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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
It is unclear where the following newly-used terminology finds antecedent textual support: In Claim 10: metallurgically bonded; In Claims 21 and 25: diffusion bond; In Claim 22: under-sintering.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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 1-10 and 21-25 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 1, it is unclear what is meant by “mean sintering temperature in powdered form” in its various usages. A metal and/or metal alloy powder typically sinters at a range of temperatures below the melting point of the metal and/or alloy. The temperature at which it can begin to sinter would be expected to be dependent on conditions, such a pressure, duration, atmosphere, heating rate, and perhaps others. Thus, it is unclear what defines the sintering temperature since it would be expected that there could be a range of temperatures at which the powder would sinter for any given condition and, assuming the definition relates to beginning to sinter temperature, there are a range of conditions that could be utilized. None of the conditions is characterized nor is the possible range of conditions. As well, it is unclear how to ascertain a mean value. It is unclear whether “mean” refers to average for a particular set of conditions, for the range of conditions, or something else. If for a particular set of conditions, it is unclear how the mean is to be evaluated. If for a range, it is unclear how to assess the mean for each condition and then for the range of conditions. The Specification does not provide any apparent guidance on how this terminology is defined. To the extent applicant is relying on a standard in the art, it is unclear what that standard is. This indefiniteness applies to all dependent claims that further refer to this phrase and to independent Claim 10 which also uses this phrase.
Regarding Claim 1, to the extent that any of the respective wall sections are each formed from more than one alloy powder, it is unclear what is the requirement regarding “mean sintering temperature”. Does it relate to any of the alloys, to the mean value of all of the alloys, to the mean value with respect to conditions with respect to any of the alloys or to all of the alloys, or to something else? This rejection applies to all claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Dunn USPN 3,761,257. Dunn teaches composite bushing [Figures 4 and 5] that is formed of radially disposed sections of Fe based nickel containing alloy [col. 3, lines 70-75] and second Fe based nickel free alloy [col. 4, lines 4-9]. Dunn teaches forming by powder metallurgy of the materials to form the respective sections [col. 2, lines 35-65], which would constitute metal alloys. Dunn teaches that the materials of the respective sections differ slightly in Ni content but does not expressly refer to “mean sintering temperature” characteristic. Firstly, it would be expected that the materials of the respective sections could have difference in sintering temperature since they would be expected to have slightly different melting temperatures due to the slight difference in Ni content and since melting temperature can affect sintering temperature. Secondly, since sintering temperature is not a property inherent to any given powder material, there is no reason to expect that the articles encompassed by the claims necessarily do not encompass those of Dunn. In other words, the powders used in the respective sections could be sintered under conditions that derive from respective claimed differences being obtained since sintering temperatures can be affected by various sintering conditions as mentioned in the section 112, paragraph (b) rejections above and the claims do not specify what these conditions are or even that they need be the same with respect to the first and second metal alloys. It is noted that these requirements are not interpreted as being product-by-process limitation of a sintering process used to make the claimed bushing. Thirdly, the resulting articles in Dunn, even if the claimed “mean sintering temperature” requirement is not satisfied by Dunn’s powders, would be expected to be indistinguishable from articles that had been since Dunn’s sintered product of metal alloys in respective sections could have been achieved by using powder compositions and sizes or other conditions that would lead to articles that are the same as or substantially the same as those in Dunn. This is expected since the composition and porosity could be achievable using a range of powders. This applies to both the sintered intermediate product and the forged final product. For example, should the respective powders require closer amounts of Ni or greater difference in amount of Ni, suitable adjustments to compositions of respective compositions could have been used since Ni would be expected to diffuse through the material comparably to how it diffused in Dunn. Regarding Claims 21 and 22, Dunn teaches co-sintering to form composite (col. 2, lines 65-70), from which it would be expected that these features are achieved or substantially achieved.
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, the sintering temperature is not specified in Dunn. However, the melting temperatures would be expected to be close to that of steel of 1400oC to 1500oC, from which it follows that mean sintering temperature could be in the range claimed since sintering temperature can be significant 60-70% fraction of melting temperature. However, even if there is a discrepancy, for the reasons addressed above, it would be expected that the resulting articles would be indistinguishable since conditions can be adjusted to achieve claimed sintering temperature but such adjustments would not be expected to necessarily lead to compositional or structural differences in the resulting articles.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn USPN 3,761,257. Dunn is relied upon as set forth above in the section 102/103 rejection over Dunn. Dunn may not teach sintering temperature. Dunn teaches iron based alloy can be sintered at 1500 to 2100oF (col. 2, line 71 though col. 3, line 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to sinter the article of Dunn at effective temperature for iron based alloy, which would lead to claimed range. However, even if there is a discrepancy, for the reasons addressed above, it would be expected that the resulting articles would be indistinguishable since conditions can be adjusted to achieve claimed sintering temperature and such adjustments would not be expected to necessarily lead to compositional or structural differences in the resulting articles.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farthing USPN 10,563,695. Farthing teaches composite bushing [Figure 6] that is formed of inner radially disposed sections of Co based alloy [Figure 6, 220; col. 5, line 35; col. 7, line 18-21] and Fe based stainless steel alloy [Figure 6, 222; col. 5, lines 36-37; col. 7, lines 21-24]. Farthing teaches forming by powder metallurgy the materials to form the respective sections [col. 7, lines 38-44], which would constitute metal alloys. Farthing may not teach this configuration but teaches that it may be effective. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to prepare bushing in this configuration since Farthing suggests that it may be desirable. Farthing teaches that the materials of the respective sections differ but does not expressly refer to “mean sintering temperature” characteristic. Firstly, it would be expected that the materials of the respective sections could have difference in sintering temperature since they are generally respectively comparable to those of applicant, which achieve this characteristic. See Specification (paragraphs 22 and 23). As well, Whitaker teaches that cobalt based alloys comparable to those of Farthing sinter at 1170oC. See Whitaker USPA 2004/0237712 (paragraph 38; Table 1). As well, Kazior teaches that stainless steel alloys comparable to those of Farthing sinter at range from 1240 to 1340oC. See J. Kazior, "Sintering atmosphere, temperature, and solution-annealing treatment, ..." downloaded from thermalprocessing.com (June 2023) pp.29-35 on 29 March 2025 [Figure 5]. Secondly, since sintering temperature is not a property inherent to any given powder material, there is no reason to expect that the articles encompassed by the claims necessarily do not encompass those of Farthing. In other words, the powders used in the respective sections could be sintered under conditions that lead to respective claimed differences being obtained since sintering temperatures can be affected by various sintering conditions as mentioned in the section 112, paragraph (b) rejections above and the claims do not specify what these conditions are or even that they need be the same with respect to the first and second metal alloys. It is noted that these claimed requirements are not interpreted as being product-by-process limitation of a sintering process used to make the claimed bushing. Thirdly, the resulting articles in Farthing, even if the claimed “mean sintering temperature” requirement is not satisfied by Farthing’s powders, would be expected to be indistinguishable from articles that had been since Farthing’s sintered product of metal alloys in respective sections could have been achieved by using powder compositions and sizes or other conditions that would lead to articles that are the same as or substantially the same as those in Farthing. This is expected since the composition and porosity could be achievable using a range of powders. For example, should the respective powders require closer compositional characteristics to achieve claimed mean sintering temperature requirement, suitable adjustments to compositions of respective compositions could have been used by making powders meeting requirement and others taking on the balance of necessary ingredients which others in the balance would be expected to diffuse through the material comparably to how diffusion in Farthing occurs. Regarding Claims 9 and 23, Farthing suggests relationship (col. 2, line 7). Regarding Claims 21, 22, and 24-25, co-sintered composite would be expected to lead to these features.
Regarding Claims 5, 6, 10, and 25, the sintering temperature is not specified in Farthing. However, since the materials are comparable to those of applicant, it would be expected that they could sinter at comparable temperatures and thus meet the claimed requirements of mean sintering temperature. However, even if there is a discrepancy, for the reasons addressed above, it would be expected that the resulting articles would be indistinguishable since conditions can be adjusted to achieve claimed sintering temperature but such adjustments would not be expected to necessarily lead to compositional or structural differences in the resulting articles.
Regarding Claims 7, 8, 10, and 25, Farthing teaches suggests claimed compositions as addressed above.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 10, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farthing USPN 10,563,695 in view of Dunn USPN 3,761,257. Farthing is relied upon as set forth above in the section 103 rejection over Farthing. Farthing may not teach sintering temperature. Dunn teaches iron based alloy can be sintered at 1500 to 2100oF (col. 2, line 71 though col. 3, line 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to sinter the article of Farthing at effective temperature for iron based alloy, which would lead to claimed range. It would lead to sintering at claimed temperatures for Co alloy as well since they overlap as claimed and since Dunn’s temperature includes the overlapping temperature. However, even if there is a discrepancy, for the reasons addressed above, it would be expected that the resulting articles would be indistinguishable since conditions can be adjusted to achieve claimed sintering temperature and such adjustments would not be expected to necessarily lead to compositional or structural differences in the resulting articles.
Response to Amendment
In view of applicant’s amendments and arguments, applicant traverses the section 112, paragraph (b) rejection of the Office Action mailed on 3 April 2026. Regarding “mean sintering temperature” applicant argues that the added co-sintering features should rectify any difficulties in ascertaining meaning. While one of ordinary skill in the art can ascertain that the sections are sintered, it is unclear how this added feature removes indefiniteness issue as to what characteristic respective powder alloys must have. What if the difference were 200 degrees centigrade? How would it be determined that this configuration is to be excluded based on applicant’s argument? Regarding multiple alloy powders, applicant explains that there is to be “single recited alloy”, but it is unclear where is this language. Rejection is maintained except to the extent not repeated above.
In view of applicant’s amendments and arguments, applicant traverses the section 102/103 rejection over Hunsche and the section 103 rejection over Hunsche in view of Dunn of the Office Action mailed on 3 April 2026. Rejection is withdrawn.
In view of applicant’s amendments and arguments, applicant traverses the section 102/103 rejection over Dunn and the section 103 rejection over Dunn of the Office Action mailed on 3 April 2026. Applicant argues that Dunn does not teach co-sintered affixed composite. However, Dunn teaches co-sintering (col. 2, lines 65-70) to form composite. Applicant makes various arguments about Dunn’s failure to specify mean sintering temperatures and reliance on inherency arguments for the rejections, which reliance applicant considers invalid. This argument could possibly be persuasive were there certainty about what applicant is claiming such that it could not encompass Dunn. The possibilities raised in the rejection relate to doubts about what the language means as opposed to doubts about what Dunn teaches. It is repeated that Dunn’s respective compositions vary only slightly in terms of Ni and so the claimed difference would be expected for this reason alone in addition to the fact that applicant’s now-claimed co-sintering, which is supposed to mitigate concerns about what the difference means, is taught. Regarding Claims 5 and 6, applicant argues that the rejection relies on estimate of what mean sintering temperature could be as opposed to what it is in Dunn and that Dunn does not teach structural feature. The rejection is appropriate because mean sintering temperature depends on conditions, which is why there is range specified in cited reference and which conditions are not claimed, and because Dunn teaches co-sintered structural composite. Thus, there is no evidence that the claimed difference is not taught and substantial evidence that the claimed difference is met.
In view of applicant’s amendments and arguments, applicant traverses the section 103 rejection over Farthing and the section 103 rejection over Farthing in view of Dunn of the Office Action mailed on 3 April 2026. Applicant argues that Farthing does not teach co-sintering. However, Farthing refers to this feature (col. 2, lines 38: “united during sintering”; col. 7, lines 40-44: “sintered as a single pressed part”, “radial layered bushings”), which renders obvious what applicant argues is not taught. Applicant argues that mean sintering temperature is not expressly taught and that argued values could range to 170 degrees centigrade. What is being claimed remains indefinite, and so the argument that what applicant means by this parameter is not taught is not persuasive. Furthermore, the difference of about 170 degrees centigrade, to the extent that it is a correct assessment, is close to or abutting to “about 150”, rendering obvious what is claimed since the property associated with this feature would be expected to be the same with this difference, if there is a difference, is co-sintering capability which is what Farthing suggests is achieved in Farthing as addressed above. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant’s Specification associates “about” with wide range in that it can be 10% (paragraph 15). Rejections are maintained.
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 MICHAEL E. LA VILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1539. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. from 9:00 a.m. ET to 5:30 p.m. ET.
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, Humera N. Sheikh, can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/MICHAEL E. LA VILLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
7 August 2026
Prosecution Insights