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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 6/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/26/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 5: amend “stainless steel a steel type” to “stainless steel, a steel type”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 and 4 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 “a steel type” in line 5. The addition of the word “type” extends the scope of the claims so as to render them indefinite since it is unclear what “type” is intended to convey. The addition of the word “type” to the otherwise definite expression renders the definite expression indefinite by extending its scope. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. App. 1955).
Regarding dependent claims 2 and 4, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
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 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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Szewczyk-Nykiel, Aneta et al. “Sinter-Bonding of AISI 316L and 17-4 PH Stainless Steel,” Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance, Volume 27(10) October 2018 (hereinafter “Nykiel”).
Regarding claim 1, Nykiel teaches a sinter-bonding method to produce AISI 316L/17-4 PH components by conventional powder metallurgy technology (Nykiel, Abstract). Nykiel further teaches using a powder layering method and co-pressing to prepare green compacts by first filling a die with an appropriate amount of AISI 316L powder, slightly shaking and pressing to flatten the powder, then adding an appropriate amount of 17-4 PH powder on the top of the flattened 316L powder, slightly shaking and the uniaxially co-pressing the powders to form the green compacts (Nykiel, pg. 5272 “2. Experimental Procedure”). The green compacts are then sintered in a hydrogen atmosphere at temperatures of 1200, 1250, or 1300°C for 60, 90, or 120 minutes to obtain a sintered component (Nykiel, pg. 5272 “2. Experimental Procedure”).
Nykiel teaches the temperature of start shrinkage of the 316L powder was 990.4°C and for the 17-4 PH powder was 947.4°C, i.e., a difference of 43°C (Nykiel, pg. 5275, Table 4). Nykiel further teaches that nickel and molybdenum diffuse into 17-4 PH and copper diffuses into 316L and that these increased concentrations show the formation of an interdiffusion zone between the 17-4PH layer and the 316L layer (Nykiel, pg. 5277, paragraph 1). Nykiel teaches the AISI 316L stainless steel powder comprises 12.3 wt.% Ni, 2.2 wt.% Mo, and a balance of Fe and the 17-4 PH stainless steel powder comprises 4.28 wt.% Ni, 4.04 wt.% Cu, and a balance of Fe (Nykiel, pg. 5273, Table 1).
The sintered component of Nykiel corresponds to a composite sintered compact of claim 1. The AISI 316L stainless steel powder forming half of the sintered component of Nykiel corresponds to a first portion composed of a sintered compact of a first stainless steel of claim 1. The 17-4 PH stainless steel powder forming the second half of the sintered component of Nykiel corresponds to a second portion composed of a sintered compact of a second stainless steel of claim 1.
The two types of stainless steels of Nykiel corresponds to a steel type of which is different from that of the first stainless steel of claim 1. The interdiffusion zone of Nykiel corresponds to the second portion being diffusion-bonded to the first portion at an interface thereof of claim 1.
Given that the sintered component of Nykiel would have an outside surface of both the AISI 316L steel and the 17-4 PH steel, a surface where the first portion is exposed is defined as a first surface and a surface where the second portion is exposed is defined as a second surface would be provided as claimed. Moreover, as the step difference can be zero microns, i.e., missing altogether, the lack of a teaching of the step in Nykiel would still fall within the claimed range of 0-100 µm.
Given the materials and method of making the sintered component of Nykiel are substantially identical to the materials and method of making (see specification [0066-0084]) the composite sintered compact as used in the present invention, as set forth above, it is clear that a difference between the light reflectance of the first surface during polishing and the light reflectance of the second surface during polishing would inherently be 2% or greater as presently claimed.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 2, given the materials and method of making the sintered component of Nykiel are substantially identical to the materials and method of making (see specification [0066-0084]) the composite sintered compact as used in the present invention, as set forth above, it is clear that a difference between the Vickers hardness of the first surface and the Vickers hardness of the second surface would inherently be 300 or less as presently claimed.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 3, Nykiel teaches the AISI 316L stainless steel powder comprises 12.3 wt.% Ni, 2.2 wt.% Mo, and a balance of Fe and the 17-4 PH stainless steel powder comprises 4.28 wt.% Ni, 4.04 wt.% Cu, and a balance of Fe (Nykiel, pg. 5273, Table 1), which fall within the requirements of claim 3. Moreover, Nykiel teaches the copper diffuses into the AISI 316L about 150µm and the molybdenum diffuses into the 17-4 PH layer about 150µm (Nykiel, pg. 5278, Figures 9 and 10), which both fall within the claimed ranges of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, given the materials and method of making the sintered component of Nykiel are substantially identical to the materials and method of making (see specification [0066-0084]) the composite sintered compact as used in the present invention, as set forth above, it is clear that when the first surface and the second surface are subjected to a re-polishing at a polishing amount of 100 µm, |Ra-Rb|, Ra being the light reflectance of the first surface before the re-polishing, and Rb being the light reflectance of the first surface after the re-polishing would inherently be 10% or less as presently claimed.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE CARDA whose telephone number is (571)270-1240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-4:00 EST.
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.
/DANIELLE M. CARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights