DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 and 17-20 are pending. Of the pending claims, claims 1-7, 10-14, and 17-20 are presented for examination on the merits, and claims 8 and 9 are withdrawn from examination.
Claims 1, 7, 13, 14, and 20 are currently amended.
Status of Previous Claim Rejections Under 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection of claims 7, 13, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 6393008 (B1) to Adachi et al. (“Adachi”) (abstract and computer-generated translation are attached).
Regarding claims 1, 17, and 18, Adachi is directed to a method of manufacturing a laminated compact (process for manufacturing a part). Abst – para. [0001]; Desc – para. [0001], [0020], [0021]. The method may be an additive manufacturing method of direct energy deposition (formation of successive solid metal layers superimposed on each other). Para. [0057]. In the deposit (direct energy deposition) method, raw metal powder is sprayed onto a desired location, and the metal powder is deposited while being melted by a laser or election beam to produce the laminate (layers being formed by depositing a powdered filler metal that is subjected to a supply of energy so as to become molten and then solidified). Para. [0059], [0100]. It is known to control an electron beam or laser scanning based on slices of 3D data (each layer describing a pattern defined using a digital model). Para. [0098].
In an embodiment, the raw metal powder (filler metal) can have the following composition in percent by weight (para. [0031], [0036], [0046], [0070], [0076]):
Element
Claim 1
JP 6393008 B1
Aspect / Embodiment
Fe
1 to 3.1
more than 1 and not more than 10
Cr
1 to 2.8
Mn and/or Cr not more than 1.5
Zr, Hf, Er, Sc, and/or Ti
0.5 to 4 each, ≤ 4 in total
Zr: 0.2 to 5, if added
Sc: 0.2 to 5, if added
Ti: 0.2 to 3, if added
V
none
optional / not required
Mn
none
optional / not required
Al
base element
Al alloy (Al is remainder)
In another embodiment, the raw metal powder (filler metal) can have the following composition in percent by weight (para. [0044], [0052], [0069], [0083], [0076]):
Element
Claim 1
JP 6393008 B1
Aspect / Embodiment
Fe
1 to 3.1
more than 0.3 and not more than 2
Cr
1 to 2.8
Mn and/or Cr: 1.5 to 10
Zr, Hf, Er, Sc, and/or Ti
0.5 to 4 each, ≤ 4 in total
Zr: 0.2 to 5, if added
Sc: 0.2 to 5, if added
Ti: 0.2 to 3, if added
V
none
optional / not required
Mn
none
optional / not required
Al
base element
Al alloy (Al is remainder)
The powder may contain Si, but it is not required and therefore may be omitted (para. [0033], [0051]), which falls within the claimed range.
The powder may contain V, but it is not required and therefore may be omitted (para. [0036], [0052]), which meets the claim limitation.
Since Mn is listed in the alternative (“one or more Mn and Cr”) and where Cr is selected, Mn is not required, which meets the claim limitation.
The overlap between the ranges taught in the prior art and recited in the claims creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select from among the prior art ranges because there is utility over an entire range disclosed in the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Adachi discloses adding Cu in an amount of 0.5 to 5 wt.% (para. [0033], [0051], [0073]), which fall within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, Adachi does not teach adding Ce, mischmetal, Co, or La.
Regarding claim 5, Adachi discloses that Li may be added in an amount of 0.2 to 10 wt.% (para. [0036], [0052], [0076]), which overlaps he claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, Adachi discloses subjecting the laminated body to heat treatment (thermal treatment) or heat treatment (solution heat treatment) followed by quenching and tempering. Para. [0071], [0080], [0093].
Regarding claim 10, because claim 2 recites mischmetal as an optional component (“at least one element selected from” the listing of elements), the claim does not require mischmetal to be present if a different element is selected. Thus, claim 10 modifies an optionally claimed element. Because Adachi already teaches that Cu can be selected, Adachi meets the limitations of claim 2 and therefore those of claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, Adachi does not characterize the alloy as a AA7xxx type alloy. Additionally, the alloy is not required to have the main alloying elements of a 7xxx series Al alloy (i.e., Zn, Mg, and Cu) in the aforementioned embodiments.
Regarding claim 13, because claim 7 recites HIC as an optional thermal treatment (“and/or”), the claim does not require the HIC step if a different step is selected. Thus, claim 13 modifies an optionally claimed step. Because Adachi already teaches a thermal treatment or solution heat treatment followed by quenching and tempering, Adachi meets the limitations of claim 7 and therefore those of claim 13.
Regarding claim 19, Adachi discloses that the powder may contain Cu, but it is not required and therefore may be omitted (para. [0033], [0051], [0073]), which meets the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 20, Adachi discloses a dimensional stabilization treatment (heat treatment) may be performed at a temperature equivalent to 300oC (para. [0093], [0115], [0124], [0130]), which falls within the claimed range.
Claims 4, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi, as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of US 2019/0032175 (A1) to Martin et al. (“Martin”).
Regarding claim 4, Adachi does not teach the presence of at least one of the claimed elements.
Martin is directed to aluminum alloys that have been additively manufactured. Para. [0002], [0079], [0152]; claim 16. The alloy may contain one or more alloying elements, such as Bi, B, P, Ca, Sr, In, Sn, and Ba, as grain refiners, strength enhancers, stability enhancers, or a combination thereof. Para. [0108]. Strengthening elements are present in an amount of about 0.01 wt.% to about 20 wt.% (para. [0040]; claim 16), which overlaps the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added one or more of the aforementioned alloying elements in Martin to the aluminum alloy of Adachi because these elements improve strength and stability and induce the formation of finer grains in the aluminum alloy.
Regarding claim 11, because claim 4 recites Bi (bismuth) as an optional component (“at least one element selected from” the listing of elements), the claim does not require Bi to be present if a different element is selected. Thus, claim 11 modifies an optionally claimed element. Furthermore, Adachi does not teach adding Bi to its alloys; thus, Bi is zero percent, which falls within the claimed range.
In addition, Martin discloses that Bi may be added as a strengthening element in an amount of about 0.01 wt.% to about 20 wt.% (para. [0036], [0040], [0108]; claim 16), which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, Adachi does not teach the additional machining, surface treatment, or finishing steps claimed.
Martin teaches that post-production processes, such as light machining, surface finishing, or other finishing operations, are applied to bodies after additive manufacturing. Para. [0156].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have machined or finished the object of Adachi because machining would enable the user to achieve dimensions as close as possible to product specifications and produce a smoother surface.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2006/0065331 (A1) to Bes et al. (“Bes”).
Regarding claim 6, Adachi does not teach adding a grain refiner in the claimed amount.
Bes is directed to aluminum alloy products having high toughness and fatigue resistance. Abstract. To produce an aluminum alloy with a uniform distribution of intermetallic phases, an AlTiC grain refiner is added. Para. [0034]. Example amounts include 0.5 kg/t and 2 kg/t (Table 4), which fall within the claimed range.
Given the formation of intermetallic compounds in the alloys of Adachi and the desire to have uniform distribution of precipitates (para. [0029], [0101]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added at least one grain refining agent in the amount taught by Bes because refining agents would promote homogenization of the alloy during melting and an even distribution of intermetallic phases.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 7, filed 09/30/2025, with respect to Karabin (US 2019/0309402 (A1) or WO 2018/119283 (A1)), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Adachi, as detailed above.
Applicant's arguments with respect to Martin and Bes have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Martin is directed to improving 7xxx/6xxx series alloys with equiaxed-grain microstructures by incorporating nucleants. Due to the high amounts of Si/Mg and Zn in 6xxx alloys and 7xxx alloys, respectively, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine Martin with Karabin because Karabin’s Fe-Cr Al base alloy is not a 6xxx or 7xxx alloy.
In response, the argument is based on the combination of Martin with Karabin, and Karabin is no longer relied upon to reject the claims. Therefore, the argument is moot. However, the Examiner notes that Martin is not limited to improving 7xxx/6xxx. Martin discloses that the base aluminum alloy may be from various series, not just 6000- and 7000-series alloys. Para. [0109]. In an example, Martin tests grain refinement or pure aluminum. Para. [0307]-[0309]. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the universality of the teachings of grain refiners in aluminum-base alloys based on Martin’s disclosure.
Applicant argues that Bes cannot be used to supplement Karabin because Bes is non-analogous art. Applicant asserts that Bes is not in the same field of endeavor (additive manufacturing) and is not reasonably pertinent to the problem faced in additive manufacturing.
In response, the argument is based on the combination of Bes with Karabin, and Karabin is no longer relied upon to reject the claims. Therefore, the argument is moot. However, Bes is analogous prior art because it is both from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and is at least reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
The claimed invention is directed to a process of manufacturing a part by a method of additive manufacturing, the part being made of aluminum alloy. The makeup of the aluminum alloy is of importance based on the claimed chemical composition. Although Bes is not directed to a method of additive manufacturing, Bes still remains in the same field of endeavor because Bes seeks to improve aluminum alloy base (para. [0016]). Improvement of the base alloy is relevant to the preparation of the aluminum alloy filler powder when used as a raw material in a future downstream process.
The present invention is concerned with grain refinement, fatigue properties, and resistance to crack propagation (p. 5 – lines 15-19, 26-27; p. 6 – lines 12-14). Bes is concerned with the addition of refining agent so that the resulting product has a particular microstructure, improved toughness, and lower crack propagation (para. [0003], [0034]). Thus, Bes addresses issues with aluminum alloys that are identified by the present invention as relevant to aluminum alloys. Bes is therefore analogous prior art because it falls within the same field of endeavor including aluminum alloys and the problems encountered dealing with their manufacture.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANESSA T. LUK whose telephone number is (571)270-3587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM ET.
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 D. Hendricks, can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
/VANESSA T. LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
January 14, 2026