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 .
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
Applicant’s amendment has been entered. Claims 1-9, and 11-12 are pending. Claims 10, and 13-15 are cancelled. Cancellation of claim 10 has rendered moot rejections of claim 10. Amendment has overcome the previously set forth claim objections for minor informalities. Deleting “preferably machining tools or cold forming tools, cold extrusion punches and dies” from claims 1 and 11 has overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) as to whether or not claims 1 and 11 are limited to machining tools or cold forming tools, cold extrusion punches and dies. Changing “the primary component iron powder” to “iron as a primary component” in claim 1 has overcome the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) regarding antecedent basis for the primary component iron powder in claim 1; however, the antecedent basis issues regarding “the primary component” remain in independent claims 2-7. Deleting the arbitrary combination limitations from 1-7 has improved, though not necessarily resolved uncertainty regarding composition amounts recited in each of independent claims 1-7. Amendment has overcome the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) regarding antecedent basis issues for the course of the laser sintering process in claims 1, 2. Amendment has overcome rejections under 35 USC 112(b) regarding uncertainty of the limitations “Tungsten: in the range of between 0.7, 10 and 35 mass%, preferably 10 mass%”, “Titanium: in the range of between 0.2, 3.2 to 10.7 mass%, preferably 3.2 mass%”, and “Carbon: in the range of between 0.08, 1.23 up to 4.1 mass%, preferably 1.23 mass%” previously presented in claims 1-5. Amendment has rendered moot the rejections of claims 1-2 and 4-5 for undefined residual substances. Deleting “preferably high-strength components for the aerospace industry in order to achieve high strength with good toughness at a low density, good hot formability and weldability” from claim 2 has rendered moot the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) for whether or not claim 2 is limited by the terms following “preferably” and “high strength with good toughness at a low density, good hot formability and weldability” as relative terms. Deleting the 3.71XX standard from claim 2 has improved the definiteness of the composition of claim 2. Deleting “preferably machining tools or cold forming tools, in particular high-performance cutting tools (dies and punches); milling cutters, broaches; sectioning, punching and cutting tools; thread rolling and rolling tools; woodworking tools; machine knives; plastics molds, measuring tools, tools for stamping technology; drawing, deep-drawing and extrusion tools; pressing tools for the ceramic and pharmaceutical industry; cold rolls for multi-roll stands; forming and bending tools” from claim 3 has rendered moot the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) as to whether or not terms following “preferably” and “in particular” are claim limitations. Deleting the “1.23XX” limitation from claim 3 has improved, though not resolved, uncertainty regarding the composition encompassed by the limitations of claim 3. Deleting “the alloy” from each of claims 3-7 has rendered moot the rejection for lack of antecedent basis for the alloy. Amendment has overcome the rejections of claim 4 under 35 USC 112(b) regarding uncertainties of limitations, specifically presented in the preamble of claim 4. Deleting the 1.44XX options from claim 4 has improved, though not fully resolved uncertainty regarding the composition recited in claim 4. Amendment to the preamble of claim 5 has overcome rejections under 35 USC 112(b) regarding uncertainties of recitations of use for the components made by the claimed method. Deleting 1.45XX limitations from claim 5 has improved, though not completely resolved composition uncertainties of claim 5. Deleting “preferably” from claims 6 and 7 has overcome rejections under 35 USC 112(b) for whether or not terms following “preferably” are limitations, with claims 6 and 7 now presenting limitations following “preferably” as alternatives. Deleting “high” from the limitation “high toughness” in claims 6 and 7 has overcome the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) for “high toughness” as a relative term. Deleting “in particular if the chemical composition is quantified as follows” from claims 6 and 7 has rendered moot the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) regarding the phrase; however, claim 3 as entered still recites “in particular if the chemical composition is quantified as follows”; therefore, the rejection of claim 3 for this term is maintained. Amendment clarifying that claim 6 encompasses adding diamond powder, has overcome uncertainty as to whether or not claim 6 required some further additive in addition to diamond. Deleting preferably 15 mass% from claim 6 has overcome the rejection of claim 6 under 35 USC 112(b) as to whether or not claim 6 was limited to 15% diamond powder. Amendment has rendered moot the rejection of claim 8 under 35 USC 112(b) regarding antecedent basis for the powder composition. Amendment clarifying that reinforcement materials in claims 11 and 12 are alternatives and not a combination has overcome rejections of claims 11 and 12 as to whether or not limitations are intended as alternatives or a combination. Deleting “the base material” and “the selected materials” from claims 11 and 12 have rendered moot the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) for lack of antecedent basis for those terms. Deleting 1.45XX as an option from claim 5 has overcome the rejection of claim 5 (though not claim 2) under 35 USC 103 over Heikkinen (US20190210103) in view of Peters (US 20180099334). Amending claim 8 to claim diamond powder in addition to boron nitride and/or carbide as ceramic and/or carbide has overcome the rejection of claim 8 under 35 USC 103 over Heikkinen alone.
Applicant is encouraged to consider rephrasing claims in a preamble, transition phrase, body format. This format would more clearly delineate which steps are intended use of the components and which steps are encompassed by the claimed methods of making the components.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-7, claim 1, as amended October 2, 2025 claims “including iron powder as a primary component and additional powder alloying elements, which are present in elemental, pre-alloyed, or partially pre-alloyed form, the powder elements each being added separately” (claim 1 lines 6-8). Claim 2 as amended October 2, 2025 claims “including titanium powder as the primary component and additional powder alloying elements, which are present in elemental, pre-alloyed or partially pre-alloyed form, the powder elements each being added separately” (claim 2 lines 7-10). Each of independent claims 3-5, as amended October 2, 2025, claims “including iron powder as the primary component and additional powder alloying elements, which are present in elemental, pre-alloyed or partially pre-alloyed form, the powder elements each being added separately” (claim 3 lines 11-13, claim 4 lines 9-11, claim 5 lines 8-11). Each of independent claims 6-7, as amended October 2, 2025, claims “including iron powder as the primary component and additional powder alloying elements, present in elemental, pre-alloyed or partially pre-alloyed form, each being added separately” (claim 6 lines 12-14, claim 7 lines 12-14). As a pre-alloyed or partially pre-alloyed powder is by definition of alloying a solid solution of two or more chemical elements, it is not physically possible to both add a pre-alloyed or partially pre-alloyed powder and add each individual chemical element separately. As claims 1-7 are explicitly open to adding pre-alloyed or partially pre-alloyed powder, it is not clear which elements claims 1-7 require adding separately.
Claim 1 claims adding elements “in ranges corresponding to DIN EN 10027-2 no. 1.33XX or DIN EN 10027-2 no. 1.27XX alloys in particular as specified for HS6-5-2C or X3NiCoMoTi18-9-5:” and follows the colon with a listing of ranges for alloying elements. HS6-5-2C is a species within the DIN EN 10027-2 no. 1.33XX genus, and X3NiCoMoTi18-9-5 is a species within the DIN EN 10027-2 no. 1.27XX genus. Further, DIN EN 10027-2 nos. 1.33XX and 1.27XX encompass compositions outside the recited composition ranges, for example 1.3355 steel has significantly more tungsten (W), and the composition ranges encompass values which do not meet any 1.27XX or 1.33XX standards. It is not clear if claim 1 is limited to any composition which meets a DIN EN 10027-2 no. 1.33XX or 1.27XX standard, any composition which meets the recited element ranges, a composition which meets both the recited ranges and a DIN EN 10027-2 no. 1.33XX or 1.27XX standard, or the specific HS6-5-2C or X3NiCoMoTi18-9-5 examples. See MPEP § 2173.05(d) for further discussion on how exemplary language can render a claim indefinite, and See MPEP §2173.05(c)(I) for a discussion on why claiming both broad and narrow ranges within the same claim, such as a broad range for iron and narrower ranges for iron encompassed by standards, may render a claim indefinite.
Further regarding claims 1-5, each of claims 1-5 claims as additionally added elements: Tungsten 0.7-35 mass %; Titanium 0.2-10.7 mass %; Carbon 0.08-4.1 mass%; Oxygen 0.00-0.02 mass%; Nitrogen 0.00-0.02 mass%; Residual substances less than 0.05 mass%. Claims 1-5 follow the recitation of the tungsten, titanium, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, residual grouping by claiming “wherein the powder mixture further includes 5-50 mass% ceramic and/or carbide powders”. The specification as filed clearly indicates that the tungsten, titanium, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, residuals grouping is the added ceramic and/or carbide. This intent is clearly described in pages 15-16 of the substitute specification which identify the additional tungsten, titanium, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and residuals of Tables 3, 3A, 4, 4A, 5, 5A, 6, 6A, 7, and 7A as the admixed ceramic powder. This description appears to contradict claims 1-5 which present the ceramic and/or carbide as a “further” constituent in addition to the tungsten, titanium, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, residual grouping. While the 5-50 mass% of ceramic and/or carbide appears to refer to the content of the tungsten, titanium, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, residual added, it is not clear from claims 1-5 whether the ceramic and/or carbide is the tungsten, titanium, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, residual grouping, or if the claimed ceramic and/or carbide refers to an additional mixture constituent.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitation "the metal powder compositions" in line 41 and again in lines 41-42. Independent claim 2 recites the limitation "the metal powder compositions" in line 33 and again in lines 33-34. Independent claim 3 recites the limitation "the metal powder compositions" in line 38 and again in lines 38-39. Independent claim 4 recites the limitation "the metal powder compositions" in line 41 and again in lines 41-42. Independent claim 5 recites the limitation "the metal powder compositions" in line 40 and again in lines 40-41.There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This recitation is particularly confusing, as the specification appears to set forth a method from making a component from a mixture of at least two constituents. One of the two constituents appears to be a proportion of chemical elements according to ranges of elements for iron or titanium alloys, and the other constituent appears to be a carbide, ceramic, boron nitride, and/or diamond with proportions of chemical elements according to claimed ranges. The tungsten, titanium, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, residual grouping in claims 1-5 appears to be the carbide and/or ceramic in view of the specification. None of these constituents is identified as the metal powder composition and both constituents comprise metal elements, at least in claims 1-5. Applicant is encouraged to review the specification and examples to ensure that the claims set forth a metho which manipulates the feed material which applicant intends to claim manipulation thereof.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the metallic matrix" in line 43. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the metallic matrix" in the last line of the claim. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the metallic matrix" in the last line of the claim. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the metallic matrix" in the last line of the claim. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the metallic matrix" in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 recites the limitation “the metallic matrix” in the last two lines of the claim. A mixture of material comprising metal constituents need not necessarily comprise a metallic phase as a matrix phase and need not necessarily exhibit a matrix-reinforcement multi-phase structure.
The term “improved hardness, dimensional stability, and abrasiveness” in the last line of claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “improved hardness, dimensional stability, and abrasiveness” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear in view of the specification over what the component of claim 1 yields an improved hardness, dimensional stability, and abrasiveness (the matrix material without reinforcement, components having the same composition produced by a different method, components of a different material, etc.), particularly in view of the uncertainty of the composition which claim 1 intends to recite.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 recite the limitation "the primary component" in line 7 of claim 2, line 11 of claim 3, line 9 of claim 4, line 8 of claim 5, line 12 of claim 6, and line 12 of claim 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. A mixture of at least two powder elements does not necessarily contain a primary component.
Claim 3 claims powder elements added according to the standard DIN EN 10027-2 no. 1.2379 with the short name X155CrVMo12-1 and the chemical composition C 1.55 / Si 0.4 / Mn 0.3 / Cr 11.8 / Mo 0.75 / V 0.82, or other chromium-nickel steels being added “in particular if the chemical composition is quantified as followed:” and recites ranges for chemical elements for this mixture constituent. It is not clear from claim 3 as worded, if claim 3 is open to any chromium-nickel steel, is limited to the particular 1.2379 standard or if claim 3 requires a constituent meet the recited composition ranges.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “in particular” within the limitation “in particular if the chemical composition is quantified as follows:” raises uncertainty because it is not clear if claim 3 is limited to the conditions following “in particular” or if the conditions are provided as an example. The phrase “in particular if” in claims 3 is further indefinite because, as worded, the claim merely establishes a possible condition following the “if” without setting forth the consequences of meeting that contingent limitation. More plainly, claim 3 does not specify what happens “if” the chemical composition is quantified as follows.
Claim 4 claims powder elements added according to the standard DIN EN 10027-2 no. 1.4404 X2CrNiMo17-12-2 and then recites chemical elements in ranges that extend beyond those for 1.4404 stainless steels, particularly amounts of Fe, for which 62.8% is often considered the lower limit for 1.4404 stainless steels, not the upper limit as claimed. It is not clear what ranges for elements claim 4, as worded, is intended to claim. It is not clear if claim 4 recites 1.4404 compositions or compositions according to the recited composition ranges.
Claim 5 claims powder elements added according to the standard DIN EN 10027-2 no. 1.4562 X1NiCrMoCu32-28-7 and then recites chemical elements in ranges that extend beyond those for 1.4562 alloys, particularly amounts of Fe, for which 1.4562 alloys do not have a lower limit of zero. It is not clear if claim 5 is limited to 1.4562 alloys or alloys according to the recited composition ranges.
Claims 6 and 7 claim powder elements added according to the standard DIN EN 10027-2 no. 1.3343 with the short name HS6-5-2C and then recite chemical elements in ranges that are different from those for 1.3343 alloys. It is not clear if claims 6 and 7 are intended to claim compositions according to a 1.3343 standard or according to the recited composition ranges, or according to the alloys which the present disclosure identifies as meeting such limitations (such as alloys according to 1.2709 standards).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) because they depend on claim 1.
Claim 9 claims that a carbide when present is a cubic boron nitride (CBN). Cubic boron nitride only has boron and nitrogen atoms; therefore, cubic boron nitride cannot chemically be considered a carbide which by definition is a carbon compound. CBN is not a chemical formula, rather CBN is a shorthand designation for cubic boron nitride, a compound which does not contain carbon.
Regarding claim 11, in placing “1-50 mass% relative to the powder material” in parentheses, claim 11 raises uncertainty as to whether or not the proportion of carbide reinforcement material is 1-50 mass% relative to the powder material.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) because it depends on claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Heikkinen (US20190210103). Heikkinen is a publication of an application for patent in the United States effectively filed before the earliest filing date of the present application. Heikkinen is cited in prior office action(s).
Regarding claim 11, Heikkinen discloses a method for producing precise components (methods for the manufacture of a three-dimensional object from the powder mixture by selective layer-wise solidification of the powder mixture) [0001], [0075] by laser melting or laser sintering of a powder material [0064], [0070], [0072-73], [0075]. Heikkinen discloses that the powder material is a mixture of metallic powder material and reinforcement powder (the powder mixture comprises a first material and a second material, wherein the first material comprises a steel in powder form, wherein the second material comprises a reinforcement material different from the first material [0009], [0071]). Heikkinen discloses processing a first metallic powder material of 316L stainless steel which contains a balance of Fe and up to 0.03 weight percent (wt %) carbon, up to 0.10 wt % nitrogen, up to 0.50 wt % copper, up to 0.75 wt % silicon, up to 2.00 wt % manganese, between 2.25 and 3.00 wt % molybdenum, between 13.00 and 15.00 wt % nickel, and between 17.00 and 19.00 wt % chromium [0011], [0077], which is a composition according to a 1.4404 standard. A powder composition according to a 1.4404 standard is a 1.44XX metallic powder. Heikkinen alternatively discloses including a first material of X3NiCoMoTi18-9-5 steel [0084] which is a composition according to 1.2709, which is a 1.27XX composition. Heikkinen discloses mixing the first material which is a 1.4404 (316 L) material [0077] or alternatively a 1.2709 material [0084] with carbide reinforcement powder [0008], [0081], [0088], [0115], [0132], [0179-180]. Heikkinen discloses mixing the first material which is a 1.4404 (316 L) material [0077] or alternatively a 1.2709 material [0084] with 0.05% or more and 40% or less of the carbide relative to the powder material [0021-22], more preferably 0.5% or more 4% or less relative to the powder material [0021-22]. Heikkinen exemplifies 1% and 2% carbide relative to the powder material [0115]; 1.5%, 3.0%, 4.0% carbide relative to the powder material [0150]; and 2.5%, 5.0%, 7.5%, and 10.0% carbide relative to the powder material [0197]. Heikkinen, therefore discloses several examples [0115], [0150], [0197] which fall in a range of 1% to 50% carbides.
Heikkinen discloses that the melting temperature of the ceramic and/or carbide powder composition used (reinforcement material) is above the melting temperature of the metal powder compositions (steel of the first material) [0087]. Heikkinen discloses that only the metal powder compositions are melted in the additive manufacturing process and reinforcement powder remains unmolten (“powder mixture according to the invention is heated to a temperature where the steel powder melts, the reinforcement material can remain solid” [0087]). Heikkinen discloses that the reinforcement particles are uniformly distributed in the metallic particles on mixing [0089], and Heikkinen discloses that reinforcement material is embedded in the matrix phase in manufactured composite material [0008], [0010]. Considering Heikkinen discloses that forming the composite material comprises selectively melting the metallic powder material of a powder material in which reinforcement material is uniformly distributed, such that the reinforcement material does not melt and is embedded in the manufactured composite material [0008], [0010], [0023], [0072-73], [0087], [0089], the method disclosed by Heikkinen would result in the reinforcement particles remaining unmolten and uniformly embedded in the metallic matrix.
Regarding claim 12, Heikkinen discloses inducing as metallic powder material, a 316L stainless steel [0011], [0077], thereby disclosing 1.4404 metallic material. Heikkinen alternatively discloses including a first material of X3NiCoMoTi18-9-5 steel [0084], thereby disclosing 1.2709 metallic material. Heikkinen discloses mixing the metallic material which is a 1.4404 (316 L) material [0077] or alternatively a 1.2709 material [0084] with carbides (reinforcement material) [0081], [0088], [0115], [0132], [0179-180]. Heikkinen discloses mixing the first material with carbides in the laser melting (SLM) or laser sintering (SLS) method [0023], [0072-73], [0089] (Note that the belt 7 which carries material to the additive manufacturing system is downstream of mixing machine 6 in Fig. 1 of the present disclosure).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heikkinen (US20190210103).
Regarding claim 1, Heikkinen discloses a method for producing precise components (methods for the manufacture of a three-dimensional object from the powder mixture by selective layer-wise solidification of the powder mixture) [0001], [0075] by laser melting or laser sintering of a powder material [0064], [0070], [0072-73], [0075]. Heikkinen discloses a mixture of at least two powder elements as powder material (powder mixture) for the additive manufacturing process (abstract, [0009], [0025], [0071]). In one embodiment, Heikkinen discloses the mixture includes a first material of X3NiCoMoTi18-9-5 steel [0084], thereby disclosing that the powder mixture includes forming the powder mixture with the structure encompassed by some primary component iron and additional powder alloying elements according the structure encompass by DIN EN 10027-2 no. 1.2709 with the short name X3NiCoMoTi18-9-5, which is an iron alloy with other alloying elements in ranges corresponding to DIN EN 10027-2 no. 1.2709. Heikkinen discloses that the alloying elements of the streel powder as a steel powder [0084], thereby disclosing that the alloy is pre-alloyed.
Heikkinen discloses a powder alloy being created from powder elements over the course of the laser sintering process [0072-73], [0075]. Heikkinen discloses that the powder mixture includes reinforcement carbide powder [0009], [0071-73]. Examples disclosed by Heikkinen comprise mixing 0.75%, 1.5%, 3.0%, 4.0% by mass titanium carbide [0150]; and 2.5%, 5.0%, 7.5%, and 10.0% by mass tungsten carbide [0197]. Considering titanium carbide is 79.94 mass% titanium and 20.06 mass% carbon, and tungsten carbon is 93.87 mass% tungsten and 6.13 mass% carbon, the examples disclosed by Heikkinen include: 0.60 mass% titanium and 0.15 mass% carbon (0.75 mass% titanium carbide) [0150], 1.20 mass% titanium and 0.30 mass% carbon (1.50% titanium carbide) [0150], 2.40 mass% titanium and 0.60 mass% carbon (3.0% titanium carbide) [0150], 2.35 mass% tungsten 0.15% carbon (2.50% tungsten carbide) [0197], 4.69 mass% tungsten and 0.31 mass% carbon (5.0 mass% tungsten carbide) [0197], 7.04 mass% tungsten and 0.46 mass% carbon (7.50 mass% tungsten carbide) [0197], and 9.38 mass% tungsten and 0.62 mass% carbon (10.0 mass% tungsten carbide) [0197]. Heikkinen broadly discloses that the reinforcement material comprises at least one non-metallic material ([0014], claim 6) and Heikkinen discloses a preferable embodiment wherein the reinforcement material comprises titanium carbide ([0016], claim 8) and a preferable embodiment wherein the reinforcement material comprises tungsten carbide ([0017], claim 9). Heikkinen discloses that the reinforcement material may comprise more than one non-metallic material [0014], that titanium carbide is a preferred constituent of the reinforcement material [0016] and that tungsten carbide is a preferred constituent of the reinforcement material [0017]. Heikkinen discloses that the reinforcement material is 0.05-40 mass% of the overall powder mixture ([0021-22], claim 12). Heikkinen discloses that titanium carbide (TiC) particle addition results in a considerable increase of tensile strength, yield strength, wear strength, and hardness of material [0162]. Heikkinen discloses that tungsten carbide (WC) particle addition results in a result of WC particle addition results in a considerable increase of tensile strength, yield strength, wear strength, and hardness of material [0208]. Heikkinen teaches that the results of adding tungsten carbide are comparable to the results of adding titanium carbide [0209]. Heikkinen discloses that “[d]epending on whether a high ductility is desired or not, WC, TiC, SiC or mixtures thereof can be chosen as reinforcement material” [0219].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide both titanium carbide and tungsten carbide as reinforcement material in the process disclosed by Heikkinen because Heikkinen teaches adding a mixture of titanium carbide and tungsten carbide to set material properties [0219] and because Heikkinen teaches that adding titanium carbide has the same tensile strength, yield strength, wear strength, and hardness increasing results that adding tungsten carbide has [0162], [0208]. Adding both titanium carbide and tungsten carbide would predictably yield at least the material property results which Heikkinen teaches for both titanium carbide and tungsten carbide ([0192], [0208], [0219], Fig. 10, 12-15, 17, 19-21). One of ordinary skill in the art would have added the mixture of titanium carbide and tungsten carbide such that the overall amount of reinforcement material lies within the 0.05-40 mass% of the overall powder mixture ([0021-22], claim 12). The elemental amounts which Heikkinen exemplifies for adding titanium carbide and tungsten carbide range from 0.60-2.40 mass% titanium, 2.35-9.38 mass% tungsten, and 0.15-0.62 mass% carbon [0150], [0197]. Heikkinen discloses that titanium carbide comprises < 0.50 mass% impurities, and tungsten carbon comprises < 0.10 mass% impurities including oxygen and free (not carbide) carbon [0139], [0193]. The overall amounts which Heikkinen suggest for adding tungsten carbide and titanium carbide encompasses or overlaps the ranges for each element claimed in items 1.11-1.16. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, and generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(I-II). Also see MPEP 2144.06(I) for further discussion on obviousness of combining elements known in the art for the same purpose, such as the purposes which Heikkinen establishes for titanium carbide and tungsten carbide [0162], [0208], [0219].
Heikkinen discloses that the melting temperature of the ceramic and/or carbide powder composition used (reinforcement material) is above the melting temperature of the metal powder compositions (steel of the first material) [0087]. Heikkinen discloses that only the metal powder compositions are melted in the additive manufacturing process and reinforcement powder remains unmolten (“powder mixture according to the invention is heated to a temperature where the steel powder melts, the reinforcement material can remain solid” [0087]). Heikkinen discloses that the reinforcement particles are uniformly distributed in the metallic particles on mixing [0089], and Heikkinen discloses that reinforcement material is embedded in the matrix phase in manufactured composite material [0008], [0010]. Considering Heikkinen discloses that forming the composite material comprises selectively melting the metallic powder material of a powder material in which reinforcement material is uniformly distributed, such that the reinforcement material does not melt and is embedded in the manufactured composite material [0008], [0010], [0023], [0072-73], [0087], [0089], the method disclosed by Heikkinen would result in the reinforcement particles remaining unmolten and uniformly embedded in the metallic matrix.
Regarding claim 3, Heikkinen discloses a method for producing precise components (methods for the manufacture of a three-dimensional object from the powder mixture by selective layer-wise solidification of the powder mixture) [0001], [0075] by laser melting or laser sintering of a powder material [0064], [0070], [0072-73], [0075]. Heikkinen discloses a mixture of at least two powder elements as powder material (powder mixture) for the additive manufacturing process (abstract, [0009], [0025], [0071]). Heikkinen discloses that the powder mixture includes a first material of 316L stainless steel which contains a balance of Fe and up to 0.03 weight percent (wt %) carbon, up to 0.10 wt % nitrogen, up to 0.50 wt % copper, up to 0.75 wt % silicon, up to 2.00 wt % manganese, between 2.25 and 3.00 wt % molybdenum, between 13.00 and 15.00 wt % nickel, and between 17.00 and 19.00 wt % chromium [0011], [0077]. In an alternate embodiment, Heikkinen discloses an alternative wherein the powder mixture includes a material of X3NiCoMoTi18-9-5 steel [0084]. Both embodiments disclosed by Heikkinen [0011], [0077], [0084] form the powder mixture with the structure encompassed by some primary component iron and additional powder alloying elements according to some “other chromium-nickel steels”, which is explicitly recited as an option for the composition in present claim 3. Heikkinen discloses that the alloying elements of the streel powder as a steel powder [0084], [0077], thereby disclosing that the alloy is pre-alloyed.
Heikkinen discloses a powder alloy being created from powder elements over the course of the laser sintering process [0072-73], [0075]. Heikkinen discloses that the powder mixture includes reinforcement carbide powder [0009], [0071-73]. Examples disclosed by Heikkinen comprise mixing 0.75%, 1.5%, 3.0%, 4.0% by mass titanium carbide [0150]; and 2.5%, 5.0%, 7.5%, and 10.0% by mass tungsten carbide [0197]. Considering titanium carbide is 79.94 mass% titanium and 20.06 mass% carbon, and tungsten carbon is 93.87 mass% tungsten and 6.13 mass% carbon, the examples disclosed by Heikkinen include: 0.60 mass% titanium and 0.15 mass% carbon (0.75 mass% titanium carbide) [0150], 1.20 mass% titanium and 0.30 mass% carbon (1.50% titanium carbide) [0150], 2.40 mass% titanium and 0.60 mass% carbon (3.0% titanium carbide) [0150], 2.35 mass% tungsten 0.15% carbon (2.50% tungsten carbide) [0197], 4.69 mass% tungsten and 0.31 mass% carbon (5.0 mass% tungsten carbide) [0197], 7.04 mass% tungsten and 0.46 mass% carbon (7.50 mass% tungsten carbide) [0197], and 9.38 mass% tungsten and 0.62 mass% carbon (10.0 mass% tungsten carbide) [0197]. Heikkinen broadly discloses that the reinforcement material comprises at least one non-metallic material ([0014], claim 6) and Heikkinen discloses a preferable embodiment wherein the reinforcement material comprises titanium carbide ([0016], claim 8) and a preferable embodiment wherein the reinforcement material comprises tungsten carbide ([0017], claim 9). Heikkinen discloses that the reinforcement material comprises more than one non-metallic material [0014], that titanium carbide is a preferred constituent of the reinforcement material [0016] and that tungsten carbide is a preferred constituent of the reinforcement material [0017]. Heikkinen discloses that the reinforcement material is 0.05-40 mass% of the overall powder mixture ([0021-22], claim 12). Heikkinen discloses that titanium carbide (TiC) particle addition results in a considerable increase of tensile strength, yield strength, wear strength, and hardness of material [0162]. Heikkinen discloses that tungsten carbide (WC) particle addition results in a result of WC particle addition results in a considerable increase of tensile strength, yield strength, wear strength, and hardness of material [0208]. Heikkinen teaches that the results of adding tungsten carbide are comparable to the results of adding titanium carbide [0209]. Heikkinen discloses that “[d]epending on whether a high ductility is desired or not, WC, TiC, SiC or mixtures thereof can be chosen as reinforcement material” [0219].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide both titanium carbide and tungsten carbide as reinforcement material in the process disclosed by Heikkinen because Heikkinen teaches adding a mixture of titanium carbide and tungsten carbide to set material properties [0219] and because Heikkinen teaches that adding titanium carbide has the same tensile strength, yield strength, wear strength, and hardness increasing results that adding tungsten carbide has [0162], [0208]. Adding both titanium carbide and tungsten carbide would predictably yield at least the material property results which Heikkinen teaches for both titanium carbide and tungsten carbide ([0192], [0208], [0219], Fig. 10, 12-15, 17, 19-21). One of ordinary skill in the art would have added the mixture of titanium carbide and tungsten carbide such that the overall amount of reinforcement material lies within the 0.05-40 mass% of the overall powder mixture ([0021-22], claim 12). The elemental amounts which Heikkinen exemplifies for adding titanium carbide and tungsten carbide range from 0.60-2.40 mass% titanium, 2.35-9.38 mass% tungsten, and 0.15-0.62 mass% carbon [0150], [0197]. Heikkinen discloses that titanium carbide comprises < 0.50 mass% impurities, and tungsten carbon comprises < 0.10 mass% impurities including oxygen and free (not carbide) carbon [0139], [0193]. The overall amounts which Heikkinen suggest for adding tungsten carbide and titanium carbide encompasses or overlaps the ranges for each element claimed in items 1.11-1.16. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, and generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(I-II). Also see MPEP 2144.06(I) for further discussion on obviousness of combining elements known in the art for the same purpose, such as the purposes which Heikkinen establishes for titanium carbide and tungsten carbide [0162], [0208], [0219].
Heikkinen discloses that the melting temperature of the ceramic and/or carbide powder composition used (reinforcement material) is above the melting temperature of the metal powder compositions (steel of the first material) [0087]. Heikkinen discloses that only the metal powder compositions are melted in the additive manufacturing process and reinforcement powder remains unmolten (“powder mixture according to the invention is heated to a temperature where the steel powder melts, the reinforcement material can remain solid” [0087]). Heikkinen discloses that the reinforcement particles are uniformly distributed in the metallic particles on mixing [0089], and Heikkinen discloses that reinforcement material is embedded in the matrix phase in manufactured composite material [0008], [0010]. Considering Heikkinen discloses that forming the composite material comprises selectively melting the metallic powder material of a powder material in which reinforcement material is uniformly distributed, such that the reinforcement material does not melt and is embedded in the manufactured composite material [0008], [0010], [0023], [0072-73], [0087], [0089], the method disclosed by Heikkinen would result in the reinforcement particles remaining unmolten and uniformly embedded in the metallic matrix.
Regarding claim 4, Heikkinen discloses a method for producing precise components (methods for the manufacture of a three-dimensional object from the powder mixture by selective layer-wise solidification of the powder mixture) [0001], [0075] by laser melting or laser sintering of a powder material [0064], [0070], [0072-73], [0075]. Heikkinen discloses a mixture of at least two powder elements as powder material (powder mixture) for the additive manufacturing process (abstract, [0009], [0025], [0071]). Heikkinen discloses the powder mixture includes a first material of 316L stainless steel which contains a balance of Fe and up to 0.03 weight percent (wt %) carbon, up to 0.10 wt % nitrogen, up to 0.50 wt % copper, up to 0.75 wt % silicon, up to 2.00 wt % manganese, between 2.25 and 3.00 wt % molybdenum, between 13.00 and 15.00 wt % nickel, and between 17.00 and 19.00 wt % chromium [0011], [0077], thereby disclosing the powder mixture includes an element according to the standard DIN EN 10027-2 no. 1.4404. Heikkinen discloses that the alloying elements of the streel powder as a steel powder [0084], [0077], thereby disclosing that the alloy is pre-alloyed. The preamble of claim 4 establishes a 1.4404 component as a component with acid resistance, which is one of the intended uses recited in claim 4.
Heikkinen discloses a powder alloy being created from powder elements over the course of the laser sintering process [0072-73], [0075]. Heikkinen discloses that the powder mixture includes reinforcement carbide powder [0009], [0071-73]. Examples disclosed by Heikkinen comprise mixing 0.75%, 1.5%, 3.0%, 4.0% by mass titanium carbide [0150]; and 2.5%, 5.0%, 7.5%, and 10.0% by mass tungsten carbide [0197]. Considering titanium carbide is 79.94 mass% titanium and 20.06 mass% carbon, and tungsten carbon is 93.87 mass% tungsten and 6.13 mass% carbon, the examples disclosed by Heikkinen include: 0.60 mass% titanium and 0.15 mass% carbon (0.75 mass% titanium carbide) [0150], 1.20 mass% titanium and 0.30 mass% carbon (1.50% titanium carbide) [0150], 2.40 mass% titanium and 0.60 mass% carbon (3.0% titanium carbide) [0150], 2.35 mass% tungsten 0.15% carbon (2.50% tungsten carbide) [0197], 4.69 mass% tungsten and 0.31 mass% carbon (5.0 mass% tungsten carbide) [0197], 7.04 mass% tungsten and 0.46 mass% carbon (7.50 mass% tungsten carbide) [0197], and 9.38 mass% tungsten and 0.62 mass% carbon (10.0 mass% tungsten carbide) [0197]. Heikkinen broadly discloses that the reinforcement material comprises at least one non-metallic material ([0014], claim 6) and Heikkinen discloses a preferable embodiment wherein the reinforcement material comprises titanium carbide ([0016], claim 8) and a preferable embodiment wherein the reinforcement material comprises tungsten carbide ([0017], claim 9). Heikkinen discloses that the reinforcement material comprises more than one non-metallic material [0014], that titanium carbide is a preferred constituent of the reinforcement material [0016] and that tungsten carbide is a preferred constituent of the reinforcement material [0017]. Heikkinen discloses that the reinforcement material is 0.05-40 mass% of the overall powder mixture ([0021-22], claim 12). Heikkinen discloses that titanium carbide (TiC) particle addition results in a considerable increase of tensile strength, yield strength, wear strength, and hardness of material [0162]. Heikkinen discloses that tungsten carbide (WC) particle addition results in a result of WC particle addition results in a considerable increase of tensile strength, yield strength, wear strength, and hardness of material [0208]. Heikkinen teaches that the results of adding tungsten carbide are comparable to the results of adding titanium carbide [0209]. Heikkinen discloses that “[d]epending on whether a high ductility is desired or not, WC, TiC, SiC or mixtures thereof can be chosen as reinforcement material” [0219].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide both titanium carbide and tungsten carbide as reinforcement material in the process disclosed by Heikkinen because Heikkinen teaches adding a mixture of titanium carbide and tungsten carbide to set material properties [0219] and because Heikkinen teaches that adding titanium carbide has the same tensile strength, yield strength, wear strength, and hardness increasing results that adding tungsten carbide has [0162], [0208]. Adding both titanium carbide and tungsten carbide would predictably yield at least the material property results which Heikkinen teaches for both titanium carbide and tungsten carbide ([0192], [0208], [0219], Fig. 10, 12-15, 17, 19-21). One of ordinary skill in the art would have added the mixture of titanium carbide and tungsten carbide such that the overall amount of reinforcement material lies within the 0.05-40 mass% of the overall powder mixture ([0021-22], claim 12). The elemental amounts which Heikkinen exemplifies for adding titanium carbide and tungsten carbide range from 0.60-2.40 mass% titanium, 2.35-9.38 mass% tungsten, and 0.15-0.62 mass% carbon [0150], [0197]. Heikkinen discloses that titanium carbide comprises < 0.50 mass% impurities, and tungsten carbon comprises < 0.10 mass% impurities including oxygen and free (not carbide) carbon [0139], [0193]. The overall amounts which Heikkinen suggest for adding tungsten carbide and titanium carbide encompasses or overlaps the ranges for each element claimed in items 1.11-1.16. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, and generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(I-II). Also see MPEP 2144.06(I) for further discussion on obviousness of combining elements known in the art for the same purpose, such as the purposes which Heikkinen establishes for titanium carbide and tungsten carbide [0162], [0208], [0219].
Heikkinen discloses that the melting temperature of the ceramic and/or carbide powder composition used (reinforcement material) is above the melting temperature of the metal powder compositions (steel of the first material) [0087]. Heikkinen discloses that only the metal powder compositions are melted in the additive manufacturing process and reinforcement powder remains unmolten (“powder mixture according to the invention is heated to a temperature where the steel powder melts, the reinforcement material can remain solid” [0087]). Heikkinen discloses that the reinforcement particles are uniformly distributed in the metallic particles on mixing [0089], and Heikkinen discloses that reinforcement material is embedded in the matrix phase in manufactured composite material [0008], [0010]. Considering Heikkinen discloses that forming the composite material comprises selectively melting the metallic powder material of a powder material in which reinforcement material is uniformly distributed, such that the reinforcement material does not melt and is embedded in the manufactured composite material [0008], [0010], [0023], [0072-73], [0087], [0089], the method disclosed by Heikkinen would result in the reinforcement particles remaining unmolten and uniformly embedded in the metallic matrix.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heikkinen (US20190210103) in view of Peters (US 20180099334). Peters is cited in prior office action(s).
Regarding claim 2, Heikkinen discloses a method for producing precise components (methods for the manufacture of a three-dimensional object from the powder mixture by selective layer-wise solidification of the powder mixture) [0001], [0075] by laser melting or laser sintering of a powder material [0064], [0070], [0072-73], [0075]. Heikkinen discloses a mixture of at least two powder elements as powder material (powder mixture) for the additive manufacturing process (abstract, [0009], [0025], [0071]). Heikkinen discloses that the powder mixture comprises a steel in powder form [0009], thereby disclosing adding elements as pre-alloyed powder.
Heikkinen discloses a powder alloy being created from said powder elements over the course of the laser sintering process [0072-73], [0075]. [0009], [0071-73]. Heikkinen discloses that the powder mixture includes reinforcement carbide powder [0009], [0071-73]. Examples disclosed by Heikkinen comprise mixing 0.75%, 1.5%, 3.0%, 4.0% by mass titanium carbide [0150]; and 2.5%, 5.0%, 7.5%, and 10.0% by mass tungsten carbide [0197]. Considering titanium carbide is 79.94 mass% titanium and 20.06 mass% carbon, and tungsten carbon is 93.87 mass% tungsten and 6.13 mass% carbon, the examples disclosed by Heikkinen include: 0.60 mass% titanium and 0.15 mass% carbon (0.75 mass% titanium carbide) [0150], 1.20 mass% titanium and 0.30 mass% carbon (1.50% titanium carbide) [0150], 2.40 mass% titanium and 0.60 mass% carbon (3.0% titanium carbide) [0150], 2.35 mass% tungsten 0.15% carbon (2.50% tungsten carbide) [0197], 4.69 mass% tungsten and 0.31 mass% carbon (5.0 mass% tungsten carbide) [0197], 7.04 mass% tungsten and 0.46 mass% carbon (7.50 mass% tungsten carbide) [0197], and 9.38 mass% tungsten and 0.62 mass% carbon (10.0 mass% tungsten carbide) [0197]. Heikkinen broadly discloses that the reinforcement material comprises at least one non-metallic material ([0014], claim 6) and Heikkinen discloses a preferable embodiment wherein the reinforcement material comprises titanium carbide ([0016], claim 8) and a preferable embodiment wherein the reinforcement material comprises tungsten carbide ([0017], claim 9). Heikkinen discloses that the reinforcement material comprises more than one non-metallic material [0014], that titanium carbide is a preferred constituent of the reinforcement material [0016] and that tungsten carbide is a preferred constituent of the reinforcement material [0017]. Heikkinen discloses that the reinforcement material is 0.05-40 mass% of the overall powder mixture ([0021-22], claim 12). Heikkinen discloses that titanium carbide (TiC) particle addition results in a considerable increase of tensile strength, yield strength, wear strength, and hardness of material [0162]. Heikkinen discloses that tungsten carbide (WC) particle addition results in a result of WC particle addition results in a considerable increase of tensile strength, yield strength, wear strength, and hardness of material [0208]. Heikkinen teaches that the results of adding tungsten carbide are comparable to the results of adding titanium carbide [0209]. Heikkinen discloses that “[d]epending on whether a high ductility is desired or not, WC, TiC, SiC or mixtures thereof can be chosen as reinforcement material” [0219].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide both titanium carbide and tungsten carbide as reinforcement material in the process disclosed by Heikkinen because Heikkinen teaches adding a mixture of titanium carbide and tungsten carbide to set material properties [0219] and because Heikkinen teaches that adding titanium carbide has the same tensile strength, yield strength, wear strength, and hardness increasing results that adding tungsten carbide has [0162], [0208]. Adding both titanium carbide and tungsten carbide would predictably yield at least the material property results which Heikkinen teaches for both titanium carbide and tungsten carbide ([0192], [0208], [0219], Fig. 10, 12-15, 17, 19-21). One of ordinary skill in the art would have added the mixture of titanium carbide and tungsten carbide such that the overall amount of reinforcement material lies within the 0.05-40 mass% of the overall powder mixture ([0021-22], claim 12). The elemental amounts which Heikkinen exemplifies for adding titanium carbide and tungsten carbide range from 0.60-2.40 mass% titanium, 2.35-9.38 mass% tungsten, and 0.15-0.62 mass% carbon [0150], [0197]. Heikkinen discloses that titanium carbide comprises < 0.50 mass% impurities, and tungsten carbon comprises < 0.10 mass% impurities including oxygen and free (not carbide) carbon [0139], [0193]. The overall amounts which Heikkinen suggest for adding tungsten carbide and titanium carbide encompasses or overlaps the ranges for each element claimed in items 1.11-1.16. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, and generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(I-II). Also see MPEP 2144.06(I) for further discussion on obviousness of combining elements known in the art for the same purpose, such as the purposes which Heikkinen establishes for titanium carbide and tungsten carbide [0162], [0208], [0219].
Heikkinen discloses that the melting temperature of the ceramic and/or carbide powder composition used (reinforcement material) is above the melting temperature of the metal powder compositions (steel of the first material) [0087]. Heikkinen discloses that only the metal powder compositions are melted in the additive manufacturing process and reinforcement powder remains unmolten (“powder mixture according to the invention is heated to a temperature where the steel powder melts, the reinforcement material can remain solid” [0087]). Heikkinen discloses that the reinforcement particles are uniformly distributed in the metallic particles on mixing [0089], and Heikkinen discloses that reinforcement material is embedded in the matrix phase in manufactured composite material [0008], [0010]. Considering Heikkinen discloses that forming the composite material comprises selectively melting the metallic powder material of a powder material in which reinforcement material is uniformly distributed, such that the reinforcement material does not melt and is embedded in the manufactured composite material [0008], [0010], [0023], [0072-73], [0087], [0089], the method disclosed by Heikkinen would result in the reinforcement particles remaining unmolten and uniformly embedded in the metallic matrix.
Heikkinen discloses the mixture includes a first material of 316L stainless steel [0011], [0077], which is a composition according to 1.4404, and Heikkinen alternatively discloses the mixture includes a first material of X3NiCoMoTi18-9-5 steel [0084] which is a composition according to 1.2709. Heikkinen does not disclose a composition according to one of the embodiments recited in claim 2.
Peters teaches a method for producing precise components by additively manufacturing a powdered material [0002], [0008]. Peters teaches that the component may comprise composite materials, including materials comprising a metal and carbide [0009], [0021], specifically teaching that powder material may include fine particles of metal or metal alloy material intermixed with fine particles of ceramic material, the material being configured to form a metallic-ceramic composite material, in which ceramic particles are embedded within a metal or metal alloy matrix, upon melting and coalescence of the particles of metal and/or metal alloy material [0021]. Peters teaches that materials contemplated are: cobalt, nickel, copper, chromium, aluminum, iron, steel, stainless steel, titanium, tungsten, or alloys and mixtures thereof [0021], and that specific, nonlimiting examples, of materials that may be included in the powder material may include 18 Mar 300/1.2709 [alloy according to standard 1.2709, known by the name X3NiCoMoTi18-9-5], 1.4404 (316L), and Ti6AI4V [alloy according standard 3.7165 with the short name Titan Grade 5] [0021].
Both Heikkinen and Peters teach methods of additively manufacturing composite materials from powder comprising metal materials and alloys.
Claims 2 differs from Heikkinen in that Heikkinen discloses powder feed material comprising an alloy according to composition standard 1.4404 [0011], [0077], or standard 1.2709 [0084] instead of the alloys recited in claim 2. In view of Peters, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that powder feed mixture comprising materials according to the composition standard 3.7165 (Ti6Al4V) could be applied in an additive manufacturing process that is also suitable for 316L/1.4404 or 1.2709 alloys [0021]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have regarded the process disclosed by Heikkinen, as applied above, wherein an alloy according to the composition standard 3.7165 as an obvious substitution of the known feed material disclosed by Heikkinen [0011], [0077], [0084] with the alloy powder feed material taught by Peters [0021]. As Peters teaches that an alloy according to the composition standard 3.7165 is suitable feed material for the same additive manufacturing processes as alloys according to 1.4404 or 1.2709 standards [0021], such substitution would predictably provide alloy feed material to successfully produce a component in the method disclosed by Heikkinen, as applied above. An alloy according to the composition standard 3.7165 meets the titanium alloy composition limitations of claim 2.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heikkinen (US20190210103) in view of Hansen (US20100133096).
Regarding claim 5, Heikkinen discloses a method for producing precise components (methods for the manufacture of a three-dimensional object from the powder mixture by selective layer-wise solidification of the powder mixture) [0001], [0075] by laser melting or laser sintering of a powder material [0064], [0070], [0072-73], [0075]. Heikkinen discloses a mixture of at least two powder elements as powder material (powder mixture) for the additive manufacturing process (abstract, [0009], [0025], [0071]). Heikkinen discloses that the powder mixture comprises a steel in powder form [0009], thereby disclosing adding elements as pre-alloyed powder.
Heikkinen discloses a powder alloy being created from said powder elements over the course of the laser sintering process [0072-73], [0075]. [0009], [0071-73]. Heikkinen discloses that the powder mixture includes reinforcement carbide powder [0009], [0071-73]. Examples disclosed by Heikkinen comprise mixing 0.75%, 1.5%, 3.0%, 4.0% by mass titanium carbide [0150]; and 2.5%, 5.0%, 7.5%, and 10.0% by mass tungsten carbide [0197]. Considering titanium carbide is 79.94 mass% titanium and 20.06 mass% carbon, and tungsten carbon is 93.87 mass% tungsten and 6.13 mass% carbon, the examples disclosed by Heikkinen include: 0.60 mass% titanium and 0.15 mass% carbon (0.75 mass% titanium carbide) [0150], 1.20 mass% titanium and 0.30 mass% carbon (1.50% titanium carbide) [0150], 2.40 mass% titanium and 0.60 mass% carbon (3.0% titanium carbide) [0150], 2.35 mass% tungsten 0.15% carbon (2.50% tungsten carbide) [0197], 4.69 mass% tungsten and 0.31 mass% carbon (5.0 mass% tungsten carbide) [0197], 7.04 mass% tungsten and 0.46 mass% carbon (7.50 mass% tungsten carbide) [0197], and 9.38 mass% tungsten and 0.62 mass% carbon (10.0 mass% tungsten carbide) [0197]. Heikkinen broadly discloses that the reinforcement material comprises at least one non-metallic material ([0014], claim 6) and Heikkinen discloses a preferable embodiment wherein the reinforcement material comprises titanium carbide ([0016], claim 8) and a preferable embodiment wherein the reinforcement material comprises tungsten carbide ([0017], claim 9). Heikkinen discloses that the reinforcement material comprises more than one non-metallic material [0014], that titanium carbide is a preferred constituent of the reinforcement material [0016] and that tungsten carbide is a preferred constituent of the reinforcement material [0017]. Heikkinen discloses that the reinforcement material is 0.05-40 mass% of the overall powder mixture ([0021-22], claim 12). Heikkinen discloses that titanium carbide (TiC) particle addition results in a considerable increase of tensile strength, yield strength, wear strength, and hardness of material [0162]. Heikkinen discloses that tungsten carbide (WC) particle addition results in a result of WC particle addition results in a considerable increase of tensile strength, yield strength, wear strength, and hardness of material [0208]. Heikkinen teaches that the results of adding tungsten carbide are comparable to the results of adding titanium carbide [0209]. Heikkinen discloses that “[d]epending on whether a high ductility is desired or not, WC, TiC, SiC or mixtures thereof can be chosen as reinforcement material” [0219].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide both titanium carbide and tungsten carbide as reinforcement material in the process disclosed by Heikkinen because Heikkinen teaches adding a mixture of titanium carbide and tungsten carbide to set material properties [0219] and because Heikkinen teaches that adding titanium carbide has the same tensile strength, yield strength, wear strength, and hardness increasing results that adding tungsten carbide has [0162], [0208]. Adding both titanium carbide and tungsten carbide would predictably yield at least the material property results which Heikkinen teaches for both titanium carbide and tungsten carbide ([0192], [0208], [0219], Fig. 10, 12-15, 17, 19-21). One of ordinary skill in the art would have added the mixture of titanium carbide and tungsten carbide such that the overall amount of reinforcement material lies within the 0.05-40 mass% of the overall powder mixture ([0021-22], claim 12). The elemental amounts which Heikkinen exemplifies for adding titanium carbide and tungsten carbide range from 0.60-2.40 mass% titanium, 2.35-9.38 mass% tungsten, and 0.15-0.62 mass% carbon [0150], [0197]. Heikkinen discloses that titanium carbide comprises < 0.50 mass% impurities, and tungsten carbon comprises < 0.10 mass% impurities including oxygen and free (not carbide) carbon [0139], [0193]. The overall amounts which Heikkinen suggest for adding tungsten carbide and titanium carbide encompasses or overlaps the ranges for each element claimed in items 1.11-1.16. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, and generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(I-II). Also see MPEP 2144.06(I) for further discussion on obviousness of combining elements known in the art for the same purpose, such as the purposes which Heikkinen establishes for titanium carbide and tungsten carbide [0162], [0208], [0219].
Heikkinen discloses that the melting temperature of the ceramic and/or carbide powder composition used (reinforcement material) is above the melting temperature of the metal powder compositions (steel of the first material) [0087]. Heikkinen discloses that only the metal powder compositions are melted in the additive manufacturing process and reinforcement powder remains unmolten (“powder mixture according to the invention is heated to a temperature where the steel powder melts, the reinforcement material can remain solid” [0087]). Heikkinen discloses that the reinforcement particles are uniformly distributed in the metallic particles on mixing [0089], and Heikkinen discloses that reinforcement material is embedded in the matrix phase in manufactured composite material [0008], [0010]. Considering Heikkinen discloses that forming the composite material comprises selectively melting the metallic powder material of a powder material in which reinforcement material is uniformly distributed, such that the reinforcement material does not melt and is embedded in the manufactured composite material [0008], [0010], [0023], [0072-73], [0087], [0089], the method disclosed by Heikkinen would result in the reinforcement particles remaining unmolten and uniformly embedded in the metallic matrix.
Heikkinen discloses the mixture includes a first material of 316L stainless steel [0011], [0077], which is a composition according to 1.4404, and Heikkinen alternatively discloses the mixture includes a first material of X3NiCoMoTi18-9-5 steel [0084] which is a composition according to 1.2709. Heikkinen does not disclose a composition according to one of the embodiments recited in claim 5.
Hansen teaches a method of making precise components [0021]. Hansen teaches a composition Hansen teaches that 316L stainless steels generally meet requirements with respect to oxygen and hydrogen, but are unsuitable for strongly corrosive environments [0010]. Hansen exemplifies a 1.4562 alloy, which Hansen designates as “Alloy 31” (Table 1). Hansen teaches that of the tested alloys, Alloy 31 yields superior results, specifically with respect to corrosion [0033-37]. Hansen contrasts the results of Alloy 31 with a 316L example [0032].
Both Heikkinen and Hansen teach manufacturing precise components with steel alloys. Heikkinen specifically exemplifies 316L stainless steel alloys as a constituent of the powder mixture supplied to the additive manufacturing system [0077], [0089], [0131], [0179].
Claims 5 differs from Heikkinen in that Heikkinen discloses powder feed material comprising an alloy according to composition standard 1.4404 [0011], [0077], or standard 1.2709 [0084] instead of the alloys recited in claim 5. Considering the advantages of a 1.4562 alloy (Alloy 31) which Hansen teaches over a 316L stainless steel taught by Hansen (Table 1, [0032-37]), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide an alloy which corresponds to a 1.4562 standard in the powder mixture disclosed by Heikkinen applied above. A 1.4562 alloy as the steel feed material in the process taught by Heikkinen, would predictably yield improved corrosion properties over the 316L alloy exemplified by Heikkinen [0089], [0131], [0179], as taught by Hansen [0032-37]. As Hansen teaches that the taught material is capable for some use with an electrolyzer [0002-03], [0011]; therefore, components formed from the process disclosed by Heikkinen in view of Hansen would be structurally capable of at least some application in the chemical industry (such as commercial hydrogen production).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heikkinen (US20190210103) in view of Klier (US6180258).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heikkinen (US20190210103) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Klier (US6180258).
Klier is cited in prior office action(s).
Regarding claim 6, Heikkinen discloses a method for producing precise components (methods for the manufacture of a three-dimensional object from the powder mixture by selective layer-wise solidification of the powder mixture) [0001], [0075] by laser melting or laser sintering of a powder material [0064], [0070], [0072-73], [0075]. Heikkinen discloses a mixture of at least two powder elements as powder material (powder mixture) for the additive manufacturing process (abstract, [0009], [0025], [0071]). In one embodiment, Heikkinen discloses a powder mixture which includes a first material of X3NiCoMoTi18-9-5 steel [0084], thereby disclosing the powder mixture with the structure encompassed by some primary component iron and additional powder alloying elements according the structure encompass by DIN EN 10027-2 no. 1.2709 with the short name X3NiCoMoTi18-9-5, which meets the recited composition limitations of the iron-based component of the powder mixture, according to the present disclosure as set forth in claim 1.
Heikkinen discloses that the powder mixture comprises reinforcement powder which comprises at least one non-metallic material, wherein the non-metallic material is one out of borides and carbides and nitrides and oxides and silicides and graphite [0014]. Heikkinen discloses that the reinforcement material is 0.05-40 mass% of the overall powder mixture ([0021-22], claim 12), which significantly overlaps the claimed range of between 1.15 to 50 mass%. Heikkinen does not disclose separately adding carbon in the form of diamond powder.
Klier teaches metal matrix composites including uniformly distributed ceramic particles which improve the thermal strength, thermal conductivity and wear resistance of the material and to methods for making the same (column 1 lines 10-15). Klier teaches that carbon based ceramic are useful, naming both natural and synthetic diamond as such carbon based material (column 3 lines 50-56). Klier teaches that certain ceramics are desirable, because of their availability, ease of manufacturing, low cost or exceptional strength-inducing properties, and that such ceramics include Al2O3, SiC, B4C, MgO, Y2O3, TiC, graphite, diamond, SiO2, ThO2, and TiO2 (column 3 lines 50-56). Klier teaches selecting ceramic materials to remain stable at high temperatures (column 3 lines 4 lines 42-45).
Both Heikkinen and Klier teach forming composite materials comprising a metal matrix and distributed ceramic reinforcement particles. Heikkinen discloses that the reinforcement material is stable at relatively higher temperatures than the matrix material [0087].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to supply diamond powder as the reinforcement material in the process disclosed by Heikkinen, as applied above, because Klier teaches that diamond powder as effective reinforcement material in metal composites wherein silicon carbide (SiC) or titanium carbide (TiC) are effective reinforcement materials (column 3 lines 50-56), such as the composites disclosed by Heikkinen [0015-17]. In view of Heikkinen’s broad disclosure of types of reinforcement materials [0014], the Heikkinen reference establishes itself as open to diamond reinforcement material, and in view of Klier (column 3 lines 42-56), one of ordinary skill in the art would predict diamond powder reinforcement material to exhibit high temperature stability, and at least one of availability, ease of manufacturing, low cost or exceptional strength-inducing properties (column 3 lines 50-56). Considering Heikkinen discloses that the reinforcement material is 0.05-40 mass% of the overall powder mixture ([0021-22], claim 12), one of ordinary skill in the art would add the carbon as diamond powder in the method disclosed by Heikkinen in view of Klier, applied above, in an amount of 0.05-40 mass% which significantly overlaps the claimed range of between 1.15 to 50 mass%. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Heikkinen discloses that the melting temperature of the ceramic and/or carbide powder composition used (reinforcement material) is above the melting temperature of the metal powder compositions (steel of the first material) [0087]. Heikkinen discloses that only the metal powder compositions are melted in the additive manufacturing process and reinforcement powder remains unmolten (“powder mixture according to the invention is heated to a temperature where the steel powder melts, the reinforcement material can remain solid” [0087]). Heikkinen discloses that the reinforcement particles are uniformly distributed in the metallic particles on mixing [0089], and Heikkinen discloses that reinforcement material is embedded in the matrix phase in manufactured composite material [0008], [0010]. Considering Heikkinen discloses that forming the composite material comprises selectively melting the metallic powder material of a powder material in which reinforcement material is uniformly distributed, such that the reinforcement material does not melt and is embedded in the manufactured composite material [0008], [0010], [0023], [0072-73], [0087], [0089], the method disclosed by Heikkinen would result in the reinforcement particles remaining unmolten and uniformly embedded in the metallic matrix.
Regarding claim 8, Heikkinen discloses that that a powdered carbide powder is added to the powder composition [0014-18]. Heikkinen discloses that the reinforcement material comprises at least one non-metallic material, wherein more preferably the non-metallic material is one out of borides and carbides and nitrides and oxides and silicides and graphite [0014], thereby disclosing that the powder mixture is open to a combination of more than one reinforcement material. Heikkinen does not disclose adding diamond powder in addition to the powdered carbide.
Klier teaches metal matrix composites including uniformly distributed ceramic particles which improve the thermal strength, thermal conductivity and wear resistance of the material and to methods for making the same (column 1 lines 10-15). Klier teaches that carbon based ceramic are useful, naming both natural and synthetic diamond as such carbon based material (column 3 lines 50-56). Klier teaches that certain ceramics are desirable, because of their availability, ease of manufacturing, low cost or exceptional strength-inducing properties, and that such ceramics include Al2O3, SiC, B4C, MgO, Y2O3, TiC, graphite, diamond, SiO2, ThO2, and TiO2 (column 3 lines 50-56). Klier teaches selecting ceramic materials to remain stable at high temperatures (column 3 lines 4 lines 42-45).
Both Heikkinen and Klier teach forming composite materials comprising a metal matrix and distributed ceramic reinforcement particles. Heikkinen discloses that the reinforcement material is stable at relatively higher temperatures than the matrix material [0087].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to supply diamond powder as additional reinforcement material in the process disclosed by Heikkinen, as applied above, because Klier teaches that diamond powder as effective reinforcement material in metal composites wherein silicon carbide (SiC) or titanium carbide (TiC) are effective reinforcement materials (column 3 lines 50-56), such as the composites disclosed by Heikkinen [0015-17]. In view of Heikkinen’s broad disclosure of types of reinforcement materials, including combinations of reinforcement materials [0014], the Heikkinen reference establishes itself as open to diamond reinforcement material, and in view of Klier (column 3 lines 42-56), one of ordinary skill in the art would predict diamond powder reinforcement material to exhibit high temperature stability, and at least one of availability, ease of manufacturing, low cost or exceptional strength-inducing properties (column 3 lines 50-56).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heikkinen (US20190210103) in view of Dardas (US 20160339521 ). Dardas is cited in prior office action(s).
Regarding claim 7, Heikkinen discloses a method for producing precise components (methods for the manufacture of a three-dimensional object from the powder mixture by selective layer-wise solidification of the powder mixture) [0001], [0075] by laser melting or laser sintering of a powder material [0064], [0070], [0072-73], [0075]. Heikkinen discloses a mixture of at least two powder elements as powder material (powder mixture) for the additive manufacturing process (abstract, [0009], [0025], [0071]). In one embodiment, Heikkinen discloses a powder mixture which includes a first material of X3NiCoMoTi18-9-5 steel [0084], thereby disclosing the powder mixture with the structure encompassed by some primary component iron and additional powder alloying elements according the structure encompass by DIN EN 10027-2 no. 1.2709 with the short name X3NiCoMoTi18-9-5, which meets the recited composition limitations of the iron-based component of the powder mixture, according to the present disclosure as set forth in claim 1.
Heikkinen discloses that the powder mixture comprises a reinforcement material which comprises at least one non-metallic material, wherein the non-metallic material is one out of borides and carbides and nitrides and oxides and silicides and graphite [0014]. Heikkinen exemplifies silicon carbide, titanium carbide, and tungsten carbide reinforcement materials [0015-17]. Heikkinen discloses that the reinforcement material is 0.05-40 mass% of the overall powder mixture ([0021-22], claim 12). Powder material comprising borides and nitrides in an amount of 0.05-40 mass% as disclosed by Heikkinen [0014], [0021-22], broadly overlaps providing both boron and nitrogen in claimed amounts, but Heikkinen does not disclose
Dardas teaches a method for producing precise components by laser sintering or laser melting [0025-26], [0031]. Dardas teaches providing a metallic first powder material and a ceramic second powder material in the additive manufacturing process [0003-04], [0015], [0021]. Dardas teaches that the ceramic material includes boron nitride, silicon carbide, silicon nitride and combinations thereof [0021], [0049]. Dardas teaches that such ceramic material generally does not directly interact with the composition of the first powder [0021].
Both Heikkinen and Dardas teach methods of producing components of a composite material comprising metal and ceramic phases by laser sintering or laser melting. Heikkinen discloses minimizing reaction between first material and ceramic reinforcement material [0076]. Silicon carbide is one of the reinforcement materials which Heikkinen discloses as preferable [0015].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide at least some boron nitride in the process disclosed by Heikkinen, as applied above, because Dardas teaches boron nitride as appropriate ceramic constituent in a metal composite material produced by laser sintering or laser melting [0021], [0024-26]. Heikkinen is open to boron nitride as ceramic reinforcement material [0014], and in view of Dardas [0021] boron nitride reinforcement material would be predicted to minimally react with the metal material. Considering Dardas teaches boron nitride as an alternative to silicon nitride in composite materials comprising a metal and ceramic [0021] providing boron nitride would be expected to yield comparable results to the silicon carbide reinforcement material disclosed by Heikkinen [0015]. As a composition range of boron: up to 56.18 mass%, and nitrogen: up to 43.53 mass%, encompasses values from 0% to what the present disclosure identifies as pure boron nitride (See Table 9), adding any amount of boron nitride in the process disclosed by Heikkinen as applied above would comprise powder elements, present in elemental, alloyed or pre-alloyed form, are each additionally added to the alloy separately or in arbitrary combination: 7.11 Boron: up to 56.18 mass%, 7.12 Nitrogen: up to 43.53 mass%.
Heikkinen discloses that the melting temperature of the ceramic and/or carbide powder composition used (reinforcement material) is above the melting temperature of the metal powder compositions (steel of the first material) [0087]. Heikkinen discloses that only the metal powder compositions are melted in the additive manufacturing process and reinforcement powder remains unmolten (“powder mixture according to the invention is heated to a temperature where the steel powder melts, the reinforcement material can remain solid” [0087]). Heikkinen discloses that the reinforcement particles are uniformly distributed in the metallic particles on mixing [0089], and Heikkinen discloses that reinforcement material is embedded in the matrix phase in manufactured composite material [0008], [0010]. Considering Heikkinen discloses that forming the composite material comprises selectively melting the metallic powder material of a powder material in which reinforcement material is uniformly distributed, such that the reinforcement material does not melt and is embedded in the manufactured composite material [0008], [0010], [0023], [0072-73], [0087], [0089], the method disclosed by Heikkinen would result in the reinforcement particles remaining unmolten and uniformly embedded in the metallic matrix.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claims have been amended to clarify issues under 35 USC 112(b). While amendment has resolved many of the previously set forth clarity issues, many issues, notably regarding the compositions of elements included in the powder mixtures, remain. Claims 1-9 and 11-12 are directed to methods, which define claims as a series of steps. Applicant is encouraged to reflect on what steps applicant intends to claim to reduce uncertainty as to what intended structure is intended to be manipulated in each step. Claims may also more clearly depict applicant’s intent if clearly set forth in a preamble, transition phrase, body format.
Regarding rejections of claims 11 and 12 under 35 USC 102(a)(2) over Heikkinen (USUS20190210103), applicant argues that “Heikkinen treats the ceramic/carbide particles as inert fillers that remain unmelted. Heikkinen does not disclose selective embedding of unmelted ceramic, carbide, or diamond powders with controlled particle size in a metal matrix during additive manufacturing”. This argument is not persuasive because Heikkinen discloses “It is generally preferred that the reinforcement material has a higher melting point than the steel of the first material. If the powder mixture according to the invention is heated to a temperature where the steel powder melts, the reinforcement material can remain solid, for example in crystalline form, if the temperature is held below the melting point of the reinforcement material. A composite object manufactured by this method can thus gain particularly favourable properties, for example mechanical properties” [0087]. Heikkinen discloses “In the selective laser sintering or selective laser melting method small portions of a whole volume of powder required for manufacturing an object are heated up simultaneously to a temperature which allows a sintering and/or melting of these portions. This way of manufacturing an object can typically be characterized as a continuous and/or—on a micro-level—frequently gradual process, whereby the object is acquired through a multitude of heating cycles of small powder volumes. Solidification of these small powder portions is carried through selectively, i. e. at selected positions of a powder reservoir, which positions correspond to portions of an object to be manufactured” [0073]. Heikkinen discloses “[a] composite material is a material with a matrix material in which a reinforcement material is embedded” [0008]. Heikkinen discloses “at least a part of the reinforcement material being comprised by the second material does not undergo a change of its chemical composition prior to being embedded in the matrix” [0010]. Heikkinen discloses that parameters of the additive manufacturing process are controlled to melt metallic material without reacting titanium carbide or tungsten carbide reinforcement material [0136], [0184], and for both the titanium carbide and tungsten carbide examples, Heikkinen discloses that the reinforcement remains embedded (no detectible dissolution) as a separate phase in the matrix phase [0158], [0204]. Claim 11 does not claim a particle size. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. Further, Heikkinen does add reinforcement carbides to a separate 316L powder
Heikkinen discloses adding the reinforcement material separately from the 316L examples at different concentrations [0150], [0197]. As Heikkinen discloses that the titanium carbide and tungsten carbide reinforcement examples exhibit no dissolution in the metal matrix [0158], [0204], and an alloy by definition is a solid solution; therefore, the reinforcement material disclosed by Heikkinen does not alloy with the matrix material. Claim 11 does not exclude providing the 1.44XX material as a prealloyed stainless steel, and 316L is a 1.4404 material.
Arguments that the claims yield nonobvious results of dimensional stability and hardness are not germane to a rejection under 35 USC 102(a)(2) for anticipation. Heikkinen discloses that the amount the amount of reinforcement material increases wear resistance (a measure of how stable the material is under wear) [0128], [0167], [0169], [0212-213] and hardness ([0126], [0176-177], [0208], [0216-217]; Tables 3, 5; Figs. 6, 15, 21); therefore, even if claims 11 and 12 were rejected under 35 USC 103, as opposed to under 35 USC 102(a)(2), qualitative improvements in dimensional stability and hardness would have been expected in view of Heikkinen. The claimed uniform dispersion does not distinguish the claims over Heikkinen because Heikkinen discloses that the powder which is additively manufactured is uniformly mixed [0089], [0151], [0198], and Heikkinen discloses locally melting the metal matrix material of the powder mixture without dissolving reinforcement material [0038-39], [0073], [0158], [0204], which is what claim 11 recites. Applicant is encouraged to ranges of specific activity encompassed by manipulating the specific method with the specific materials disclosed by Heikkinen and compare that range of activity to that encompassed by claim 11. Additively manufacturing a feed material comprising a mixture of a 1.44XX powder and a reinforcement carbide powder, such that the 1.44XX powder melts while the carbide remains solid is known from Heikkinen.
Regarding independent claims 1, 3, and 4, applicant argues that the arguments directed to independent claim 11 are equally applicable. This argument is not persuasive for the reasons given above with respect to claim 11. While, independent claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 USC 103 over Heikkinen, and the arguments of nonobvious results carry more weight, the qualitative arguments that the compositions of the claims (each of which recites very different alloy material) yields nonobvious results for dimensional stability and hardness over Heikkinen are not persuasive in view of the quantitative results which Heikkinen does disclose ([0126], [0128], [0167], [0169], [0176-177], [0208], [0212-213], [0216-217]; Tables 3, 5; Figs. 4-7, 10, 12-15, 17, 19-21). Applicant’s qualitative assertions of nonobvious results do not amount to evidence of nonobviousness to a statistical and practical significance, as described in MPEP 716.02 and subsections. Arguments by applicants cannot take the place of evidence where evidence is requires (MPEP 716.01(c)(II) and 2145(I)).
Arguments that Heikkinen does not teach reinforcement particles as nucleation seeds are not persuasive because Heikkinen teaches that metal material which is melted wets the reinforcement particles during the additive manufacturing process [0136], [0184], and that the molten metal solidifies in the additive manufacturing process [0023], [0067], [0073], [0135], [0183], [0220], thereby disclosing that at least some degree of nucleation occurs at the reinforcement particle.
Arguing that Heikkinen discloses the purpose of the reinforcement phase disclosed by Heikkinen is a strengthening additive is not persuasive in showing the claims would not have been obvious over Heikkinen because the present claims are supported by a specification which states “[a] second preferred embodiment relates to a method for producing precise components, preferably high-strength components”. Further, even if the reasons why Heikkinen adds reinforcement were different from those, Heikkinen does disclose that the composite material results in crack suppression [0158], [0204], and the 316L disclosed by Heikkinen [0011], [0077], [0150], [0197] is well-established as austenitic; therefore, the solution presented in the Heikkinen disclosure would be expected to solve the problems which applicant argues the claimed solution solves. Applicant is reminded that unsubstantiated statement of counsel is insufficient to show appellants discovered source of the problem for which a claimed invention is a solution (MPEP 2141.02(IV)). Further, the unifying problem of all claims which the present invention purports to solve is to improve hardness and abrasiveness (see the paragraph of page 1 of the specification which begins “[t]he object of the invention…). Heikkinen discloses that the amount the amount of reinforcement material increases wear resistance [0128], [0167], [0169], [0212-213], which Heikkinen evaluates by abrasive wear resistance [0108-109], [0129], [0166], [0211], and Heikkinen discloses that reinforcement material results in improved hardness ([0126], [0176-177], [0208], [0216-217]; Tables 3, 5; Figs. 6, 15, 21); therefore, Heikkinen considers the overall problems for which the present application present the claimed method(s) as solutions. Some of the considerations argued by applicant (such as the austenite and martensite arguments) do not even apply to all claims, such as the titanium alloy of independent claim 2.
Arguments that the addition of ceramic or carbide powder to materials serves to optimize the properties of the materials by selecting the carbide type and its amount, desired properties such as hardness, wear resistance, temperature resistance, and corrosion resistance can be adjusted is not persuasive in overcoming rejections over Heikkinen because the arguments are not supported by evidence that the argued results would differ from those disclosed by Heikkinen to a statistical and practical significance commensurate in scope with the claims.
Qualitative assertions that unmelted high-melting carbide yield unexpected results over the Heikkinen particularly are not persuasive because Heikkinen discloses unmalting high-melting carbides as reinforcement material [0087], [0136], [0158], [0184], [0204]. Considering Heikkinen teaches this phenomenon, absent evidence to the contrary, the method disclosed by Heikkinen, applied above, would yield any argued results which naturally flow from this phenomenon.
Arguments that claims 2-7 define specific alloy systems which Heikkinen does not disclose are not persuasive because Heikkinen repeatedly discloses a 316L alloy which is the exact alloy system named in the narrowest interpretation of claim 4. Claim 3 is explicitly open “other chromium-nickel steels being added”, and claim 1 explicitly establishes a 1.27XX alloy as meeting the alloy system recited in claims 6 and 7. The present action relies on Peters (US 20180099334) to meet the alloy system of claim 2 and on Hansen (US20100133096) to meet the alloy system of claim 5. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP2145(IV). Arguments that specific alloy systems yield favorable, synergistic results when reinforced with specific reinforcement material should be supported by objective evidence, commensurate in scope with the claims. MPEP 716.02 and subsections provides further guidance on what such evidence should show and how the office evaluates such evidence. Considering Heikkinen repeatedly exemplifies the 316L alloy system of the narrowest interpretation of claim 4, and Heikkinen discloses objective hardness and wear resistance results of additively manufacturing a composite material from a powder mixture comprising 316L stainless steel and carbides, applicant’s qualitative assertions that the results of the presently claimed methods would be different, let alone nonobvious, from those of Heikkinen.
Applicant’s arguments that Peters, Klier (US6180258), and/or Dardas (US20160339521) does not supply the deficiencies of Heikkinen are not persuasive for the reasons given above with respect to Heikkinen. All arguments further over Peters, Klier, and Dardas depend on arguments over Heikkinen.
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 SEAN P O'KEEFE whose telephone number is (571)272-7647. The examiner can normally be reached MR 8:00-6:30.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/SEAN P. O'KEEFE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/ SPE, Art Unit 1738