CTNF 18/571,491 CTNF 91495 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/18/2023 and 12/21/2023 have been considered by the examiner. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Drawings 06-22-01 The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “60” in Figure 2 as described at Page 14 lines 11-13. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The method of claims 13, wherein the adding…” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-21 and 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. Independent claim 1 recites in part “a thin walled, sintered component…”. The specification does not appear to provide a definition of the word ‘thin’. In the absence of a definition or other disclosure that would implicitly constrain the meaning of ‘thin’ and/or ‘thin walled’, the claims are indefinite because ‘thin’ and/or ‘thin walled’ is relative and/or subjective language that would not permit the public to know where infringement would begin. Notably, dependent claim 2 recites in part “…wherein thin walled comprises a wall thickness of less than 2 mm” but this does not resolve the indefiniteness issue because it is unclear how ‘thin walled’ would comprise a wall thickness of less than 2 mm. If claim 2 was intended to define what Applicant means by ‘thin walled’, then amended language should be provided to make the claims clear. For example, and non-inclusive of all options available to Applicant, if the claims were amended such that the sintered component is required to have a wall feature with a thickness of less than 2 mm, that would be definite but sufficient support for such language would need to be confirmed. Claims 18-20 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”. Claim 19 depends from claim 18 which depends from claim 1 but the limitation “…for providing the compressive force at the bonding interfaces” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. It is noted that claims 16 and 17 describe ‘applying compressive force to the bonding interfaces…’. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 21 recites the broad recitation “80-100% of full density”, and the claim also recites “98-100% of full density during the first heating step or to 80-95% of full density during the first heating step or to 95-99% of full density during the first heating step” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-9, 11-17, 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) . Regarding claim 1 , Morrison et al. (hereinafter “Morrison”) teaches a method of making a combustion turbine component (meeting claimed ‘thin walled, 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) 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’. 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 7 , Morrison and Orange teach the method as applied to claim 6 above and Morrison further teaches the formation of internal cooling passages (Paragraph 0058) which meet the feature requiring “the sub-component [to include] 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”. Notably, the inclusion of a plurality of the internal cooling passages would create arrangements of the channels, protrusions, ends, and surfaces that meet the BRI of these claimed features. 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 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. Regarding claim 9 , 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 meet the feature requiring “creating the protruding portions having external planar faces defining a polygon in cross section and said external faces are the bonding faces”. Notably, the inclusion of a plurality of the internal cooling passages would create arrangements of the channels, protrusions, ends, and surfaces that meet the BRI of these claimed features. 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 claim 13 , Morrison and Orange teach the method as applied to claim 1 above and Morrison further teaches that an 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 ‘a non-powder processed structure’ that is applied before assembly of the sub-components to form the assembly of sub-component because the mixture of the material with the binding agent would meet the BRI of a ‘non-powder processed structure’ and the application of such activatable binder between adjacent ones of the plurality of subcomponent greenbodies would occur before assembly of the sub-components. Regarding claim 14 , Morrison and Orange teach the method as applied to claim 13 above but Morrison and Orange are silent to the feature requiring ‘the non-powder structure’ to be a foil structure. However, the arrangement and/or formation of the material and binding agent to form the activatable binder of Morrison into a foil structure is prima facie obvious because it is a change in shape that does not appear to produce an unexpected result. Regarding claim 15 , Morrison and Orange teach the method as applied to claim 13 above but Morrison and Orange are silent to the feature requiring the adding of the non-powder structure includes a supplementary heating step for bonding the non-powder structure to the sub-component. However, a supplementary heating step would be obvious to apply before binding so as to encourage the binder to spread across the intended surfaces of the subcomponents. Moreover, it is noted that Morrison expressly teaches the inclusion of a melting point depressor in the activatable binder (Paragraph 0052) which would suggest to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that heat would be applied to cause the binder to spread across the intended surfaces of the subcomponents. 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) . 07-22-aia AIA 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 Gisbon et al. (U.S. 2020/0009795) . 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 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Barua et al. “Binderjet Additive Manufacturing for Complex Heat Exchanger Geometries” disclosing trifurcating heat exchanger geometry printed by way of binderjet and followed by sintering that achieves approximately 95-99% relative density and emphasizing wall thickness controllability and Rowlands et al. “Additive Manufacturing of barium titanate based ceramic heaters with positive temperature coefficient of resistance (PTCR)” disclosing prototype honeycomb lattices with high density achieved by robocasting and sintering that pave the way for light weight heaters suitable for automotive/aerospace applications and less material wastage during device fabrication . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA M MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-8502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm, 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. ALEXANDRA M MOORE Primary Examiner Art Unit 1738 /ALEXANDRA M MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738 Application/Control Number: 18/571,491 Page 2 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 18/571,491 Page 3 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 18/571,491 Page 4 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 18/571,491 Page 5 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 18/571,491 Page 6 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 18/571,491 Page 7 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 18/571,491 Page 8 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 18/571,491 Page 9 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 18/571,491 Page 10 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 18/571,491 Page 11 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 18/571,491 Page 12 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 18/571,491 Page 13 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 18/571,491 Page 14 Art Unit: 1738