DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4 and 7-17 are pending, and claims 4, 7-9, and 14-17 are currently under review.
Claims 1-3 and 10-13 are withdrawn.
Claims 5-6 are cancelled.
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/Remarks
The remarks filed 12/09/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4 and 7-17 remain(s) pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4, 7-9, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chehab (US 2021/0032727) in view of Bansal et al. (WO2014074974); and alternatively over the aforementioned prior art and further in view of Gibson et al. (2015, Additive manufacturing technologies).
Regarding claims 4 and 14-15, Chehab discloses a process for making an aluminum alloy part (ie. component) having a composition as seen in table 1 below [0018-0022]. The examiner notes that the overlap between the composition of Chehab and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The examiner also notes that non-recited elements disclosed by Chehab (ie. V, Ag, etc.) are disclosed as optional and thus not required, which meets the claimed limitation of “consisting of…”
Chehab further teaches that the processing steps include providing an alloy powder and subsequently melting said powder to form a desired part according to a pattern based on a digital model (ie. shaped article) [abstract, 0017, 0063]. The examiner notes that mixing powders during additive manufacturing is a conventional and well-known consideration that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill. Alternatively, Gibson et al. discloses that it is known to mix powder materials for additive manufacturing for a variety of reasons, such as achieving uniform properties [p.116, 130, p.258].
Chehab does not expressly teach forming the component under a constant flow of inert gas as claimed. Bansal et al. discloses that it is known to perform additive manufacturing under vacuum conditions with a constant flow of inert gas to achieve desirable suppression of contaminants and prevention of condensation [p.33, 37]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by performing additive manufacturing under a constant flow of inert gas for the aforementioned benefit as taught by Bansal et al.
Table 1.
Element (wt.%)
Claims 4, 14-15 (wt.%)
Chehab (wt.%)
Cr
4.8
2 – 10
Zr
1.4
0.5 – 5
Mn
1.4
0.06 – 6
Al & Impurities
Balance
Balance
Regarding claims 7-8 and 16, Chehab discloses the method of claim 4 (see previous). Chehab further teaches that the part can be further heat treated and/or hot isostatically pressed up to 500 bar after layer forming [0041-0046]. The examiner notes that hot isostatic pressing is commonly well-known to utilize fluid (ie. liquid/gas) to apply isostatic pressure.
Regarding claim 9, Chehab discloses the method of claim 4 (see previous). Chehab does not expressly teach local application of pressure as claimed. Gibson et al. discloses that it is known to perform shot peening on additively manufactured metal parts to improve smoothness, wherein one of ordinary skill would understand shot peening to be a means of locally applied pressure [p.53]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of Chehab by performing shot peening to improve smoothness as taught by Gibson et al.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chehab (US 2021/0032727) and others as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Bocanegra-Bernal (2004, Review: Hot isostatic pressing (HIP) technology and its applications to metals and ceramics).
Regarding claim 17, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 16 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a pressure value as claimed. Bocanegra-Bernal discloses that it is typically known to utilize hot isostatic pressing to achieve fully isotropic properties, wherein Al is known to be pressed at about 100 MPa, or about 1000 bar as determined by the examiner [p.6399, tabl3]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of Chehab by utilizing the hot isostatic pressing pressure of Bocanegra-Bernal for the aforementioned purpose. Alternatively, the examiner notes that all of the claimed features are disclosed in the prior art, although not necessarily in a single reference, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the features of the prior art to arrive at the predictable result of a 3d printed aluminum alloy (taught by Chehab) that is further pressed by typical, well-known HIP parameters (taught by Bocanegra-Bernal). See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The examiner notes that hot isostatic pressing is commonly well-known to utilize fluid (ie. liquid/gas) to apply isostatic pressure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the disclosed composition of Chehab is so broad such that prima facie obvious does not exist. The examiner cannot concur. Specifically, the examiner cannot consider the disclosed composition of Chehab to be so broad as to encompass a large number of distinct compositions (emphasis added). It is not apparent to the examiner, nor has it been made clear by applicant, as to how the compositional ranges of Chehab would be distinct from each other to one of ordinary skill. Rather, Chehab expressly teaches desirable compositional ranges that can be utilized and further does not impart any specific distinction between different ranges or amounts of elemental inclusions. Therefore, determination of obviousness is reasonably made based on overlapping ranges because Chehab is clearly directed merely to ranges of elements inclusions rather than distinct, different compositions. Even if analysis under MPEP 2144.08 were required, which the examiner does not acquiesce, the examiner still cannot concur. Chehab provides express reasoning for including particular elements (ie. Zr, Mn, etc.) such that the disclosure of Chehab expressly provides a clear scope and clear direction to one of ordinary skill to select a desirable composition that overlaps with the claimed ranges. See MPEP 2144.08(II)(A).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734