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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/12/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liedtke (DE 102017107319 B3) (previously cited) in view of Thayer (US 2019/0184521) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Liedtke teaches a method for surface treatment, the method comprising:
performing blasting on a surface of a workpiece (see para.[0005] “In this first treatment step, the aluminum surface of the component is roughened, preferably by means of a blasting process.”), wherein unevenness of 100 µm or more in the blasted surface of the workpiece are physically cut by the performing blasting on the surface of the workpiece (See para.[0015] “This aluminum sheet is roughened on its front side by a blasting process. A matted aluminum surface is produced as the first surface structure. The average roughness (Ra) of this aluminum surface is Ra1=50 μm.” Hence 100 µm or more unevenness are removed in the process); and
irradiating the blasted surface of the workpiece with an electron beam (see paras.[0006] and [0010] “In this process, the aluminum surface of the component is melted in selected areas of the first surface structure.” “The energy required to melt the aluminum surface is provided by electromagnetic radiation, in particular by laser beams or electron beams.”).
Liedtke does not explicitly teach the workpiece is a sintered product of metal powder and the workpiece is an additively manufactured product, and a mean width of roughness profile elements RSm, defined in Japanese Industrial Standards : JIS B0601: 2001, of the blasted surface of the workpiece is less than 770.80 µm.
However, Thayer teaches in the same field of endeavor of a method of surface treatment, comprising performing blasting and irradiating with beam on a surface of an additively manufactured product (See fig.2 and para.[0039] “With reference to FIGS. 1-3, the creation of the localized soft area 254, 354, via the application of the laser energy, renders the localized soft area 254, 354 more ductile, thereby allowing the shot peen to more easily close or flatten imperfections in the surface at the localized soft area. The shot peen flattens high spots, collapses porosity, and closes fissures that can result at or near the surface in an additively manufactured component. ).
PNG
media_image1.png
412
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify workpiece of Liedtke with the workpiece is an additively manufactured product as taught by Thayer, in order to reduce the impact of, or remove the presence of, the flaws or defects of the workpiece (See para.[0002] of Thayer). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the roughness of the blasted surface of the workpiece to be less than RSm 770.80 µm, in order to produce a desired product, since the roughness of the blasted surface of the workpiece is nothing more than a result effective variable able to be optimized in order to achieve a recognized result, and discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 7, Liedtke teaches irradiating the blasted surface of the workpiece with the electron beam, minute protruding portions are molten by the electron beam and molten metal flows into minute recessed portions, so that the surface of the workpiece, physically cut by blasting, is smoothed, and flaws formed on the surface of the workpiece by the blasting are removed by the electron beam (See para.[0011] “The power of the energy beam is designed in such a way that the irradiated surface is melted and solidifies again as soon as the energy beam leaves the melted area. In this way, the surface is leveled and a reduction in surface roughness is achieved. This second surface structure has a roughness that is reduced by at least half compared to the roughness of the first surface structure caused by the roughening process. This means that the area treated in the second treatment step, i.e. the filigree design created, appears smoother and shinier.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 08/19/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Liedtke and Thayer with a different interpretation. In addition, the roughness of the blasted surface of the workpiece is nothing more than a result effective variable able to be optimized in order to achieve a recognized result, and discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would manipulate the blasting process to adjust the roughness of achieve to achieve a desired standard, such as less than RSm 770.80 µm.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS Q LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8241. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/CHRIS Q LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights