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
The amendment filed 06/17/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-11 is/are pending in this application and examined herein. Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are amended.
The objection(s) to claim(s) 1 is/are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim(s) 1.
The rejection(s) under 35 USC 112(b) to claim(s) 9 is/are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim(s) 9.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Care et al. (US 20170225230 A1, cited in Office Action dated 05/18/2026) in view of Hailey (US 3689259 A, cited in IDS filed 10/02/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Care teaches a method for manufacturing an article (Title, abstract), comprising charging at least one hopper 66A-66E with steel powder 68D (Fig. 3, [0011, 0025]). Care teaches discharging the oxide stripped steel powder into a canister (i.e., a can) that provides a mould for the article [0011, 0015], and converting the steel powder to solid steel by hot isostatic pressing to form the article [0029, 0033].
Care teaches supplying inert atmosphere such as argon, helium, or nitrogen, to the steel powder 68A-66E in the hoppers 66A-66E [0099] which does not have impurities to react or contaminate the powder metal [0099], however Care does not teach supplying an oxide stripping medium to the steel powder in the hopper or removing oxide stripping medium and any oxide particles stripped from the steel powder.
Hailey teaches a method for manufacturing a metallic body (i.e., an article) from powder (Title, abstract) by hot isostatic pressing (Col. 5 lines 13-17) where the powder may be steel (Col. 4 lines 60-68), thus Hailey and Care are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to processes for producing articles by hot isostatic pressing of steel powder. Hailey teaches supplying inert or reducing gas atmospheres (i.e., an oxide stripping medium) in the process (Col. 6 lines 16-19) for protecting heating equipment, refractory grain, and/or the product being consolidated (Col 6 lines 19-21). Hailey teaches hydrogen may be provided as the reducing gas (i.e., the oxide stripping medium) (Col. 6 lines 38-39) which reacts with many materials (i.e., reducing them) (Col. 6 lines 39-42), where as hydrogen and oxide particles would both be consumed in the reaction, Hailey teaches removing the oxide stripping medium and any oxide particles stripped from the steel powder from the at least one hopper. Hailey teaches hydrogen is an example of a reducing gas available in pure form in quantity at an acceptable cost (Col. 6 lines 38-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a hydrogen reducing gas atmosphere to the process as doing so would protect equipment and the product being consolidated, with a gas available in pure form in quantity at acceptable cost as taught by Hailey.
Further, because Care is silent with respect to a complete list of suitable atmospheres in the process, in order to carry out the invention of Care one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching gases suitable as atmospheres for metal powders before hot isostatic pressing within the process of Care, such as that of hydrogen taught by Hailey.
Regarding claim 2, Hailey teaches wherein the oxide stripping medium is hydrogen gas (Col. 6 lines 38-51).
Regarding claim 3, Care teaches wherein the hoppers 66A-66E are frustoconical in shape (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Care teaches wherein the oxide stripped steel powder is discharged through valves 70A-E (i.e., powder exit ports) formed in the hoppers 66A-66E into the can 52 (Figure 3, [0083]).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Care in view of Hailey as applied to claim 1, further in view of Gudlauski et al. (US 4571089 A, , cited in Office Action dated 05/18/2026).
Regarding claims 4-5, Care in view of Hailey does not teach wherein the at least one hopper includes a mixing apparatus or wherein the at least one hopper is rotatable about an axis.
Gudlauski teaches a machine for blending and degassing powders (Title), particularly metal powders (Col. 1 lines 6-8), where the metal powder degassing comprises filling the interior of the machine with gas (Col. 4 lines 6-9), thus Gudlauski and Care in view of Hailey are analogous as both relate to methods of treating metal powders with gas atmospheres. Gudlauski teaches the machine holds the metal powder 18 inside a shell 20 (Figure, Col. 2 lines 44-64) and has a valved opening 32 for discharging the powder (Figure, Col. 2 lines 58-62), thus the machine is analogous to a hopper. Gudlauski teaches the shell 20 of the hopper rotates about a horizontal axis, blending the powder (i.e., wherein the at least one hopper includes a mixing apparatus, wherein the at least one hopper is rotatable about an axis) (Figure, Col. 1 line 62-Col. 2 line 9, Col. 2 line 65-Col. 3 line 11). Gudlauski teaches the blending ensures constant motion within the powder and continuous interchange of the particles in contact with the heater tube 60 (Figure, Col. 3 lines 60-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a blending machine as taught by Gudlauski as the hoppers of Care, as doing so would incorporate constant motion within the powder and continuous interchange of the particles as taught by Gudlauski, which would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to ensure the metal powder is provided uniformly.
Regarding claim 6, Care in view of Hailey does not teach wherein the oxide stripping medium and oxide particles stripped from the steel powder are removed from the at least one hopper through an oxide stripping medium and oxide particles exit port formed in the at least one hopper.
Gudlauski teaches a machine for blending and degassing powders (Title), particularly metal powders (Col. 1 lines 6-8), where the metal powder degassing comprises filling the interior of the machine with gas (Col. 4 lines 6-9), thus Gudlauski and Care in view of Hailey are analogous as both relate to methods of treating metal powders with gas atmospheres. Gudlauski teaches the machine holds the metal powder 18 inside a shell 20 (Figure, Col. 2 lines 44-64) and has a valved opening 32 for discharging the powder (Figure, Col. 2 lines 58-62), thus the machine is analogous to a hopper. Gudlauski teaches the machine comprises a gas tube 45 comprising passageway 46 which allows for the introduction or removal of gases from the shell interior of the machine (i.e., an oxide stripping medium and oxide particles exit port formed in the at least one hopper) (Figure, Col. 3 lines 12-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a gas tube with a passageway as taught by Gudlauski to the hopper of Care, as doing so would allow for introduction and removal of gases from the shell interior of the hopper as taught by Gudlauski, which would be desired by Care as Care in view of Hailey teaches introducing reducing gases into the hopper. As Hailey teaches the use of different atmospheres throughout the different stages of the process (Hailey: Col. 6 lines 9-15), one of ordinary skill would recognize that gases such as the reducing gases (i.e., the oxide stripping medium) would need to be removed from the hopper in order to use a different atmosphere. As hydrogen undergoing reduction reactions forms water (i.e., oxide particles), and the hopper is maintained at temperatures of e.g., 2000-2200 or 2300-2400 °F (Hailey: Col. 5 lines 51-74), the water would be in gas form, and would also be removed by the gas tube during removal of the hydrogen gases (i.e., wherein oxide particles stripped from the steel powder are removed from the at least one hopper as claimed).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Care in view of Hailey as applied to claim 1 above, further in view Jones et al. (US 20210346952 A1, cited in Office Action dated 05/18/2026)
Regarding claim 8, Care teaches wherein the oxide stripped steel powder is discharged from a plurality of hoppers 66A-E (Fig. 3, [0081]) into the can through a plurality of powder exit ports 70A-E formed in the plurality of hoppers (Fig. 3, [0081]).
Hailey in view of Care does not teach a plurality of powder inlets formed in the can.
Jones teaches a method of isostatic pressing (Title, abstract), where a component is fabricated by providing a canister and filling a cavity in the canister with powdered material (Abstract), wherein the powdered material may be metal powder [0065], thus Jones and Hailey are analogous to the instant specification as both are directed to methods of producing articles by hot isostatic pressing. Jones teaches a plurality of powder inlets 14 formed in the can 11 for filling the can with powder (Fig. 2A-B, [0044-0045]).
It has long been held that it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06 (II). As in the instant case Hailey in view of Care only differs from claim 7 in that the instant claim uses a plurality of powder inlets formed in the can, while Hailey in view of Care uses an open top to the can, and Jones uses a plurality of powder inlets formed in the can, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have substituted plurality of powder inlets formed in the can of Jones into the method of Hailey in view of Care to supply the steel powder, as the powder is supplied to the inside of the can in either case.
Regarding claim 9, Jones teaches wherein the powder inlets are substantially equally spaced apart in order to evenly fill the can with the steel powder (Fig. 2A-B, [0044-0045]) as best can be examined in view of the rejection of claim 9 over 35 USC 112(b) above.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Care in view of Hailey as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hoelzer (The Use of Powder Metallurgy and Hot Isostatic Pressing for Fabricating Components of Nuclear Power Plants, supplied with Office Action dated 05/18/2026).
Regarding claims 10-11, Care in view of Hailey does not teach wherein the article is a vessel or wherein the vessel is a nuclear reactor pressure vessel.
Hoelzer teaches the use of powder metallurgy and hot isostatic pressing for fabricating components of nuclear power plants (Title), where steel powder is used to produce the components by hot isostatic pressing (pg. xiii Executive Summary paragraphs 1-2), thus Hoelzer and Care are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to methods of forming articles from steel powder by hot isostatic pressing. Hoelzer teaches the components produced include large components used in the manufacture of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) (pg. xiii Executive Summary paragraph 1, pg. 1 1. Introduction), where the lower reactor head, an upper reactor head, a steam plenum, steam plenum accesses ports, and the upper transition shell of the RPV are produced by hot isostatic pressing (i.e., the RPV) (pg. xiii paragraph 3), thus Hoelzer teaches hot isostatic pressing to form an article wherein the article is a vessel and the vessel is a nuclear reactor pressure vessel. Hoelzer teaches hot isostatic pressing produces components without internal defects and nonuniform grain structures, and have isotropic mechanical properties, which correspond to growing interest in producing larger nuclear reactor components by hot isostatic pressing (pg. 3 paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have produced a nuclear reactor pressure vessel as the article produced as taught by Hoelzer using the method of Care, as Hoelzer teaches hot isostatic pressing to be advantageous for producing RPVs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see pg. 5-9 of remarks, filed 06/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 under 35 USC 102 and/or 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Care (US 20170225230 A1) in view of Hailey (US 3689259 A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nikolas T Pullen whose telephone number is (571)272-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571)-272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/NIKOLAS TAKUYA PULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights