DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s Response, dated 21 August 2026, which papers have been made of record.
Claims 1-21 are currently presented for examination, of which claims 14-21 have been withdrawn from consideration.
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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 21 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: There appears to be a typographical error at line 1, which recites “The Production process” rather than “The production process” instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 recites “a raw powder” at line 6. It is unclear what distinguishes a raw powder from any other kind of powder. A review of the Specification as filed appears to disclose a “raw powder” only at paragraph [0016] and does not appear to define or clarify what powder materials are not raw powders. It is unclear how one having ordinary skill in the art would interpret the claimed limitation.
Claim 1 recites “the electrical-discharge-machined sintered compact” at line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that lines 10-11 recite subjecting the sintered compact to electrical discharge machining, but do not recite producing or resulting in an electrical-discharge-machined sintered compact.
Each of claims 2-13 depend from claim 1, and therefore are rejected for at least the reasons presented above with respect to claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-13
Claims 1-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent 5,637,815 to Takahata et al. (hereinafter “Takahata”), in view of United States Patent 4,639,568 to Check et al. (hereinafter “Check”) and further in view of United States Patent 3,843,055 to Nord et al. (hereinafter “Nord”).
Regarding claim 1, Takahata discloses a method for producing a nozzle (2) by performing a molding step (see Col. 3, lines 2-9) of a mixture including a raw powder (see Col. 3, lines 48-55). Takahata teaches that the molding step may be press molding (see claim 4), and that the material is sintered to form a sintered body (see Col. 3, lines 9-21). Following sintering, the body can be machined (see Col. 6, lines 10-13).
Takahata does not explicitly disclose that the sintered body is machined by electric discharge machining using an electrode and a grinding step of grinding the machined body from a side opposite to the opening.
Check teaches a method for finishing formed nozzle members. Check teaches a spray injector blank nozzle (18) which has an interior volume and a passage (54) therein. An electrode (48) is used to form an interior surface (80) of the nozzle member without excessive wear of the electrode of undesirable shorting of the workpiece (see Col. 3, lines 31-39). Check teaches that the non-contact machining may advantageously form precision surfaces which reduce fuel dribble or leakage (see Col. 1, lines 40-46).
It would have been obvious to modify the method for forming a nozzle as taught by Takahata by performing a conventional nozzle machining technique such as electric discharge machining, as taught by Check. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting method would predictably result in a nozzle body which has precision surfaces which reduce leakage or dribble during use of the nozzle, as taught by Check.
The combination of Takahata and Check does not explicitly teach performing a grinding step from opening to form the outlet of the nozzle.
Nord teaches a nozzle blank (50) which is used to manufacture a nozzle (100). The nozzle blank (50) may be provided with a passage (49) which has a blind end (see Col. 6, lines 45-50). The nozzle passage may be opened using a grinding wheel (22) to cut through the end of the nozzle blank (see Col. 7, lines 42-66) to form an open passage from the nozzle first end to an opposed nozzle second end. The grinding can be performed to produce different cuts such that the nozzle opening has a desired shape (compare orifices of Figs. 9 and 10; see Col. 4, lines 5-20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by the combination of Takahata and Check to include opening the passage through the nozzle by a conventional manner, such as by grinding the passage as taught by Nord. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting method would predictably allow for different nozzle exit orifices. The nozzle produced by the method will comprise a cemented carbide (as taught by Takahata), having a through hole (2b of Takahata) from an inlet to an outlet, the through hole having a tapered portion (see Fig. 1 of Takahata) increasing from the outlet (at 2b) toward the inlet (upwardly, in Fig. 1).
Thus, the combination of Takahata, Check, and Nord teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Takahata, Check, and Nord teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Takahata teaches that the through hole has a circular (see Fig. 1), oval, or polygonal cross-sectional shape.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Takahata, Check, and Nord teaches the limitations of claim 2, and further Takahata teaches that the through hole (see Fig. 1) has the circular cross-sectional shape (see Col. 4, lines 29-35).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Takahata, Check, and Nord teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Takahata teaches that in the compacting step, the transfer mold has a shape corresponding to a shape of the through hole (see Col. 3, lines 5-9 and Col. 6, lines 6-10), the transfer mold contains a tapered portion corresponding in shape to the tapered hole portion (funnel shaped mold; see Col. 6, lines 6-10), and the tapered portion has a conical (funnel shaped), ovally conical, or polygonal pyramid shape.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Takahata, Check, and Nord teaches the limitations of claim 4, and further Takahata teaches that the tapered portion (funnel shaped mold; Col. 6, lines 6-10) corresponding in shape to the tapered hole portion has a conical shape.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Takahata, Check, and Nord teaches the limitations of claim 5, and further Takahata teaches that the transfer mold contains a conical portion corresponding in shape to the tapered hole portion (see Col. 6, lines 6-10).
The combination does not explicitly disclose that the conical portion has a tip diameter of not more than 5 micrometers.
However, the MPEP teaches that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentability distinct from the prior art device. (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). There is nothing of record that suggests that the recited tip diameters would cause the device taught by the combination of Takahata, Check, and Nord to behave differently in use than any other tip size. Accordingly, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dimensions the nozzle as a matter of design choice, without expecting any modification of the principles of operation of the combination of Takahata, Check, and Nord.
Thus, the combination of Takahata, Check, and Nord teaches the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Takahata, Check, and Nord teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Check teaches that in the electrical discharge machining step, the electrode (30) has a shape corresponding to a shape of the transfer mold (see Fig. 6; electrode is understood to be funnel shaped in the same manner as mold of Takahata, see Col. 6, lines 6-10 of Takahata).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Takahata, Check, and Nord teaches the limitations of claim 7, and further Check teaches that the electrode (30)I contains a conical portion corresponding in shape to the tapered hole portion.
The combination does not explicitly disclose that the conical portion of the electrode has a tip diameter of not more than 5 micrometers.
However, the MPEP teaches that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentability distinct from the prior art device. (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). There is nothing of record that suggests that the recited tip diameters would cause the device taught by the combination of Takahata, Check, and Nord to behave differently in use than any other tip size. Accordingly, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dimensions the nozzle as a matter of design choice, without expecting any modification of the principles of operation of the combination of Takahata, Check, and Nord.
Thus, the combination of Takahata, Check, and Nord teaches the limitations of claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Takahata, Check, and Nord teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Takahata teaches that the through hole (at 2b) consists of the tapered hole portion and a cylindrical hole portion (see interior passage in Fig. 1) extending from the tapered hole portion to the inlet (upper end of nozzle in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Takahata, Check, and Nord teaches the limitations of claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose that the outlet has an opening diameter of less than 30 micrometers.
However, the MPEP teaches that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentability distinct from the prior art device. (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). There is nothing of record that suggests that the recited nozzle diameters would cause the device taught by the combination of Takahata, Check, and Nord to behave differently in use than any other nozzle portion diameter. Accordingly, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dimensions the nozzle as a matter of design choice, without expecting any modification of the principles of operation of the combination of Takahata, Check, and Nord.
Thus, the combination of Takahata, Check, and Nord teaches the limitations of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Takahata, Check, and Nord teaches the limitations of claim 1. Whether the nozzle produced by the method is for an electronic component depends on the use the end user selects or chooses. MPEP 2144.07 suggests that the selection of materials for a nozzle create a prima facie case of obviousness that the nozzle produced is capable of being used in the claimed manner.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Takahata, Check, and Nord teaches the limitations of claim 1. Whether the nozzle produced by the method is a reflow nozzle for discharging a molten solder ball depends on the use the end user selects or chooses. MPEP 2144.07 suggests that the selection of materials for a nozzle create a prima facie case of obviousness that the nozzle produced is capable of being used in the claimed manner.
Claim 9
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Takahata, Check, and Nord as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0027154 to Sugiura et al. (hereinafter “Sugiura”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Takahata, Check, and Nord teaches the limitations of claim 1. The combination does not explicitly teach that in the grinding step, a presence of a hole as the outlet is observed and an opening diameter is determined using images of the ground surface taken with a camera.
However, it is convention in grinding processes to provide cameras to observe machining processes.
For example, Sugiura teaches such a camera. Sugiura teaches machining monitoring cameras (102b and 102c) which image the cutting and grinding units (see paragraph [0117]) for monitoring a workpiece.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by the combination of Takahata, Check, and Nord, and to further monitor the machining processes using cameras, as taught by Sugiura. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting method would predictably allow for a worker or monitor to check on the machining situations during operation. The grinding observation camera would be positioned to observe the position or positions of the grinding, allowing for a worker or user to verify that the grinding is successful. Further, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any observation of the grinding process will observe the opening diameter as the grinding is being performed.
Thus, the combination of Takahata, Check, Nord, and Sugiura teaches the limitations of claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Application Publication 2008/0034573 to Ohnuma et al. teaches a method for forming a nozzle member (see Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/DARRELL C FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
