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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 10/10/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Japanese application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 4/3/2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because NPL Ref #1 was not included. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant makes the following arguments:
1) Tahir in view of Schnell does not suggest disposing brazing material on cracks in a single powder compact. This argument is not persuasive. Schnell is relied upon to teach that it is known in the art to use braze material to repair cracks. Applicant has provided no indication that cracks which result from compacting powder are so distinct from other kinds of cracks that there is no expectation of success in using the crack repair process of Schnell for the single powder compact cracks described in Tahir. Applicant also has provided no justification why one of ordinary skill in the art would not seek to repair a crack from compacting powder using methods known in the art for repairing a crack, even if those methods are directed to repairing cracks that form for different reasons. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive. Tahir teaches the existence of cracks in the stepped part of a single powder compact, and Schnell teaches the use of brazing material to repair cracks. It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the art to dispose a brazing material on a crack for the purpose of repairing the crack.
2) Tahir in view of Schnell does not teach applying a brazing material prior to sintering. Neither Tahir nor Schnell is relied upon for this step. Knopp teaches that brazing and sintering can be performed simultaneously. Simultaneous brazing and sintering presuppose that brazing material is applied before sintering. Moreover, even if the prior art combination did not suggest brazing and sintering simultaneously, but instead suggested brazing after sintering, changing the order of process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.C.
3) The cited references do not teach that the brazing material reacts with metal powder, causing a melting point of the brazing material that has reacted to rise, and then solidifies due to the increased melting point. This argument is not persuasive. The limitation in question effectively describes the process of brazing. As evidenced by Harimoto et al. (“Progressed Sinter Brazing Technology Enables the Production of Complex Shaped Parts”), the phenomenon described in the claims occurs when brazing Fe-based metal powder with a Cu-Ni-Mn brazing material (p. 72, § 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahir et al. (“Fracture in metal powder compaction”) in view of Schnell et al. (US 2008/0017694) and Knopp (US 4,029,476).
Regarding claim 3, Tahir teaches forming a single powder metal compact having a stepped region (p. 1533, § 3.4). The compact is for sintering (p. 1528, § 1). The stepped region has an inner corner which is susceptible to cracking (p. 1536, § 4). Tahir does not teach applying a brazing material at the inner corner of the powder compact prior to sintering. Schnell teaches it is known to use braze alloys to repair cracks in metal components (¶ 14). Knopp teaches it is conventional in the art to sinter and braze components simultaneously (col. 1, lines 19-24).
It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a braze to the inner corner of a metal powder compact for the purpose of repairing cracks that result from compaction, followed by sintering of the compact with the braze applied thereto as a conventional step combining both sintering and brazing as this combines steps and increases process efficiency. Moreover, changing the order in performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.C.
Regarding claim 4, both Schnell (¶ 11) and Knopp (col. 3, lines 19-22) teaches the braze alloy may be in the form of a paste.
Regarding claim 5, the powder compact of Tahir is iron (p. 1533, § 3.4). Knopp is also directed to brazing of iron or steel powder (col. 2, lines 19-23), and the braze alloy contains copper, manganese, and nickel as major components (col. 2, lines 36-41). The use of a Cu-Mn-Ni braze for iron powder compacts is thus conventional in the prior art.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahir et al. (“Fracture in metal powder compaction”) in view of Schnell et al. (US 2008/0017694) and Knopp (US 4,029,476), as evidenced by Harimoto et al. (“Progressed Sinter Brazing Technology Enables the Production of Complex Shaped Parts”).
Regarding claims 6-7, the limitations of claim 3 have been addressed above. The powder compact of Tahir is iron (p. 1533, § 3.4). Knopp is also directed to brazing of iron or steel powder (col. 2, lines 19-23), and the braze alloy contains copper, manganese, and nickel as major components (col. 2, lines 36-41). Harimoto evidences that during a brazing operation, Cu-Ni-Mn brazing material melts and penetrates between Fe powder, the melt reacts with Fe and a solidus temperature of the reacted melt increases until the reacted melt solidifies (p. 72, § 4). Accordingly, absent objective evidence to the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the prior art combination to exhibit the claimed phenomenon.
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 XIAOBEI WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5705. 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/XIAOBEI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights