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 .
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed January 5, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 14-17 and 20 are amended. No new matter has been added.
Claims 9, 10, 11 and 12 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions Groups II-V, directed to a part, a powder, a filler wire, and a product, respectively, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely elected with traverse in the reply filed on September 5, 2024.
Claims 1, 3-12 and 14-21 are pending, and Claims 1, 3-8 and 14-21 are currently considered in this office action.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 14, 18-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vo (previously cited, US 20180010216 A1) in view of Araki (previously cited, US 20190368008 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Vo discloses a method for manufacturing a part comprising forming a formation of successive metallic layers, superimposed on one another, each layer being formed by the deposition of a filler metal, the filler metal being subjected to an energy supply so at to melt and constitute, when solidifying, said layer (para. [0056], powder-fed directed energy deposition process, which involves layer-by-layer (successive layer) deposition), wherein the filler metal is an aluminum alloy (Abstract), consisting of the following alloy elements, in weight percent:
4% Mg, which reads on the claimed 0-4.5% (para. [0031], Al-4Mg-1.7Zr; see also para. [0029], wherein Mg may be 1-10%;);
0.45-3% Zr, including 1.7% Zr, which reads on the claimed >1 and ≤2.5% (para. [0031], Al-4Mg-1.7Zr; see also para. [0029], wherein Zr may be 0.45-3%);
optionally 0.3-1.5wt% V, which reads on the claimed optionally at least one other element selected from V, the at least other element being from 0.05-5wt% (para. [0029]); and
impurities: <0.05% individually (para. [0049], wherein impurities such as Sc do not exceed 0.05wt%).
Vo is silent towards Sr, Ba, Sb, Bi, Ca, P, In and/or Sn, as well as Ag and Li, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate these elements to not be included, and therefore 0%, which reads on the claim language that the elements Sr, Ba, Sb, Bi, Ca, P, In and/or Sn, and also Ag and/or Li, are optional (inclusive of 0%).
Regarding V, it is noted that a composition of Vo comprising 0wt% V (Vo discloses V as optional and therefore a range inclusive of 0%), additionally reads on the claimed composition because the claimed V is optional (inclusive of 0%).
Vo does not disclose at least one alloy element selected from Fe, Mn, Ni and/or La of at least 0.5% per element.
Araki teaches up 2.0wt% total of elements including two of Zr and Ni, or alternatively two of Zr and Mn, in order to improve heat resistance and corrosion resistance (para. [0053]).
Because Vo discloses an alloy comprising 0.45-3.0 wt% Zr (see para. [0029]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included up to 1.55wt% Ni, or alternatively up to 1.55wt% Mn, as taught by Araki, for the invention disclosed by Vo, in order to maximize heat resistance and corrosion resistance (see teaching by Araki above). The range up to 1.55wt% reads on the claimed range of at least 0.5wt%. For example, an alloy comprising 1.1wt% of Zr, as disclosed by Vo, would therefore have up to 0.9wt% Ni, or alternatively up to 0.9wt% Mn, as taught by Araki.
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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Additionally, Applicant has not provided a criticality for the content of the impurity elements.
Regarding Claim 3, Vo discloses a Mg content lower than 3.5% (para. [0029], wherein Mg may be as low as 1wt%). 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 4, Vo discloses wherein the content of the other alloy element or of each other alloy element (V - see above Claim 1) is 0.3-1.5wt%, which reads on the claimed 0.1-3%, 0.1-2%, 0.1-1% or 0.1-0.5% range (para. [0029], optionally 0.3-1.5wt% V).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that in the case of including 0.3-1.5wt% V for an alloy which comprises 0.3-3wt% Zr, as disclosed by Vo, the Ni, or alternatively Mn, would be included in a range of up to 1.4wt% such that total amount of V, Zr and Ni (or Mn) would be 2wt% or less (see teaching by Araki in Claim 1 above). For example, the invention of Vo in view of Araki teaches a composition including 1.1wt% Zr, 0.3wt% V and 0.6wt% Ni, or alternatively 1.1wt% Zr, 0.3wt% V and 0.6wt% Mn, which reads on the claimed ranges required for Zr (>1 to 2.5wt%), V (0.1-3wt%) and Ni (at least 0.5wt%) or alternatively Mn (at least 0.5wt%).
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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 5, Vo discloses after formation of the layers, and/or after the formation of the part, an application of at least one heat treatment, the temperature of the heat treatment being optionally from 300-600C (para. [0057]).
Regarding Claim 6, while Vo discloses wherein solidification rates from the melting due to the laser act as quenching, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that this occurs during (not after) layer formation and is inherent to the additive manufacturing process claimed, and that the invention of Vo does not include a quenching-type heat treatment following layer formation or following part formation (para. [0056]-[0057], the formed part only undergoes heat treatment (aging), and there is no quenching involved).
Regarding Claim 7, Vo discloses wherein the filler metal is in the form of a powder, whose exposure to a beam of light or of charged particles results in a local melting followed by solidification, so as to form a solid layer (para. [0056]).
Regarding Claim 14, Vo does not disclose 0.5-5wt% Fe.
Araki teaches additions of up to 1.5wt% Fe to form Al-Fe-based intermetallics in order to refine crystal grains and improve tensile strength and/or to form a solid solution in aluminum to improve tensile strength (para. [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included up to 1.5wt% Fe, which reads on the claimed range of 0.5-5wt% Fe, as taught by Araki, for the invention disclosed by Vo, in order to refine crystal grains and to improve tensile strength by either forming Fe-Al intermetallics or by forming Fe in solid solution with Al (see teachings above).
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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 18, Vo in view of Araki disclose up to 1.55wt% Ni, or alternatively up to 1.55wt% Mn (para. [0053], see rejection of Claim 1 above; up to 1.55wt% Ni reads on the claimed range of 0.5-5wt% Ni). For example, an alloy comprising 1.1wt% Zr would comprise up to 0.9wt% of Ni or alternatively up to 0.9wt% Mn in order to have a combined total of Zr and Ni of 2wt% or less or a combined total of Zr and Mn of 2wt% or less, as taught by Araki, which reads on the claimed range of 0.5-5wt% for the total content of at least one alloy (Mn or Ni) selected from Fe, Mn, Ni and/or La.
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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 19, Araki and Vo disclose wherein the composition comprises Ni, or alternatively Mn, as the one element selected from Fe, Mn, Ni and La, and wherein the alloy does not comprise Cr (para. [0049], wherein chromium in some embodiments is considered an unavoidable impurity and would therefore be absent from the alloy/unintentionally added).
Regarding Claim 21, Araki and Vo disclose wherein the composition comprises Ni, or alternatively Mn, as the one element selected from Fe, Mn, Ni and La, and wherein this element (either Ni or Mn) would be in an amount up to 1.55wt%, and further, for an alloy comprising 1.1wt% Zr, would be in an amount of up to 0.9wt%, which reads on the claimed range of at least 0.5wt% per this element (see para. [0053] of Araki, and Claim 1 rejection above).
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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Claims 1, 3-7, 14 and 17-20 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vo (previously cited, US 20190194781 A1) in view of Araki (previously cited, US 20190368008 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Vo discloses a method for manufacturing a part comprising forming a formation of successive metallic layers, superimposed on one another, each layer being formed by the deposition of a filler metal, the filler metal being subjected to an energy supply so at to melt and constitute, when solidifying, said layer (para. [0056], powder-fed directed energy deposition process, which involves layer-by-layer (successive layer) deposition), wherein the filler metal is an aluminum alloy (Abstract), including the following alloy elements, in weight percent:
4% Mg, which reads on the claimed 0-4.5% (para. [0031], Al-4Mg-1.7Zr; see also para. [0029], wherein Mg may be 1-10%;);
1.7% Zr, which reads on the claimed >1 and ≤2.5% (para. [0031], Al-4Mg-1.7Zr; see also para. [0029], wherein Zr may be 0.45-3%);
optionally 0.3-1.5wt% V, which reads on the claimed optionally at least one other element selected from V, the at least other element being from 0.05-5wt% (para. [0029]); and
impurities: <0.05% individually (para. [0049], wherein impurities such as Sc do not exceed 0.05wt%).
Vo is silent towards Sr, Ba, Sb, Bi, Ca, P, In and/or Sn, as well as Ag and Li, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate these elements to not be included, and therefore 0%, which reads on the claim language that the elements Sr, Ba, Sb, Bi, Ca, P, In and/or Sn, and also Ag and/or Li, are optional (inclusive of 0%).
Vo does not disclose at least one alloy element selected from Fe, Mn, Ni and/or La, and at least 0.1% per element.
Araki teaches additions of up to 1.5wt% Fe to form Al-Fe-based intermetallics in order to refine crystal grains and improve tensile strength and/or to form a solid solution in aluminum to improve tensile strength (para. [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included up to 1.5wt% Fe, as taught by Araki, for the invention disclosed by Vo, in order to refine crystal grains and to improve tensile strength by either forming Fe-Al intermetallics or by forming Fe in solid solution with Al (see teachings above).
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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Additionally, Applicant has not provided a criticality for the content of the impurity elements.
Regarding Claim 3, Vo discloses a Mg content lower than 3.5% (para. [0029], wherein Mg may be as low as 1wt%). 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 4, Vo discloses wherein the content of the other alloy element or of each other alloy element (V - see above Claim 1) is 0.3-1.5wt%, which reads on the claimed 0.1-3wt% (para. [0029], optionally 0.3-1.5wt% V). 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 5, Vo discloses after formation of the layers, and/or after the formation of the part, an application of at least one heat treatment, the temperature of the heat treatment being optionally from 300-600C (para. [0057]).
Regarding Claim 6, while Vo discloses wherein solidification rates from the melting due to the laser act as quenching, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that this occurs during (not after) layer formation and is inherent to the additive manufacturing process claimed, and that the invention of Vo does not include a quenching-type heat treatment following layer formation or following part formation (para. [0056]-[0057], the formed part only undergoes heat treatment (aging), and there is no quenching involved).
Regarding Claim 7, Vo discloses wherein the filler metal is in the form of a powder, whose exposure to a beam of light or of charged particles results in a local melting followed by solidification, so as to form a solid layer (para. [0056]).
Regarding Claim 14, Araki discloses up to 1.5wt% Fe, which reads on the claimed range of 0.5-5wt% Fe (para. [0045], up to 1.5wt%; see rejection of Claim 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 18, Vo and Araki discloses wherein the total content of the at last one alloy element selected from Fe, Mn, Ni and/or La is from 0.5-5wt% (Araki, para. [0045], see rejection of Claim 1 above; Fe is up to 1.5wt%).
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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 19, Araki and Vo disclose wherein the composition comprises Fe as the one element selected from Fe, Mn, Ni and La, and wherein the alloy does not comprise Cr (para. [0049], wherein chromium in some embodiments is considered an unavoidable impurity and would therefore be absent from the alloy/unintentionally added).
Regarding Claim 20, Vo discloses wherein Mg is 4% Mg, and may further range from 1-10wt%, which reads on the claimed range of 2-4.5% Mg (para. [0031], Al-4Mg-1.7Zr; see also para. [0029], wherein Mg may be 1-10%), wherein
Zr is 1.7% Zr, which reads on the claimed >1 and ≤2.5% (para. [0031], Al-4Mg-1.7Zr; see also para. [0029], wherein Zr may be 0.45-3%), and
Araki discloses up to 1.5wt% Fe, which reads on the claimed range of 1-2% at least one of Fe, Mn, Ni and/or La (para. [0045], see alternative Claim 1 rejection above).
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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Claim 8 is rejected, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vo (previously cited, US 20190194781 A1) in view of Araki (previously cited, US 20190368008 A1), as applied to Claim 1 (and alternatively Claim 1) above, in further view of Martin (previously cited, US 20190161836 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Vo discloses using the aluminum composition in powder-fed directed energy deposition processes, but does not disclose wherein the aluminum composition may be used in the form of a wire for the additive manufacturing process.
Martin teaches wherein aluminum compositions which are used as a powder in direct metal deposition processes may alternatively be used as a wire, such that exposure to a heat source results in local melting followed by solidification, so as to form a solid layer (para. [0047]; para. [0058]; para. [0126]-[0127]; para. [0135]-[0136]). Thus, Martin teaches that feedstock in the form of a wire is an art equivalent form to feedstock as a powder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a wire feedstock (filler) with the composition disclosed by Vo in place of the powder feedstock (filler), as taught by Martin, because Martin demonstrates that the wire feedstock is an art equivalent to a powder feedstock for a direct metal deposition additive manufacturing process (see teaching above), and because Vo discloses wherein the aluminum alloy composition may be formed into a wire (para. [0053]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable is rejected, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vo (previously cited, US 20190194781 A1) in view of Araki (previously cited, US 20190368008 A1), as applied to Claim 1 (and alternatively Claim 1) above, in further view of Kaji (previously cited, JP 2008261004 A1, English Machine Translation provided).
Regarding Claim 16, Vo is silent towards the inclusion of 0.1-5wt% La.
Kaji teaches including at 1-6wt% of rare earths such as La in order to form fine intermetallic compounds with Al, thereby suppressing coarsening of crystal grains in the Al matrix (para. [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included 1-6wt% La, as taught by Kaji, for the invention disclosed by Vo, in order to suppress Al grain coarsening (see teaching by Kaji above). An amount of 1-6wt% La reads on the claimed range of 0.1-5wt% La.
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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Claim 20 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vo (previously cited, US 20190194781 A1) in view of Kaji (previously cited, JP 2008261004 A1, English Machine Translation provided).
Regarding Claim 20, Vo discloses a method for manufacturing a part comprising forming a formation of successive metallic layers, superimposed on one another, each layer being formed by the deposition of a filler metal, the filler metal being subjected to an energy supply so at to melt and constitute, when solidifying, said layer (para. [0056], powder-fed directed energy deposition process, which involves layer-by-layer (successive layer) deposition), wherein the filler metal is an aluminum alloy (Abstract), consisting of the following alloy elements, in weight percent:
4% Mg, which reads on 0-4.5% Mg (see Claim 1 limitations), and further (Claim 20) 2-4.5% Mg (para. [0031], Al-4Mg-1.7Zr; see also para. [0029], wherein Mg may be 1-10%;);
0.45-3% Zr, including 1.7% Zr, which reads on the claimed >1 and ≤2.5% Zr (para. [0031], Al-4Mg-1.7Zr; see also para. [0029], wherein Zr may be 0.45-3%);
optionally 0.3-1.5wt% V, which reads on the claimed optionally at least one other element selected from V, the at least other element being from 0.05-5wt% (para. [0029]); and
impurities: <0.05% individually (para. [0049], wherein impurities such as Sc do not exceed 0.05wt%).
Vo is silent towards Sr, Ba, Sb, Bi, Ca, P, In and/or Sn, as well as Ag and Li, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate these elements to not be included, and therefore 0%, which reads on the claim language that the elements Sr, Ba, Sb, Bi, Ca, P, In and/or Sn, and also Ag and/or Li, are optional (inclusive of 0%).
Regarding V, it is noted that a composition of Vo comprising 0wt% V (Vo discloses V as optional and therefore a range inclusive of 0%), additionally reads on the claimed composition because the claimed V is optional (inclusive of 0%).
Vo does not disclose at least one alloy element selected from Fe, Mn, Ni and/or La of at least 0.5% per element (see Claim 1 limitations), and further, (Claim 20) 1-2% per element.
Kaji teaches including at 1-6wt% of rare earths such as La in order to form fine intermetallic compounds with Al, thereby suppressing coarsening of crystal grains in the Al matrix (para. [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included 1-6wt% La, as taught by Kaji, for the invention disclosed by Vo, in order to suppress Al grain coarsening (see teaching by Kaji above). An amount of 1-6wt% La reads on the claimed range of 1-2% La (Claim 20).
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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Additionally, Applicant has not provided a criticality for the content of the impurity elements.
Claims 1, 3-8, 14-15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi (previously cited by Applicant in IDS filed January 25, 2023, US 20200063241 A1) in view of Martin (previously cited, US 20190161836 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Adachi discloses a method for manufacturing a part comprising forming a formation of successive metallic layers, superimposed on one another, each layer being formed by the deposition of a filler metal, the filler metal being subjected to an energy supply so at to melt and constitute, when solidifying, said layer (para. [0008]; para. [0084]-[0087]), wherein the filler metal is an aluminum alloy (Abstract).
Adachi discloses that the aluminum alloy, in one embodiment, includes 0.3-2wt% Fe and 0.3-10wt% Mn (para. [0052], second aspect), and further includes 0.5-5wt Mg or 0.5-3wt% Ni (para. [0055], further inclusion according to the second aspect may be any one selection). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Si and Cu are not required so long as one of Mg and Ni are included. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Cr is not required when Mn is included.
Adachi further discloses wherein for this embodiment, the aluminum alloy may further include one of 0.2-3wt% Ti, 0.2-5wt% Zr, 0.2-10wt% Li and 0.2 to 5wt% V (para. [0058]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Sc is are not required so long as one of Ti, Zr and V are included.
Thus, Adachi discloses an aluminum alloy according to one embodiment comprising 0.3-2wt% Fe, 0.3-10w% Mn, 0.05-5wt% Mg, 0.5-3wt% Ni, 0.2-3wt% Ti, 0.2-5wt% Zr, 0.2-10wt% Li and 0.2 to 5wt% V, which overlaps the claimed ranges (0.05-7wt% Mg and 0.05-5wt% Mg reads on 0-4.5wt% Mg; 0.2-5wt% Zr reads on >1 to 2.5wt% Zr; 0.3-10wt%Mn, 0.3-2wt% Fe, and 0.5-3wt% Ni read on at least one of Mn, Fe and Ni in an amount of at least 0.5wt% each; and 0.2-3wt% Ti and 0.2 to 5wt% V read on optionally at least element selected from V and Ti of an amount 0.05-5wt% each; 0.2-10wt% Li reads on optionally 0.06-2wt% Li). As noted above, Si, Cu, and Sc are not required when the above described elements (Mg and/or Ni, and Ti, Zr, Li and/or V) are included in the aluminum alloy and may be 0wt%.
Therefore, Adachi discloses an alloy consisting of the compositions described above and reads on the consisting language of the claim.
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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Adachi is silent towards the content of each impurity for the first and second embodiments/aspects of invention, and does not disclose wherein impurities are <0.05% individually (para. [0035]).
Martin teaches wherein total impurities are 0.15wt% or less, with individual impurities being each 0.05wt% or less (para. [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an aluminum alloy comprising the impurity levels taught by Martin for the invention disclosed by Adachi in order to produce the composition for the aluminum alloy part desired by Adachi, and to prevent unexpected microstructures due to processing effects from the unwanted elements. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the desire to keep unwanted elements (impurities) to be as low as possible in order to produce the correct composition.
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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Additionally, Applicant has not provided a criticality for the content of the impurity elements.
Regarding Claim 3, Adachi discloses wherein the aluminum alloy includes 0.5-5wt% Mg, which reads on the claimed range of 3.5wt% or less (para. [0055]).
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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 4, Adachi discloses 0.2-3wt% Ti and 0.2 to 5wt% V, which reads on optionally at least element selected from V and Ti of an amount 0.1-3wt% each (para. [0058]). Regarding Si and Cr, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Si is not required so long as one of Mg and Ni are included (see Claim 1 above), and therefore Si may be 0wt%, and that Cr is not required when Mn is included and therefore may also be 0% (see Claim 1 above).
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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 5, Adachi discloses wherein the method includes, after the formation of the layers, and/or after the formation of the part, an application of at least one heat treatment, the temperature of the heat treatment being optionally from 300-600C (para. [0117]). Examiner notes that the temperature range of the heat treatment is not required (optional), and not required to meet the claim limitations.
Regarding Claim 6, Adachi discloses including no quenching-type heat treatment following formation of the layers, and/or formation of the part (para. [0117], wherein it is preferable to use without heat treatment, and therefore without quenching-type heat treatment).
Regarding Claim 7, Adachi discloses wherein the filler metal is in the form of a powder, whose exposure to a beam of light or of charged particles results in a local melting followed by solidification, so as to form a solid layer (para. [0085]; para. [0146]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the irradiation with a laser beam or electron beam to be a local melting.
Regarding Claim 8, Adachi discloses wherein the filler metal is derived from a filler wire, whose exposure to a heat source results in local melting followed by solidification, so as to form a solid layer (para. [0085]-[0086]; para. [0146]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the irradiation with a laser beam or electron beam to be a local melting.
Regarding Claim 14, Adachi discloses wherein the aluminum alloy comprises 0.3-2wt% Fe, which reads on the claimed range of 1-2wt% Fe (para. [0052]).
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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 15, Adachi discloses wherein the aluminum alloy comprises 0.5-3wt% Ni, which reads on the claimed 1-2wt% Ni (para. [0055]).
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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 17, Adachi discloses wherein the aluminum alloy comprises 1.5-10wt% Mn, which reads on the claimed range of 1-2wt% Mn (para. [0052]).
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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 18, Adachi discloses wherein the aluminum alloy comprises 0.3-2wt% Fe, 0.5-3wt% Ni, and 1.5-10wt% Mn (para. [0046]; para. [0052]; para. [0055]). Thus, Adachi discloses wherein the aluminum alloy comprises a total of Fe, Ni and Mn of 2.3-15wt%, which reads on the claimed range of 0.1-5wt%
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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 19, Adachi discloses, alternatively in another embodiment, wherein the aluminum alloy composition consists of 0.3% of Fe or less (inclusive of 0%), 0.3-10wt% Mn, 0.2-7wt% Mg, 0.2-5wt% Zr, 0.2-3wt% Ti, 0.2-5wt% V and 0.2-10wt% Li, wherein Cr is not required when Mn is present, wherein Si and Cu are not required elements when Mg is included, and wherein Sc is not required when Ti, Zr, Li or V are included (para. [0045]-[0047], see first embodiment; para. [0058]). Thus, Adachi discloses an alloy comprising only one element selected from Fe, Mn, Ni and La, (0.3-10wt% Mn, Fe and Ni may be 0%), in an amount of 0.5-5wt%.
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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 20, Adachi discloses, in one embodiment, an aluminum alloy comprising 0.3-2wt% Fe, 0.3-10w% Mn, 0.05-5wt% Mg, 0.5-3wt% Ni, and 0.2-5wt% Zr (see Claim 1 rejection above; para. [0052], [0055] and [0058]), which overlaps the claimed ranges of 2-4.5wt% Mg, >1 to 2.5wt% Zr, and at least one of Mn, Fe and Ni in an amount of 1-2wt% for each element.
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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 21, Adachi discloses, alternatively in another embodiment, wherein the aluminum alloy compositions consists of 0.3% of Fe or less (inclusive of 0%), 0.3-10wt% Mn, 0.2-7wt% Mg, 0.5-3wt% Ni, 0.2-5wt% Zr, 0.2-3wt% Ti, 0.2-5wt% V, and 0.2-10wt% Li, and wherein Cr is not required when Mn is present, wherein Si and Cu are not required elements when Mg and Ni are included, and wherein Sc is not required when Ti, Zr, Li or V are included (para. [0045]-[0047], see first embodiment; para. [0058]). Thus, Adachi discloses an alloy comprising 0.3-10wt% Mn and 0.5-3wt% Ni, which reads on the claimed language wherein the at least one element is chosen from Mn, Ni and La, in an amount of at least 0.5wt%.
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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed January 25, 2023, US 20200063241 A1) in view of Martin (previously cited, US 20190161836 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Kaji (previously cited, JP 2008261004 A1, English Machine Translation provided).
Regarding Claim 16, Adachi is silent towards the inclusion of 0.1-5wt% La.
Kaji teaches including at 1-6wt% of rare earths such as La in order to form fine intermetallic compounds with Al, thereby suppressing coarsening of crystal grains in the Al matrix (para. [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included 1-6wt% La, as taught by Kaji, for the invention disclosed by Adachi, in order to suppress Al grain coarsening (see teaching by Kaji above). An amount of 1-6wt% La reads on the claimed range of 0.1-5wt% La.
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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed January 5, 2026, with respect to Claim 1, and dependent claims thereof, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Vo in view of Araki (teaching of Ni and Mn), alternatively over Vo in view of Araki (teaching of Fe), and Adachi in view of Martin, have been fully considered but are respectfully not found persuasive.
Regarding Vo and Araki:
Applicant argues that Araki teaches wherein the total amount of Zr and Ni and/or Mn is at most 2wt%, and therefore Zr can never be as high as 2.0%. Applicant argues that if Zr is 1.7wt%, Mn and/or Ni would be added at 0.3% which is less than the claimed amount of at least 0.5%, and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to combine the teachings of Araki with Vo to meet the claimed limitations (Remarks, Pg. 8).
This argument is not found persuasive.
The amount 1.7wt% Zr is disclosed in an exemplary composition (4%Mg, 1.7%Zr, balance Al – see para. [0031] of Vo); however, the full range disclosed by Vo is 0.45-3wt% Zr (see para. [0029]). Therefore, Vo includes an alloy comprising less than 1.7wt% Zr, and as described above, includes for example an alloy comprising 1.1wt%Zr, such that applying the teachings of Araki would result in the inclusion of up to 0.9wt% Mn and/or Ni, which reads on the claimed range of at least 0.5wt%. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments, and disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP 2123.I&II).
Applicant argues that one would not combine the teachings of Araki with that of Vo because Araki teaches a preferred Zr range of 0.02-0.2wt%, further demonstrated by the examples of Araki. Applicant argues that Araki teaches away from including the 1.7wt% Zr disclosed by Vo (Remarks, Pg. 8-10).
This argument is not found persuasive.
Vo is relied upon to disclose the claimed range of Zr (0.3-3% - see para. [0029]), and the broader disclosure of Araki teaches 0-2wt% of one or more of Ni, Mn and Zr (“one or more selected from …Ni…Mn…Zr …: 0% by mass or more and 2.0% by mass or less in total”, Abstract; see also Claim 1 of Araki). Vo clearly teaches wherein the broader range is applied to improve heat resistance while balancing for processability (para. [0073]). Examiner maintains position that Araki teaches up to 2.0% Zr in the broader disclosure when the other elements, Cu, Ag, Zn, Ni, Ti, Co, Au, Mn, Cr, and V are not present, which overlaps with the range disclosed by Vo (0.3-3%), and comprises proper motivation for this teaching. Examiner maintains that Applicant’s arguments relies on a preferred embodiment of Araki, and Araki does not teach away from the broader teaching offered (see MPEP 2123 I&II). Additionally, Applicant does not appear to find fault with the teaching/motivation provided in the rejection to improve heat and corrosion resistance.
Regarding Adachi:
Applicant argues that Si and Cu are required if Mg and Ni are included.
Specifically, Applicant argues that less than 4wt% Si causes hot cracking, and Si is preferable if the alloy comprises one or more of Mn and Cr. Applicant therefore argues that Si must be include if Mn is included in Adachi (Remarks, Pg. 11).
Applicant argues Adachi states that Cu is added as necessary to improve tensile property and cutting property, and therefore instructs Cu must be added (Remarks, Pg. 11).
Applicant argues that Mg and Ni are added to increase high temperature strength, and argues there is no instruction to exclude Mg and/or Ni because excluding Ni and Mg would have no benefits. Applicant further appears to argue that because the elements Mg, Ni, Cu and Si all comprise benefits and the benefits of Cu and Si are not interchangeable with the benefits of Mn and Ni (the specific benefits are different for each element), that one of ordinary skill in the art must include all 4 elements. Applicant argues this is evidenced by the working examples, and that while Example 9 does not comprise Si and Cu, the room temperature tensile strength is lower than other examples and does not comprise the claimed amount of Zr (Remarks, Pg. 11-14).
This argument is not found persuasive
Regarding Si, the hot cracking referred to by Applicant appears to be related to an embodiment for which the rejection above does not rely upon, and is therefore out of context. The embodiment relied upon by Adachi discloses “the aluminum alloy may further contain any one or more elements of 4 to 30 weight % Si, 0.5 to 5.0 weight % Mg, 0.5 to 5 weight % Cu, and 0.5 to 3 weight % Ni” (para. [0055]). Thus, including only 0.5-5wt% Mg from the above list, for example, would satisfy this requirement. Si, Cu and Ni are not required if Mg is present. Additionally, usage of the word ‘may’ further indicate that the above elements are optional to the broader disclosure and may be 0%.
Regarding Cu, adding an element ‘as necessary’ is not equivalent to requiring that element. Cu is an optional element in the invention of Adachi, and therefore reads on 0wt%.
Regarding Mg and Ni, and further Cu and Si, an element which provides a benefit is not equivalent to an element being required. As stated above, all four elements are considered optional (see usage of “may further include”, para. [0055]). Moreover, the rejection above over Adachi includes the disclosure/teaching to add Mg and/or Ni, such that the teaching in para. [0055] is satisfied and Cu and Si are not required. Additionally, the examples comprising all four elements (Mg, Ni, Cu and Si) do not constitute a teaching away from only containing one of the elements because Adachi discloses “any one or more of” (para. [0055]). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments, and disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP 2123.I&II).
Regarding Inventive Example 9, this example is merely used as evidence to further show that Si and Cu are optional elements, and is not relied upon to explicitly read on the claimed ranges. Adachi already discloses a broader range of Zr, and example 9 does not teach away from this range of Zr (see MPEP 2123.II). Regarding the room temperature tensile strength, this is not currently a claimed feature and therefore not commensurate in scope with the claims.
Regarding Kaji:
Applicant argues that Kaji is not the same technological field as the claimed invention because it relates to warm forging and warm extrusion, and would not be pertinent to the field of additive manufacturing.
This argument is not found persuasive.
The applied teachings of Kaji are compositional teachings. Kaji is relevant to Vo/Adachi because both references are directed to aluminum alloy compositions, and aluminum alloys which undergo heating during processing when in powder form. In response to applicant's argument that Kaji is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Kaji is reasonably pertinent to the claimed invention because both deal with the composition of aluminum alloys with Zr and heating processes of aluminum alloys in powder form, and Kaji addresses preventing grain coarsening to which one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware is something desired in processing of aluminum alloys and the inventions of Vo and Adachi (see Vo, para. [0005]; see Adachi, para. [0127] and para. [0153]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nie (“Effect of Zr content on formability, microstructure and mechanical properties of selective laser melted Zr modified Al-4.24Cu-1.97Mg-0.56Mn alloys”): teaches an alloy with an overlapping composition, used for additive manufacturing, comprising up to 2wt% Zr (Abstract).
Valls (US 20180318922 A1): teaches additively manufacturing parts comprising aluminum alloys, an overlapping composition, and further wherein greater than 0.15% and less than 4.1% of La is included (para. [0060]).
Eloi (US 20190194781 A1): teaches an alloy powder for additive manufacturing comprising 0.3-1.7% Mg, 0.4-5% Zr, 0.2-1% Si, 0-1% at least one of Mn, Cr and Ti, and a balance of Al and impurities, and further allowing up to 1wt% Fe (Abstract; para. [0074]).
Martin (previously cited, US 20190161836 A1): teaches wherein aluminum compositions which are used as a powder in direct metal deposition processes may alternatively be used as a wire, such that exposure to a heat source results in local melting followed by solidification, so as to form a solid layer (para. [0047]; para. [0058]; para. [0126]-[0127]; para. [0135]-[0136]). Thus, Martin teaches that feedstock in the form of a wire is an art equivalent form to feedstock as a powder.
Matsuoka (cited by Applicant in IDS filed March 14, 2025, EP 2799165 A1): teaches an aluminum alloy composition for a powder comprising 2-7% Fe, 0.6-1.5% Zr, 0.5-1% Ti, 0.5-2.2% Mg and a balance of Al and impurities (para. [0038]).
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 CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
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 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 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.
CATHERINE P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights