 4 to page 21 line 13), and the present disclosure indicates both silicon carbide and aluminum oxide (Al2O3) as examples of such fibers (page 20 lines 7-20). As all embodiments of the second component constituent of the present disclosure are made of an electrically insulating material, and the present disclosure encompasses embodiments wherein silicon carbide fibers or aluminum oxide fibers are the only constituents of the sconed material (page 20 line 4 to page 21 line 13), silicon carbide fibers and aluminum oxide fibers are electrically insulating material in view of the present disclosure. In disclosing making the second material from silicon carbide or aluminum oxide (Al2O3) fibers (column 4 lines 57 to column 5 line 1), Griffin discloses providing a second component constituent, which is to some extent made of an electrically insulating second material. Griffin discloses and shows that the second component constituent is in the form of a sleeve which surrounds an inner volume which has an inner contour complementary to an outer contour of the first component constituent (Fig. 2-6, column 8 lines 49-56, column 10 lines 15-33, column 10 line 52 to column 11 line 13). Griffin discloses providing a third component constituent (outer region 36 Figs. 1-2, outer tube 70 Fig. 4) made of a metallic third material (titanium-based metal) (column 3 lines 63-67, column 6 lines 22-26, column 8 lines 49-56, column 9 lines 38-57). Griffin shows and discloses that the third component constituent has a recess which has an inner contour complementary to an outer contour of the second component constituent (Figs. 2, 4; column 8 lines 49-56, column 10 lines 15-33, column 10 line 52 to column 11 line 13).
Griffin discloses forming a complete component assembly by arranging the first component constituent in the inner volume of the second component constituent and arranging the second component constituent in the recess of the third component constituent (Fig. 2; inserting monofilaments between concentric tubes, wherein the concentric tubes each independently comprise a Ti-based material corresponding to the composition of inner and outer sleeves 34 and 36, respectively column 8 lines 49-56, column 10 lines 19-31, particularly column 11 lines 38-51; Example 1 column 13 line 66 to column 14 line 28). Griffin discloses sintering the complete component assembly by heating to a sintering temperature (hot isostatic pressing conditions of column 12 lines 18-47; hot isostatic pressing at 900
°
C to consolidate the assembly of Example 1 column 14 lines 59-65). Griffin discloses that during the hot isostatic pressing the first component constituent experiences a volume change (surface expands) which results in a densified component which is cooled (column 12 lines 33-44). Griffin discloses the densified assembly is machined to the product (column 8 lines 59-66, column 12 lines 41-47), thereby disclosing that the volume change of the densification persists to at least some point below the sintering temperature. Griffin discloses that the volume change occurs in such a manner that the outer contour of the first component constituent expands outward toward the third component (Inner region 34 also functions as an expanding bladder during the hot isostatic pressing procedure helping to densify the composite column 4 lines 4-7; wall of inner tube 66 radially outward toward body 70 column 12 lines 33-36). A displacement of the first, innermost component disclosed by Griffin (Figs. 2-6) toward the third, outermost component disclosed by Griffin (Figs. 2, 4) is a volume change wherein the outer contour of the first component constituent and the inner contour of the recess of the third component constituent are displaced towards one another.
Griffin discloses that the second component constituent is formed with inorganic, non-metallic fibers (column 4 lines 57 to column 5 line 1).
Griffin does not specify methods of production for the first and second component constituents; therefore, Griffin does not disclose that the first component constituent and/or the third component constituent is/are in the form of a powder blank having metal powder particles arranged adjoining one another.
Schunk Sintermetalltechnik teaches a method for producing a hybrid component (abstract, claim 1, [0003], [0017]). Schunk Sintermetalltechnik teaches providing a component constituent made of a material (second component made of a carbon-based material [0003], [0017]. Schunk Sintermetalltechnik shows that the component made of a carbon-based material is in the form of a sleeve (Figs. 1, 3-5). Schunk Sintermetalltechnik teaches providing a component constituent made of a metallic material [0003], [0017]. Schunk Sintermetalltechnik teaches and shows that the component constituent made of a metallic material has a recess which has an inner contour complementary to an outer contour of the component constituent made of a carbon-based material (Figs. 1, 3, 5, [0018], [0046], [0077]). Schunk Sintermetalltechnik teaches forming a complete component assembly by arranging the component constituent made of a carbon-based material in the recess of the component constituent made of a metallic material ([0018], [0031], [0051], claim 1). Schunk Sintermetalltechnik teaches sintering the complete component assembly by heating to a sintering temperature ([0032], claim 1). Schunk Sintermetalltechnik teaches that the component constituent made of a metallic material is in the form of a powder blank having metal powder particles arranged adjoining one another (abstract, claim 1, [0018], [0029-30]). Schunk Sintermetalltechnik teaches that when the sintering temperature is reached, the metal powder particles are sintered together [0032], [0093] and the component constituent formed of the metallic material experiences a volume change [0032], [0052]. Schunk Sintermetalltechnik teaches that the volume change results in a permanent interference fit between constituent components [0053], [0110], thereby teaching that the volume change remains even after cooling to below the sintering temperature. Schunk Sintermetalltechnik teaches that the component constituent which is made from a metallic material and therefore the inner contour of the recess of the component made from a metallic material is displaced toward the component constituent made of carbon-containing material [0052-53]. Schunk Sintermetalltechnik teaches that the volume change is a result of the structure of the powder particles [0032] and Schunk Sintermetalltechnik teaches that the volume change is responsible for the fit between component constituents [0052-54].
Both Schunk Sintermetalltechnik and Griffin teach methods for producing a hybrid component wherein a component metallic constituent undergoes a volume change in a heated consolidation step. Griffin discloses that the consolidation results in “a single, integral composite body” (column 8 lines 59-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the third component constituent (outer region 36 Figs. 1-2, outer tube 70 Fig. 4) disclosed by Griffin, applied above, in the form of a powder blank having metal powder particles arranged adjoining one another because Schunk Sintermetalltechnik teaches that providing a component constituent in the form of a powder blank having metal powder particles arranged adjoining one another results in a volume change which yields a permanent interference fit between that component between that component constituent and a component constituent arranged in a recess of the component constituent in the form of a powder blank during a sintering step ([0018], [0029-32], [0052-54], [0110], Figs. 1, 3-5). In view of the teachings of Schunk Sintermetalltechnik applied above, providing the third component constituent (outer region 36 Figs. 1-2, outer tube 70 Fig. 4) disclosed by Griffin as a powder blank having metal powder particles arranged adjoining one another would predictably result in forming a permanent fit between adjacent components during the sintering (hot isostatic pressing to consolidate) disclosed by Griffin (column 12 lines 18-47, column 14 lines 59-65), thereby further facilitating the production of a single, integral composite body disclosed by Griffin as the intended result (column 8 lines 59-63). As Schunk Sintermetalltechnik teaches that the volume change of the component constituent comprising a recess shrinks the component constituent onto the component constituent arranged in the recess [0053] and Griffin discloses that the volume change of the first component constituent (inner region 34 Fig. 2, inner tube 66 Figs. 4-6) expands against the component constituent in whose recess the first component constituent is placed (column 4 lines 4-7, column 12 lines 33-36), the volume change experienced by the combination of Griffin in view of Schunk Sintermetalltechnik results in an outer contour of the first component constituent and an inner contour of the recess of the third component constituent displaced towards one another.
Regarding claim 2, Griffin discloses forming the second component constituent by arranging fibers in the recess defined between first and third component constituent prior to sintering (column 8 lines 49-66, column 14 lines 17-47). Griffin further shows that the tubular, third component constituent surrounds the tubular, second component constituent surrounds the tubular first component constituent (Figs. 2, 4). Griffin discloses that tubular constituent components are concentric (column 8 lines 49-66, column 9 lines 3-10, 26-37, claim 20). As an inside diameter of a recess of a tube is necessarily, geometrically larger than the outside diameter of a thinner tube entirely within that recess. Griffin discloses and shows that inside dimensions of the recess of the third component constituent are larger prior to sintering than outside dimensions, measured along the same axes, of the second component constituent arranged in the recess, and that inside dimensions in the inner volume of the second component constituent are larger prior to sintering than outside dimensions, measured along the same axes, of the first component constituent arranged in the inner volume of the second component constituent (Figs. 1-6, column 8 lines 49-66, column 14 lines 17-47). Any series of nested tubes would geometrically meet this limitation. The third component in the combination of Griffin in view of Schunk Sintermetalltechnik, applied to claim 1 above is provided as a powder blank which forms the third component constituent. Schunk Sintermetalltechnik teaches that during sintering, such a powder blank experiences a volume change that remains even after cooling to below the sintering temperature (is permanent) as shrinkage [0032], [0052-54], [0093], [0110]; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that providing the third powder constituent as a powder blank in the process disclosed by Griffin in view of Schunk Sintermetalltechnik applied above would result in a volume change that is a shrinkage. Schunk Sintermetalltechnik teaches chooses a geometry of the powder blank component constituent, properties of the metal powder particles of the respective powder blank and process parameters during sintering such that the powder blank of the component constituent shrinks to such an extent on sintering that a press-fit occurs between the first, the second and the third component constituents [0052-54], [0093], [0110]; therefore, in order to attain the fit disclosed by Griffin in view of Schunk Sintermetalltechnik applied to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to adjust properties of the metal powder particles of the respective powder blank and process parameters during sintering to achieve the fit as taught by Schunk Sintermetalltechnik [0052-54].
Regarding claim 3, in an embodiment, Schunk Sintermetalltechnik teaches that the powder blank is manufactured by an injection molding machine, binder, and a high temperature furnace (oven at high temperature) or an equivalent of the combination [0061]. In order to provide the powder blank taught by Schunk Sintermetalltechnik, applied above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to manufacture the powder blank with the apparatus which Schunk Sintermetalltechnik teaches for manufacturing that very powder blank. As Schunk Sintermetalltechnik teaches manufacturing the powder blank with an injection molding machine, binder, and a high temperature furnace (oven at high temperature) or an equivalent of the combination [0061], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to manufacture the powder blank by a an injection molding machine, binder, and a high temperature furnace (oven at high temperature) or an equivalent of the combination, which are means of metal injection molding, in view of the present disclosure.
Regarding claim 4, in an embodiment, Schunk Sintermetalltechnik teaches that the powder blank is manufactured by pressing metal powder into a predefined shape [0062-63]. In providing the powder blank taught by Schunk Sintermetalltechnik, as applied above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture the powder blank by the steps which Schunk Sintermetalltechnik teaches for manufacturing that same powder blank, and Schunk Sintermetalltechnik teaches that such steps comprise pressing metal powder into a predefined shape [0062-63].
Regarding claim 6, Schunk Sintermetalltechnik teaches that a total volume of metal powder particles in the powder blank is less than 50% of the volume of the powder blank prior to sintering [0057]. Schunk Sintermetalltechnik teaches that such volume ratio is advantageous [0057] and that a low volume ratio of powder particles to the volume of the component made of metallic material before sintering typically results in the powder blank shrinking significantly during sintering, thus allowing a desired press fit [0059]. In order to attain the desired press fit in the process disclosed by Griffin in view of Schunk Sintermetalltechnik, applied above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the powder blank with a volume of metal powder particles less than 50% of the total volume of the powder blank to achieve the fit results taught by Schunk Sintermetalltechnik [0057-59]. A range of less than 50% lies entirely within the claimed range of less than 90%.
Regarding claim 7, Griffin discloses sintering at 850
°
C to 950
°
C (column 12 lines 27-28). Griffin discloses that one intended use of the component (densified component) is machining upon cooling to room temperature (column 12 lines 33-47). A sintering temperature of 850
°
C to 950
°
C is significantly higher than a maximum operating temperature up to which the hybrid component is able to be operated when used as intended, when such intent is machining at room temperature.
Regarding claim 9, Griffin discloses that the second component constituent is formed with ceramic fibers (column 4 line 57 to column 5 line 15).
Regarding claim 10, Griffin discloses that the second component constituent is formed with a composite comprising an oxide (α-Al2O3) in a matrix material (column 4 line 57 to column 5 line 15). A composite material whose constituents are an oxide fiber and a matrix material is to some extent an oxide ceramic composite. If applicant intends to limit claim 10 to a composite material comprising a specific type of matrix material, applicant should claim such limitation, provided such limitation is supported by the disclosure as filed.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin (US6009843) in view of Schunk Sintermetalltechnik (WO2021047784A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Savage (US 20240116108). Savage is a publication of an application for patent in the United States effectively filed prior to the earliest effective filing date of the present application.
Regarding claim 5, Schunk Sintermetalltechnik teaches embodiments wherein the powder blank is manufactured by metal injection molding [0060-61] or by pressing metal powder into a predefined shape [0062-63]. Griffin in view of Schunk Sintermetalltechnik does not disclose the powder blank is manufactured by additive manufacture by successive application of multiple layers of a compound containing metal powder.
Savage teaches a method for producing a hybrid component (component coupled to an insert, abstract, [0015], [0021], [0025], [0027], [0032], Figs. 1-4). Savage teaches providing an insert component constituent (closure insert 104, bonding insert 306 Figs. 1-4 [0021], [0025], [0027], [0032]) made of a material different from other component constituents [0024], [0031]. Savage teaches providing an additively manufactured component constituent (component 102, second component 304 [0021], [0025], [0027], [0032] Figs. 1-4) made of a metallic material [0021], [0027]. Savage teaches that the additively manufactured component constituent has a recess which has an inner contour in some way complementary to an outer contour of the insert component constituent ([0023], [0025], [0029], [0032], Figs. 1-4). Savage teaches forming a component assembly by arranging the insert component constituent in the recess of the additively manufactured component constituent [0021], [0027], [0029]. Savage teaches sintering the component assembly by heating to a sintering temperature (abstract, [0044]). Savage teaches that the additively manufactured component constituent is in the form of a powder blank having metal powder particles arranged adjoining one another [0016], [0022], [0028], such that, when the assembly is sintered, the metal powder particles are sintered together [0044] and the additively manufactured component experiences a volume change (shrinkage) [0016], [0018], [0025], [0032]. Savage teaches that the volume change on sintering joins the additively manufactured constituent and the insert constituent (shrinkage sinter joint) (tittle, [0016], [0018], [0025], [0032], claim 4). Savage teaches that the powder blank is manufactured by additive manufacturing by successive application of multiple layers of a compound containing metal powder (binder jetting) [0016-18], [0021], [0027], [0042]. Savage teaches that the additive manufacturing can create a component that would normally require multiple parts to create using traditional manufacturing processes [0017], and Savage presents metal injection molding as an alternative to the additive manufacturing process [0047].
Both Savage and Griffin in view of Schunk Sintermetalltechnik, applied above teach similar processes for producing a hybrid component wherein a component constituent made of a metallic material forms a sinter fit with another component constituent.
It would have been obvious for one oof ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to manufacture the powder blank in the process disclosed by Griffin in view of Schunk Sintermetalltechnik, applied above by additive manufacture by successive application of multiple layers of a compound containing metal powder because Savage teaches that additive manufacturing by successive application of multiple layers of a compound containing metal powder as effective for producing such a powder blank to be fit in a sintering process [0016-18], [0021], [0025], [0027], [0032], [0042] in processes for which a powder blank may also be formed by metal injection molding [0047]. Manufacturing by additive manufacturing would predictably result in a powder blank which can join components upon experiencing a volume change, as taught by Savage (tittle, [0016], [0018], [0025], [0032], claim 4).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin (US6009843) in view of Schunk Sintermetalltechnik (WO2021047784A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Burbaum (US20190022753).
Regarding claim 8, Griffin discloses that the second component constituent is formed with ceramic fibers in a metal matrix (column 4 line 57 to column 5 line 15). Griffin is silent on the elongation at break of the second material of the second component constituent.
Burbaum teaches a method for producing a hybrid component (component comprising base material and fibers, abstract, [0011-12]). Burbaum teaches providing component constituent material comprising aluminum oxide or silicon carbide fibers in a metal matrix material [0011-12], [0032-36]. Burbaum teaches that the fibers result in improved mechanical properties, especially a higher elongation at break (fracture elongation or fracture-elongation loadability), “e.g. by up to one percent” [0060].
Both Burbaum and Griffin in view of Schunk Sintermetalltechnik teach a component comprising material formed from aluminum oxide or silicon carbide fibers in a metal matrix.
Considering Burbaum teaches that teaches that the fibers in a material comprising fibers and a metal matrix, result in improved mechanical properties, especially a higher elongation at break (fracture elongation or fracture-elongation loadability), by up to one percent [0011-12], [0032-36], [0060], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, that the second material disclosed by Griffin comprising aluminum oxide or silicon carbide fibers in a metal matrix material (column 4 line 57 to column 5 line 15) would result in improved elongation at break. Considering Burbaum teaches such an improvement up to 1% [0060], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that such improved elongation at break would have some value would is at least 0.1%.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Independent claim 1 claims a method for producing a hybrid component. Claim 1 claims providing a first component constituent made of a metallic first material. Claim 1 claims providing a second component constituent made of [not necessarily comprising or consisting of] an electrically insulating second material. Claim 1 claims that the second component constituent is in the form of a sleeve which surrounds an inner volume which has an inner contour complementary to an outer contour of the first component constituent. Claim 1 claims providing a third component constituent made of a metallic third material. Claim 1 claims the third component constituent has a recess which has an inner contour complementary to an outer contour of the second component constituent. Claim 1 claims forming a complete component assembly by arranging the first component constituent in the inner volume of the second component constituent and arranging the second component constituent in the recess of the third component constituent. Claim 1 claims sintering the complete component assembly by heating to a sintering temperature, wherein the first component constituent and/or the third component constituent is/are in the form of a powder blank having metal powder particles arranged adjoining one another, such that, when the sintering temperature is reached, the metal powder particles are sintered together and some component constituent [see the above rejection under 35 USC 112(b)] thereby experiences a volume change that remains even after cooling to below the sintering temperature in such a manner that the outer contour of the first component constituent and the inner contour of the recess of the third component constituent are displaced towards one another. Claim 1 claims the second component constituent is formed with inorganic, non-metallic fibers. Claim 11 depends on claim 1. Claim 11 claims that the first material has a coefficient of thermal expansion α1, the second material has a coefficient of thermal expansion α2 and the third material has a coefficient of thermal expansion α3, wherein α2<α1<α3.
The present office action rejects independent claim 1 over Griffin (US6009843) in view of Schunk Sintermetalltechnik (WO2021047784A1). Griffin in view of Schunk Sintermetalltechnik is the combination of prior art closest to claim 11. Griffin discloses that the first (inner) component constituent expands (column 4 lines 4-7, column 12 lines 33-36), but Griffin does not disclose expansion of a third (outer) component constituent. Schunk Sintermetalltechnik teaches expansion of the outermost component constituent against the component constituent adjoining the outermost component constituent [0052-54], but Schunk does not teach thermal expansion relative to a third component constituent. While Griffin in view of Schunk Sintermetalltechnik is sufficient to render obvious both α2<α1 and α2<α3, Griffin in view of Schunk Sintermetalltechnik does not suggest a relative degree of expansion between first and third component constituents. Claim 11 defines over Griffin in view of Schunk Sintermetalltechnik at least in claiming α2<α1<α3, which requires α1<α3.
Claim 12 depends on claim 11. Claim 12 defines over the prior art at least for the reasons given above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20070271784 discloses a method of making a hybrid component comprising a stack of coils of silicon carbide wire (30) which surrounds inner annular block (22) and is surrounded by outer annular block (21) [0030], [0032], [0034].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P O'KEEFE whose telephone number is (571)272-7647. The examiner can normally be reached MR 8:00-6:30.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (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.
/SEAN P. O'KEEFE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/ SPE, Art Unit 1738