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 .
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS submitted by the applicants have been reviewed. It is noted that reference cited of YOSHIZAWA (WO 2018/087945 A1), see claims, paragraphs [0033], [0037], [0040], [0041], [0049], [0056]-[0062], and wherein, with priority of US 2019/0233949 A1, paragraphs [0050, 0053-0054, 0062, 0069-0075]) is of note.
YOSHIZAWA describes a method for manufacturing an electrode for electrical discharge surface treatment, the method including: an electrode powder formation step for pulverizing a feedstock powder comprising an alloy containing Cr to form a large-particle-diameter powder and a small-particle-diameter powder; a granulation step for mixing and granulating the large-particle-diameter powder and the small-particle-diameter powder to form a granulated powder; a compression molding step for compression-molding the granulated powder and molding a powder compact; and a firing step for heating and firing the powder compact to obtain the electrode comprising a sintered body, wherein oxygen is adsorbed on surface of the electrode powder, the
mixing ratio of the large-particle-diameter to the small-particle-diameter is preferably 30 mass% or more and less than 100 mass% of the large-particle-diameter powder, and a Cr-containing Ni alloy is used as a metal material. In the examples, it is disclosed that the pressure during compression molding is 25-35 MPa and the temperature during firing is 750- 950°C.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIZAWA (US 2019/0233949 A1, from IDS).
Re 1, YOSHIZAWA teaches of an electrode for discharge surface treatment (see [0011]), comprising:
a sintered body (see [0011]) in that a metal micro-powder having a median diameter of 3 micrometers or smaller and a metal macro-powder having a median diameter larger than 3 micrometers and not larger than 10 micrometers are sintered together (see [0011, 0045, 0047, 0070]), wherein the metal micro-powder and the metal macro-powder include Cr and oxygen (see [0045-0046, 0062]),
YOSHIZAWA does not specifically teach of “and wherein an oxide content rate of the sintered body is 1.5 mass% or higher and 4.0 mass% or lower.”
Though, YOSHIZAWA does teach of the oxide layer of the wear resistant coating, see [0079-0081] and of the oxide layers, and of the variation of the mass percent of the particles, see [0034-0038]. It is noted that the YOSHIZAWA reference teaches of Cr-containing mass, see [0034-0036] which overlaps with the claimed mass % in the instant specification, see [0025-0027], further teaches of varying of Al oxide and Y oxides, see [0036]. Whereupon, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the composition of YOSHIZAWA which in turn would change the oxide content particularly in relation to the sintered body.
Re 4 (upon 1), wherein the oxygen content rate of the sintered body is 2.0 mass% or higher and 3.8 mass% or lower. See teaching for claim 1 above, regarding adjustment of the composition that may affect the oxygen content, see teaching of in the first oxide layer, see [0080].
Re 5 (upon 1), wherein an electric resistivity of the sintered body is not smaller than 3 mΩ∙cm and not larger than 30 mΩ∙cm. (see YOSHIZAWA, [0057] of resistivity of 1-30 mΩ∙cm, which overlaps with the claimed resistivity.)
Although the reference does not explicitly state the claimed range, there is an overlapping ranges taught in the reference and the claimed range. Here, regarding the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Re 6 (upon 1), wherein a density of the sintered body is not smaller than 3 g/cm3 and not larger than 5 g/cm3.
(See YOSHIZAWA teaching of the density of the green compact being 3.5-4.5 g/cm.sup.3., [0053].)
Although the reference does not explicitly state the claimed range, there is an overlapping ranges taught in the reference and the claimed range. Here, regarding the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Re 7 (upon 1), wherein a content rate of the metal macro-powder is higher than 0 mass% and not higher than 70 mass% where a sum of the metal micro-powder and the metal macro-powder is 100 mass%.
(see teaching of YOSHIZAWA, [0072], with the claimed mass%.)
Re 8 (upon 1), wherein the metal micro-powder and the metal macro-powder are formed of a metal material with identical alloy components, and wherein the metal material is a Cr-containing Co alloy, a Cr-containing Ni alloy or a Cr-containing Fe alloy.
See YOSHIZAWA, [0045].
Re 9, YOSHIZAWA teaches a production method for an electrode for discharge surface treatment (see [0011]), comprising: an electrode powder formation step for forming an electrode powder including a metal micro-powder having a median diameter of 3 micrometers or smaller and a metal macro-powder having a median diameter larger than 3 micrometers and not larger than 10 micrometers (see teaching of the particles in YOSHIZAWA, see 0047, [0049-0050]), wherein the metal micro-powder and the metal macro-powder include Cr and oxygen (see [0045-0046, 0078]); a granulation step for mixing and granulating the metal micro-powder and the metal macro-powder to form a granulated powder (see teaching by YOSHIZAWA of the granulation, see [0050]); a compression molding step for compressing and molding the granulated powder under a pressure of from 20 MPa to 300 MPa to form a compressed body (see teaching by YOSHIZAWA [0053] of press at 10 MPa to 30 MPa, whereby overlapping with the claimed pressure range); and a firing step for firing the compressed body at from 450 degrees C to 950 degrees C to form a sintered body (see teaching by YOSHIZAWA [0056] of sintering at 750-1000C, which overlaps with the claimed firing range).
Although the reference does not explicitly state the claimed range, there is an overlapping ranges taught in the reference and the claimed range. Here, regarding the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Re 12 (upon 9), (same limitation as claim 7) (see YOSHIZAWA, [0072].)
Re 13 (upon 9), wherein, in the compression molding step, the compressed body is finally pressed by cold hydrostatic pressing under a smaller pressure as a mixing ratio of the metal macro-powder is larger. (see [0054] of YOSHIZAWA.)
Re 14 (upon 9), wherein, in the firing step, the compressed body is fired at a higher temperature as a mixing ratio of the metal macro-powder is larger. (see teaching regarding mixing ratio of the powders, see [0050].)
Re 15 (upon 9), wherein the metal material is a Cr-containing Co alloy, a Cr-containing Ni alloy or a Cr-containing Fe alloy. (overlapping limitation with claim 8, see teaching by YOSHIZAWA [0045].)
Claim(s) 2-3 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIZAWA as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of BUSCHOW (US 6045751 A).
Re 2 (upon 1), wherein the metal macro-powder has a median diameter not smaller than 8.5 micrometers and not larger than 10 micrometers. See teaching YOSHIZAWA teaching of the large particle size being 8 micrometers or less, [0011].
Wherein, the teaching of such mixture can be seen in BUSCHOW of the general teaching of mixing powders of different materials for compressing and sintering (see abstract), and of mixing for a homogenous mixture of two different sized particles, see Col. 2, line 62 to Col. 3, line 4, of the average particle size of the powder of the GA alloy ranging form 2-10 micrometers, and the average particle size of the NdFeB powder ranging from 10-100 micrometers, this concept of two different sizing of the particles, particularly with overlapping ranges of the sizes being known for mixing to form a sintered body.
Although the reference does not explicitly state the claimed range, there is an overlapping ranges taught in the reference and the claimed range. Here, regarding the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of YOSHIZAWA with the larger particles to be over 8-10 micrometers, as taught by BUSCHOW as known particle size ranges for mixing to form a homogenous mixture for sintering, this is seen under KSR rationale, see MPEP 2143, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Re 3 (upon 2), wherein the metal macro-powder has a 10% accumulated particle diameter not smaller than 3 micrometers and a 90% accumulated particle diameter not smaller than 12 micrometers and not larger than 15 micrometers. See teaching by BUSCHOW that includes claiming of the size particle distribution which encompasses the claimed limitation.
Re 10 (upon 9), (same limitation as claim 2, see teaching above.)
Re 11 (upon 10), (same limitation as claim 3, see teaching above.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 form.
FAN (US 2024/0207930 A1) teaches of methods for making a sintered body, with fine coarse metal powder and a second coarse metal powder, of different sizes, see Figs.
HORATA (JP 2001098301 A) teaches of two different sized granulated powder used in forming sintered bodies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 5.
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, Xiao S Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights