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
Claims 6–9 and 43 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 24, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hosoya et al. (JPH 11-37981 A), hereinafter referred to as Hosoya.
Regarding claim 17, Hosoya teaches, “A reference standard [0021]for use in nondestructive inspection, the reference standard comprising: a first metallic body ([0016]; ref. # 1); a second metallic body (2) diffusion bonded to the first metallic body along a seamless interface (left, right, and center areas of 2, shown by ref. # 4 in Fig. 1, 2) defined by a first bonding surface of the first metallic body and a second bonding surface of the second metallic body, wherein at least one of the first metallic body and the second metallic body forms a recess (5, 7 formed in 2) at a predetermined location proximate the seamless interface (left, right, and center areas of 2, shown by ref. # 4 in Fig. 1, 2); and a predetermined quantity of a contaminant material (8) having a predetermined composition positioned within the recess (8 in 7 of 2; see para. [0001, 0013–0021]).”
Regarding claim 18, Hosoya teaches, “wherein the contaminant material is completely surrounded by the first metallic body and the second metallic body (8 surrounded by 1 and 2).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 10, 12–16, 20, 40, and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosoya (JPH 11-37981 A) in view of "The Advantages & Disadvantages of Metal Injection Molding" by Nicholas Portland (published February 13, 2023), hereinafter referred to as Portland, and evidenced by Ferri et al. (US Pub. # 20110033334), hereinafter referred to as Ferri.
Regarding claim 1, Hosoya teaches, “A method for manufacturing a reference standard comprising a known defect (see para. [0001]; see also [0013–0021]), the method comprising: fabricating a first metallic body and a second metallic body (Fig. 1, 2; ref. # 1, 2; para. [0013]): positioning a predetermined quantity of a contaminant material having a predetermined composition between a first bonding surface of the first metallic body and a second bonding surface of the second metallic body (Fig. 1B, ref. # 7, 8; para. [0016]); and diffusion bonding the first bonding surface of the first metallic body to the second bonding surface of the second metallic body to yield a bonded article (ref. # 3, 4, 7, 8; para. [0019]).” Hosoya does not appear to teach, “wherein at least one of the first metallic body and the second metallic body is fabricated from a metallic powder feedstock by metal injection molding.” However, Portland teaches the deficiencies of Hosoya (see pages 1, 2, 4; describing manufacturing of metal parts using MIM and benefits of doing so). Furthermore, Ferri discloses a process of manufacturing a component of titanium alloy using injection molding (see abstract) from a metallic powder feedstock (see para. [0016]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hosoya’s invention to include wherein at least one of the first metallic body and the second metallic body is fabricated from a metallic powder feedstock by metal injection molding.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Hosoya’s invention for at least the purpose of reducing defects and reducing variability of parts produced with intricate internal structures of complex shapes, also ensuring maximum repeatability of production and parts produced with excellent hardness and strength.
Regarding claim 2, Hosoya teaches, “wherein the contaminant material comprises a contaminant material density and the first metallic body comprises a bulk density, and wherein the contaminant material density is substantially less than the bulk density [0016].”
Regarding claim 10, Hosoya teaches, “wherein the positioning the predetermined quantity of the contaminant material comprises positioning the predetermined quantity of the contaminant material at a predetermined location between the first bonding surface of the first metallic body and the second bonding surface of the second metallic body [0016].”
Regarding claim 12, Hosoya teaches, “forming a recess in the first bonding surface of the first metallic body, wherein the positioning the predetermined quantity of the contaminant material comprises positioning the predetermined quantity of the contaminant material in the recess [0016].”
Regarding claim 13, Hosoya teaches, “wherein the first bonding surface and the second bonding surface are configured to meet in intimate contact [0010].”
Regarding claim 14, Hosoya teaches, “wherein, after the diffusion bonding, processing the bonded article [0019].”
Regarding claim 15, Hosoya teaches, “wherein the processing comprises at least one of hot isostatic pressing, cold isostatic pressing, machining, heat-treating, and plating [0019].”
Regarding claim 16, Hosoya teaches, “repeating the positioning and the diffusion bonding to manufacture a plurality of reference standards, each reference standard of the plurality of reference standards comprising a unique known defect [0016].”
Regarding claim 20, Hosoya teaches, “A method for manufacturing a reference standard comprising a known defect (see para. [0001]; see also [0013–0021]), the method comprising: fabricating a first metallic body and a second metallic body (Fig. 1, 2; ref. # 1, 2; para. [0013]), forming a recess in the first bonding surface of the first metallic body (5, 7 formed in 2); positioning a predetermined quantity of a contaminant material (8) having a predetermined composition within said recess (Fig. 1B, ref. # 7, 8; para. [0016]): positioning the second bonding surface of the second metallic body in intimate contact with the first bonding surface (1 in contact with 2 at left, right, and center areas; see Fig. 1, 2); and diffusion bonding the first bonding surface of the first metallic body to the second bonding surface of the second metallic body to yield a bonded article (ref. # 3, 4, 7, 8; para. [0019]), and wherein the forming the recess comprises at least one of drilling the first metallic body, punching the first metallic body, and scratching the first metallic body (see para. [0015]; holes are formed by “machining”).” Hosoya does not appear to teach, “wherein at least one of the first metallic body and the second metallic body is fabricated from a metallic powder feedstock by metal injection molding.” However, Portland teaches the deficiencies of Hosoya (see pages 1, 2, 4; describing manufacturing of metal parts using MIM and benefits of doing so). Furthermore, Ferri discloses a process of manufacturing a component of titanium alloy using injection molding (see abstract) from a metallic powder feedstock (see para. [0016]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hosoya’s invention to include wherein at least one of the first metallic body and the second metallic body is fabricated from a metallic powder feedstock by metal injection molding.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Hosoya’s invention for at least the purpose of reducing defects and reducing variability of parts produced with intricate internal structures of complex shapes, also ensuring maximum repeatability of production and parts produced with excellent hardness and strength.
Regarding claim 40, Hosoya teaches, “A reference standard for use in nondestructive inspection, the reference standard comprising: a first metallic body (1); a second metallic body (2) diffusion bonded to the first metallic body along a seamless interface (ref. # 3, 4, 7, 8; para. [0019]); a recess (5, 7 formed in 2), positioned at a predetermined location proximate the seamless interface; and a contaminant material (8) having a predetermined composition received in the recess (8 in 7 of 2; see para. [0001, 0013–0021]).” Hosoya does not appear to teach, “wherein at least one of the first metallic body and the second metallic body is fabricated from a metallic powder feedstock by metal injection molding.” However, Portland teaches the deficiencies of Hosoya (see pages 1, 2, 4; describing manufacturing of metal parts using MIM and benefits of doing so). Furthermore, Ferri discloses a process of manufacturing a component of titanium alloy using injection molding (see abstract) from a metallic powder feedstock (see para. [0016]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hosoya’s invention to include wherein at least one of the first metallic body and the second metallic body is fabricated from a metallic powder feedstock by metal injection molding.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Hosoya’s invention for at least the purpose of reducing defects and reducing variability of parts produced with intricate internal structures of complex shapes, also ensuring maximum repeatability of production and parts produced with excellent hardness and strength.
Regarding claim 62, Hosoya teaches, “wherein the forming the recess comprises at least one of drilling the first metallic body, punching the first metallic body, and scratching the first metallic body (see para. [0015]; holes are formed by “machining”).”
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosoya, Portland, and Ferri as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshida et al. (JP 2007-78350 A), hereinafter referred to as Yoshida.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Hosoya, Portland, and Ferri do not necessarily teach, “wherein the contaminant material comprises a carbonaceous material; wherein the contaminant material comprises graphite.” However, Yoshida teaches the deficiencies of Hosoya, Portland, and Ferri (5 in 4). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hosoya, Portland, and Ferri’s invention to include wherein the contaminant material comprises a carbonaceous material; wherein the contaminant material comprises graphite.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the combination of Hosoya, Portland, and Ferri’s invention for at least the purpose of using highly reproducible and highly chemically inert materials which are structurally stable over a wide temperature range, allowing the materials to be used throughout the lifetime of testing without degradation.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosoya, Portland, and Ferri as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Podlech (US Pat. # 4729235).
Regarding claim 5, Hosoya discloses the use of different contaminants (para. [0016]) but does not necessarily teach, "wherein the first metallic body comprises a titanium alloy, wherein the second metallic body comprises the titanium alloy, and wherein the contaminant material comprises graphite." However, Podlech teaches the deficiencies of Hosoya, Portland, and Ferri (see col. 2, ln. 38-46). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hosoya, Portland, and Ferri's invention to include wherein the first metallic body comprises a titanium alloy, wherein the second metallic body comprises the titanium alloy, and wherein the contaminant material comprises graphite.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Hosoya, Portland, and Ferri 's invention for at least the purpose of ensuring sufficient strength at the joint and reducing the chances of producing separate indications during testing, such as ultrasonic sensing.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosoya in view of Podlech (US Pat. # 4729235).
Regarding claim 19, Hosoya discloses the use of different contaminants (para. [0016]) but does not necessarily teach, "wherein the first metallic body comprises a titanium alloy, wherein the second metallic body comprises the titanium alloy, and wherein the contaminant material comprises graphite." However, Podlech teaches the deficiencies of Hosoya (see col. 2, ln. 38-46). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hosoya's invention to include wherein the first metallic body comprises a titanium alloy, wherein the second metallic body comprises the titanium alloy, and wherein the contaminant material comprises graphite.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Hosoya's invention for at least the purpose of ensuring sufficient strength at the joint and reducing the chances of producing separate indications during testing, such as ultrasonic sensing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks (applicant’s pages 7–9, 11–16), filed March 11, 2026, with respect to the 102 rejections of independent claims 1, 20, and 40 (and the claims dependent therefrom) as anticipated by Hosoya, the 102 rejections of independent claims 1 and 17 (and the claims dependent therefrom) as anticipated by Yoshida, and the 102 rejections of claims 1 and 17 as anticipated by Podlech, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102 rejections of claims 1, 20, and 40 (and their related dependent claims) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed March 11, 2026 with respect to the 102 rejection of independent claim 17 as anticipated by Hosoya and the 103 rejection of original claim 11 (now included in claim 1) of Hosoya in view of Portland have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the arguments directed to the combination of Hosoya and Portland (see remarks, applicant’s pages 7–9, and 16), applicant states, “Portland discloses main advantages of the metal injection molding process and some disadvantages to help one determine if the process is the right manufacturing solution for your product. The main advantages include: 1) complex geometries, 2) cost-effectiveness, 3) consistent quality, 4) material selection and 5) density and strength. The disadvantages include: 1) start-up costs, 2) tooling lead times and 3) design change costs. Metal injection molding is beneficial due to the ability to cost-effectively manufacture large quantities of complex parts. In the aerospace industry, for example, metal injection molding is useful for the production of engine components, airframe components, avionics components and spacecraft components. Notably, Portland does not mention the use of metal injection molding for manufacturing a reference standard. Moreover, the claimed reference standard is generally considered a special tool for inspection and testing of components that are manufactured using metal injection molding processes. The advantage of using metal injection molding to manufacture the generally lower quantity of reference standards is to more closely resemble the higher production part and its known contaminants and/or defects.
In contrast to the combination of Hosoya and Portland, amended Claim 1, for example, requires a method for manufacturing a reference standard to include the fabrication of at least one metallic body from a metallic powder feedstock by metal injection molding.”
The Office disagrees with applicant’s conclusions. Hosoya, as shown in the rejections of independent claims 1, 17, 20, and 40 above, teaches two metallic bodies (1 and 2) positioned with a seamless surface (3 of 1 contacting left, center, and right areas of 2, see Fig. 1 and 2), with a recess (area at ref. #5 including ref. # 7, which are proximate the seamless surface between ref. # 1 and 2) having contaminant material (8) between the bonding surfaces (between 1 and 2). Notably, Hosoya’s teaching of ref. # 8 in hole/recess/opening (7) teaches the claimed, “between” surfaces or “within recesses” as claimed. Furthermore, Portland was introduced for teaching fabrication and manufacturing of metal parts using MIM, and further describing benefits thereof. Ferri is introduced as supporting evidence for showing a process of manufacturing a component of titanium alloy using injection molding (see abstract) from a metallic powder feedstock (see para. [0016]). Therefore, because manufacturing metal parts using MIM and using a metallic powder feedstock is a well-known process as evidenced by the combination of Portland and Ferri with Hosoya, the fabricating step by injection molding from a metallic powder feedstock does not distinguish over the prior art.
Applicant further argues (regarding claim 20 and new claim 62; see remarks at applicant’s page 11), “Hosoya does not mention the use of metal injection molding, drilling, punching or scratching processes.” However, as shown in the rejections above, Hosoya in combination with Portland and evidenced by Ferri teaches the metal injection molding limitations, and Hosoya (see para. [0015]) teaches the drilling or scratching processes, via it’s “machining” teachings.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights