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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 12/30/25 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 18555472 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to the extent that they apply to the current rejection. Applicant argues that the primary reference does not teach the newly added limitations (incorporated from claim 4 such that the liquid pressurizing medium is no longer optional), however, the examiner does not rely on this reference within the current rejection. Applicant’s arguments in regards to the 112 rejections applied to claims 10-12 are addressed within the 112 rejection below.
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.
Claim 10-12 is 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.
Claims 10-12, the claims are stated in such a way that the pressure sequences proceed in such a way that the pressure period of P1 is subsequently followed by P2 which is subsequently follow by P3 (P1 > P2 >P3), but the example provided (examples 5 to 50) all follow P2>P3 without an initial period of P1. To clarify further, it is unclear if P2 is replacing the step P1 (in which case the claim would fail to further limit and be subject to 112(d)) or is an additional step. The examples within the show the P2 step replacing step P1, see example 5-50.
Applicant’s response indicates that claims 10-12 may only have the singular P1 step. This interpretation is untenable given the text of the claim. For purposes of examination, the examiner has assumed that applicant intended claim 10 to only require P2>P3, claim 11 to only require P2>P3>P4, claim 12 to require P2>P3>P4>P5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20110027159) in view of Backer (US 3551946).
As to claim 1, Zhang teaches A silicon powder forming method, comprising: placing a mold filled silicon powder phrased as cold or hot isostatic pressing and referred to as the die [Abstract, 0073, 0120, 0055, 0056, 0074] in a condition for first pressure P1 for a first pressure time Ti to obtain a silicon block, wherein the first pressure P1 and the first pressure time Ti satisfy: 50 MPa<P1 1600 MPa for 7-15 min see examples [0216, 0224, 0251, 0287].
Zhang does not explicitly state the pressing occurs such that the mold is separated from the pressurizing medium by a cavity and the pressurizing medium is a liquid.
Backer teaches a method for isostatic pressing [abstract] wherein a mold is put into the cavity of a liquid impervious container (36) [Fig 1] and then put into a pressure vessel that is filled with liquid in order to compact the metal particle into a solid form as this was “economic,” prevented contamination, and also allowed for a range of powder sizes [Abstract, col 1 line 55-68, col 2 line 17-48, col 4 line 3-12]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Zhang and had the pressing occur such that the mold is separated from the pressurizing medium by a cavity and the pressurizing medium is a liquid, as suggested by Backer, in order to form a solid mass from various particle sizes in an economic manner.
As to claims 2, 10-12, Zhang teaches multiple overlapping ranges with the claimed ranges [0141, Claim 3]. Examiner further notes that as the method are currently states “comprising” there can be additional steps preceding, intermediate, or following the stated steps within the method. For example, Zhang teaches pressing 5-60 min at a pressure of 10-500 Mpa [0141]. Arbitrarily dividing the time such that a first half of the process referred to P2 and the 2nd half referred to P3 would result in the process of claim 10. Zhang notes that pressure during isostatic pressing is key, and too low a pressure results in oxidation contaminants and too high is too stressful on the pressing device [0159]. In other words, pressure is a results effective variable on oxidation and machine wear. It is well settled that the determination of the optimum value of a result effective variable, in this case pressure and time during the isostatic process, is within the skill of one practicing art, see MPEP § 2144.05 II. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize pressure during isostatic pressing to the exact values expressed by applicant, as suggested by Zhang, in order to eliminate oxidation while not degrading the pressing device.
As to claim 3, Zhang teaches a the first pressure Pi is applied by a pressurizing medium, the pressurizing medium is a fluid, and the mold filled with the silicon powder is placed in a cavity prior to the condition for first pressure Pi; and the mold and the pressurizing medium are separated by the cavity; or the pressurizing medium is filled in the cavity, and the mold is in contact with the pressurizing medium, ie hot or cold isostatic pressing [0125-0130].
As to claim 4, the combination of Zhang in view of Backer would teach the cavity is a dry environment as the container is noted to be liquid impervious and as the claimed temperature and humidity are just standard room temperature and humidity the cavity of Backer would have these properties absent teaching to the contrary.
As to claim 5, Zhang teaches the silicon powder forming method of claim 1, wherein the silicon powder has a particle size of 0.1 m to 1000 um [0082, 0083].
As to claim 6, Zhang teaches the mold comprises a first side (top of cylinder), a second side (bottom of cylinder), and a third side (length of cylinder) [0073, 0120, 0236, 0282]; and/or, the first side, the second side, and the third side receive the first pressure Pi, and a pressure deviation PD applied to the first side, the second side, and the third side satisfies: - 5MPa<PD<5MPa as the pressure is applied entirely evenly [0074, 0075].
As to claim 9, Zhang teaches that pressure is kept below pressures detrimental to the pressing device [0159], hence wear would be minimal and would meet the wear rate decrement of Go satisfies: 0<GoO< 0. 1 g/cm2. Furthermore, as the combination of Zhang and Backer teach the same mold and process as the instant invention the wear rate would be the same.
Claims 2, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20110027159) in view of Backer (US 3551946), as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-12 above, and in further view of Richman (Effect of Processing Parameters On Reaction Bonding of Silicon Nitride). Note this is an alternative rejection.
Claims 2, 10-12 are rejected in view of Zhang as explained above.
In the alternative, Richman teaches a method for pressing silicon powder [Page 63, 11, 13] and notes that pressure and time under pressure are crucial for eliminating porosity and increasing density, noting that incrementing (ie boosting) and holding is critical for allowing entrapped air to escape [Pages 97, 87, 11, 13]. In other words, pressure, time under pressure were result effective variables. It is well settled that the determination of the optimum value of a result effective variable, in this case pressure and time during the isostatic process, is within the skill of one practicing art, see MPEP § 2144.05 II. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Zhang and boosted the pressure at the rate described and optimized the pressure and time values to the exact ranges described, as suggested by Richman, in order to avoid entrapping air which would be detrimental to the porosity and density of the product.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20110027159) in view of Backer (US 3551946), as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-12 above, and in further view of Sensuke (JP 2010251740).
As to claim 12, Zhang teaches the first pressure as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach that after the pressurization process is completed, applying a first pressure relief process to the mold, wherein the first pressure relief process comprises: lowering the pressure to a pressure Pn, maintaining the pressure Pn for a continuous duration of time Tn, satisfying: 10 MPa ≤ Pn ≤ 100MPa, 1 minutes ≤ Tn ≤ 2 minutes. However, Sensuke teaches a method of manufacturing a bulk material, wherein a step of lowering pressure is carried out, the lowered pressure is a pressure of 20-300 MPa for a time period of 1 minute to 15 minute (0053). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Zhang per teachings of Sensuke in order to provide suitable conditions for producing the bulk material body with desired density (Sensuke abstract, 0053 and claim 1). It is also well-established that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20110027159) in view of Backer (US 3551946), as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-12 above, and in further view of Creative Solutions (Industrial Solutions Polyurethane Components Molding Bags and Sealing Membranes).
As to claim 7, Zhang teaches wherein the mold comprises a cover and a cylinder, and the silicon powder is filled in the cylinder [0073] but does not explicitly state and/or, the mold comprises a protective sheet provided on an outer periphery of the cover, the protective sheet covers at least a part of the cover; and/or, an edge of the cover has a step, and the step surrounds the cover.
Creative solutions teaches molding bags (ie dies) for isostatic presses depicting cylindrical dies with top and bottom covers that have an edge that surround the covers and notes these molds as “cost-effective.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Zhang and utilized a die set with a cover that had an edge that surrounded the cover, as suggested by Creative Solutions, as this configuration was cost effective and had demonstrated success at isostatic pressing.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20110027159) in view of Backer (US 3551946), as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-12 above, and in further view Polytek (Poly 74 Series RTV Liquid Rubbers).
As to claim 8, Zhang does not state the mold is made of a polyurethane material, and the polyurethane material has a density po satisfying: 1.00g/cm3<po<1.01g/cm3.
Polytek teaches polyurethane mold rubbers [see subtitle] and notes that this material makes “durable, easing releasing molds” [Description]and notes a specific volume of 27.5 in3/lb [Physical Properties table]. This value is merely the inverse of density and converting to g/cm3 results in a density of approximately 1.01 g/cm3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Zhang and utilized a polyurethane mold with a density of approximately 1.01 g/cm3, as suggested by Polytek, in order to have “durable, easing releasing molds.”
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 ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759