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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has been entered. Claims 1-21 and 25 are pending. Claims 22-24 and 26-36 are cancelled. Replacement drawings have overcome the objections to the drawings. Amendment has overcome the objection to claim 15 for minor informalities. Deleting “thin walled” from independent claim 1 has overcome the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b) for thin walled as a relative term. Providing explicit antecedent basis for the compressive force in claim 19 has overcome the rejection of claim 19 for uncertain antecedent basis for the compressive force. Amendment has overcome the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) of claim 21 for both broad and narrow ranges for the same quantity within the same claim.
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 18 and 20 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.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected for indefiniteness in view of the word “fixture”. The specification does not appear to define what “fixture” means and/or is and the Examiner is unable to determine the meaning of ‘fixture’ from the drawings. Is ‘fixture’ intended to be a synonym for ‘vessel’ or a synonym for ‘arrangement’? The claims are indefinite because it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are in view of the phrase “a fixture”.
In remarks filed August 7, 2026, applicant argues that “ . "Fixture" is a term of ordinary mechanical meaning, denoting a device that holds or supports a workpiece during a manufacturing operation. The specification confirms this understanding: page 7, lines 1-5 describe that the assembly of sub-components is placed in a fixture for the second heating step, the fixture having a coefficient of thermal expansion lower than the material of the component and optionally an anti-diffusion coating; page 14, lines 11-13 and 28-30 describe Figure 2's step of placing the assembly in fixture 60 after assembly to constrain it during the second heating step, with the fixture's lower coefficient of thermal expansion causing it to exert a compressive force. Applicant notes that page 14, lines 11-13, is the very passage the Office cited in the drawing objection. The enclosed replacement drawing sheets correct the figure order so that Figure 2 now shows fixture 60 as described in the specification, resolving the drawing inconsistency that appears to have given rise to the Office's concern.” This argument does not resolve the uncertainty as to what is or is not a “fixture”. Both an assembly and a vessel can meet what applicant’s remarks describe as a “fixture”. Character 60 in Fig. 2 shows the “fixture” as a fuzzy boundary of indeterminate shape, which is not sufficient to describe what is or is not a fixture. Considering the word “fixture” encompasses such diverse, and often conflicting structures, what is or is not a “fixture” in view of claims 18 and 20 remains indefinite.
The structure recited in amended claim 19, which depends on claim 18, in view of applicant’s arguments is sufficient to define what is or is not a fixture; therefore, the “fixture” as recited in claim 19 is not indefinite to a point of rejection under 35 USC 112(b). The structure in claim 20 is not sufficient to clarify what is or is not a “fixture” because coatings and paint can be applied to nearly all types of engineering structures.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11-12, 16-17, 21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison et al. (U.S. 2009/0183850) in view of Orange et al. (U.S.2017/0120329). Morrison and Orange were cited in prior office action(s).
Regarding claim 1, Morrison et al. (hereinafter “Morrison”) teaches a method of making a combustion turbine component (meeting claimed ‘sintered component’) including (screenshot of Figure 2 below):
PNG
media_image1.png
554
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the interest of the clarity of the record, step 22 partially maps to the claimed feature requiring “creating a plurality of sub-components using additive manufacturing, said sub-components comprising a shaped powder preform, including a powder material and a binder” except that Morrison does not expressly identify binder jetting but does disclose broadly at Paragraph [0044] and [0045] that describe various additive manufacturing processes are suitable and that any of the listed DMF processes or other processes known to those of skill in the art may be used.
Paragraph [0020] teaches that the component may have interfaces between adjacent ones of the plurality of metallic combustion turbine subcomponent greenbodies (meeting claimed ‘the sub-components having an outer surface including one or more protruding portions having one or more bonding faces configured to interface with at least one of the one or more bonding faces of a neighbouring sub-component’).
Step 23 partially meets the claimed step of ‘assembling said sub-components to form an assembly of sub-components, having one or more bonding interfaces where the bonding faces of adjacent sub-components meet, except that Applicant’s claim requires the first heating to occur before assembling
Step 24 partially meets the claimed ‘heating the plurality of sub-components in a first heating step to at least partially sinter the sub-components’, except that Applicant’s claim requires the assembling to occur after the first heating,
And step 25 meets the claimed ‘heating the assembly of sub-components in a second heating step to bond the sub-components together to form the component’ because the sintering of the assembly would bond the sub-components together to form the turbine component.
To make the record clear, Morrison does not teach that the sub-components are manufactured by way of binder jetting or the claimed order of the ‘first heating’ and ‘assembling’ steps.
Orange et al. (hereinafter “Orange”) teaches a method for making a nickel-based superalloy turbine blade by binder jetting (Abstract, Example 1, starting paragraph [0027]) wherein the turbine blade is printed using a jetted polymeric binder, heated to 175C and held for several hours to cure the binder, cooled, removed from the powder bed and then subject to sintering, followed by cooling.
It would be obvious to combine the teachings of Morrison and Orange so as to produce a fully densified turbine part by way of binder jet additive manufacturing and sintering because Morrison appreciates that the component can be precisely formed and may take a variety of complicated shapes (Paragraph [0005]) while Orange appreciates that binder jetting is a simpler, less expensive and much higher throughput process (Paragraph [0004]). Thus, it would be obvious to select Orange’s binder jetting and first heating, before Morrison’s assembling of the sub-components, followed by sintering so as to create a turbine component in a simpler, less expensive manner while achieving complicated shapes that are precisely formed.
In KSR, the Supreme Court particularly emphasized “the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art” and reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that ‘the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results’ KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 415, 82 USPQ2d 1395 (2007).
In the instant case, the use of the known method of binder jetting to produce a sintered turbine component appears to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Morrison and Orange teach the method as applied to claim 1 above and Morrison further teaches that the subcomponents have a dimension that is less than 200 microns (Paragraph [0058] and Figure 12) which lies within the claimed range of ‘less than 2 mm’. Morrison discloses that the structure with a thickness of less than 200 microns is a physical portion of the sintered component which increases the surface area of a passage [0058], [0064]. A physical structure with a defined thickness which increases the surface area of a passage meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a wall.
Regarding claim 3, Morrison and Orange teach the method as applied to claim 1 above and Orange further teaches a first heating step to cure the binder (meeting BRI of claimed ‘partially sintering’) followed by sintering (Example 1).
Regarding claim 4, Morrison and Orange teach the method as applied to claim 1 above neither Morrison or Orange expressly teach that the first heating step fully sinters the subcomponents. However, both Morrison and Orange teach dual heating steps (i.e. a first heating step to cure or activate the binder and a second heating step, i.e. the sintering). Morrison particularly teaches that a bond coating that may be formed on the turbine component after sintering and a thermal barrier coating may be formed on the bond coating (Paragraphs [0041] and [0042]). If the bond coating is considered the ‘second heating step’ and the sintering is ‘the first heating step’, the sintering would be a full sintering. Notably, the breadth of the claim permits the interpretation that other heating steps not limited to sintering are permissible.
It has been held that the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946).
Regarding claim 5, Morrison and Orange teach the method as applied to claim 1 above and Morrison further teaches the formation of internal cooling passages (Paragraph [0058]) which meets the feature requiring “a recessed portion for defining a cavity in the sintered component between sub-components” as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, Morrison and Orange teach the method as applied to claim 1 above and Morrison further teaches the formation of internal cooling passages (Paragraph [0058]) which meets the feature requiring “an inner surface defining a first passage, a first end and a second end; wherein the first passage extends from said first end to said second end through the subcomponent and having a central axis A extending from the first end to the second end” as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, Morrison and Orange teach the method as applied to claim 1 above and Morrison further teaches that the sintering reduces internal voids through a combination of plastic deformation, creep, and diffusion bonding (Paragraph [0040]) and it is generally known that sintering would increase the density of the final article such that the sintering would result in the sealing of the assembled bonding interfaces such that the article’s passageways become individually fluid tight.
However, in the alternative, changes in shape are generally held to be prima facie obvious where new or unexpected results are not achieved. In the instant case, a particular arrangement/shape is not implicitly required that would be exclusive of the plurality of internal cooling passages. Moreover, the methods of Morrison and Orange both acknowledge the use of additive manufacturing to create articles with complicated shapes.
Regarding claim 11, Morrison and Orange teach the method as applied to claim 1 above and Morrison teaches another embodiment where an activatable binder is positioned between adjacent subcomponent greenbodies (Paragraph [0052]) before sintering such that the activatable binder meets the claimed ‘bonding material’.
Regarding claim 12, Morrison and Orange teach the method as applied to claim 11 above and Morrison further teaches that the activatable binder may be the same material as the plurality of subcomponent greenbodies mixed with a suitable binding agent such as a polymer or plastic binder (Paragraph [0052]) which meets the claimed feature requiring ‘further powder material or a mixture of further powder material and further binder’.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Morrison and Orange teach the method as applied to claim 1 above but are silent to expressly identifying compressive forces at the bonding interfaces between the sub-components during the second heating step wherein the bonding faces of the sub-components are arranged such that gravity provides the compressive force. However, it is expected that the sintering process and/or gravity would create a compressive force at the bonding faces of the sub-components absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 21, Morrison and Orange teach the method as applied to claim 1 above and Orange teaches that the sintered turbine blade possessed a density of 96.8% (Example 1).
Regarding claim 25, Morrison and Orange teach the method as applied to claim 1 above and both references teach that the powder material is a pure metal, alloy, or composite that can be sintered (Paragraph 0047 of Morrison and Example 1 of Orange).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison and Orange as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gibson et al. (U.S.2020/0009795). Gibson is cited in prior office action(s).
Regarding claim 10, Morrison and Orange teach the method as applied to claim 1 above but are silent to a step of partially debinding the sub-components before the second heating step.
Gibson et al. (hereinafter “Gibson”) teaches materials and methods for forming interface layers between objecting being 3D printed (Abstract) and particularly teaches that chemical and/or thermal debinding steps may be needed to remove polymer binders from metal objects after they are printed (Paragraph [0011]).
Thus, it would be obvious to at least partially debind the sub-components after printing and before sintering (i.e. the second heating step) so as to remove the binders used in the binder jet printing before full densification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the comments directed to claims 7, 9, and 13-15 starting pages 18 and 20 of applicant’s reply, filed August 7, 2026, with respect to claims 7, 9, and 13-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 6, 7, and 13-15 under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejections of claims 18-20 under 35 USC 112(b), applicant argues that “ "Fixture" is a term of ordinary mechanical meaning, denoting a device that holds or supports a workpiece during a manufacturing operation. The specification confirms this understanding: page 7, lines 1-5 describe that the assembly of sub-components is placed in a fixture for the second heating step, the fixture having a coefficient of thermal expansion lower than the material of the component and optionally an anti-diffusion coating; page 14, lines 11-13 and 28-30 describe Figure 2's step of placing the assembly in fixture 60 after assembly to constrain it during the second heating step, with the fixture's lower coefficient of thermal expansion causing it to exert a compressive force. Applicant notes that page 14, lines 11-13, is the very passage the Office cited in the drawing objection. The enclosed replacement drawing sheets correct the figure order so that Figure 2 now shows fixture 60 as described in the specification, resolving the drawing inconsistency that appears to have given rise to the Office's concern.” This argument is not persuasive in resolving uncertainty regarding the claimed fixture because both an assembly and a vessel can meet what applicant’s remarks describe as a “fixture”. Character 60 in Fig. 2 shows the “fixture” as a fuzzy boundary of indeterminate shape, which is not sufficient to describe what is or is not a fixture. Even applicant’s arguments are broad enough to encompass a concrete building or a sintering furnace, and applicant need only perform a simple internet search to find examples wherein a building or furnace is referred to as a fixture. If “fixture” is intended to refer to some specific structure, please claim that structure, provided such structure is supported by the disclosure as filed.
Of the features which applicant argues as indicating “fixture” as definite, only that regarding the thermal expansion relative to the material of the component, as recited in dependent claim 19 is sufficient to clarify what is or is not considered a “fixture” in view of the disclosure as filed.
Regarding rejections of claims 1-9, 11-17, 21 and 25 over US2009/0183850 to Morrison et al. (hereinafter "Morrison") in view of US2017/0120329 to Orange et al. (hereinafter "Orange") under 35 USC 103, applicant argues that Morrison assembles "a plurality of metallic combustion turbine subcomponent greenbodies together to form a metallic greenbody assembly" and only thereafter sinters the assembly in a single sintering step. This argument is not persuasive in overcoming the rejection over Morrison in view of Orange because Morrison discloses creating a plurality of sub-components using additive manufacturing, said sub-components comprising a shaped powder preform, including a powder material and a binder [0044-45], and Orange teaches Orange teaches that manufacturing from powder material and a binder comprises such heating (abstract, Example 1 starting [0027]). Manufacturing the specific components in the combination of Morrison in view of Orange would therefore include such heating. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145(IV).
Arguments that Morrison defines a greenbody as "an unsintered metallic combustion turbine subcomponent that lacks strength and has both a low density and high porosity compared to a sintered metallic body" are not persuasive because Morrison is explicitly open to selective laser sintering as a process for forming sub-components [0044-45], and Morrison describes selective laser sintering (SLS) as a process which “uses a high powered laser to fuse the particles of a metal powder into a mass representing a desired three dimensional object” [0045]. Morrison is, therefore at least open to partially sintering the sub-components.
Arguments that step 24 of Morrison pre-sinters the assembly are not persuasive in overcoming the rejection of the combination of Morrison in view of Orange because Morrison forms the individual sub-components by additive manufacturing material powder and binder [0044-45], and Orange teaches that additive manufacturing techniques at least partially sinter manufactured articles (abstract, Example 1 starting [0027]). Applying the manufacturing technique taught by Orange to specifically forming the sub-components disclosed by Morrison would heat the sub-components prior to assembly. Again, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145(IV).
As Morrison explicitly considers selective laser sintering to form the sub-components [0044-45], Applicant’s arguments that paragraph [0017] of Morrison forfeits sintering the sub-components relying on inferences that Morrison does not state, cannot be persuasive. A person of ordinary skill in the art reading Morrison would understand that selective laser sintering comprises at least partial sintering.
Pointing out that Morrison discloses that assemblies may be sintered and then joined as described in paragraph [0043] of Morrison is not persuasive in overcoming the rejection over Morrison in view of Orange because the process Orange (abstract, example 1 starting [0027]) is applied to forming the individual subcomponents, and Morrison is open to such additive manufacturing in forming sub-components [0044-45], and Morrison discloses that forming the sub-components occurs in step 22, whereas sintering the assembled component is step 25, and Morrison shows that step 22 occurs before step 25 (Fig. 2). The combination of Morrison in view of Orange is not a reordering of the steps, as argued by applicant but is an incorporation of a heating step to form the sub-components as taught by Orange (abstract, Example 1 [0027]) into a step to which Morrison is open to such incorporation [0044-45]. As the combination of Morrison in view of Orange does not encompass reordering the steps disclosed by Morrison, arguments that interpret the combination of Morrison in view of Orange as reordering the method disclosed by Morrison are not persuasive.
The references to in re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) to which applicant’s remarks refer were and currently are only applied to dependent claim 4 which is limited to full sintering in one of the heating steps, and the reference to Burhans supports the sintering disclosed by Morrison in view of Orange as the first heating step and a later heating as the second heating step. Regarding applicant’s two points regarding Burhans, which applicant, and not examiner, applies to independent claim 1, Fig. 2 disclosed by Morrison provides sufficient framework for an order in which subcomponents are first formed, then somewhat fixed in shape, and then sintered in a later step, and Orange (abstract, example 1 [0027]) provides sufficient support for why such a formation and shape fixation would comprise at least partial sintering. Regarding applicant’s remarks that the precedent of Burhans cannot serve as rationale, Burhans was never applied to support the specific rejections of claim 1, and the rejections of both claim 1 and claim 4 provide more rationale than Burhans citation to support the rejection over the combination of Morrison in view of Orange. The results which applicant argue for performing claimed steps in a particular order would result from forming the subcomponents by binder jetting and sintering as taught by Orange (abstract, Example 1 [0027]), then assembling and sintering the assembly as disclosed by Morrison (Fig. 2), to which Morrison is open because of the breadth with which Morrison discloses forming subcomponents [0044-45] prior to sintering an assembly (Fig.2). Applicant’s argued results, therefore, would not be persuasive over Morrison in view of Orange, in combination.
Applicant’s arguments that that the rejection does not articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made the specific modification that claim 1 requires, is not persuasive because the very reason which applicant quotes wherein it would have been obvious "to select Orange's binder jetting and first heating, before Morrison's assembling of the sub-components, followed by sintering so as to create a turbine component in a simpler, less expensive manner while achieving complicated shapes that are precisely formed," supported by Morrison's appreciation that components may be precisely formed in complicated shapes and Orange's appreciation that binder jetting is simpler, less expensive, and higher in throughput. (Office Action, page 8) is more than sufficient to motivate one of skill in the art at the time of filing to apply binder jetting and sintering, as taught by Orange to the step of forming subcomponents to which Morrison is open [0044-45].
Arguments that the application of binder jetting to forming the subcomponents of Morrison would leave subcomponents entirely in a green state are not persuasive because Morrison encompasses embodiments comprising some degree of sintering the subcomponents [0044-45]; therefore, Morrison is not limited to fully unconsolidated intermediate greenbodies.
Arguments that partially sintering subcomponents then assembling the components then joining the assembled components in a subsequent heating would not have been predictable in view of the art, are not persuasive because Morrison discloses forming the subcomponents by selective laser sintering ([0044-45], Fig. 2) and then assembling these components and heating ([0048], Fig. 2). Morrison would have been predicted to be suitably applicable to presintering subcomponents prior to assembly because Morrison encompasses a prior step of at least partially sintering preforms [0044-45]. Arguments that selective laser sintering does not at least partially sinter will not be persuasive because Morrison discloses that selective laser sintering at least partially sinters [0045].
Arguments that Orange does not teach or suggest creating a plurality of sub-components, assembling sub-components, or a second heating step to bond sub-components together are not persuasive because the prior rejection, presently maintained relies on Morrison, not on Orange to meet creating a plurality of sub-components, assembling the subcomponents, and bonding subcomponents together. Again, cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145(IV). The rejection does not rely solely on generic teachings of binder jet additive manufacturing but also on the advantages and steps which Orange discloses for binder jet additive manufacturing (abstract, [0004-05], Example 1, [0027]).
Applicant’s arguments regarding Orange's 175 °C applied to meet a partial sintering cannot be persuasive in overcoming the rejection of independent claim 1 because present and prior office actions only apply the heat curing step to meet partial sintering in dependent claim 3. Applicant is more than welcome to review prior office actions. Arguments that heat curing would not meet a partial sintering are not persuasive because heat curing is a process by which heat is applied to bind or solidify a loose or unbound structure, which does meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of partial sintering. Orange suggests that curing has such result [0017]. If applicant has a narrower definition of partial sintering, applicant should claim such definition, provided such definition is supported by the disclosure as filed.
Applicant’s argument that Morrison’s disclosure of surface features and to internal surface features of cooling passages, which Morrison describes as being provided in order to increase surface area for heat transfer are not a wall are not persuasive because Morrison teaches that the subcomponents have a dimension that is less than 200 microns (Paragraph [0058] and Figure 12); Morrison discloses that the structure with a thickness of less than 200 microns is a physical portion of the sintered component which increases the surface area of a passage [0058], [0064]. A physical structure with a defined thickness which increases the surface area of a passage meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a wall, thereby satisfying applicant’s request to identify Morrison’s wall.
With respect to claim 4, applicant’s argument that the applied interpretation improperly recasts Morrison's post-sintering bond coating operation as the claimed second heating step is not persuasive because a coating step, and therefore a coating step, which comprises heating is a step which binds a coating constituent of an assembly to a substrate constituent of an assembly, thereby meeting the function of claim 1 which applicant argues the application of art to claim 4 improperly recasts. Claims 1 and 4 do not appear to disclaim a joining subcomponent wherein subcomponents are joined together (as in located within a common assembly) with a coating in an assembly. Claim 1 does not recite bonding subcomponents to one another, rather claim 1 recites bonding subcomponents together. Components in a common assembly are together.
With respect to claim 8, applicant’s arguments that the Office’s states that "it is generally known that sintering would increase the density of the final article such that the sintering would result in the sealing of the assembled bonding interfaces such that the article's passageways become individually fluid tight are not persuasive amount to an unsupported assertion of general knowledge are not persuasive because Morrison discloses that sintering increases density and reduces porosity [0048], and Orange teaches that sintering can achieve 100% density [0021]. As a material sintered to 100% density is completely non-porous, fluid cannot permeate such an article, and that article is fluid-tight; therefore, the art of record supports the assertion which applicant argues as unsupported.
With respect to claims 16 and 17, applicant’s arguments that the statements of the rejection amount to unsupported assertions are not persuasive because the arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. Claim 16 claims “applying a compressive force to the bonding interfaces between the sub-components during the second heating step” which is open to any infinitesimal degree of compressive force, and claim 17 claims the bonding faces of the sub-components are arranged such that gravity provides said compressive force” which is open to any minor force applied by gravity. Morrison discloses that the step of sintering the assembled subcomponents comprises pressing [0040], which is more than sufficient to meet the compressive force of any unspecified magnitude recited in claim 16, and any additional pressing by gravity regardless of how minor is sufficient to meet the additional limitations recited in claim 17. If applicant intends claims 16 and 17 to recite specific degrees of compression, applicant should claim such degrees of compression, provided such limitations are supported by the disclosure as filed.
With respect to claim 21, arguments that Orange's 96.8% density is the density of the finished, sintered article after Orange's single sintering step, are not persuasive in overcoming the rejection over Morrison in view of Orange, because the rejection applies the teachings of Orange to form the subcomponents not the assembled article. Again, Morrison is open to additive manufacturing to cause partial sintering as the specific step for forming the subcomponents [0044-45], which Morrison assembles and sinters in a later step [0040], [0048].
Regarding claim 10, applicant argues that Gibson (U.S.2020/0009795) does not remedy applicant’s perceived deficiencies of Morrison in view of Orange with respect to limitations recited in independent claim 1. This argument is not persuasive for the reasons given above, with respect to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9, 13-15, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claim 1 claims a method for making a sintered component. Claim 1 claims creating a plurality of sub-components using binder jetting additive manufacturing. Claim 1 claims said sub-components comprise a shaped powder preform, including a powder material and a binder. Claim 1 claims the sub-components have an outer surface including one or more protruding portions having one or more bonding faces configured to interface with at least one of the one or more bonding faces of a neighbouring sub-component. Claim 1 claims heating the plurality of sub-components in a first heating step to at least partially sinter the sub-components. Claim 1 claims assembling said sub-components to form an assembly of sub-components, having one or more bonding interfaces where the bonding faces of adjacent sub-components meet. Claim 1 claims heating the assembly of sub-components in a second heating step to bond the sub- components together to form the component. Claims 6, 9, 13, and 18 depend directly on claim 1. Claim 7 depends on claim 6, and claim 19 depends on claim 18. Claim 6 claims the sub-components further include an inner surface defining a first passage, a first end and a second end; wherein the first passage extends from said first end to said second end through the sub component, and having a central axis A extending from the first end to the second end, and claim 7 further claims the sub-component includes a first protruding portion of the respective sub-component extends radially at or near the first end and a second protruding portion of the respective sub-component extends radially at or near the second end, and said protruding portions tesselate at their respective bonding faces in the sintered component such that the cavity forms a second passage perpendicular to the central axes A. Claim 9 claims creating the protruding portions having external planar faces defining a polygon in cross section and said external faces are the bonding faces. Claim 13 claims adding a non-powder processed structure to the sub-component before assembly of the sub-components to form the assembly of sub-components. In remarks filed August 7, 2026, applicant argues “that a mixture whose principal constituent is the powder material is not a non-powder processed structure. The claimed structure is, by its terms, not processed from powder; a powder-plus-binder mixture is the opposite”, thereby clarifying on record that non-powdered process structure is not sufficiently broad to encompass constituents of a powder mixture from which the subcomponents are formed. Claim 18 claims the assembly of sub- components is placed in a fixture for the second heating step. While claim 18 remains uncertain as to what is or is not a fixture, claim 19, which depends on claim 18, resolves this uncertainty in claiming the fixture has a coefficient of thermal expansion lower than the material of the component for providing a compressive force at the bonding interfaces between the sub-components during the second heating step.
The present office action rejects independent claim 1 and dependent claim 6 over Morrison et al. (U.S. 2009/0183850) in view of Orange et al. (U.S.2017/0120329). Morrison in view of Orange is the combination of prior art of record closest to claims 7, 9, 13, and 19. Regarding both claim 7 and claim 9, the previous examiner in prior office action(s) referred to the cooling passages disclosed by Morrison [0058] to render obvious the features of claims 7 and 9. Internal cooling passages, in and of themselves, do not necessitate or suggest the specific geometry of protruding portions which tesselate at their respective bonding faces or external planar faces, which are bonding faces, defining a polygon in cross section. As these features appear functional and not aesthetic, claim 7 defines over Morrison in view of Orange, at least in claiming protruding portions tesselate at their respective bonding faces in the sintered component such that the cavity forms a second passage perpendicular to the central axes A. Claim 9 defines over Morrison in view of Orange at least in claiming creating the protruding portions having external planar faces defining a polygon in cross section and said external faces are the bonding faces. As noted by applicant, prior office action(s) by the previous examiner relied upon Morrison's activatable binder, which is described as the same material as the subcomponent greenbodies "mixed with a suitable binding agent such as a polymer or plastic binder" (Morrison, paragraph [0052]), as meeting the claimed "non-powder processed structure." Claim 13 defines over Morrison in view of Orange and applicant’s remarks, at least in claiming adding a non-powder processed structure to the sub-component before assembly of the sub-components to form the assembly of sub-components. As noted by applicant, the previous examiner did not reject claims 18-20 over prior art in prior office action(s). Morrison discloses the step of sintering the assembly of assembled subcomponents by isostatic pressing [0040]. As isostatic pressing requires structure which can transfer compression to sintered components, containers or molds for isostatic pressing ideally have similar or higher expansion coefficients than the consolidated material, it is unlikely that a fixture in which the assembly of subcomponents is placed would have a lower coefficient of thermal expansion in view of Morrison. Claim 19 defines over Morrison in view of Orange at least in claiming the assembly of sub- components is placed in a fixture for the second heating step (by dependence on claim 18) and that the fixture has a coefficient of thermal expansion lower than the material of the component for providing a compressive force at the bonding interfaces between the sub-components during the second heating step.
Yoshizawa (US20160221081) discloses sintered component, comprising: creating a plurality of sub-components using metal injection molding, said sub-components comprising a shaped powder preform, including a powder material and a binder; the sub-components having an outer surface including one or more protruding portions having one or more bonding faces configured to interface with at least one of the one or more bonding faces of a neighbouring sub-component; heating the plurality of sub-components in a first heating step; assembling said sub-components to form an assembly of sub-components, having one or more bonding interfaces where the bonding faces of adjacent sub-components meet, heating the assembly of sub-components in a second heating step to bond the sub- components together to form the component (Figs. 1-4). Claims 7, 9, 13, and 19 define over Yoshizawa in view of a secondary reference that teaches binder jetting as an alternative to metal injection molding at least in claiming the geometric features of claims 7 and 9, adding some non-powder processed structure to the sub-component before assembly in claim 13, and the thermal expansion coefficient limitation of claim 19.
The present application is a member of the patent family which also includes foreign applications CN202280045062.7 and JP2023579105. Both CN202280045062.7 and JP2023579105 cite a family member of Schuh (US 20240154474) as the single closest prior art reference. Claims 7, 9, 13, and 19 define over Schuh in view of secondary references at least in claiming the geometric features of claims 7 and 9, adding some non-powder processed structure to the sub-component before assembly in claim 13, and the thermal expansion coefficient limitation of claim 19.
Claims 14 and 15 depend on claim 13. Claims 14 and 15 define over the prior art, at least for the reasons given above with respect to claim 13.
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 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
Prosecution Insights