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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 74-89 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 74, support cannot be found for the added step “removing at least a portion of the high-melting point material from the metal solid”. Examiner notes that Applicant has not pointed out support for this step. Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendment(s) made to the disclosure. See MPEP §714.02 and 2163.06. The original specification describes curing a portion of the layer of the high-melting point material including a curable material and removing an uncured portion of the layer of the high-melting point material [0091-0093]; similarly, example 1 describes removing uncured curable resin material with air shower [0193]. However, this relates to removal of the uncured curable material, not removing the high-melting point material itself. Furthermore, there is no description of the removing the high-melting point material from the metal solid, which in fact is bonded to the solid as claimed in the previous irradiating step. Without any suggestion in specification, recited removal step is not reasonably conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the claimed subject matter fails to comply with the written description requirement and constitutes new matter. Applicant is requested to cancel this new matter.
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 74-89 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 74, added feature “removing at least a portion of the high-melting point material from the metal solid” is ambiguous because it is unclear what is meant by this removal? Examiner notes this step constitutes new matter as explained above. Applicant’s original specification does not mention removing the high-melting point material from the metal solid, which in fact is bonded to the solid as claimed in the previous irradiating step. The description in [0091-0093], [0161-0164] pertains to removing uncured curable material (not high-melting material)- figs. 4a-4b shows uncured material remover 50 applying wind pressure to the uncured powder portion 101 of the layer 101 of the high-melting material. Similarly, example 1 describes removing uncured curable resin material with air shower [0193]. Present claim 74 does not recite any curable/resin material or removal thereof. Consequently, the recited vague language fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claims indefinite. For purpose of examination, the claims are interpreted without considering the removal step.
As to claim 76, this further concerns forming laminated metal solids and it is confusing how the removal step relates to separating from the laminated metal solids? The specification does not provide any guidance on removing the high-melting point material from the laminated solids. The feature fails from fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claim indefinite.
As to claim 82, it is confusing how the removal step relates to separating the mold/container from the metal solid since the specification does not appear to mention such removal of the mold. The feature fails from fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claim indefinite.
Appropriate correction(s) are required.
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 74-79, 82 and 87-88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cretegny et al. (US 7326892, hereafter “Cretegny”) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 101323529-A, of record, hereafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 74, Cretegny discloses a method for producing a joined solid (brazed solid turbine engine part- see col. 1, Background), the method comprising: placing a metal powder (filler metal particles 12- fig. 1) on a first solid 14 and/or a second solid 24 (superalloy turbine component- col. 1, lines 12-20); covering at least a portion of the periphery of the metal powder 12 with a separate material particles 32 (fig. 1); and irradiating the metal powder with microwaves to heat the metal powder for bonding (microwave radiation 26- figs. 1-2, col. 8, lines 9-30), thereby sintering the metal powder to form a metal solid bonded to the solid; and resulting in forming a brazed/bonded solid body (col. 7, lines 5-40). Concerning the metal powder containing iron or copper, Cretegny teaches that the metal powder particles 12 are formed of same superalloy composition as the component being joined to assure compatibility (col. 4, lines 3-8, 19-22; col. 7, lines 23-27) and consequently, iron-based superalloy component (col. 1, line 12) would utilize braze alloy containing iron particles. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide braze metal powder containing iron in the method of Cretegny for the purpose of bonding iron-based superalloy component to ensure metallurgical compatibility.
Cretegny discloses the particulate material 32 made of highly susceptible to microwave radiation at brazing temperatures, including ceramic & metal materials (col. 5, lines 13-43), but lacks a mixture of aluminum oxide & carbon material. 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: a ceramic 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 cover with a powder mixture that easily absorbs waves (absorbent carbon material) and aluminum oxide 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]). Thus, Cretegny as modified by Zhang discloses the high-melting-point material including a mixture of aluminum oxide and carbon material covering the braze metal powder for producing a joined solid.
As to claims 75-76, the step of irradiating the metal powder with microwaves and sintering the metal powder in the method of Cretegny encompasses forming an additional metal solid (additional part of the joint) on the metal solid. Moreover, repeating the same sintering step to obtain particular joint design on the superalloy turbine component is within common knowledge of ordinary artisan. Repeating known steps to obtain a desired result is not inventive. Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1330-31 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (finding obvious a claimed invention that required performance of three steps known in the prior art, followed by repetition of those steps until a desired result was obtained), MPEP 2143. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to repeat the sintering step in the bonding method of Cretegny in order to achieve desired joint design and/or strength, thereby forming laminated metal solids.
As to claim 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 claim obvious.
As to claims 78-79, Cretegny discloses that the metal powder includes a metal compound or braze alloy (col. 4, lines 19-22; col. 8, lines 60-61).
As to claim 82, Zhang discloses that microwave sintering is used for making the container of high-melting-point absorbing material [0008-0009]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have high-melting-point material in the form of a container covered over the metal powder in the method of Cretegny & Zhang with a motivation to fabricate a container-shaped object.
As to claims 87-88, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform irradiating the metal powder with the microwaves in an inert gas or a reducing atmosphere in the method of Cretegny in order to avoid oxidation and prevent contamination of the metal powder or at the interfaces being joined.
Claims 83-88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cretegny (US 7326892) in view of Zhang (CN 101323529-A) as applied to claim 74 above, and further in view of Martin et al. (US 10682699, “Martin”).
As to claim 83, Cretegny or Zhang does not mention the metal powder being in the form of a green compact. However, Martin (also directed to processing powder material including sintering and fusing- see Background col. 1) teaches that particles are present as a loose powder, a paste, a suspension or green body/compact (col. 2, lines 10-15) and subsequently producing a solid body/object from the particles using one or more technique including injection molding or sintering (col. 3, lines 5-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use metal powder as a green compact since such form is known in producing a solid body from metal powder, as evidenced by Martin.
As to claims 84-86, Cretegny appears to be silent with respect to applying pressure before, during or after irradiating with microwaves in sintering. However, such technique is known in the art. Martin teaches that sintering is broadly construed to mean method of forming a solder mass by heat and/or pressure without melting the entire mass to the point of liquefaction; hot pressing, sintering, high-pressure low temperature sintering, spark plasma sintering, microwave heating and combinations thereof are established sintering techniques, often conducted in an inert gas or in a reducing atmosphere (col. 21, lines 5-13, 23-32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ pressure before, during and/or after irradiating with microwaves in the method of Cretegny because applying pressure is conventional in the art of sintering and doing so would expedite sintering of the metal powder.
As to claims 87-88, Martin teaches that hot pressing, sintering, high-pressure low temperature sintering, spark plasma sintering, microwave heating and combinations thereof are established sintering techniques, often conducted in an inert gas or in a reducing atmosphere (col. 21, lines 23-32). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform irradiating with the microwaves & sintering the metal powder in an inert gas or a reducing atmosphere in the method of Cretegny in order to avoid oxidation.
Claims 80-81 and 89 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cretegny (US 7326892) in view of Zhang (CN 101323529-A) as applied to claim 74 above, and further in view of Cretegny (US 2010/0193574, hereafter “US ‘574”)
As to claims 80-81 and 89, Cretegny or Zhang is silent as to the metal powder including metal oxide. However, such constituent is known in the art. Cretegny- US ‘574 (also directed to microwave brazing for producing a joined solid- [0002-0003]) teaches using particulate material 18 that is highly susceptible to microwave radiation at brazing temperatures and include ceramics such as carbides, nitrides and oxides of aluminum, nickel, manganese and iron- e.g. aluminum oxide, nickel oxide, silicon carbide etc. [0027], which meets claimed metal oxide. US ‘574 further teaches that microwave-susceptible material as well as the particle size can be chosen depending on particular application and temperatures involved [0029]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate metal oxide particles in the metal powder of Cretegny because doing so would assist in the microwave brazing process. With respect to reducing the metal oxide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a reducing atmosphere in the microwave brazing method of Cretegny in order to avoid oxidation and prevent contamination of metal powder or at the interfaces being joined.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 90-93 are allowable.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 74 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner notes that new grounds of 112 rejection(s) have been set forth in light of recent amendment and addresses matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/29/26 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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