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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of WO 2021/098936, the WIPO publication of PCT/EP2019/081572 filed November 18, 2019.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks and Claim Amendments filed July 24, 2025.
Claims Filing Date
July 24, 2025
Amended
1-6, 8-10
Cancelled
7
Pending
1-6, 8-18
Withdrawn
11-18
Under Examination
1-6, 8-10
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following 112(b) rejection is withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 5 lines 2-3 “1 to 5 wt.% and/or 4.5 wt.% or less”.
Amended claim 5, line 2 recites that “the second material accounts for 0.1 to 8 wt. % of the powder mixture”. Applicant’s specification at 7:26-35 recites a second material amount that is “regularly 8 wt.-% or less” and “0.1 wt.-% or more”.
Response to Arguments
Cai
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 7 paras. 3-4, filed July 24, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection over Cai have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of Cai has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues amended claim 1 incorporates the subject matter of previously recited claim 7 and claim 7 was not rejected over Cai (Remarks p. 7 paras. 3-4).
Bao ‘930
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 7 paras. 3-4, filed July 24, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection over Bao ‘930 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection of Bao ‘930 has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues amended claim 1 incorporates the subject matter of previously recited claim 7 and claim 7 was not rejected over Bao ‘930 (Remarks p. 7 paras. 3-4).
Cai in view of Okubo
Applicant's arguments filed July 24, 2025 with respect to the rejection of claim 7 over Cai in view of Okubo have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the present application is directed to laser sintering aluminum alloys (Remarks p. 8 para. 1), whereas Okubo teaches cold forgeability is an important requirement (Remarks p. 8 para. 2).
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); of (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). MPEP 2141.01(a)(I).
In the instant case, Okubo is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention of adding reinforcement material (hard particles) to aluminum alloy powder (applicant’s claim 1; Okubo Abstract, [0007]-[0008]). Okubo is also reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of adding reinforcement material (hard particles) to improve mechanical properties, such as yield strength (applicant’s specification 8:19-21, 17:8-14) because Okubo adds hard particles to increase wear resistance, a mechanical property (Okubo [0014]).
The applicant argues Okubo discloses a different aluminum alloy that includes between 3.5 to 5.5 wt% Cu (Okubo Summary, claim 1, [0007], [0009]), such that Cu is not a minor alloying element of Okubo, whereas amended claim 1 requires an aluminum alloy with up to 2.0% Cu (Remarks p. 8 para. 3).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the pending rejection of amended claim 1, Cai in view of Bao ‘487 as evidenced by AA Teal Sheets discloses the claimed aluminum alloy of the first material (Cai Example 3 [0049]-[0052]; Bao ‘487 Embodiment 3: 7039 aluminum alloy, Embodiment 6: 7075 aluminum alloy [0047]-[0049], [0068]-[0070]; AA Teal Sheets), including up to 2.0 wt% Cu. 7039 aluminum alloy has a maximum of 0.10% Cu and 7075 aluminum alloy has 1.2-2.0% Cu (AA Teal Sheets).
In the pending rejection Okubo discloses the obviousness of adding reinforcement material (hard particles) selected from carbides, borides, and nitrides (SiC, Si3N, TiC, or TiN) to aluminum alloy powder (Okubo [0007]-[0008]) to advantageously increase the wear resistance of the alloy (Okubo [0014]). Evidence that increased wear resistance as disclosed by Okubo requires a Cu content of 3.5-5.5% (Okubo [0009]) has not been presented.
Therefore, the rejection of Cai in view of Okubo is maintained.
Cai in view of Martin
Applicant's arguments filed July 24, 2025 with respect to the rejection of claim 7 over Cai in view of Martin have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues Martin adds nanoparticles for grain refinement to provide a less porous laser sintered material (Remarks p. 9 para. 2), but fails to disclose the median grain size d50, as determined by laser scattering or laser diffraction, of the second material is within the range of 4 um to 100 um as required by amended claim 1 because Martin expressly defines the grain size of the reinforcement material as a nanoparticle, such as Ex. 2 grain refining Al7075 with Zr nanoparticles of 500-1500 nm (Martin [0310]) (Remarks p. 9 para. 3) and Ex. 4 grain refining Al 6061 with 500-1500 nm nanoparticles (Remarks p. 9 para. 4).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the pending rejection Cai discloses the obviousness of aluminum alloy powder first material with a second material that includes a metal powder of Zr and/or Hf with a median grain size d50 of 4 um to 100 um (Zr powder with an average particle size of 25 to 45 um) (Cai [0051]-[0052]). The second material of amended claim 1 is rendered obvious by the disclosure of Cai. Martin discloses reinforcement material selected from the group consisting of carbides, borides, and nitrides (Martin [0048]-[0052]) advantageously gives a unique, equiaxed microstructure that eliminates hot cracking during processing (Martin [0053]-[0055], [0077], [0078], [0087]). The reinforcement material of Martin is different from the Zr metal powder disclosed by Cai and from the argued and claimed second material that includes a metal powder of Zr and/or Hf with a median grain size d50 of 4 um to 100 um.
Therefore, the rejection of Cai in view of Martin is maintained.
Bao ‘930 in view of Okubo
Applicant's arguments filed July 24, 2025 with respect to the rejection of claim 7 over Bao ‘930 in view of Okubo have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues amended claim 1 recites up to 2.0 wt% Cu, but Okubo states Cu of less than 3.5% is not sufficient (Okubo [0009]) (Remarks p. 10 para. 1).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the pending rejection of amended claim 1, Bao ‘930 discloses an aluminum alloy powder (Embodiment 3: 7039 aluminum alloy powder) ([0048]). As evidenced by AA Teal Sheets AA 7039 includes up to 0.10% Cu, which overlaps with the range of amended claim 1 of up to 2.0 wt% Cu.
In the pending rejection Okubo discloses the obviousness of an aluminum alloy powder with reinforcement material (hard particles) selected from carbides, borides, and nitrides (SiC, Si3N, TiC, or TiN) (Okubo [0007]-[0008]) to advantageously increase the wear resistance of the alloy (Okubo [0014]). Evidence that reinforcement material and increased wear resistance as disclosed by Okubo require a Cu content of 3.5-5.5% (Okubo [0009]) has not been presented.
Therefore, the rejection of Bao ‘930 in view of Okubo is maintained.
Bao ‘930 in view of Martin
Applicant's arguments filed July 24, 2025 with respect to the rejection of claim 7 over Bao ‘930 in view of Martin have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues against Martin for the same reasons cited above (Remarks p. 10 para. 4), where Martin adds nanoparticles for grain refinement to provide a less porous laser sintered material (Remarks p. 9 para. 2), but fails to disclose the median grain size d50, as determined by laser scattering or laser diffraction, of the second material is within the range of 4 um to 100 um as required by amended claim 1 because Martin expressly defines the grain size of the reinforcement material as a nanoparticle, such as Ex. 2 grain refining Al7075 with Zr nanoparticles of 500-1500 nm (Martin [0310]) (Remarks p. 9 para. 3) and Ex. 4 grain refining Al 6061 with 500-1500 nm nanoparticles (Remarks p. 9 para. 4).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the pending rejection Bao ‘930 discloses the obviousness of aluminum alloy powder first material with a second material that includes a metal powder of Zr and/or Hf with a median grain size d50 of 4 um to 100 um (Embodiment 3: 16 um hafnium hydride powder) (Bao ‘930 [0048]), such that the second material of amended claim 1 is rendered obvious. Martin discloses the claimed reinforcement material selected from the group consisting of carbides, borides, and nitrides (Martin [0048]-[0052]) advantageously gives a unique, equiaxed microstructure that eliminates hot cracking during processing (Martin [0053]-[0055], [0077], [0078], [0087]). The reinforcement material of Martin is different from the Zr metal powder disclosed by Bao ‘930 and the argued and claimed second material that includes a metal powder of Zr and/or Hf with a median grain size d50 of 4 um to 100 um.
Therefore, the rejection of Bao ‘930 in view of Martin is maintained.
Hongo
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 10 para. 7, filed July 24, 2025, with respect to Hongo have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Hongo has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues Hongo fails to disclose the precise alloying elements of the aluminum alloy, including Zn as the principal alloying element (Remarks p. 10 para. 7).
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (CN 107812941 machine translation) in view of Bao ‘487 (CN 110184487 machine translation) and Okubo (JP H07-305130 machine translation) as evidenced by AA Teal Sheets (International Alloy Designations and Chemical Composition Limits for Wrought Aluminum and Wrought Aluminum Alloys. Registration Record Series. Teal Sheets. The Aluminum Association. August 2018.).
Regarding claim 1, Cai discloses a powder mixture (Example 3) ([0051]-[0052]) for use in the manufacture of a three dimensional object by means of an additive manufacturing method (laser selective melting) ([0049]), wherein the powder mixture comprises:
a first material that includes an aluminum alloy or a mixture of elemental precursors thereof, wherein the first material is in powder form (aluminum alloy powder) ([0051]); and
a second material that includes a metal powder of Zr and/or Hf (high-purity Zr powder), wherein the median grain size d50, as determined by laser scattering or laser diffraction, of the second material is within the range 4 um to 100 um (average particle size of 25 to 45 um) ([0051]).
Cai discloses a first material that includes an aluminum alloy ([0051]).
Cai is silent to the aluminum alloy with up to 2.0 wt.-% of Cu and with Zn as the principal alloying element.
Bao ‘487 discloses a powder mixture comprising a first material comprising an aluminum alloy and a second material comprising Zr ([0009], [0013]), wherein the first material comprises an aluminum alloy with up to 2.0 wt.-% of Cu and with Zn as the principal alloying element (Embodiment 3: 7039 aluminum alloy up to 0.10 wt.-% Cu and 3.5 to 4.5 wt.-% Zn, Embodiment 6: 7075 aluminum alloy with 1.2 to 2.0 wt.-% Cu and 5.1 to 6.1 wt.-% Zn) ([0047]-[0049], [0068]-[0070]) (AA Teal Sheets).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the powder mixture of Cai for the aluminum alloy to be 7039 or 7075 because when powder metallurgy manufacturing these alloys with a zirconium based powder sintering deformation is reduce, the size after sintering is stabilized, and the near-net shape advantage is maintained (Bao ‘784 [0026]), and these aluminum alloys are relatively easy to use, have low cost, and high production efficiency for mass production using a simple method (Bao ‘784 [0027]). Further aluminum alloy 7039 and 7075 are lightweight materials with low density and high specific strength (Bao ‘784]).
Cai is silent to a reinforcement material selected from the group consisting of carbides, borides, and nitrides.
Okubo discloses a powder mixture of aluminum alloy powder with a reinforcement material (hard particles) selected from carbides, borides and nitrides (SiC, Si3N, TiC, or TiN) ([0007]-[0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the powder mixture of Cai to include carbides or nitrides (SiC, Si3N, TiC, or TiN) to increase the wear resistance of the alloy ([0014]).
Regarding claim 2, Cai in view of Bao ‘487 discloses the first material comprises aluminum and 4.0 to 6.1 wt.-% Zn, 1.5 to 3.0 wt.-% Mg, up to 0.6 wt.-% Fe, up to 0.50 wt.-% Si, and one or more of up to 0.35 wt.-% of Cr, up to 0.5 wt.-% of Mn, up to 0.25 wt.-% of Ti, and 0.1 to 0.25 wt.-% of Zr (Embodiment 3: 7039 aluminum alloy, Embodiment 6: 7075 aluminum alloy) (Bao ‘487 [0047]-[0049], [0068]-[0070]) (AA Teal Sheets). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claim 2
Claim 3
7039 AA Teal Sheets
7075 AA Teal Sheets
Zn
4.0 to 6.1
-
3.5 to 4.5
5.1 to 6.1
Mg
1.5 to 3.0
-
2.3 to 3.3
2.1 to 2.9
Fe
Up to 0.6
-
Up to 0.40
Up to 0.50
Si
Up to 0.50
-
Up to 0.30
Up to 0.40
One or more of:
Cr
Up to 0.35
≤ 0.35
0.15 to 0.25
0.18 to 0.28
Mn
Up to 0.5
0.05 to 0.5
0.10 to 0.40
Up to 0.30
Cu
Up to 2.0
≤ 0.25
Up to 0.10
1.2 to 2.0
Ti
Up to 0.25
-
Up to 0.10
Up to 0.20
Zr
0.1 to 0.25
-
-
-
Mn and Cr
-
>0.15
0.25 to 0.65
1.2 to 2.3
Regarding claim 3, Cai in view of Bao ‘487 discloses the first material comprises less than or equal to 0.25 wt.-% of Cu, less than or equal to 0.35 wt.-% of Cr and 0.05 to 0.5 wt. -% of Mn, and wherein the combined amount of Mn and Cr is greater than 0.15 wt.-% (Embodiment 3: 7039 aluminum alloy) (Bao ‘487 [0047]-[0049]) (AA Teal Sheets). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Cai discloses the median grain size d50, as determined by laser scattering or laser diffraction, of the first material (aluminum alloy) is within the range 1 um to 150 um (Example 3: average particle size of 25 to 45 um and a maximum particle size of no more than 75 um) ([0051]).
Regarding claim 5, Cai discloses the second material accounts for 0.1 to 8 wt.-% of the powder mixture (Example 3: 6 wt% Zr powder) ([0029], [0033], [0052]).
Regarding claim 8, Cai in view of Okubo discloses the reinforcement material is selected from the group consisting of TiC, ZrC, Nb2C, Ta2C, A14C, HfC, TaC, NbC, VC, SiC, B4C, NbB2, TaB2, VN, NbN, AlN, TaN, Nb2N, Ta2N and BN or mixtures thereof (SiC, TiC) (Okubo [0008], [0014]).
Regarding claim 9, Cai in view of Okubo discloses the amount of the reinforcement material in the powder mixture is 0.1 wt.-% to 3 wt.-% (0.5 to 5% by volume increases wear resistance without decreasing cold forgeability and machinability) (Okubo [0007], [0014]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 10, Cai in view of Okubo discloses the median grain size d50, as determined by laser scattering or laser diffraction, of the reinforcement material is equal to or less than 50 um (1 to 8 um allows for dispersion without aggregation without the particles damaging the materials of the parts that come into contact with the manufactured part during use) (Okubo [0007], [0014]) and wherein the median grain size d50 of the reinforcement material (1 to 8 um) (Okubo [0007], [0014]) is less than the median grain size d50 of the first and second materials (Example 3 average particle size of 25 to 45 um and a maximum particle size of no more than 75 um) (Cai [0051]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (CN 107812941 machine translation) in view of Bao ‘487 (CN 110184487 machine translation) and Okubo (JP H07-305130 machine translation) as evidenced by AA Teal Sheets (International Alloy Designations and Chemical Composition Limits for Wrought Aluminum and Wrought Aluminum Alloys. Registration Record Series. Teal Sheets. The Aluminum Association. August 2018.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bao ‘487 (CN 110184487 machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, Cai is silent to the median grain size d50 of the second material being less than that of the first material.
Bao ‘487 discloses a powder mixture comprising a first material comprising an aluminum alloy and a second material comprising Zr ([0009], [0013]) wherein the median grain size d50 of the second material (preferably 1 to 45 um) being less than that of the first material (preferably 60 to 80 um, with examples that satisfy the claim limitation) ([0023], [0034]-[0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the powder mixture of Cai for the median grain size of the second material to be less than that of the first material because when powder metallurgy manufacturing these powder mixtures sintering deformation is reduce, the size after sintering is stabilized, and the near-net shape advantage is maintained (Bao ‘784 [0026]), and these aluminum alloys are relatively easy to use, have low cost, and high production efficiency for mass production using a simple method (Bao ‘784 [0027]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 1-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (CN 107812941 machine translation) in view of Bao ‘487 (CN 110184487 machine translation) and Martin (US 2019/0032175) as evidenced by AA Teal Sheets (International Alloy Designations and Chemical Composition Limits for Wrought Aluminum and Wrought Aluminum Alloys. Registration Record Series. Teal Sheets. The Aluminum Association. August 2018.).
Regarding claim 1, Cai discloses a powder mixture (Example 3) ([0051]-[0052]) for use in the manufacture of a three dimensional object by means of an additive manufacturing method (laser selective melting) ([0049]), wherein the powder mixture comprises:
a first material that includes an aluminum alloy or a mixture of elemental precursors thereof, wherein the first material is in powder form (aluminum alloy powder) ([0051]); and
a second material that includes a metal powder of Zr and/or Hf (high-purity Zr powder), wherein the median grain size d50, as determined by laser scattering or laser diffraction, of the second material is within the range 4 um to 100 um (average particle size of 25 to 45 um) ([0051]).
Cai discloses a first material that includes an aluminum alloy ([0051])
Cai is silent to the aluminum alloy with up to 2.0 wt.-% of Cu and with Zn as the principal alloying element.
Bao ‘487 discloses a powder mixture comprising a first material comprising an aluminum alloy and a second material comprising Zr ([0009], [0013]), wherein the first material comprises an aluminum alloy with up to 2.0 wt.-% of Cu and with Zn as the principal alloying element (Embodiment 3: 7039 aluminum alloy up to 0.10 wt.-% Cu and 3.5 to 4.5 wt.-% Zn, Embodiment 6: 7075 aluminum alloy with 1.2 to 2.0 wt.-% Cu and 5.1 to 6.1 wt.-% Zn) ([0047]-[0049], [0068]-[0070]) (AA Teal Sheets).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the powder mixture of Cai for the aluminum alloy to be 7039 or 7075 because when powder metallurgy manufacturing these alloys with a zirconium based powder sintering deformation is reduce, the size after sintering is stabilized, and the near-net shape advantage is maintained (Bao ‘784 [0026]), and these aluminum alloys are relatively easy to use, have low cost, and high production efficiency for mass production using a simple method (Bao ‘784 [0027]). Further aluminum alloy 7039 and 7075 are lightweight materials with low density and high specific strength (Bao ‘784]).
Cai is silent to a reinforcement material selected from the group consisting of carbides, borides, and nitrides.
Martin discloses a powder mixture of aluminum alloy powder with a reinforcement material (grain-refining nanoparticles) selected from carbides, borides and nitrides ([0048]-[0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the powder mixture of Cai to include grain-refining nanoparticles selected from carbides, borides, and nitride to give a unique microstructure for the aluminum alloy, enabling the production of aluminum alloys that were previously difficult to process (Martin [0077]) by inducing equiaxed microstructures that can eliminate hot cracking during processing (Martin [0079], [0087]) during additive manufacturing (Martin [0053]-[0055]).
Regarding claim 2, Cai in view of Bao ‘487 discloses the first material comprises aluminum and 4.0 to 6.1 wt.-% Zn, 1.5 to 3.0 wt.-% Mg, up to 0.6 wt.-% Fe, up to 0.50 wt.-% Si, and one or more of up to 0.35 wt.-% of Cr, up to 0.5 wt.-% of Mn, up to 0.25 wt.-% of Ti, and 0.1 to 0.25 wt.-% of Zr (Embodiment 3: 7039 aluminum alloy, Embodiment 6: 7075 aluminum alloy) (Bao ‘487 [0047]-[0049], [0068]-[0070]) (AA Teal Sheets). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claim 2
Claim 3
7039 AA Teal Sheets
7075 AA Teal Sheets
Zn
4.0 to 6.1
-
3.5 to 4.5
5.1 to 6.1
Mg
1.5 to 3.0
-
2.3 to 3.3
2.1 to 2.9
Fe
Up to 0.6
-
Up to 0.40
Up to 0.50
Si
Up to 0.50
-
Up to 0.30
Up to 0.40
One or more of:
Cr
Up to 0.35
≤ 0.35
0.15 to 0.25
0.18 to 0.28
Mn
Up to 0.5
0.05 to 0.5
0.10 to 0.40
Up to 0.30
Cu
Up to 2.0
≤ 0.25
Up to 0.10
1.2 to 2.0
Ti
Up to 0.25
-
Up to 0.10
Up to 0.20
Zr
0.1 to 0.25
-
-
-
Mn and Cr
-
>0.15
0.25 to 0.65
1.2 to 2.3
Regarding claim 3, Cai in view of Bao ‘487 discloses the first material comprises less than or equal to 0.25 wt.-% of Cu, less than or equal to 0.35 wt.-% of Cr and 0.05 to 0.5 wt. -% of Mn, and wherein the combined amount of Mn and Cr is greater than 0.15 wt.-% (Embodiment 3: 7039 aluminum alloy) (Bao ‘487 [0047]-[0049]) (AA Teal Sheets). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Cai discloses the median grain size d50, as determined by laser scattering or laser diffraction, of the first material (aluminum alloy) is within the range 1 um to 150 um (Example 3: average particle size of 25 to 45 um and a maximum particle size of no more than 75 um) ([0051]).
Regarding claim 5, Cai discloses the second material accounts for 0.1 to 8 wt.-% of the powder mixture (Example 3: 6 wt% Zr powder) ([0029], [0033], [0052]).
Regarding claim 8, Cai in view of Martin discloses the reinforcement material (grain-refining nanoparticles) is selected from the group consisting of TiC, ZrC, Nb2C, Ta2C, Al4C, HfC, TaC, NbC, VC, SiC, B4C, NbB2, TaB2, VN, NbN, AlN, TaN, Nb2N, Ta2N and BN or mixtures thereof (Martin [0052], [0177]-[0178]).
Regarding claim 9, Cai in view of Martin discloses the amount of the reinforcement material in the powder mixture is 0.1 wt.-% or more and/or wherein the content of the reinforcement material in the powder mixture is 3 wt.-% or less (at least 0.01 vol% with upper limit minimizing potential detrimental interactions) (Martin [0103]-[0104]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 10, Cai in view of Martin discloses the median grain size d50, as determined by laser scattering or laser diffraction, of the reinforcement material (grain-refining nanoparticles) is equal to or less than 50 um (1 to 5000 nm, 0.001 to 5 um) (Martin [0174]) and wherein the median grain size d50 of the reinforcement material (1 to 5000 nm, 0.001 to 5 um) (Martin [0174]) is less than that of the first and second material (Example 3 average particle size of 25 to 45 um and a maximum particle size of no more than 75 um) (Cai [0051]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (CN 107812941 machine translation) in view of Bao ‘487 (CN 110184487 machine translation) and Martin (US 2019/0032175) as evidenced by AA Teal Sheets (International Alloy Designations and Chemical Composition Limits for Wrought Aluminum and Wrought Aluminum Alloys. Registration Record Series. Teal Sheets. The Aluminum Association. August 2018.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bao ‘487 (CN 110184487 machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, Cai is silent to the median grain size d50 of the second material being less than that of the first material.
Bao ‘487 discloses a powder mixture comprising a first material comprising an aluminum alloy and a second material comprising Zr ([0009], [0013]) wherein the median grain size d50 of the second material (preferably 1 to 45 um) being less than that of the first material (preferably 60 to 80 um, with examples that satisfy the claim limitation) ([0023], [0034]-[0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the powder mixture of Cai for the median grain size of the second material to be less than that of the first material because when powder metallurgy manufacturing these powder mixtures sintering deformation is reduce, the size after sintering is stabilized, and the near-net shape advantage is maintained (Bao ‘784 [0026]), and these aluminum alloys are relatively easy to use, have low cost, and high production efficiency for mass production using a simple method (Bao ‘784 [0027]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao ‘930 (CN 110157930 machine translation) as evidenced by AA Teal Sheets (International Alloy Designations and Chemical Composition Limits for Wrought Aluminum and Wrought Aluminum Alloys. Registration Record Series. Teal Sheets. The Aluminum Association. August 2018.) in view of Okubo (JP H07-305130 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Bao ‘930 discloses a powder mixture (Embodiment 3) ([0048], [0069]), wherein the powder mixture comprises:
a first material that includes an aluminum alloy or a mixture of elemental precursors thereof with up to 2.0 wt.-% of Cu and with Zn as the principal alloying element, wherein the first material is in powder form (Embodiment 3: 7039 aluminum alloy powder with up to 0.10 wt.-% Cu and 3.5 to 4.5 wt.-% Zn) ([0048]) (AA Teal Sheets); and
a second material that includes a metal powder of Zr and/or Hf (hafnium hydride powder), wherein the median grain size d50, as determined by laser scattering or laser diffraction, of the second material is within the range 4 um to 100 um (16 um) ([0048]).
According to applicant’s specification at p. 7 para. 4 the Zr and/or Hf can be in the form of a precursor of elemental Zr or Hf, with suitable precursors being hydrides of the respective metals.
Bao ‘930 is silent to a reinforcement material selected from the group consisting of carbides, borides, and nitrides.
Okubo discloses a powder mixture of aluminum alloy powder with a reinforcement material (hard particles) selected from carbides, borides and nitrides (SiC, Si3N, TiC, or TiN) ([0007]-[0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the powder mixture of Bao ‘930 to include carbides or nitrides (SiC, Si3N, TiC, or TiN) to increase the wear resistance of the alloy (Okubo [0014]).
The limitation of the powder mixture being for use in the manufacture of a three-dimensional object by an additive manufacturing method has been considered and determined to recite the purpose or intended use. A statement of intended use does not distinguish over the prior art. A prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. MPEP 2111.02(II).
Regarding claim 2, Bao ‘930 discloses the first material comprises aluminum and 4.0 to 6.1 wt.% Zn, 1.5 to 3.0 wt.% Mg, up to 0.6 wt.% Fe, up to 0.50 wt.% Si, and one or more of up to 0.35 wt.% of Cr, up to 0.5 wt.% of Mn, up to 0.25 wt.% of Ti, and 0.1 to 0.25 wt.% of Zr (Embodiment 3: 7039 aluminum alloy powder) ([0048]) (AA Teal Sheets 7039). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claim 2
Claim 3
7039 AA Teal Sheets
Zn
4.0 to 6.1
-
3.5 to 4.5
Mg
1.5 to 3.0
-
2.3 to 3.3
Fe
Up to 0.6
-
Up to 0.40
Si
Up to 0.50
-
Up to 0.30
One or more of:
Cr
Up to 0.35
≤ 0.35
0.15 to 0.25
Mn
Up to 0.5
0.05 to 0.5
0.10 to 0.40
Cu
Up to 2.0
≤ 0.25
Up to 0.10
Ti
Up to 0.25
-
Up to 0.10
Zr
0.1 to 0.25
-
-
Mn and Cr
-
>0.15
0.25 to 0.65
Regarding claim 3, Bao ‘930 discloses the first material comprises less than or equal to 0.25 wt.-% of Cu, less than or equal to 0.35 wt.-% of Cr and 0.05 to 0.5 wt. -% of Mn, and wherein the combined amount of Mn and Cr is greater than 0.15 wt.-% (Embodiment 3: 7039 aluminum alloy powder) ([0048]) (AA Teal Sheets 7039). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Bao ‘930 discloses the median grain size d50, as determined by laser scattering or laser diffraction, of the first material (Embodiment 3: 7039 aluminum alloy powder) is within the range 1 um to 150 um (Embodiment 3: 45 um) ([0048]).
Regarding claim 5, Bao ‘930 Example 3 includes 0.01% hafnium hydride powder.
Bao ‘930 Example 3 is silent to the second material (hafnium hydride) accounting for 0.1 to 8 wt.% of the powder mixture.
Bao ‘930 discloses the second material (hafnium hydride) accounts for 0.1 to 8 wt.% of the powder mixture (0.01 to 10 mass%) ([0009]-[0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in Example 3 of Bao ‘930 to vary the second material (hafnium hydride) to be 0.01 to 10 mass% of the powder mixture to significantly reduce sintering deformation, stabilize the size after sintering, and help maintain the near-net shape advantage because an appropriate addition of hafnium hydride releases hydrogen at high temperature and removes oxygen in the sintered blank to form good sintering necks, the hydrogen released as the temperature rises weakens wetting of the sintering liquid on the solid particles, reducing the mutual influence between the liquid phase and the solid particle skeleton, and the hafnium hydride forms a second phase that strengthens the aluminum matrix, improving mechanical properties ([0025]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 6, Bao ‘930 discloses the median grain size d50 of the second material (Embodiment 3: hafnium hydride 16 um) is less than that of the first material (Embodiment 3: 7039 aluminum alloy 45 um) ([0048]).
Regarding claim 8, Bao ‘930 in view of Okubo discloses the reinforcement material is selected from the group consisting of TiC, ZrC, Nb2C, Ta2C, A14C, HfC, TaC, NbC, VC, SiC, B4C, NbB2, TaB2, VN, NbN, AlN, TaN, Nb2N, Ta2N and BN or mixtures thereof (SiC, TiC) (Okubo [0008], [0014]).
Regarding claim 9, Bao ‘930 in view of Okubo discloses the amount of the reinforcement material in the powder mixture is within the range 0.1 wt.-% to 3 wt.-% (0.5 to 5% by volume increases wear resistance without decreasing cold forgeability and machinability) (Okubo [0007], [0014]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 10, Bao ‘930 in view of Okubo discloses the median grain size d50, as determined by laser scattering or laser diffraction, of the reinforcement material is equal to or less than 50 um (1 to 8 um allows for dispersion without aggregation without the particles damaging the materials of the parts that come into contact with the manufactured part during use) (Okubo [0007], [0014]) and wherein the median grain size d50 of the reinforcement material (1 to 8 um) (Okubo [0007], [0014]) is less than that of the first and second material (Embodiment 3: 45 um 7039 aluminum alloy powder and 16 um hafnium hydride powder) (Bao ‘930 [0048], [0069]).
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao ‘930 (CN 110157930 machine translation) as evidenced by AA Teal Sheets (International Alloy Designations and Chemical Composition Limits for Wrought Aluminum and Wrought Aluminum Alloys. Registration Record Series. Teal Sheets. The Aluminum Association. August 2018.) in view of Martin (US 2019/0032175).
Regarding claim 1, Bao ‘930 discloses a powder mixture (Embodiment 3) ([0048], [0069]), wherein the powder mixture comprises:
a first material that includes an aluminum alloy or a mixture of elemental precursors thereof with up to 2.0 wt.-% of Cu and with Zn as the principal alloying element, wherein the first material is in powder form (Embodiment 3: 7039 aluminum alloy powder with up to 0.10 wt.-% Cu and 3.5 to 4.5 wt.-% Zn) ([0048]) (AA Teal Sheets); and
a second material that includes a metal powder of Zr and/or Hf (hafnium hydride powder), wherein the median grain size d50, as determined by laser scattering or laser diffraction, of the second material is within the range 4 um to 100 um (16 um) ([0048]).
According to applicant’s specification at p. 7 para. 4 the Zr and/or Hf can be in the form of a precursor of elemental Zr or Hf, with suitable precursors being hydrides of the respective metals.
Bao ‘930 is silent to a reinforcement material selected from the group consisting of carbides, borides, and nitrides.
Martin discloses a powder mixture of aluminum alloy powder with a reinforcement material (grain-refining nanoparticles) selected from carbides, borides and nitrides ([0048]-[0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the powder mixture of Bao ‘930 to include grain-refining nanoparticles selected from carbides, borides, and nitride to give a unique microstructure for the aluminum alloy, enabling the production of aluminum alloys that were previously difficult to process (Martin [0077]) by inducing equiaxed microstructures that can eliminate hot cracking during processing (Martin [0079], [0087]) during additive manufacturing (Martin [0053]-[0055]).
The limitation of the powder mixture being for use in the manufacture of a three dimensional object by an additive manufacturing method has been considered and determined to recite the purpose or intended use. A statement of intended use does not distinguish over the prior art. A prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. MPEP 2111.02(II).
Regarding claim 2, Bao ‘930 discloses the first material comprises aluminum and 4.0 to 6.1 wt.% Zn, 1.5 to 3.0 wt.% Mg, up to 0.6 wt.% Fe, up to 0.50 wt.% Si, and one or more of up to 0.35 wt.% of Cr, up to 0.5 wt.% of Mn, up to 0.25 wt.% of Ti, and 0.1 to 0.25 wt.% of Zr (Embodiment 3: 7039 aluminum alloy powder) ([0048]) (AA Teal Sheets 7039). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claim 2
Claim 3
7039 AA Teal Sheets
Zn
4.0 to 6.1
-
3.5 to 4.5
Mg
1.5 to 3.0
-
2.3 to 3.3
Fe
Up to 0.6
-
Up to 0.40
Si
Up to 0.50
-
Up to 0.30
One or more of:
Cr
Up to 0.35
≤ 0.35
0.15 to 0.25
Mn
Up to 0.5
0.05 to 0.5
0.10 to 0.40
Cu
Up to 2.0
≤ 0.25
Up to 0.10
Ti
Up to 0.25
-
Up to 0.10
Zr
0.1 to 0.25
-
-
Mn and Cr
-
>0.15
0.25 to 0.65
Regarding claim 3, Bao ‘930 discloses the first material comprises less than or equal to 0.25 wt.-% of Cu, less than or equal to 0.35 wt.-% of Cr and 0.05 to 0.5 wt. -% of Mn, and wherein the combined amount of Mn and Cr is greater than 0.15 wt.-% (Embodiment 3: 7039 aluminum alloy powder) ([0048]) (AA Teal Sheets 7039). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Bao ‘930 discloses the median grain size d50, as determined by laser scattering or laser diffraction, of the first material (Embodiment 3: 7039 aluminum alloy powder) is within the range 1 um to 150 um (Embodiment 3: 45 um) ([0048]).
Regarding claim 5, Bao ‘930 Example 3 includes 0.01% hafnium hydride powder.
Bao ‘930 Example 3 is silent to the second material (hafnium hydride) accounting for 0.1 to 8 wt.% of the powder mixture.
Bao ‘930 discloses the second material (hafnium hydride) accounts for 0.1 to 8 wt.% of the powder mixture (0.01 to 10 mass%) ([0009]-[0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in Example 3 of Bao ‘930 to vary the second material (hafnium hydride) to be 0.01 to 10 mass% of the powder mixture to significantly reduce sintering deformation, stabilize the size after sintering, and help maintain the near-net shape advantage because an appropriate addition of hafnium hydride releases hydrogen at high temperature and removes oxygen in the sintered blank to form good sintering necks, the hydrogen released as the temperature rises weakens wetting of the sintering liquid on the solid particles, reducing the mutual influence between the liquid phase and the solid particle skeleton, and the hafnium hydride forms a second phase that strengthens the aluminum matrix, improving mechanical properties ([0025]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 6, Bao ‘930 discloses the median grain size d50 of the second material (Embodiment 3: hafnium hydride 16 um) is less than that of the first material (Embodiment 3: 7039 aluminum alloy 45 um) ([0048]).
Regarding claim 8, Bao ‘930 in view of Martin discloses the reinforcement material (grain-refining nanoparticles) is selected from the group consisting of TiC, ZrC, Nb2C, Ta2C, Al4C, HfC, TaC, NbC, VC, SiC, B4C, NbB2, TaB2, VN, NbN, AlN, TaN, Nb2N, Ta2N and BN or mixtures thereof (Martin [0052], [0177]-[0178]).
Regarding claim 9, Bao ‘930 in view of Martin discloses the amount of the reinforcement material in the powder mixture is 0.1 wt.-% or more and/or wherein the content of the reinforcement material in the powder mixture is 3 wt.-% or less (at least 0.01 vol% with upper limit minimizing potential detrimental interactions) (Martin [0103]-[0104]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 10, Bao ‘930 in view of Martin discloses the median grain size d50, as determined by laser scattering or laser diffraction, of the reinforcement material (grain-refining nanoparticles) is equal to or less than 50 um (1 to 5000 nm, 0.001 to 5 um) (Martin [0174]) and wherein the median grain size d50 of the reinforcement material (1 to 5000 nm, 0.001 to 5 um) (Martin [0174]) is less than that of the first and second material (Embodiment 3: 45 um 7039 aluminum alloy powder and 16 um hafnium hydride powder, Embodiment 6: 100 um 7075 aluminum alloy powder and 1 um hafnium hydride powder) (Bao ‘930 [0048], [0069]).
Related Art
Eloi (US 2019/0194781)
Eloi discloses an aluminum alloy powder for the manufacture of parts by additive manufacturing ([0002]) using an Al-6000 series alloy ([0019]) precursor powder mixed with a powder comprising zirconium ([0032]).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-12pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KEITH WALKER can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735