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 .
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 8691328, hereafter “Yang”) in view of Schaffer et al. (CA 2660484 A1, “Schaffer”, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses a method of manufacturing a bonded body 16 (composite body- see fig. 2) comprising heating/sintering a sintered body 15 (porous sintered aluminum) while the sintered body is in direct contact with an object 8 (aluminum foil/plate) to integrally bond the object with the sintered body to obtain the bonded body (col. 4, lines 5-14; col. 10, lines 52-66; col. 23, lines 5-10). Examiner notes that terms “body” & “object” are generally broad and open to any shape/structure.
Yang is silent with respect to liquid phase mass% and heating/sintering temperature in range of 575-610 °C while bonding the object. However, such feature is known in the sintering art. Schaffer discloses that sintering involves heating the body to cause metal particles to metallurgically bond together for the production of metal parts; Schaffer teaches it is known from prior art to closely control the sintering temperature and distribution in order to retain the shape of the article during sintering and to prevent distortion of the article (pg. 2, lines 4-12). Schaffer teaches heating to a sintering temperature of 590-640 °C (pg. 7, lines 20-24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to heat the body & the object within a temperature range of about 590-640 °C in the method of Yang because doing so would retain the shape of the article/composite during bonding and to prevent distortion of the article/composite product. The heating temperature of about 590-640 °C overlaps with the disclosed liquid phase heating range of 575-610 °C in present specification (table 1 examples). For instance, examples 1-3 indicate about 20% liquid phase at temperature of 575-610 °C. Accordingly, heating/sintering to a temperature of 590°C in the combined method of Yang & Schaffer intrinsically results in the recited liquid phase mass%. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05. Examiner points out it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products (bonded body) are substantially identical, or are produced by substantially identical processes (same heating temperature), a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2112.01.
As to claim 3, although Yang does not explicitly mention smoothing at least one bonding surface, artisan of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to perform preparatory step of leveling the surface of the aluminum plate object (8) in Yang because it would help to align the interfaces of the objects being bonded. Commonly known techniques include buffing, grinding, machining, polishing or sanding to prepare the interface surfaces. The claim would have been obvious because selecting any suitable polishing technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (see MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
As to claim 4, Yang discloses applying ordinary pressure to the sintered body and the object before bonding (col. 8, lines 35-47). Moreover, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply pressure to some extent to the body and object being bonded during heating/sintering with a motivation to expedite the bonding process, thereby improving production efficiency.
As to claim 7, Yang discloses that the sintered porous body 15 contains an aluminum alloy (fig. 2).
As to claim 10, Yang discloses that heating heats the object (aluminum foil/plate 8) having a melting point higher than the pre-sintered body (15- fig. 2).
As to claims 9 and 20, Yang discloses aluminum alloy, but does not mention eutectic alloy containing aluminum & silicon. However, Schaffer teaches it is known from prior art to utilize a powder of aluminum alloy mixed with a powder containing a material to form a eutectic with aluminum oxide, such as silicon carbide - this mixed powder is then subject to sintering to form desired object (pg. 2, lines 17-26). The eutectic powder meets a eutectic portion containing aluminum & silicon, providing a lower melting temperature, and a crystal grain containing aluminum surrounded by the eutectic portion (crystal grain is a fundamental unit of any sintered metal object). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ mixed powder aluminum alloy & silicon carbide to form the pre-sintering body in the method of Yang since such eutectic material is known in prior art as evidenced by Schaffer and doing so would enable to manufacture a desired metal part at lower temperature.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Schaffer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Satoh (US 11123922).
As to claim 5, Yang discloses the precursor containing two or more elements (metal powder mixed with binder and plasticizer) containing at least one metal element (aluminum) and sintering to obtain the sintered body 15 (col. 5, lines 27-39). Yang is silent concerning additive manufacturing method for fabricating a precursor containing two or more elements. However, such technique is known in the art. Satoh (drawn to manufacturing bonded object) teaches that powder additive manufacturing methods are known in prior art and includes selective laser sintering (SLS), electron beam (EBM), binder jetting etc. (Background- col. 1, lines 25-34). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize binder jetting to fabricate a precursor sintered body in the method of Yang since such AM technique is conventional, as evidenced by Satoh.
As to claim 6, Yang as modified by Satoh above discloses that additive manufacturing can be a binder jetting method.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Schaffer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Osanai et al. (US 9944565, “Osanai”).
As to claim 11, Yang fails to disclose bonding a brazing member to the object 8 (aluminum foil/plate). However, bonding additional member is known in the art. Analogous to Yang, Osanai is also directed to method for producing a bonded body, including metal-ceramic substrates used in applications such as power modules (see Technical field and Background). Osanai discloses a sintered ceramic body 10 to be bonded to a plurality of metal plates 14 (brazing member) to different regions/sides of the body using a brazing filler 12 (see fig. 1; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 25-30). In this manner, Osanai teaches that a shape of predetermined heat sink is formed, producing the metal/ceramic circuit board (col. 7, lines 28-35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to bond a brazing member to a bottom side of the object in the method of Yang with a motivation to fabricate a composite body for desired implementation such as heat sink or powder module, as suggested by Osanai.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including ALL of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1, filed 3/6/26, have been considered but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection set forth above. Current 103 rejection(s) now rely on new combination of Yang & Schaffer and addresses matter specifically challenged in the arguments.
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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735
Prosecution Insights