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 .
Claim Objections
The following claim(s) are objected to because of these informalities:
In claim 1, line 4 “of a brazing material” should read “a brazing material”.
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.
Claims 1-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 3-4 recite "comprising a cavity that is open by an orifice, of a silicon carbide-based plug". It is unclear whether the orifice is part of the cavity or the plug. For the purpose of examination, claim 1, lines 3-4 read on "comprising a cavity that is open at an orifice, a silicon carbide-based plug…". Dependent claims fall herewith.
Claim 14, lines 3-4 recite "throughout the closure b), or under vacuum for one part of b) and under inert gas for the other part of b)". The terms closure b), one part of b) and the other part of b) are unclear. Examiner suggests amending claim 14 to recite the particular portions of claim 1b) which are intended for each of these terms, using the same language as that recited in claim 1b).
Claim 16, lines 2-3 recite "a multitude of solid granules". The term multitude is a term of degree. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, claim 16, lines 2-3 read on "a plurality of solid granules".
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishibashi (US PG Pub 2017/0301414) in view of Iwai (JP 2014087840A, with text citations below to attached translation).
Regarding claim 1, Ishibashi teaches a method for closing an orifice of a container (abstract, para. 0046), the method comprising, in order:
a) providing a silicon carbide-based container (para. 0046) comprising a cavity that is open at an orifice (paras. 0051, 0067), a silicon carbide-based plug (para. 0068), and a brazing material borne by the plug and/or the container (para. 0063), a solid object being housed in the cavity (fuel pellets of para. 0068),
b) brazing the plug onto the container to close the orifice, the brazing comprising melting of the brazing material by heating to a temperature greater than the melting temperature of the brazing material (paras. 0063-0064), followed by solidification of the brazing material so as to form a solid joint between the container and the plug (paras. 0063-0064).
Ishibashi further teaches that for the brazing step, “the heating method is not particularly limited, and known methods, for example, such as wide heating with a long heating furnace, and local heating with a laser, or a high-frequency or local heater may be used” (para. 0068).
Ishibashi does not teach at least a part of the cavity, referred to as a cold part, in which the solid object is housed, being kept at a temperature lower than the degradation temperature of the solid object during the brazing, and also does not teach that the brazing further comprises cooling of the cold part by a cooling system extending along at least a portion of the cold part, the portion of the cold part comprising an end of the cold part adjacent to a heating zone for the brazing material.
However, Iwai teaches a brazing method (abstract and claims) wherein at least a part of a cavity referred to as a cold part, (cavity 9 in Figs. 2-5 with the cold part comprising the region near cooling circuits 6 and 11 including the walls of 6 and 11 along with portions 3z and 7z in Figs. 2-5 and 8), in which a solid object is housed (sealing portion 7z of lid member 7 or seal member 8), being kept at a temperature lower than the degradation temperature of the solid object during the brazing (“since the brazing filler metal 32 is melted in a state where the seal portion 3z with the lid member 7 of the sealed container body 3 is cooled by the first cooling portion 6, thermal deterioration of the seal member 8 can be prevented” per pg. 2).
Iwai further teaches that the brazing comprises cooling of the cold part by a cooling system (either of cooling units 6 and 11 per the last paragraph on pg. 4 through the first paragraph on pg. 5) extending along at least a portion of the cold part (as shown in Figs. 2-5 and 8), the portion of the cold part comprising an end of the cold part adjacent to a heating zone for the brazing material (as shown in Figs. 2-5).
Iwai teaches that these cooling steps and configuration advantageously prevent thermal deterioration of objects 7 and 8 inside the cavity (pg. 2).
Per MPEP §2143.I, applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2143.I (rationale D) and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
In view of the teachings of Iwai and/or KSR rationale D, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Ishibashi’s method to include the analogous cooling steps and cooling configuration suggested by Iwai’s teaching to predictably provide the same benefit of protection from thermal deterioration during brazing taught by Iwai to Ishibashi’s fuel pellet objects.
Regarding claim 2, Ishibashi teaches the solid object comprises at least one nuclear fuel pellet (fuel pellets of para. 0068).
Regarding claim 3, Ishibashi teaches the container is made of a sintered monolithic silicon carbide or a composite comprising ceramic fibers incorporated in a silicon carbide matrix (para. 0060).
Regarding claim 4, Ishibashi teaches the container has a hollow cylindrical shape, one of the ends of the cylinder being open by the orifice, and wherein the end of the cylinder on the opposite side from the orifice is closed (paras. 0051, 0046).
Regarding claims 5-6, Ishibashi does not explicitly teach these features. However, selection of these ranges and/or general conditions are obvious and routine design selections, in the absence of any unexpected results from the recited features, for one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve a workable process.
Regarding claims 8-9, Ishibashi teaches the brazing material is heated to a temperature of 1450-1514°C during brazing (para. 0102), thus falling within the ranges recited in these claims.
Regarding claim 10, Iwai teaches the cooling system comprises a fluidic circuit in which a cooling fluid circulates during the brazing (fluidic circuits 11a or 6a of pg. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Ishibashi teaches the plug is made of sintered monolithic silicon carbide or is made of a composite comprising ceramic fibers incorporated in a silicon carbide matrix (paras. 0005, 0060, and claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, Ishibashi teaches the plug (12a in Figs. 4-5) provided in a) comprises a cutout (12d) filled with the brazing material (20 in Figs. 4-5 and para. 0063).
Regarding claim 13, Ishibashi teaches at least a part of the brazing material is borne by the plug (as shown in Figs. 4-5), the brazing b) being preceded by: heating the plug and the brazing material borne by the plug to a temperature greater than the melting temperature of the brazing material, during which the brazing material melts; and solidifying the brazing material (paras. 0063-0064).
Regarding claim 14, Iwai teaches the container, the plug, and the brazing material are placed in an environment under vacuum or under inert gas throughout the closure (pg. 2), with this step conventionally and widely used in the prior art for brazing, and thus obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 18, Ishibashi teaches during a), the brazing material is in the form of a coating deposited, prior to a), on the outer periphery of the plug and/or on the inner wall of the container, by physical vapor deposition or by chemical vapor deposition (para. 0066, 0085, and 0102).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishibashi in view of Iwai, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Sheeder (US PG Pub 2021/0166825).
Regarding claim 7, Ishibashi and Iwai do not teach this feature.
However, Sheeder teaches a method for closing an orifice of a container by brazing (abstract) wherein the heating is carried out by induction by a susceptor arranged in the vicinity of the orifice (para. 0121 and Fig. 21), with use of this heating configuration conventionally and widely employed in the brazing prior art, and thus obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishibashi in view of Iwai, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Gasse (US PG Pub 2003/0038166).
Regarding claims 15-17, Ishibashi and Iwai do not teach these features.
However, Gasse teaches brazing methods (abstract) wherein the brazing material is in the form of a brazing paste comprising a binder and a brazing powder dispersed in the binder as recited in claim 15 (para. 0103), a plurality of solid granules as recited in claim 16 (paras. 0103, 0107), or at least one sheet wrapped around the plug as recited in claim 17 (para. 0053).
Brazing materials in each of these forms are conventionally and widely used in the prior art for brazing, and thus obvious selections to one of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM R SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9-6 MST.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached on 571-272-1095. 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.
/JIMMY R SMITH JR./Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights