Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-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 Amendments
The amendment filed on 10/08/2025 has been entered. Claims 13, 15, and 17 have been canceled. Claims 14 and 16 have been amended to depend on claim 1, as such, they are now directed to the elected invention on 04/30/2025 and are under examination. Claims 18 – 22 have been added and find support in at least the original claims, page 9 of the specification, and page 15. Claims 1 – 12, 14, 16, and 18 – 22 are pending and under examination.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous rejections of claims 2, 3, 5, and 11 – 12 under 112(b).
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. § 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 – 12, 14, 16, and 18 – 22 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.
The term “almost constant” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term 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. For purposes of examination, given that “temperature range” can mean essentially an exact temperature with minor variations and “almost” is subjective and undefined, any composition is interpreted as meeting the claimed limitation.
Claims 2 – 12, 14, 16, and 18 – 22 are rejected by virtue of dependency
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §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 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.
Claims 1 – 5, 7 – 9, 12, 14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leu (US2014/0183792)
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Leu teaches a method of fabricating a gradient composite part [Title]. Leu teaches a specific example of [0039]:
Creating three different aqueous pastes and mixing them at different amounts to control composition (meeting the claimed limitation of preparing a plurality of pastes with a first composition and second composition) followed by depositing them [0039 – 0040]
Wherein the mixing of the different aqueous paste compositions to attain a particular admixed paste composition is interpreted as the preparing a plurality of pastes. To specify, each particular composition formed in the mixer (from the 3 different feed pastes) is interpreted as “a paste” in the claimed limitation.
Each syringe filled with an aqueous paste composition is interpreted as a “feeding chamber”. The deposition of each paste in varying amounts in the mixing chamber is interpreted as preparing a particular paste, meeting claim 7.
Wherein the depositing of the admixed paste composition is performed by extrusion (meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of shaping a green body by forcing the pastes from the supply chamber through a die) [0039, 0040]
Forming a green body by depositing a mixture of the different pastes, and sintering to form a final product [0039], meeting the claimed limitation of sintering a green body to obtain a composite component.
Wherein the Leu shows that a cylindrical component is formed which has material gradients [Fig 13]. Leu teaches the pastes are pure W, pure ZrC, and WC + ZrO2 [0039], wherein the changing of the mixing rates of these three pastes would result in varying electrical resistance along the length of the component, meeting the claimed limitation of the varying electrical resistivity resulting from the first composition being different than the second.
Additionally, the limitation of choosing compositions dependent on varying electric resistivity is a mental process limitation. Because the process of Leu results in varying electrical resistance lengthwise due to differences in compositions, Leu meets the limitation as claimed.
Wherein the composition would be expected to have an “almost” constant electrical resistivity when using the component in a narrow temperature range, such as at room temperature, meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 8, Leu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Leu shows that the order in which the admixed pastes are formed/introduced corresponds to the longitudinal direction of component being formed [Fig 2, Fig 9, Fig 13], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 9, Leu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Leu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Leu teaches/shows that the admixed pastes are continuously extruded [0039 – 42, Fig 8, Fig 13], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 16, Leu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Leu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Leu shows an example structure in which the composition varies longitudinally but is constant in the cross-sectional direction (i.e. each ring extruded is the same composition) [Fig 13], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claims 2 and 20, Leu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Leu teaches that one component used to form the admixture paste (wherein each particular composition of the admixture is considered “a paste” as claimed) is W, meeting the claimed limitation of the first and second metal alloy composition (of claim 2) and the first and second metal composition (of claim 20) both including one chemical element. Leu teaches that another component used to form the admixture is a ceramic ZrC, meeting the claimed limitation of a ceramic powder in the first paste (claim 2 and 20).
Wherein the chemical element used would be the same for the admixed pastes compositions (the admixed paste composition being interpreted as the claimed “paste” compositions), meeting the claimed limitation of chemical elements above 0.5 wt% are present in both, elements of up to 5.0 wt% differ by at most 1 percentage, and elements over 5 wt% different by at most 3 percentage points.
Regarding claim 3, Leu teaches the invention as applied in claim 2. Leu teaches using a particular binder for each of the pastes [0044], meeting the claimed limitation of the binders having the same chemical solvability. Leu teaches that the process is an extrusion-based process [Title].
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Leu teaches the invention as applied in claims 1 and 2. Wherein at least two of the admixed pastes compositions would have a ceramic present as the admixed composition was changed to ceramic [0039 – 0040], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 5, Leu teaches the invention as applied in claim 4. Leu teaches that the mixing ratio of a metal containing paste, a ceramic containing paste, and a different ceramic containing paste, are varied to achieve a material gradient, meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of the varying the volume ratio between metal powder and ceramic powder as well as varying the type of ceramic material.
Regarding claim 12, Leu in view of Dhara teaches the invention as applied in claim 2. Leu teaches that following the formation of a green body, a brown body is formed by removing the binder [0039], meeting the claimed limitation.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2 – 6, 12, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leu (US2014/0183792), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Dhara (WO2020/245645)
Regarding claim 2 and 20, Leu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Leu teaches that another component used to form the admixture is a ceramic ZrC, meeting the claimed limitation of a ceramic powder in the first paste (claim 2 and 20). Leu teaches that one component used to form the admixture paste (wherein each particular composition of the admixture is considered “a paste” as claimed) is W, but does not expressly teach that first and second metal alloy composition (of claim 2).
Dhara teaches a process of forming functionally gradient components for use in a variety of industries [Abstract]. Dhara teaches that the component can be formed by varying the amounts of metal powder and ceramic powder in paste [Page 12, line 6 – 8; Page 16, line 25 – 30], wherein the paste contains a combination of metals/metal alloys, ceramic powder, binder, and solvent [Page 12, line 24 – 32]. Dhara teaches that the component can be produced by an extrusion process [Page 12, line 20 – 22].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Leu and used a metal alloy as taught by Dhara as the metal component in the method of Leu to achieve predictable results. Leu and Dhara are directed to the same field of endeavor of functionally graded component produced by an extrusion method, wherein the graded composite has a combination of ceramic and metal. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in using a metal alloy, as taught by Dhara, as the metal component in the method of Leu.
Wherein the alloy used would be the same for the admixed pastes compositions (the admixed paste composition being interpreted as the claimed “paste” compositions), meeting the claimed limitation of chemical elements above 0.5 wt% are present in both, elements of up to 5.0 wt% differ by at most 1 percentage, and elements over 5 wt% different by at most 3 percentage points of claim 2 and claim 20.
Regarding claim 3, Leu in view of Dhara teaches the invention as applied in claim 2. Leu teaches using a particular binder for each of the pastes [0044], meeting the claimed limitation of the binders having the same chemical solvability. Leu teaches that the process is an extrusion-based process [Title].
Regarding claim 4, Leu in view of Dhara teaches the invention as applied in claim 2. Wherein at least two of the admixed pastes compositions would have a ceramic present as the admixed composition was changed to ceramic [0039 – 0040].
Regarding claim 5, Leu in view of Dhara teaches the invention as applied in claim 4. Leu teaches that the mixing ratio of a metal containing paste, a ceramic containing paste, and a different ceramic containing paste, are varied to achieve a material gradient, meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of the varying the volume ratio between metal powder and ceramic powder as well as varying the type of ceramic material.
Regarding claim 6, Leu in view of Dhara teaches the invention as applied in claim 2. Dhara teaches an example of a metal alloy that can be used as Ti6Al4V [Page 13, line 4 – 5], which meets the claimed limitation of claim 6, (aluminum and/or vanadium).
Regarding claim 12, Leu in view of Dhara teaches the invention as applied in claim 2. Leu teaches that following the formation of a green body, a brown body is formed by removing the binder [0039], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 18, Leu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Leu does not explicitly teach producing a honeycomb structure.
Dhara teaches a process of forming functionally gradient components for use in a variety of industries [Abstract]. Dhara teaches that the component can be formed by varying the amounts of metal powder and ceramic powder in paste [Page 12, line 6 – 8; Page 16, line 25 – 30], wherein the paste contains a combination of metals/metal alloys, ceramic powder, binder, and solvent [Page 12, line 24 – 32]. Dhara teaches that the component can be produced by an extrusion process [Page 12, line 20 – 22]. Lastly, Dhara shows that the extrusion process can be used to produce a honeycomb structure with extending internal channels [Fig 28].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Leu and combined it with the teachings of Dhara to produce a honeycomb structure with a three-dimensional extrusion process. Leu and Dhara are directed to the same field of endeavor of functionally graded component produced by an extrusion method, wherein the graded composite has a combination of ceramic and metal. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in forming the shape disclosed by Dhara, in the method of Leu.
Additionally, the examiner notes that changes in size, proportion, or shape is a prima face case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.04 IV A B)
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leu (US2014/0183792) alone, or in view of Dhara (WO2020/245645), as applied to claim 5, in further view of Gelbart (US2019/0168300)
Regarding claim 22, Leu alone, or in view of Dhara teaches the invention as applied in claim 5. Leu does not explicitly teach the shape of the metal or ceramic particles used in the pastes.
Gelbart teaches a method of producing a 3D object by forming a metal paste [0029] and extruding it [0011]. Gelbart further teaches that formed component is sintered [0035]. Lastly, Gelbart disclose that the spherical powder can be used for improved followability [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have controlled the metal and ceramic particles in the method of Leu or Leu in view of Dhara to be spherical, as disclosed by Gelbart. Leu, Dhara, and Gelbart are directed to the same field of endeavor of three-dimensional extrusion and sintering. Additionally, Leu nor Dhara limit the shape of powders to be used and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success. While Gelbart is directed to spherical metal powders and does not explicitly state spherical ceramic powders, given that improved flowability would be derived from the shape it would thus be applicable to both metal and ceramic powders (which Leu and Dhara discuss using). As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan possessing ordinary creativity would have found it obvious to have controlled both metal and ceramic particles to be spherical in order to improve flowability.
Claims 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leu (US2014/0183792), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Arufua (JPH07316607, using espacenet translation).
Regarding claim 19 and 21, Leu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Leu teaches forming a metal compositon material via extrusion and sintering but does not expressly teach using a FeCrAl alloy or the sintering temperature.
Arufua teaches a method of making a composite structure via extrusion and sintering/firing a paste material [0026, 0030]. Arufua teaches that various metal/metal alloy powders can be used in the paste including FeCrAl alloy [0022]. To this, Arufua teaches that the sintering temperature iron group metal can be 1000 – 1450°C, which overlaps with the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Leu and used the FeCrAl metal alloy as taught by Arufua as the metal component in the method of Leu to achieve predictable results. Leu and Arufua are directed to the production of composite components using extrusion of a paste and sintering. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in using a FeCrAl alloy, as taught by Arufua, given that Leu and Arufua utilize similar production methods and the combination would have no change in their respective functions.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the sintering temperature described by Arufua as the sintering temperature when using the FeCrAl alloy. Leu does not expressly limit the sintering temperature or metals used and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results.
With regards to the overlapping ranges taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected overlapping ranges as disclosed. Selection of overlapping ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05 I). “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”
Claim 1, 7 – 9, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bomford (US4101712) in view of Sakata (US 6,555,051)
Regarding claim 1, Bomford teaches a method of forming a material with locally different properties by varying different component powders over a spatial extent [Abstract]. Meeting the claimed limitation of a composite component with varying electrical resistivity (different compositions would have different electrical resistivity in different areas).
Bomford teaches that the method includes supplying the component powders from feed devices to a mixing device [Fig 1, Col 2, line 10 – 15].
The mixed powders are transferred to a form and subjected to compression [Col 2, line 35 – 40] and subsequently sintered [Col 2, line 45 – 49] (wherein the subsequent sintering implies the formation of a green body). Wherein compacting can be extrusion [Col 2, line 36 – 37]. Meeting the claimed limitation of transferring to a supply chamber and shaping a green body by forcing through a die. Also meeting the claimed limitation of sintering to obtain a composite component with varying electrical resistivity and the first and second composition being different.
Addtionally, the limitation of choosing compositions dependent on varying electric resistivity is a mental process limitation. Because the process of Bomford results in varying electrical resistance lengthwise due to differences in compositions, Bomford meets the limitation as claimed.
Wherein the composition would be expected to have an “almost” constant electrical resistivity when a temperature range is narrow, meeting the claimed limitation.
Bomford does not explicitly teach using the powders in paste form when producing the component.
Sakata teaches producing a sintered body from a metal powder material with a binder and organic material using an extrusion process [Abstract]. Sakata teaches that method allows for a large degree of freedom in selecting usable metals and achieving superior dimensional accuracy while producing a product in continuous form [Col 1, line 21 – 26]. Sakata teaches that metal powder is mixed with a binder and the organic material [Col 3, line 5 – 20], extruded, debound to remove the binder, and sintered [Col 2, line 30 – 37]. The mixture of binder, organic material, and metal powder meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a paste”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Bomford and combined it with the method of producing a sintered body via extrusion and debinding of a metal powder, binder, organic material mixture (i.e. a paste) as taught by Sakata. Both Bomford and Sakata are directed to the production of components via extrusion and sintering and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in using a powder, binder, organic material mixture as the feedstock, as taught by Sakata. Furthermore, an ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to applying the teachings of Sakata to the method of Bomford because the method allows for freedom in usable material and achieves superior dimensional accuracy.
Regarding claim 7, Bomford in view of Sakata teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Bomford shows two feeding mechanisms for each of the powders that are fed to a mixer [Fig 1], meeting the claimed of two feeding chambers and a mixing chamber. Wherein, each unique composition produced by the mixer in the method of Bomford in view of Sakata would be considered a new “paste”, meeting the claimed limitation of preparing a plurality of pastes in the mixing chamber.
Regarding claim 8, Bomford in view of Sakata teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Sakata shows that the order in which the paste is introduced into the extrusion die (i.e. supply chamber) would correspond to the longitudinal length of the composite formed [Fig 1], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 9, Bomford in view of Sakata teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Bomford teaches/shows that the body can be produced by continuous extrusion [Col 1, line 21 – 26; Fig 1]
Regarding claim 16, Bomford in view of Sakata teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Bomford teaches/shows that the body can be produced by continuous extrusion [Fig 1], wherein the body is produced in a vertical/longitudinal direction with the paste composition being altered [Fig 1]. As such, the cross-section area (i.e. horizontal direction) would have the same composition and therefore, have a constant electric resistivity.
Regarding claim 21, Bomford in view of Sakata teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Bomford does not explicitly teach a sintering temperature.
Sakata teaches producing a sintered body from a metal powder material with a binder and organic material using an extrusion process [Abstract]. Sakata teaches that metal powder is mixed with a binder and organic material, extruded, debound to remove the binder, and sintered [Col 2, line 30 – 37]. Sakata teaches that the sintering temperature for a ferrous alloy is 1100 – 1400°C, which overlaps with the claimed range and 1000 – 1300°C for a titanium/titanium alloy composition, which overlaps with the claimed range [Col 7, line 1 – 5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Bomford in view of Sakata and used a ferrous or titanium alloy as disclosed by Sakata as the metal powder composition to achieve predictable results. Moreover, it would have been obvious to have used the sintering temperatures disclosed by Sakata, in the method of Bomford in view of Sakata to achieve predictable results. Both Bomford and Sakata are directed to the production of components via extrusion and sintering and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in using a ferrous alloy or titanium alloy, as taught by Sakata. Furthermore, an ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to applying the teachings of Sakata to the method of Bomford because the method allows for freedom in usable material and achieves superior dimensional accuracy.
With regards to the overlapping ranges taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected overlapping ranges as disclosed. Selection of overlapping ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05 I). “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”
Claims 2 – 6, 12, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bomford (US4101712) in view of Sakata (US 6,555,051), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Dhara (WO2020/245645)
Regarding claims 2, 4, and 14 and 20, Bomford in view of Sakata teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Bomford in view of Sakata teaches producing different compositions with a metal powder, which can be alloys [Bomford Col 3, line 15 – 16; Sakata Col 2, line 18 – 24], a binder, and other components but does not disclose using a ceramic powder.
Dhara teaches a process of forming functionally gradient components for use in a variety of industries [Abstract]. Dhara teaches that the component can be produced by an extrusion process [Page 12, line 20 – 22] including extrusion of blanks and 3D printing extrusion. Dhara teaches that the component can be formed by varying the amounts of a metal powder paste and ceramic powder paste [Page 12, line 6 – 8; Page 16, line 25 – 30], wherein the paste contains a combination of metals/metal alloys, ceramic powder, binder, and solvent [Page 12, line 24 – 32], meeting the claimed limitation of a first paste with a first alloy/metal composition, ceramic powder and binder of claim 2 and 20; a second paste containing a first alloy composition, ceramic powder, and binder of claim 4; and a first and second paste containing a metal and ceramic powder of claim 14.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Bomford in view of Sakata and used a metal alloy as taught by Dhara as the metal component in the method of Bomford in view of Sakata to achieve predictable results. Bomford in view of Sakata and Dhara are directed to the same field of endeavor of functionally graded component produced by an extrusion method. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in using a ceramic-metal, as taught by Dhara, as the composite mixture in the method of Bomford in view of Sakata.
Wherein the alloy used would be the same for the admixed pastes compositions (the admixed paste composition being interpreted as the claimed “paste” compositions), meeting the claimed limitation of chemical elements above 0.5 wt% are present in both, elements of up to 5.0 wt% differ by at most 1 percentage, and elements over 5 wt% different by at most 3 percentage points of claim 2 and claim 20.
Regarding claim 3, Bomford in view of Sakata and Dhara teaches the invention as applied in claim 2. Sakata teaches using a particular binder for the extrusion process [Col 2, line 50 – 58], meeting the claimed limitation of the binder in the first and second compositions have the same chemical solvability and wherein Bomford teaches that the process is extrusion based [Fig 1 and Col 2, line 35 – 37].
Regarding claim 5, Bomford in view of Sakata and Dhara teaches the invention as applied in claim 4. Bomford teaches varying the ratio of powders to affect the composition [Col 2, line 25 – 35], wherein the differences in composition would result in varying electrical resistivity. This meets the claimed limitation of varying the volume ratio of powders.
Regarding claim 6, Bomford in view of Sakata and Dhara teaches the invention as applied in claim 2. Dhara teaches an example of a metal alloy that can be used as Ti6Al4V [Page 13, line 4 – 5], which meets the claimed limitation of claim 6, (aluminum and/or vanadium).
Regarding claim 12, Bomford in view of Sakata and Dhara teaches the invention as applied in claim 2. Bomford teaches that the body formed from extrusion is subjected to debinding prior to sintering [Col 1, line 35 – 36], meeting the claimed limitation.
Claims 10 – 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bomford (US 4,101,712) in view of Sakata (US 6,555,051), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Ichikawa (US2006/0208397).
Regarding claims 10 – 11 and 18, Bomford in view of Sakata teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Bomford nor Sakata teaches extruding the composition into a particular shape.
Ichikawa teaches a method of forming a honeycomb structure [Title] via an extrusion method [Fig 5A]. Ichikawa discloses that the extrusion feedstock to form a honeycomb structure can be a combination of a ceramic and metal/metal alloy [0092 – 0093] with the inclusion of other additives including binders and liquid mediums [0095 – 0098]. Ichikawa teaches that the honeycomb structure has a plurality of through channels [0062] which are formed via extruding it through the die [Abstract, Fig 5(c)], meeting claims 10 – 11 and 18.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Bomford in view of Sakata and combined it with the teachings of Ichikawa to produce a honeycomb structure with a plurality of through channels via extrusion. Bomford in view of Sakata and Ichikawa are directed to extrusion of particulate material and Bomford in view of Sakata and Ichikawa disclose extruding the particular material with a binder. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results.
Additionally, the examiner notes that changes in size, proportion, or shape is a prima face case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.04 IV A B)
Claims 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bomford (US4101712) in view of Sakata (US 6,555,051), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Arufua (JPH07316607, using espacenet translation).
Regarding claim 19 and 21, Bomford in view of Sakata teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Bomford teaches forming a metal compositon material via extrusion and sintering but does not expressly teach using a FeCrAl alloy or the sintering temperature.
Arufua teaches a method of making a composite structure via extrusion and sintering/firing a paste material [0026, 0030]. Arufua teaches that various metal/metal alloy powders can be used in the paste including FeCrAl alloy [0022]. To this, Arufua teaches that the sintering temperature iron group metal can be 1000 – 1450°C, which overlaps with the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Bomford and used the FeCrAl metal alloy as taught by Arufua as the metal component in the method of Bomford to achieve predictable results. Bomford and Arufua are directed to the production of components using extrusion of a paste and sintering. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in using a FeCrAl alloy, as taught by Arufua, given that Bomford and Arufua utilize similar production methods, and would the combination would not change their respective functions.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the sintering temperature described by Arufua as the sintering temperature when using the FeCrAl alloy. Bomford does not expressly limit the sintering temperature or metals used and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results.
With regards to the overlapping ranges taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected overlapping ranges as disclosed. Selection of overlapping ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05 I). “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended language of claim 2 is intended to cover pastes containing alloys as well as single metal composition, citing the specification. Based on the amendments and interpretation asserted by applicant claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 12 are now rejected under 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leu (US2014/0183792).
Applicant argues that none of the cited prior art contains an electrical resistivity that is almost constant over a relevant temperature range to which the component is to be used. As discussed above, this limitation is subjective terminology that does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of patent protection sought. There is no definition provided that defines “almost”. Moreover, an undefined “relevant temperature range” could essentially be a singular temperature with minor variation (i.e. 25°C ± 0.001°C ) to which any material would have an “almost constant” electrical resistivity. As such, applicant’s amendments and arguments thereto are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments also submit data of the electrical resistivity of FrCeAl alloy over a temperature range of 200 – 900°C [Page 4 of remarks]. Neither of the features are required in at least independent claim 1 nor does the change in Ohm of 0.009 provided an adequate definition of the claimed “almost constant”. Therefore, these arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant also argues that Bomford is directed to a gas turbine and alloys which vary in strength over a temperature range which teaches away from the claimed invention [Page 5, remarks]. This is not found persuasive because the cited portion of Bomford is a disclosed example/preferred which does not constitute a teaching away from other disclosures within Bomford. “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971)” (MPEP 2123 I). Bomford is broadly directed to formation of components with locally different properties by varying the composition within the formed component [Title; Col 2, line 1 – 49].
Following applicant’s amendments, the following rejections are pending.
Claims 1 – 5, 7 – 9, 12, 14, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leu (US2014/0183792)
Claims 2 – 6, 12, 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leu (US2014/0183792), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Dhara (WO2020/245645)
Claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leu (US2014/0183792) alone, or in view of Dhara (WO2020/245645), as applied to claim 5, in further view of Gelbart (US2019/0168300)
Claims 19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leu (US2014/0183792), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Arufua (JPH07316607, using espacenet translation).
Claim 1, 7 – 9, 16, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bomford (US4101712) in view of Sakata (US 6,555,051)
Claims 2 – 6, 12, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bomford (US4101712) in view of Sakata (US 6,555,051), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Dhara (WO2020/245645)
Claims 10 – 11 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bomford (US 4,101,712) in view of Sakata (US 6,555,051), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Ichikawa (US2006/0208397).
Claims 19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bomford (US4101712) in view of Sakata (US 6,555,051), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Arufua (JPH07316607, using espacenet translation).
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 Austin M Pollock whose telephone number is (571)272-5602. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (11 - 8 ET).
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.
/AUSTIN POLLOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738