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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claim 1-8) in the reply filed on 05/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, III, or IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/28/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should be corrected to “the first plate and the second plate[[s]] comprise at least 50 wt. % carbon, based on the total weight of the respective punch” (lines 11-12).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“the device” adapted and arranged to control a temperature in the sintering chamber in claim 1 (line 15).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“the device adapted and arranged to control a temperature in the sintering chamber” in claim 1 (line 15), as described in the specification, figs. 1A, 1B, 1C, 1E, 2 and para. [0197-0205], as published in US 20260042711 A1.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2-8 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 2 recite the limitation “a first layer of the first kind” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this underlined limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the underlined limitation would be interpreted as “a first kind.”
Claim 5 recite the limitation “a layer of the further kind” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this underlined limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the underlined limitation would be interpreted as “a further kind.”
Claims 3-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent from claim 2 or 5.
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.
Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claims are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions.
The limitations which are directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2115 and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) for further details.
The limitations which are directed to intended uses or capabilities of the claimed apparatus are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2114, Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) for further details.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (WO 2022072703A1).
Regarding claim 1, Walker teaches a device having a sintering chamber (a portion wherein a ceramic powder is filled) (figs. A, 1, 2A-C), the sintering chamber being bordered by the following device parts:
i. a first punch interior surface of a first punch (fig. 1; [0071-0072]: an upper punch 4 or a lower punch 4’);
ii. a second punch interior surface of a second punch (fig. 1; [0071-0072]: a lower punch 4’ or an upper punch 4); and
iii. an interior surface of a die (fig. 1; [0071-0072]: a die system 2);
wherein:
the punches are adapted and arranged to apply a pressure of at least 1 MPa along a compression axis to a target in the sintering chamber ([0136]: a pressure of from 5 to 20 MPa);
the first punch and the second punch are connected to an electrical power source ([0013]: power source 56; fig. A);
the first and second punches comprise at least 50 wt. % carbon, based on the total weight of the punch ([0073]: the upper 4 and lower 4’ punches may comprise at least one graphite material, typically a low-strength graphite, and graphite is often used in SPS apparatus as an effective contact material, particularly in sliding conditions, due to its high electric and thermal conductivity, oxidation and wear resistance; here, although Walker does not explicitly disclose the carbon content, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine optimization and experiments, to modify the carbon content of the punches to reach optimum strength, electric and thermal conductivity, and oxidation and wear resistance, for example, at least more than 50 wt. %);
the sintering chamber has a cross-sectional width W perpendicular to the compression axis of at least 300 mm ([0164]: e.g., from 300 to 625 mm);
wherein the device is adapted and arranged to control a temperature in the sintering chamber (figs. 7-8; [0140-0145, 0147-0152]).
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOMÍNGUEZ RODRÍGUEZ (WO 2015185969 A1, hereinafter DR*; *citation is based on the English translation attached in this Office Action).
Regarding claim 1, DR teaches a device having a sintering chamber (“Spark Plasma Sintering” (SPC) furnace) (figs. 1, 3A, 5A; pg. 2 2nd para.), the sintering chamber being bordered by the following device parts:
i. a first punch interior surface of a first punch (2) (figs. 1, 3A, 5A; pg. 3-4);
ii. a second punch interior surface of a second punch (2) (figs. 1, 3A, 5A; pg. 3-4); and
iii. an interior surface of a die (3) (figs. 1, 3A, 5A; pg. 3-4);
wherein:
the punches are adapted and arranged to apply a pressure of at least 1 MPa along a compression axis to a target in the sintering chamber (figs. 1, 3A, 5A; pg. 3-4: application of pressure in a range between 1 Pa and 10 GPa in uniaxial; here, the recited range overlaps with the claimed range between 1 MPa and 10 GPa1);
the first punch and the second punch are connected to an electrical power source (figs. 1, 3A, 5A; pg. 3-4: a DC electric pulse is applied);
the first and second punches comprise at least 50 wt. % carbon, based on the total weight of the punch (figs. 1, 3A, 5A; pg. 3-4: the mold 3 is made of graphite; here, although DR does not explicitly disclose the carbon content, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine optimization and experiments, to modify the carbon content of the punches made of graphite to reach optimum strength, electric and thermal conductivity, and oxidation and wear resistance, for example, at least more than 50 wt. %);
the sintering chamber has a cross-sectional width W perpendicular to the compression axis of at least 300 mm (figs. 1, 3A, 5A; pg. 6 2nd para.: mode II has advantage over mode I, which is to produce larger samples with superior energy efficiency; here, although DR is silent about the specific dimension of the samples, a recitation of the relative dimension of the sintering device, which would be as large as possible as long as superior energy efficiency is achieved, would not make the claim to be patentably distinct from the prior art; See MPEP 2144.042);
wherein the device is adapted and arranged to control a temperature in the sintering chamber (figs. 2a-c, 4a-c, and 6a-c).
Regarding claim 2, DR teaches the device according to claim 1, further comprising a first layer (10) of the first kind that is in physical contact with a surface of the first punch (2), wherein the first layer of the first kind has an electrical resistivity in the range of 10 μΩ·m to 260 μΩ·m (figs. 1, 3A, 5A; pg. 3-4: flexible electric conductive sheets 10 are made of graphite3; of note, the graphite material belong to a carbon material as disclosed in Instant Specification ([0034], as published)).
Regarding claim 3, DR teaches the device according to claim 2, wherein the first layer of the first kind has a thermal conductivity in the range of 0.1 W·m−1·K−1 to 55 W·m−1·K−1 (figs. 1, 3A, 5A; pg. 3-4: flexible electric conductive sheets 10 are made of graphite4).
Regarding claim 4, DR teaches the device according to claim 2, wherein the first layer of the first kind comprises carbon, silicon, or a combination thereof (figs. 1, 3A, 5A; pg. 3-4: flexible electric conductive sheets 10 are made of graphite).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (WO 2022072703A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of DOMÍNGUEZ RODRÍGUEZ (WO 2015185969 A1, hereinafter DR*; *citation is based on the English translation attached in this Office Action).
Regarding claims 2-4, Walkers the device according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the device further comprising a first layer of the first kind that is in physical contact with a surface of the first punch, wherein the first layer of the first kind has an electrical resistivity in the range of 10 μΩ·m to 260 μΩ·m (claim 2); the first layer of the first kind has a thermal conductivity in the range of 0.1 W·m−1·K−1 to 55 W·m−1·K−1 (claim 3); and the first layer of the first kind comprises carbon, silicon, or a combination thereof (claim 4).
DR teaches all the deficiency limitations as presented above (see above, the 103 rejections of claims 2-4 by DR).
In the same field of endeavor of an electric sintering apparatus, both Walker and DR relate to an apparatus for preparing a large sintered ceramic body (Walker: [0001]; DR: pg. 7 2nd para.). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the sintering apparatus of Walker to further include an electric conductive layer such as graphite on a surface of a punch as taught by DR in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of facilitating to form a larger sintered article by improving electrical efficiency (DR: derived from pg. 3 3rd para.).
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (WO 2022072703A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kono (JP 2004323920 A).
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOMÍNGUEZ RODRÍGUEZ (WO 2015185969 A1, hereinafter DR*; *citation is based on the English translation attached in this Office Action) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kono (JP 2004323920 A).
Regarding claims 5-8, Walker or DR teaches the device according to claim 1, respectively, but does not specifically teach that wherein the device further comprises a layer of the further kind arranged at least partially around an exterior surface of the die, and wherein the layer of the further kind has a thermal conductivity, measured at 1400° C., that is in the range of 0.2 W·m−1·K−1 to 0.65 W·m−1·K−1 (claim 5), the layer of the further kind has at least one or all of the following properties: a. a density in the range of 0.005 g·cm−3 to 0.22 g·cm−3; b. a mean specific heat capacity, measured at a temperature of 1400° C., in the range of 1.40 J·g−1·° C.−1 to 1.95 J·g−1·° C.−1; c. a thermal emissivity in the range of 0.7 and 0.99 (claim 6), the layer of the further kind comprises carbon, a ceramic, molybdenum, or a combination of at least two thereof (claim 7), and the layer of the further kind has a thickness in the range of 1 mm to 45 mm (claim 8).
Kono teaches a sintering mold for an electric pressure sintering apparatus (figs. 1-2; [0001]). The sintering mold comprises an outer perimeter insulation material 91 wrapped around the outer perimeter surface of the mold 81, comprising a multilayer structure in which a reflective material 94 is sandwiched between a pair of insulation materials 92 and 93, and the inner insulation material 92, which is attached so as to be in contact with the outer surface of the mold 81, is made of a material such as carbon felt ([0010-0011]; fig. 1). Of note, here, the insulation material 92 such as carbon felt is the same as “a layer of a further kind” as disclosed in Instant Specification (Instant Specification: [0160]: carbon felt, as published). Thus, although Kono is silent about the properties of the insulation material 92 such as carbon felt, the recited properties are either implied or would have been obvious as the insulation material 92 is made of the same material as disclosed in Instant Specification. Moreover, although Kono is silent about the thickness of the insulation material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify, through routine optimization or experimentations, the thickness of the insulation material to be an appropriate value for the sintering while balancing heat retention and available physical space, in consideration of several factors such as an operating temperature, an ambient environment conditions, and the thermal conductivity or emissivity of the insulation material, so as to prevent heat from being released from the surface of the sintering mold (Kono: derived from [0004]).
In the same field of endeavor of an electric sintering apparatus, both Walker and DR relate to an apparatus for preparing a large sintered ceramic body (Walker: [0001]; DR: pg. 7 2nd para.), and DR further discloses that in this SPS technique, the energy consumption could be improved if the electric current is concentrated inside the mold by placing a sheet of an electrical insulating material (pg. 3 3rd para.). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the sintering apparatus of Walker or DR to further include an insulation layer such as a carbon felt around the exterior surface of the sintering chamber as taught by Kono in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of facilitating to form a larger sintered article by suppressing heat dissipation from the surface of the sintering mold and improving electrical efficiency (Kono: derived from [0004]).
Double Patenting
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,515,372 B2 (hereinafter, “Reference”) in view of Walker (WO 2022072703A1) or DOMÍNGUEZ RODRÍGUEZ (WO 2015185969 A1, hereinafter DR). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of Instant Application merely broadens the scope of claim 1 of Reference by elimination the elements and their functions of the claim as set forth below:
Claim 1 of Instant Application
Claim 1 of Reference
1. A device having a sintering chamber, the sintering chamber being bordered by the following device parts:
i. a first punch interior surface of a first punch;
ii. a second punch interior surface of a second punch; and
iii. an interior surface of a die;
wherein:
the punches are adapted and arranged to apply a pressure of at least 1 MPa along a compression axis to a target in the sintering chamber;
the first punch and the second punch are connected to an electrical power source;
the first and second punches comprise at least 50 wt. % carbon, based on the total weight of the punch;
the sintering chamber has a cross-sectional width W perpendicular to the compression axis of at least 300 mm;
wherein the device is adapted and arranged to control a temperature in the sintering chamber.
1. A spark plasma sintering tool having a central axis and creating sintered ceramic bodies having dimensions of about 100 mm to about 625 mm, the tool comprising:
a. a die comprising a sidewall comprising an inner wall and an outer wall, wherein the inner wall has a diameter that defines an inner volume configured to receive at least one ceramic powder having a specific surface area (SSA) of from 1 to 18 m2/g as measured according to ASTM C 127 4; and
b. an upper punch and a lower punch operably coupled with the die, wherein each of the upper punch and the lower punch have an outer wall defining a diameter that is less than the diameter of the inner wall of the die thereby creating a gap between each of the upper punch and the lower punch and the inner wall of the die when at least one of the upper punch and the lower punch moves within the inner volume of the die, wherein the gap is from 10 μm to 100 μm wide,
wherein the spark plasma sintering tool comprises on the inner wall of the die at least one conductive foil which has a minimum thickness of 25 μm and wherein the gap is measured from an inwardly facing surface of the conductive foil closest to the upper and lower punches to the outer wall of each of the upper and lower punches
As presented above, the underlined limitations of Instant Application and Reference are substantially identical. The shaded limitations of Instant Application would be obvious in view of Walker or DR (see above, the 103 rejection of claim 1 over Walker or DR). Thus, claim 1 of Instant Application merely broadens the scope of claim 1 of Reference by eliminating some elements and their functions (i.e., unmarked limitations).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Majkic (WO 2008085947 A1) teaches a spark plasma sintering system including a thermal/electric barrier layer interposed between the die and the plunger (abstract, fig. 1).
Kudo (JP 2001348277 A) teaches a discharge plasma sintering method and apparatus ([0001], figs. 1-3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INJA SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1605. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached at (571)270-5343. 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.
/INJA SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
1 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 Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
2 In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held 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 patentably distinct from the prior art device.
3 Graphite has an electric resistivity in range of 9.8 to 41 μΩ·m, as evidenced by “The Physics Factbook” – available at https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/AfricaBelgrave.shtml.
4 Graphite has a though-plane thermal conductivity up to 13.4 W·m−1·K−1, as evidenced by Zhao et al. “Ultrahigh through-plane thermal conductivity of graphite by reducing interplane twist”, Matter, Vol. 9 (1), 102382, published on 7, January in 2026, available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2590238525004254.
Prosecution Insights