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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-12, 14, 19-21, 28-29, and 34 are examined in this office action as claim 1 was amended in the reply dated 7/24/26.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Spain on 6/15/20. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the ESP202030581 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 21 recites the limitation “both having the same metallic base” in lines 2-3. In paragraph [0031] of the published application defines being in the same base as “being in the same base means that they share the same major element.” Thus, the claim limitation means that the at least two metal-based powders must have the same major metallic element and this will be used to interpret the claims below.
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, 3-6, 8-12, 19-21, and 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/109233 A1 with reference to US Equivalent of US 2020/0140979 A1 of Valls Angles hereinafter US’979 in view of AT 394494 B and its English machine translation of Powdrex.
As to claims 1, 3, 8, and 10, US’979 discloses a manufacturing method for steel (US’979, paragraph [0001]), meeting the limitation of a method of manufacturing at least part of a metal comprising component.
US’979 discloses using additive manufacturing to manufacture a mold or part of a mold (meeting the limitation of providing a mold at least partly manufactured by additive manufacturing), filling the mold with particulate material comprising at least one metallic phase (meeting the limitation of filling the mold with a powder or powder mixture comprising at least a metal or a metal alloy in powdered form), usage of a cold isostatic pressing step (CIP) (meeting the limitation of a forming step and consolidation step as CIP involves the application of pressure and this would increase the density and thereby form and consolidate the part), elimination of the mold (meeting the limitation of a debinding step as the mold is eliminated), and a densification step which can be sintering or Hot Isostatic Pressing (meeting the limitation of a densification step) (US’979, paragraphs [0511]-[0518]).
US’979 discloses the specific example 11 where additive manufacturing is used to manufacture the intermediate mold and UV Stereolithography is used with a polymerizable resin with a UV light initiator and acrylic monomers based on poli (hydroxy butyl) methacrylate (meeting the limitation of providing a mold at least partly manufactured by additive manufacturing), the intermediate mold is filled with powder with the composition of example 6-3217 LAB 3 – which is a steel with a N amount of 3ppm and O amount of 8 ppm (meeting the limitation of filling the mold with a powder or powder mixture comprising at least a metal or a metal alloy in powdered form) (US’979, paragraph [0638] and Table 9). Note that while Table 9 recites the N and O amounts as being in percentage, the other tables recite this composition of N and O as being in ppm and thus this is a clear error and the correct concentration is in ppm.
US’979 discloses that the filled intermediate model is submerged in molten rubber to create an outer model and the mold undergoes a CIP cycle at 450 MPa during 10 minutes (meeting the limitation of a forming step and consolidation step as CIP involves the application of pressure and this would increase the density and thereby form and consolidate the part) (US’979, paragraph [0638]). A thermal destruction of both the intermediate mold and exterior rubber mold take place in a controlled atmosphere furnace up to 650° C. followed by a chemical cleansing (meeting the limitation of a debinding step as the mold is eliminated) (US’979, paragraph [0638]). US’979 discloses sintering under Ar atmosphere at 1200° C., during 1:30 h is the next step (meeting the limitation of a consolidation step as sintering would further consolidate the density of the part) (US’979, paragraph [0638]). Finally, US’979 discloses a HIP treatment at 1150° C. during 4 h at 100 MPa (meeting the limitation of a densification step as required in claim 3) (US’979, paragraph [0638]).
However, US’979 does not disclose where the fixing step comprises the application of a vacuum with an absolute pressure of 0.9*10-3 mbar or lower and 0.9*10-10 mbar or higher as required in claim 10 and where the fixing step is applied after the debinding step and before the consolidation step.
Powdrex relates to the same field of endeavor of producing a metal body from metal powder (Powdrex, pg. 1 of translation, lines 14-15). Powdrex teaches heating a powder compact in a vacuum above 900 °C, but below the sintering temperature for a sufficiently long period of time to reduce the oxygen content to no more than 400 ppm and where this process is performed after compaction but before sintering to a relative density of at least 98% (Powdrex, pg. 3 of translation, line 24 – pg. 4 of translation, line 4), overlapping the claimed range for oxygen in claim 1 of 0.02ppm to 19000ppm and the range in claim 8 of more than 0.02 and less than 390ppm. Powdrex teaches where a compact is deoxidized by placing in a vacuum furnace which was practically freed of atmospheric oxygen by evacuating it to 0.00066 (0.66*10-3) mbar (Powdrex, pg. 11 of translation, lines 22-24) Powdrex teaches this allows the creation of a metal body with high density and good metallurgical bonding (Powdrex, pg. 5 of translation, lines 11-12).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a step of deoxidizing the compact by placing in a vacuum furnace evacuating it to 0.00066 (0.66*10-3) mbar after compaction and before sintering to produce an oxygen content of between 0.02 and 390ppm as taught by Powdrex into the method of forming a metal comprising component disclosed in ‘US’979, thereby creating a metal body with high density and good metallurgical bonding (Powdrex, pg. 5 of translation, lines 11-12).
While US’979 does not explicitly disclose wherein the nitrogen content in the metallic part of the component after the fixing step and before the consolidation step is more than 0.01 ppm and less than 1.4wt%, as US’979 discloses the same starting material with a N amount of 3ppm and O amount of 8 ppm and the combination of US’979 and Powdrex applies the same claimed method thereto and none of the steps involve significant heating in an atmosphere including O and N which would substantially affect their composition, a person of ordinary skill would expect the same method applied to the same material to produce the same properties the nitrogen content in the metallic part of the component after the fixing step and before the consolidation step is more than 0.01 ppm and less than 1.4wt%. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (emphasis added), see MPEP § 2112.01(I).
As to claim 4, US’979 discloses where the materials are machined and heat treated (US’979, paragraph [0022]).
As to claim 5, while US’979 is silent concerning an apparent density, as US’979 discloses the same metallic starting material and the combination of US’979 and Powdrex applies an identical method thereto as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, the same method applied to the same material would necessarily produce the same results of an apparent density of higher than 81% and lower than 99.6%. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (emphasis added), see MPEP § 2112.01(I).
As to claim 6, US’979 discloses where the maximum pressure during the CIP cycle is from 110 to 1010 MPa or more (US’979, paragraph [0535]) and discloses specific example 11 where the mold containing the metal powder undergoes a CIP cycle at 450 MPa during 10 minutes (US’979, paragraph [0638]), meeting the claim limitation of applying a pressure between 60 and 1200 MPa.
As to claims 9 and 11, while %NMVS and %NMVC are not disclosed in ‘US’979, as US’979 in combination with Powdrex discloses the same metallic starting material and applies an identical method thereto as shown in the rejections of claims 1 and 3 above, the same method applied to the same material would necessarily produce the same results of % NMVS in the metallic part of the component after the fixing step is more than 31% and the % NMVC in the metallic part of the component after the densification step is less than 9%. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (emphasis added), see MPEP § 2112.01(I).
As to claim 12, US’979 discloses a metal component with a cross-section (US’979, Figure 4). However, US’979 does not explicitly disclose wherein the significant cross-section of the manufactured component is more than 0.2 mm2 and less than a 49% of the area of the largest rectangular face of a rectangular cuboid with the minimum possible volume which contains the manufactured component nor where the significant cross-section of the component is the mean cross-section obtained when the 20% of the largest cross-sections and the 20% of the smallest cross-sections are not considered to calculate the mean cross-section.
However, the claimed cross-sections of the metal comprising component is nothing more than a function of the shape of the component and it is obvious to select a shape to thereby carry out the forming of a metal comprising component. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, (emphasis added) see MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). Further in In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, see MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
As to claim 19, with respect to “the powder mixture comprises at least two powders with different size, different chemical composition, and/or different morphology”, this is a contingent limitation as claim 1 from which it depends only requires filling the mold with “a powder or powder mixture” and the “broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”, see MPEP § 2111.04(II). Therefore, US’979 meets the limitation by disclosing filling the mold with a singular particulate material comprising at least one metallic phase (US’979, paragraphs [0511]-[0518]).
Nevertheless, US’979 discloses where the steel of its invention is used in the form of a powder mixture (US’979, paragraph [0545]), meeting the claim limitations as there are two powders with different chemical compositions.
As to claims 20 and 21, with respect to the limitations of claims 20 and 21, this is a contingent limitation as claim 1 from which it depends only requires filling the mold with “a powder or powder mixture” and the “broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”, see MPEP § 2111.04(II). Therefore, US’979 meets the limitation by disclosing filling the mold with a singular particulate material comprising at least one metallic phase (US’979, paragraphs [0511]-[0518]).
Nevertheless, US’979 discloses where the steel of its invention is used in the form of a powder mixture (US’979, paragraph [0545]), meeting the claim limitations as if there is not at least two different powders, they necessarily have different elements meeting the limitation of claim 20.
As to claim 34, US’979 discloses assembling part of the model to other parts (US’979, paragraphs [0511]-[0518]), meeting the claim limitation of joining different parts to make a bigger component before the consolidation step as if a model is assembled to another part, it is necessarily bigger in size.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/109233 A1 with reference to US Equivalent of US 2020/0140979 A1 of Valls Angles hereinafter US’979 and AT 394494 B and its English machine translation of Powdrex as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ASM Handbook, Volume 07 - Powder Metallurgy (2015) of Samal.
As to claims 7 and 14, while US’979 discloses a manufacturing method for steel (US’979, paragraph [0001]) and US’979 discloses where the steel of its invention is used in the form of a powder mixture (US’979, paragraph [0545]), US’979 does not disclose where a powder mixture comprises carbonyl iron powder as required by claim 14 nor where the oxygen content of the powder or powder mixture is above 620 ppm as required in claim 7.
Samal relates to the same field of endeavor of powder metallurgy and teaches a composition for carbonyl iron powder of 0.3% oxygen, 0.075 to 0.8% carbon, and 0.05 to 0.9% nitrogen (Samal, title and pg. 317, left column, last paragraph), meeting the claim limitation of oxygen content of the powder or powder mixture is above 620 ppm. Samal teaches that these powders are suitable for powder metallurgy applications (Samal, pg. 317, middle column, first paragraph).
As US’979 already teaches the use of powder mixtures in the filling of the mold, a person of ordinary skill would naturally look to the art to determine appropriate materials to combine with its disclosed steel. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add carbonyl iron powder of 0.3% oxygen, 0.075 to 0.8% carbon, and 0.05 to 0.9% nitrogen as taught by Samal into the method of forming a metal comprising component disclosed in ‘US’979, thereby employing a powder suitable for powder metallurgy applications (Samal, pg. 317, middle column, first paragraph) in the mixture disclosed in the US’979 method.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/109233 A1 with reference to US Equivalent of US 2020/0140979 A1 of Valls Angles hereinafter US’979 and AT 394494 B and its English machine translation of Powdrex as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ASM Handbook, Volume 07 - Powder Metallurgy (2015) of Samal and Sintering of Advanced Materials - Fundamentals and Processes of Fang.
As to claim 28, US’979 in combination with Powdrex discloses the method according to claim 1, see claim 1 rejection above. However, US’979 does not disclose reduction of the oxygen and/or nitrogen level in a system employing microwaves as the main power source for heating of the powder.
Samal relates to the same field of endeavor of powder metallurgy and teaches a composition for carbonyl iron powder of 0.3% oxygen, 0.075 to 0.8% carbon, and 0.05 to 0.9% nitrogen (Samal, title and pg. 317, left column, last paragraph), meeting the claim limitation of oxygen content of the powder or powder mixture is above 620 ppm. Samal teaches that these powders are suitable for powder metallurgy applications (Samal, pg. 317, middle column, first paragraph).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute carbonyl iron powder of 0.3% oxygen, 0.075 to 0.8% carbon, and 0.05 to 0.9% nitrogen as taught by Samal into the method of forming a metal comprising component disclosed in ‘US’979, thereby employing a powder suitable for powder metallurgy applications (Samal, pg. 317, middle column, first paragraph).
While US’979 does not disclose the reduction of oxygen and/or nitrogen levels, Powdrex relates to the same field of endeavor of producing a metal body from metal powder (Powdrex, pg. 1 of translation, lines 14-15. Powdrex teaches heating a powder compact in a vacuum above 900 °C, but below the sintering temperature for a sufficiently long period of time to reduce the oxygen content to no more than 400 ppm (Powdrex, pg. 3 of translation, lines 24-26). Powdrex teaches where a compact is deoxidized by placing in a vacuum furnace which was practically freed of atmospheric oxygen by evacuating it to 0.00066 (0.66*10-3) mbar (Powdrex, pg. 11 of translation, lines 22-24) Powdrex teaches this allows the creation of a metal body with high density and good metallurgical bonding (Powdrex, pg. 5 of translation, lines 11-12).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a step of deoxidizing the compact by placing in a vacuum furnace evacuating it to 0.00066 (0.66*10-3) mbar and heating to above 900°C as taught by Powdrex into the method of forming a metal comprising component disclosed in US’979 with the carbonyl iron powder disclosed by Samal, thereby the creation of a metal body with high density and good metallurgical bonding (Powdrex, pg. 5 of translation, lines 11-12).
Finally, the combination of ‘US’979, Samal, and Powdrex does not disclose where microwaves are used for heating the powder.
Fang relates to the same filed of endeavor of sintering metal powders and Fang discloses the use of microwaves to sinter metal powders (Fang, pg. 240, 1st paragraph). Fang teaches that steels and metal alloys can be sintered in a very short period of time and produce superior products (Fang, pg. 240 1st and 2nd paragraphs).
As Powdrex already teaches heating the powder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate microwave sintering as taught by Fang into the method of forming a metal comprising component disclosed in the combination of ‘US’979, Samal, and Powdrex, thereby reducing heating time and producing superior products (Fang, pg. 240 1st and 2nd paragraphs).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/109233 A1 with reference to US Equivalent of US 2020/0140979 A1 of Valls Angles hereinafter US’979 and AT 394494 B and its English machine translation of Powdrex as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sintering of Advanced Materials - Fundamentals and Processes of Fang.
As to claim 29, while US’979 discloses a densification step which can be sintering or Hot Isostatic Pressing (US’979, paragraphs [0511]-[0518]), US’979 does not disclose where microwave heating is used.
Fang relates to the same filed of endeavor of sintering metal powders and Fang discloses the use of microwaves to sinter metal powders (Fang, pg. 240, 1st paragraph). Fang teaches that steels and metal alloys can be sintered in a very short period of time and produce superior products (Fang, pg. 240 1st and 2nd paragraphs).
As US’979 already teaches sintering, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate microwave sintering as taught by Fang into the method of forming a metal comprising component disclosed in ‘US’979, thereby sintering in a very short period of time and producing superior products (Fang, pg. 240 1st and 2nd paragraphs).
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 103 rejection over US’979 and Powdrex, applicant argues that the claims differ from US’979 by inclusion of a fixing step and argues that Powdrex does not cure this deficiency as while the references are analogous art, there is not a reason to combine the references (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 2, last three paragraphs). Applicant argues that the step from Powdrex would serve no purpose in the US’979 method as Powdrex is a conventional powder compaction process while US’979 allows for formation of complex internal channels or voids (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 3, 1st paragraph). Applicant argues that Powdrex wants to reduce oxygen content as much as possible before sintering to produce a high density body in its particular process while this would not be needed in US’979 as there is already CIP followed by sintering and/or HIP and there would be no reason to add a deoxidation step to US’979 (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 3, 2nd paragraph).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Powdrex relates to extremely similar processes as disclosed in US’979. Powdrex teaches that the compact can be formed by filling a mold with powder and performing isostatic pressing (Powdrex, pg. 5 of translation line 26 – pg. 6 of translation, line 2). It is a compact that is formed in this manner that is then subjected to deoxidation followed by sintering to form a dense part. As Powdrex is disclosing forming a compact in the same manner as US’979 using isostatic pressing and then applying a sintering step to densify the part just as US’979 is carrying out, it is not clear how the disclosed deoxidation step disclosed in Powdrex would also not be applicable to the method disclosed in ‘US’979. Further, as noted in the rejection above, Powdrex teaches that this process produces bodies with high density and good metallurgical bonding (Powdrex, pg. 5 of translation, lines 11-12) as oxygen and oxides can interfere with the densification that occurs during sintering.
Applicant also argues that as claim 1 now requires specific levels for oxygen and nitrogen, Powdrex does not disclose or suggest setting oxygen and nitrogen levels in the component (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 3, last paragraph).
However, as noted above, Powdrex explicitly teaches heating a powder compact in a vacuum above 900 °C, but below the sintering temperature for a sufficiently long period of time to reduce the oxygen content to no more than 400 ppm and where this process is performed after compaction but before sintering to a relative density of at least 98% (Powdrex, pg. 3 of translation, line 24 – pg. 4 of translation, line 4) and US’979 in combination with Powdrex applies the same steps as applicant’s claimed method. As noted above, as US’979 discloses the same starting material, and US’979 in combination with Powdrex applies the same method thereto, the same method applied to the same materials would necessarily result in the same properties, see MPEP § 2112.01(I). Thus, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua S Carpenter whose telephone number is (571)272-2724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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 Hendricks can be reached on (571) 272-1401. 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.
/JOSHUA S CARPENTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JOPHY S. KOSHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
