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 74-82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cretegny et al. (US 2010/0193574, hereafter “Cretegny”) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 101323529-A, see attached document, hereafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 74, Cretegny discloses a method for producing a joined solid (brazed solid, [0015]), the method comprising: providing a metal (braze alloy 16) for brazing/bonding between a first solid 20A and a second solid 20B (fig. 2, [0023]); surrounding at least a portion of the periphery of the metal braze alloy for bonding with a binder material 14 (fig. 2); and irradiating the metal for bonding with microwaves to heat the metal for bonding (microwave radiation 26- fig. 2, [0036], thereby sintering the metal to braze/bond the first solid and the second solid; and removing at least a portion of the surrounding binder from the metal (binder volatilizing) during heating temperature [0024, 0028], thereby forming a brazed/bonded solid body [0038-0040].
Cretegny discloses high-melting-point particulate ceramic materials such as oxides (e.g. aluminum oxide), carbides (silicon carbide), or nitrides (aluminum nitride) that are highly susceptible to microwave radiation at brazing temperatures [0027], but lacks a combination of an insulation material & an absorbent material (carbon). However, such filler material is known in the sintering art. Analogous to Cretegny, Zhang discloses a method for microwave sintering ([0002]) using a gradient wave-transmitting structure ([0013]) in which the high-melting-point material (gradient) includes a mixture of: an insulation material (ex. 1: boron nitride; ex. 2: corundum, Al2O3) ([0017]-[0023], [0029]-[0031], [0041], [0045]); and an absorbent material (Ex. 1: boron carbide/carbon black; Ex. 2 silicon carbide) ([0017]-[0023], [0029]-[0031], [0041], [0045]). Zhang teaches that such mixture increases the temperature limit [0014], reduces the temperature gradient of the sample, reduces the probability of sintering cracking [0015], and improves the sintering effect and quality of the sintered body [0016].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the microwave-absorbing braze metal powder of Cretegny to surround with a powder mixture that easily absorbs waves (absorbent material) and an insulation material that dilutes the absorbing material to improve the utilization rate of the microwaves, speed up the heating rate under the same power consumption, and increase the temperature limit (Zhang [0014]), reduce the temperature gradient of the sample, reduce the probability of sintering cracking (Zhang [0015]), and improve the sintering effect and quality of the sintered body (Zhang [0016]). Further, Zhang discloses how the material that easily absorbs waves and the material that dilutes the absorbing material interact with the microwaves in the sintering process to convert energy into heat and improves the microwave absorption effect of the heated object (Zhang [0017]-[0023]).
The limitations of the insulation material having a lower degree of absorption of the microwaves than the metal and the absorbent material absorbing the microwaves in a temperature zone at least a portion of which is lower than a temperature zone in which the metal absorbs the microwaves have been considered and determined to encompassed by teachings of Zhang. Applicant’s specification discloses insulating material is an oxide selected from the group consisting of aluminum oxide, silicon oxide, magnesium oxide, zirconium oxide, and titanium oxide (specification [0012]-[0013]) and absorbent material is a carbon material selected from the group consisting of carbon, graphite, silicon carbide, carbon resin, and metal carbide (specification [0014]-[0015]). Zhang discloses insulation material such as corundum, Al2O3, aluminum oxide [0045] and absorbent material such as carbon, active carbon, silicon carbide, and metal carbide [0041], [0045]. The compositions of the insulating material and absorbent material in Zhang are within the scope of that disclosed by applicant and therefore, the claimed properties of the insulating material and absorbent material naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including the insulation material having a lower degree of absorption of the microwaves than the metal powder and the absorbent material absorbing the microwaves in a temperature zone at least a portion of which is lower than a temperature zone in which the metal powder absorbs the microwaves. Thus, Cretegny as modified by Zhang discloses the high-melting-point combination of insulation material (aluminum oxide) & carbon material surrounding at least a portion of periphery of the braze metal powder for producing a joined solid.
As to claims 75 and 77, Zhang discloses that the high-melting-point material (gradient wave-transmitting structure), [0017], [0030-0031] includes from 1 mass% to 70 mass% of the absorbent material (Mix 2, 50:50, boron carbide/carbon black (absorbent material):boron nitride (insulating material)) [0041]. Thus, Cretegny as modified by Zhang above renders the claims obvious.
As to claim 76, Zhang discloses that the insulation material includes an oxide (aluminum oxide- [0045]).
As to claims 78-79, Cretegny discloses that the metal for bonding includes a metal compound or braze alloy component [0025].
As to claim 80, Cretegny disclose the method further comprising applying a pressure to the metal for bonding in a low-pressure atmosphere [0028] before irradiating with microwaves.
As to claims 81-82, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform irradiating the metal with the microwaves in an inert gas or a reducing atmosphere in the method of Cretegny in order to avoid oxidation and contamination of the metal powder or at the joining interfaces.
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).
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 actual 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, refer to: www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 74-86 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,263,525 issued to Nishioka et al. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims of US ‘525 discloses every feature of present claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 83-86 are 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 upon approval of eTerminal Disclaimer.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/25/25 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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