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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 1/10/2025. Currently claims 1-31 are pending in the application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111 (a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, 15-19, and 29 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being obvious over claims 1-14 of Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2), also referred to as “Lee”. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the entirety of the claimed scope is encompassed by claims 1-14 of Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) teaches in claim 1, a process for producing a sintered powder manufactured item (Claim 1, process for producing a sintered powder manufactured item) comprising: providing a sintering die (step 3 defines applying isostatic pressure to the powder-mold assembly) defining a die volume ("die volume" defined as the volume delineated by the dimensions of said powder-mold assembly within liquid or gaseous medium); providing at least one sacrificial mold body (step 1, preparing a sacrificial powder mold) formed of at least one mold material disposing the at least one sacrificial mold body (sacrificial powder mold) in the at least one sintering die to form a sintering assembly (step 3 and 4 "powder-mold assembly") having a geometrically uniform external contour defined by the sintering die volume ("external contour" delineated by the external geometry of said sacrificial powder mold) and an inner volume ("inner volume", defined as the interior volume of said sacrificial powder mold) having at least one geometrically inhomogeneous fillable space defined by the at least one sacrificial mold body (step 2, loading a powder sintering material); loading the inner volume (inner volume) with at least one part material (powders are injected into said inner volume of said sacrificial powder mold) to form a filled sintering assembly that is geometrically homogeneous (the mold and powder assembly is geometrically homogeneous), wherein the at least one part material has a lower sintering temperature than the at least one mold material (the sacrificial powder mold is made from ceramic powders having a higher sintering temperature compared with said powders injected into said sacrificial powder mold); sintering the filled sintering assembly (step 4, the mold and powder assembly undergoes sintering) at a sintering temperature such that the at least one mold material (said powders which make up said sacrificial powder mold) remains un-sintered (the sintering temperature of said powder used to make up said sacrificial powder mold is higher than that of said powders injected into said sacrificial powder mode such that after said sintering process is completed, said sacrificial powder mold remains un-sintered) and the at least one part material (said powders injected into said sacrificial powder mold) sinters to form a sintered manufactured item ("sintered-powder cast manufactured item", having a shape defined by the inner volume (said inner volume) of the sintering assembly (sintered powder manufactured item comprises a shape defined by said inner volume of said mold and powder assembly).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) teaches the process of claim 1, further comprising removing the at least one mold material from the sintered manufactured item (step 5, obtaining a sintered-powder cast manufactured item from the self-destructed sintered sacrificial powder mold).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) teaches the process of claim 1, wherein providing the at least one sacrificial mold (the sacrificial powder mold) comprises an additive manufacturing process (step 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) teaches the process of claim 4, wherein the additive manufacturing process (said additive manufacturing methods) is selected from the group consisting of binder jetting, solvent jetting, 3D printing (claim 1, step 1), stereolithography, and any combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 6, Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) teaches the process in claim 1 and 6, wherein the at least one mold material (said powders which make up said sacrificial powder mold) comprises at least one binder (claim 1, step 1) and at least one material selected from a group consisting of metal powder, a metal alloy powder, a ceramic powder, a polymer powder, a clay powder, a graphite powder, and any combination thereof (alumina, claim 6).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the at least one part material (said injected powder) comprises at least material selected from the group consisting of a metal powder, a metal alloy powder, a ceramic powder, a polymer powder, a stainless steel powder, a Titanium alloy powder, a Nickel alloy powder, a Chromium alloy powder, an Aluminum alloy powder, and any combination thereof (alumina, claim 6).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) teaches the process of claim 1, wherein providing the at least one sacrificial mold (said sacrificial powder mold) further comprises coating an external surface of the at least one sacrificial mold with a coating material (claim 5, sacrificial powder mold with a graphite spray), such that the coating material acts as an insulator (graphite is a well-known thermal insulator).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the coating material is graphite (claim 5, the graphite spray is graphite). But Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) fails to explicitly disclose wherein the coating material is alumina, but does disclose the use of alumina as part of the mold (claim 6, powder mold is created using e.g. alumina). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the coating material be alumina, since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a more cost-effective material.
Regarding Claim 15, Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the sintering is conducted. It would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that sintering is performed under vacuum, since it is well known in the art.
Regarding Claim 16, Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the sintering is performed. It would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that sintering is performed in an atmosphere of an inert gas selected from the group consisting of Nitrogen, Argon, and Helium, since it is well known in art.
Regarding Claim 17, Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the sintering is conducted. It would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that sintering is performed under vacuum. But Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) fails to explicitly disclose wherein the sintering is conducted at a pressure of from about 1 to 10 Torr. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to conduct sintering at a pressure of from about 1 to 10 Torr, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in Lee, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would have been to achieve the desired effect and quality of the part being sintered based on the properties of the powders undergoing sintering.
Regarding Claim 18, Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the sintering is conducted at a temperature of from about 1000°C to 1900°C (claim 4, sintering is conducted at a temperature of 1400°C).
Regarding Claim 19, Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the sintering is conducted at a temperature of from about 500°C to 1400°C (claim 4, sintering is conducted at a temperature of 1400°C). But Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) fails to explicitly disclose wherein the sintering is conducted at a temperature of from about 500°C to 1200°C. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to conduct sintering at a temperature of from about 500°C to 1200°C, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in Lee, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would have been to achieve the desired effect and quality of the part being sintered based on the properties of the powders undergoing sintering.
Regarding Claim 29, Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) teaches the process of claim 1. But Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of separate sacrificial molds each formed of at least one mold material that is the same or different. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a plurality of separate sacrificial molds each formed of at least one mold material that is the same or different, since a mere duplication of essential working parts of device involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve efficiency in the production of sintered parts.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being obvious over claims 1-14 of Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2), in view of Yamada et al. (US Patent Application Number 2017/0241621), hereafter, referred to as “Yamada”.
Regarding Claim 3, Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) teaches in claim 1, the process of removing the at least one mold material (step 5). But Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) fails to explicitly disclose wherein removing the at least one mold material comprises a process selected from the group consisting of scraping, using compressed air, sand blasting, annealing, and any combination thereof. However, Yamada is in the art of methods for manufacturing fluorescent-material-containing-members (abstract) and teaches wherein removing the at least one mold material comprises a process selected from the group consisting of scraping, using compressed air, sand blasting, annealing, and any combination thereof (Para. [0078], grinding scraping] can be used as a method for removing part of the sintered body). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify the process of removing at least one mold material of Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) with the teaching of the method of removing at least one mold material including grinding of Yamada. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce a certain surface finish of the product by removing roughness (Yamada, Para. [0078]).
Regarding Claim 14, Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) teaches the process of claim 1, wherein sintering comprises spark plasma sintering. But Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) fails to explicitly disclose wherein sintering comprises spark plasma sintering. However, Yamada is in the art of methods for manufacturing fluorescent-material-containing-members (abstract) and teaches wherein sintering comprises spark plasma sintering (Para. [0067], a sintering method can be spark-plasma sintering). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify the sintering process of Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) with the teaching of the spark plasma sintering process of Yamada. The motivation for doing so would have been for efficiency since SPS can quickly increase temperature in a comparatively short time (Yamada, Para. [0067]).
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being obvious over claims 1-14 of Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2), in view of Walker et al. (WO 2022/072705 A2), hereafter, referred to as "Walker".
Regarding Claim 20, Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) teaches the process of claim 1. But Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) fails to explicitly disclose further comprising cleaning the sinter powder manufactured item. However, Walker is in the art of making sintered ceramic bodies (abstract) and teaches cleaning a sinter powder manufactured item (Para. [0201], sintered ceramic body is cleaned by aggressive cleaning methods). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify the process of Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) with the teaching of the process of Walker further including cleaning the sinter powder manufactured item. The motivation for doing so would have been to prolong the lifetime of the component (Walker, Para. [0201]).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) teaches the process of claim 1. But Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) fails to explicitly disclose wherein the cleaning is selected from a process selected from the group of compressed air, polishing, annealing, and any combination thereof. However, Walker is in the art of making sintered ceramic bodies (abstract) and teaches wherein the cleaning is selected from a process selected from the group of compressed air, polishing, annealing, and any combination thereof (Para. [0175], annealing the sintered ceramic body is preformed). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify the process of Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) with the teaching the cleaning process of Walker including annealing. The motivation for doing so would have been to refine the physical and chemical properties of the sintered ceramic body (Walker, Para. [0171]).
Claims 23 and 31 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being obvious over claims 1-14 of Lee et al. (US Patent Number 11,648,706 B2), in view of Couret et al. (US Patent Application Number 2014/0014639 A1), hereafter, referred to as "Couret".
Regarding Claim 23, Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) teaches the process of claim 1. But Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one sacrificial mold defines a geometrically irregular external surface of the sinter powder manufactured item. However, Couret is in the art of methods of manufacturing a metal, ceramic, or composite part (abstract) and teaches wherein at least one sacrificial mold (Para. [0071], force-transmitting components PT1-PT5 at Fig. 6) defines a geometrically irregular external surface of a sinter powder manufactured item (force-transmitting components PT1-PT5 defines a geometrically irregular external surface, unlabeled, of turbine blade preform PF unlabeled at Fig. 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify the mold of Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) with the teaching of the mold comprising geometrically irregular surfaces of Couret. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide material that is uniformly compact throughout the component despite an irregular shape (Couret, Para. [0060]).
Regarding Claim 31, Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) teaches in claim 1, a process that uses an apparatus for producing a sintered powder manufactured item, fabrication process for manufacturing a sintered part, comprising: a sintering die (step 3 defines applying isostatic pressure to a powder-mold assembly from multiple directions through a liquid or gaseous medium) defining a die volume ("die volume" defined as the volume delineated by the dimensions of said powder-mold assembly within said liquid or gaseous medium); at least one sacrificial mold body (step 1, fabrication of a sacrificial powder mold) formed of at least one mold material (step 1, said sacrificial powder mold is made from powders with high sintering temperature), and configured to be disposed in the at least one sintering die (said liquid or gas medium) to form a sintering assembly (step 2, "powder-mold assembly") having a geometrically uniform external contour defined by the sintering die volume ("external contour" delineated by the external geometry of said sacrificial powder mold) and an inner volume ("inner volume", defined as the interior volume of said sacrificial powder mold) having at least one geometrically inhomogeneous fillable space defined by the at least one sacrificial mold body, powders are loaded into said sacrificial powder mold, defining a fillable space within said sacrificial powder mold); wherein the inner volume (said inner volume) is configures to be loaded with at least one part material, powders are loaded into said inner volume of said sacrificial powder mold) such that a filled sintering assembly, said loaded powders and said sacrificial powder mold form mold and powder assembly) may be formed that is geometrically homogeneous (said mold and powder assembly is geometrically homogeneous), wherein the at least one part material has a lower sintering temperature than the at least one mold material (step 4 and 5, the sacrificial powder mold is made from ceramic powders having a higher sintering temperature compared with said powders injected into said sacrificial powder mold); sintering the filled sintering assembly (claim 1, said mold and powder assembly undergoes sintering) at a sintering temperature, such that the at least one mold material (said powders which make up said sacrificial powder mold) remains un-sintered (the sintering temperature of said powder used to make up said sacrificial powder mold is higher than that of said powders injected into said sacrificial powder mode such that after said sintering process is completed, said sacrificial powder mold remains un-sintered) and the at least one part material (said powders loaded into said sacrificial powder mold) sinters to form a sintered manufactured item having a shape defined by the inner volume (said inner volume) of the sintering assembly (said sintered powder manufactured item comprises a shape defined by said inner volume of said mold and powder assembly).
But Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) fails to explicitly disclose wherein the apparatus comprises a sintering chamber configured to apply a sintering pressure and a sintering temperature; wherein the die volume is disposed within the sintering chamber; wherein the sintering chamber is configured to sinter the filled sintering assembly. However, Couret is in the art of methods of manufacturing a metal, ceramic, or composite part (abstract) and teaches an apparatus (Para. [0071], "apparatus" unlabeled, shown in entirety at Fig. 6) comprising a sintering chamber ("sintering chamber" unlabeled, defined as the interior of die M at Fig. 6) configured to apply a sintering pressure (Para. [0071], flash sintering is performed by applying pressure) and a sintering temperature (Para. [0071], flash sintering is performed by applying a core temperature); wherein a die volume ("die volume" unlabeled, defined as the space between piston P1 and P2 at Fig. 6) is disposed within the sintering chamber (said die volume is disposed within said sintering chamber as shown at Fig. 6); wherein the sintering chamber (said sintering chamber) is configured to sinter a filled sintering assembly (Para. [0071], said sintering chamber is configured to sinter force-transmitting components PT1- PT5 and turbine blade preform PF unlabeled at Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify the apparatus of Lee et al. (US Patent No. 11,648,706 B2) with the teaching of the apparatus comprising a sintering chamber of Couret. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively sinter materials with more demanding sintering conditions (Couret, Para. [0071]).
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because of improper multiple dependency. See MPEP § 608.01 (n). Accordingly, the claim 11 has not been further treated on the merits.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 12-13, 22, 24-28, and 30 are objected to as being directly or indirectly dependent upon rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitation of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject
matter:
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of references (of record) does not teach or fairly suggest the (by themselves or in combination) a process comprising “wherein preparing the at least one sacrificial mold further comprises heating the at least one sacrificial mold such that the at least one mold material undergoes partial debinding”
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of references (of record) do not teach or fairly suggest the (by themselves or in combination) a process comprising “selecting the at least one part and at least one mold materials using a sintering model embedded in an FEM software based on a continuum theory of sintering comprising: a sintering data for the part and the mold material; inputting the sintering data into the sintering model to determine a porosity function for each material; determining a power creep factor and a power creep activation energy based on the sintering data for each material using a strain rate sensitivity exponent that is fixed; defining an equivalent strain rate, a normalized shear, a bulk viscosity, and a sintering stress as the porosity function for each material; and determining at least one parameter selected from the group of a normalized shear and a bulk viscosity using the sintering data for each of the part and mold material, a sintering stress based on at least one of a surface energy, a powder particle radius, and the sintering data of each of the part and mold material, a shape change rate based on the sintering data for each of the part and mold material, an equivalent strain rate based on at least one of the bulk viscosity, the sintering stress, the shape change rate, and the sintering data of each of the part and mold material, and a constitutive relationship of each of the part and mold material based on the equivalent stress, the equivalent strain rate, the normalized sheer, the bulk viscosity, the sintering stress, and a Kroenecker delta”.
Claim 13 depends from claim 12.
.
Regarding claim 22, the prior art of references (of record) does not teach or fairly suggest the (by themselves or in combination) a process comprising” wherein the at least one sacrificial mold defines an internal structure of the sinter powder manufactured item selected from the group consisting of an internal cavity, a channel, an internal 3D structure, and any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 24, the prior art of references (of record) does not teach or fairly suggest the (by themselves or in combination) a process comprising “wherein the at least one sacrificial mold defines an internal structure of the sinter powder manufactured item selected from the group consisting of an internal cavity, a channel, an internal 3D structure, and any combination thereof, and a geometrically irregular external surface of the sinter powder manufactured item.
Regarding claim 25, the prior art of references (of record) does not teach or fairly suggest the (by themselves or in combination) a process comprising “forming a plurality of sintering assemblies; stacking the plurality of filled sintering assemblies to form a stack of filled sintering assemblies that is geometrically homogeneous; and sintering the stack of filled sintering assemblies to simultaneously form a plurality of sintered manufactured items.
Claims 26-28 depends directly or indirectly on claim 25.
Regarding claim 30, the prior art of references (of record) does not teach or fairly suggest the (by themselves or in combination) a process comprising “a plurality of fillable spaces each separately loaded with at least one part material that is the same or different”.
Additionally, claims 1-6, 8-10, 14-21, 23, 29, and 31 would be allowable, if the double patenting rejection is overcome by submitting a Terminal Disclaimer, and approval thereupon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M AMEEN whose telephone number is (469) 295 9214. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm (Central Time).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on (571) 272-1176. 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 Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD M AMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights