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 Status
An amendment, filed 6/10/2025, is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 6-12 are amended; Claim 31 is newly added; Claim 3 is canceled. Claims 1-2, 5-12, 14, 24, and 26-31 are currently pending.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-12, 14, 24, and 26-30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “forming a second multi-layer metallic part by melting and solidifying powder of a second metal” and “forming a first multi-layer metallic part by melting and solidifying powder of a first metal.” Additionally, the claim recites a third region formed of “a third elemental metal” which is interpreted to require that the third region is formed of a single metal element, not an alloy. As the “first metal” and “second metal” do not use the phrase “elemental metal” the first metal and second metal are interpreted to encompass both elemental metal and metal alloy compositions. As the first metal and second metal may comprise alloys, so long as the alloys have a different composition in some manner, they would meet the limitation “a first metal which is different from the second metal.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8-10, 14, 24, and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Symeonidis et al. (US 2017/0304944)(previously cited).
With respect to Claim 1, Symeonidis teaches a method of additively manufacturing a joint object, the method comprising steps of forming a plurality of layers, wherein each layer may be formed of a distinct metal powder or a plurality of portions of each layer may comprise distinct metal powders, and wherein each metal powder comprising a single elemental metal or alloy. (para. 7-8, 77-78, 91). The reference teaches wherein each of the plurality of layers may be formed by an additive manufacturing process, such as selective laser melting, comprising depositing a layer of powder, selectively melting portions of the powder layer with a laser beam forming a melt pool, and cooling and solidifying the melt pool to form sequential layers building up the object layer by layer. (para. 6, 15).
In particular, Symeonidis teaches wherein the method may comprise forming a plurality of layers of a first material by melting and solidifying a first elemental or alloy metal powder, forming a plurality of layers by melting and solidifying a second elemental metal or alloy powder different from the first above the first layers, and forming one or more layers of a third elemental metal or alloy (third region), wherein the third region may be disposed between the first and second regions. (para. 7-8, 12, 78, 91; Fig. 12A (see below)(wherein para. 78, states “In some instances, adjacent components in the powder bed are separated from one another by one or more intervening layers. In an example, a first layer is adjacent to a second layer when the first layer is in direct contact with the second layer. In another example, a first layer is adjacent to a second layer when the first layer is separated from the second layer by at least one layer (e.g., a third layer). The intervening layer may be of any layer size.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
223
308
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 12A depicts an arrangement comprising a first portion formed of one or more layers of a first metal, a second portion formed of one or more layers of a second metal, and a third portion formed of one or more layers of a third metal disposed between the first and second portions. Additionally, Symeonidis teaches a method wherein the plurality of layers and regions are tailored to form a joint object with controlled diffusion of the first, second, and/or third metals in order to reduce defects and that may comprise a composite material and/or functionally graded material. (see, e.g, para. 7, 9, 15, 91).
Thus, in view of the overall teachings of Symeonidis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a plurality of layers of a first material by melting and solidifying a first elemental or alloy metal powder (thus, wherein a first plurality of layers of the first metal may be considered the “first multi-layer metallic part” and an additional plurality of layers be considered a “first region” connected to the first metallic part), forming a plurality of layers by melting and solidifying a second elemental metal or alloy powder different from the first (constituting a “second region” connected to a “second multi-layer metallic part”) above the first layers, and forming a plurality of layers of a third elemental metal (third region), wherein the third region is interposed between the first and second regions, the first, second and third regions forming a coupling part that couples the first metallic part and the second metallic part, in order to form an additively manufactured object with controlled structure and/or properties and reduced defects.
With respect to Claim 2, Symeonidis is drawn to a method wherein the first metal and second metal are capable of forming an alloy/solid solution through controlled diffusion. (see para. 7-9, 15, 91). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select first and second metals and processing parameters to obtain a desired level of solid solution through diffusion, with a predictable result of success. Furthermore, it is noted that the claim does not require forming a solid solution of first and second metals, but instead, is drawn to a hypothetical condition. “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.” MPEP 2111.04.
With respect to Claim 5, Symeonidis teaches wherein the second region may comprise, substantially rectangular shape (see, e.g. Fig. 12), deemed to mee the claimed “polygonal shape.”
With respect to Claims 8-10, Symeonidis teaches examples wherein one or more layers or regions have a cross-sectional area orthogonal to the lamination direction decreasing (or increasing) upward along the lamination direction. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a coupling part having first and second regions, the first and second regions having, relative to one another, decreasing or increasing cross-sectional area along the lamination direction, including portions of varied increasing and/or decreasing, in order to obtain an object with final desired dimensions. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability of an additive manufacturing method, such as that taught by Symeonidis, to encompass forming substantially any shape or shapes, including those recited in claims 8-12, with a predictable result of success and a mere change in form has been held to be prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.05; Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). Additionally, with respect to Claim 12, the reference teaches controlling the height of individual layers, wherein each layer may be the same height or the method may comprise forming layers of differing heights/thicknesses. (para. 76, 108).
With respect to Claim 14, Symeonidis teaches the selection of first, second, and third metals designed to obtain controlled diffusion, and thus, capable of forming solid solutions in the form of a final alloy. (see abstract; para. 63, 78). Furthermore, it is noted that the claim does not require forming a solid solution, but instead, is drawn to a hypothetical condition. “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.” MPEP 2111.04.
With respect to claims 24 and 26-27, Symeonidis teaches the selection of first, second, and third metals designed to obtain controlled diffusion and alloying, including examples wherein a first metal (may be arbitrarily named the first or second metal) has a higher melting point than a second metal (may be arbitrarily named the first or second metal), and thus, meets the claimed limitation. (see abstract; para. 8, 10, 12, 14, 48, 63, 78). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select first, second, and/or third metals wherein the metals have differing melting temperatures and would increase the melting temperature of an alloy one or more of the respective metals. Furthermore, it is noted that the claim does not require forming combination of first, second, and/or third metals, but instead, is drawn to a hypothetical condition. “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.” MPEP 2111.04.
With respect to Claims 28-30, Symeonidis teaches wherein each of the first metal, second metal, and third metal may comprise an elemental metal. (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Symeonidis et al. (US 2017/0304944)(previously cited), as applied to claim 1 (with respect to claims 6-8), in view of Fukase (US 2018/0009166).
With respect to Claims 6-7, Symeonidis is silent as to forming, in addition to the first coupling part, one or more additional coupling parts, the plurality of coupling parts formed at different positions as viewed from a lamination direction of the plurality of second layers.
Fukase teaches a method of coupling first and second dissimilar material compositions using an additive manufacturing process, the method comprising forming a plurality of coupling parts that form a corrugated surface between the materials. (para. 39-44). Fukase teaches that the corrugated shape (see, e.g., Fig. 2A, increases the adhesion area between multilayer materials to distribute stress generated at the joining surface, enhancing the joining strength between the materials. (para. 43-44). Fukase teaches examples wherein these corrugated/coupling structures may be formed at different positions as viewed from the laminating direction. (see Fig. 5). Thus, Fukase teaches the benefit of providing a plurality of raised coupling structures at different positions to improve bonding between portions having dissimilar compositions in an additive manufacturing process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Symeonidis, to form a plurality of coupling parts having the composition detailed in claim 1 above, the plurality of coupling parts formed at respective different positions as viewed from a lamination direction and forming a corrugated surfaces between the coupling parts and one or more of the first and second multi-layer metallic parts, as taught by Fukase, in order to increase an adhesion area between the parts and to distribute stress generated at the joining surface, enhancing the joining strength between the parts.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 14, 24, and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Symeonidis et al. (US 2017/0304944) in view of Li et al. (US 2018/0161931)(previously cited) with respect to claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 14, 24, and 26-30 and Symeonidis et al. (US 2017/0304944) in view of Fukase (US 2018/0009166) and further in view of Li et al. (US 2018/0161931)(previously cited) with respect to claims 6-7.
In the alternative to the above rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 14, 24, and 26-30 over Symeonidis and claims 6-7 over Symeonidis in view of Fukase, Symeonidis teaches a method capable of forming a plurality of layers of a first elemental metal, a plurality of second layers of a second elemental metal at least partially above the first plurality of layers in a lamination direction, and a plurality of third layers of a third elemental metal disposed between the first and second layers, but may be alternatively interpreted as not specifically drawn to coupling first and second metallic parts.
Li teaches a method of joining first and second metallurgically incompatible metals, the method comprising forming and/or providing first and second metallic parts having dissimilar compositions that are metallurgically incompatible, and using an additive manufacturing process to form a coupling part, the part comprising a third region comprising a plurality of layers of separate additional distinct elemental metals, the third region designed to improve the compatibility of the first and second metallic part compositions and prevent unwanted degradation in structure and/or properties. (para. 3-4, 9-11, 20-27)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the method of Symeonidis, comprising forming a plurality of layers of a first elemental metal, a plurality of second layers of a second elemental metal at least partially above the first plurality of layers in a lamination direction, and a plurality of third layers of a third elemental metal interposed between the first and second layers, to form a coupling part between first and second metallic parts, as taught by Li, in order to prevent unwanted property degradation due to the joining of incompatible metals. In other words, Symeonidis is drawn to the desirable diffusion of first, second, and third metals and Li provides motivation to use such tailored diffusion comprising respective plurality of layers of elemental metals, to form a coupling part coupling first and second metallic parts formed of the same first and second metals of the plurality of first and second metal layers, in order to join such metallic parts with tailored diffusion such that the metal of the third plurality of layers (third region) prevents unwanted material properties that would result from joining the first and second metals without the third metal region between them.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 12 and 31 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 any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach a method as in claims 11 and 12, respectively, wherein a region or layer is formed at a position spaced away from a neighboring region/layer. Additionally, the prior art of record fails to teach wherein the first region or the second region includes lower beams and upper beams arranged into a parallel cross shape meeting each of the limitations of claim 31.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 6/10/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 5-10, 14, 24, and 26-30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Symeonidis or alternatively, Symeonidis in view of Li.
Applicant first argues that the rejection does not specifically set forth why a 103/obviousness rejection is made over Symeonidis. Symeonidis teaches steps, structures, and compositions rendering obvious each of instant claim limitations, as set forth in the 103 rejection. The reference does not, however, teach a specific example meeting each of the claimed steps and structures in a single instance and therefore, is not interpreted to teach the claimed method with sufficient specificity as to constitute a 102 rejection. Accordingly, a 103 rejection is properly made over the reference.
Applicant further argues “there is no reason to believe that modifying the generic 3D object of Symeonidis would yield the claimed invention.” (Remarks, p. 12). This argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant fails to show how the rejection requires modifying a generic object to arrive at the instant claim limitations. Claim 1 does not require any structure that is not made obvious by specific teachings of the prior art. Specifically, Symeonidis clearly sets forth a method of manufacturing a joint object comprising a multi-layer multi-metal configuration comprising plurality of layers each of a first metal, a second metal, and a coupling part between the first and second metals made from a third elemental metal, as further detailed in the above rejection, rendering obvious the limitations of claim 1. As a result, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Symeonidis in view of Fukase and alternatively, further in view of Li, as detailed above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A HEVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 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 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.
/JOHN A HEVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735