DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 are currently presented for examination.
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 certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a/the” determined cooling rate, which is improper as the claim must recite “the” determined cooling rate. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a/the” component description, which is improper as the claim must recite “the” component description. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a/the” component description, which is improper as the claim must recite “the” component description. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are
a simulation unit in claims 1, 6 and 7
a computing unit in claims 1, 3 and 4
a prediction unit in claims 1 and 8
a database unit in claims 2 and 5
a production plant in claim 9
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner’s Note: The specification does not provide a clear link for the above units or plant to the hardware that performs the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of "a simulation unit”, “a computing unit”, “a prediction unit”, “a database unit”, “a production plant”. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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 1-9 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.
Claim limitations "a simulation unit”, “a computing unit”, “a prediction unit”, “a database unit”, “a production plant” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Regarding the units, the specification does not disclose a computer that performs the claimed functions, and is devoid of the algorithms that provide structures to convert a generic computer into a special purpose computer to perform the claimed functions. (MPEP 2181.11.(B)) There is no disclosure of any particular algorithms, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the actions of the units. As such, the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure performs the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding the “production plant”, it is unclear that the production plant is. The production plant could be viewed as both a physical structure that produces the component, or the computer program that controls the method of production using at least one parameter. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
All claims dependent on a 112 rejected base claim are rejected based on their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Claim 19 is directed to a computer readable storage medium containing instructions, which is directed to signals per se. The specification does not include a special definition nor does it limit the medium to only non-transitory. Section 2106.03(I) of the MPEP states claims directed to transitory forms of signal transmission (signals per se) are not directed to any of the statutory categories of invention. Therefore, the claims are not directed to a patent eligible category of invention. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “a non-transitory computer readable medium.” Although the claim is not eligible under Prong 1, Examiner will continue the analysis of the claims as though they are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Regarding claims 1-19, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-9 are directed to a system, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 10-18 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claim 19 is directed to a computer readable storage medium, which is a not statutory category of invention. As discussed above the analysis of claim 19 will continue below. Therefore, claims 1-18 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention and claim 19 is not.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite the abstract idea of simulating the behavior of a component during production, constituting an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of "… determine a cooling behavior of at least a part of a component to be produced, said component having amorphous properties;” covers mental processes including evaluating a component to determine its cooling behavior. That is but for reciting “simulation unit”, there is nothing that prevents operation of the claim in the human mind. This follows for each subsequent recitation. The limitation of "… determine at least one amorphicity value at least for a part of the component to be produced, taking account of the determined cooling behavior; and,” covers mental processes including evaluating a dataset to determine a value based on cooling behavior. That is but for reciting “computing unit”, there is nothing that prevents operation of the claim in the human mind. This follows for each subsequent recitation. The limitation of "… indicate mechanical properties of the component to be produced, taking account of a geometry of the component to be produced, the at least one amorphicity value, at least one production parameter and/or a production method” covers mental processes including making a judgement about what the mechanical properties of the component should be given a set of values and parameters. That is but for reciting “predicting unit”, there is nothing that prevents operation of the claim in the human mind. This follows for each subsequent recitation. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In claims 1, 6 and 7 “a simulation unit”, as well as “a computing unit” in claims 1, 3 and 4, as well as “a prediction unit” in claims 1 and 8, as well as “a database unit” in claims 2 and 5, as well as “a production plant” in claim 9, as well as “a CAD model” in claims 6 and 15, as well as “a computer readable storage” and “at least one processor” in claim 19 merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations of “storing assignments of material properties and/or materials to amorphicity values” similarly recited in claims 2 and 11, as well as “storing an assignment of material properties to critical cooling rates and/or amorphicity values, in particular in a database unit” similarly recited in claims 5 and 14 are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) The additional limitation of “a production plant designed to produce the component to be produced using the at least one production parameter, in particular by an additive manufacturing method or an injection molding method” recited in claim 9, “producing the component to be produced using the at least one production parameter, in particular by an additive manufacturing method or an injection molding method”, in claim 18 only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f). These limitations can alternatively be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to cutting hair after first determining the hair style, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 10 and 19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In claims 1, 6 and 7 “a simulation unit”, as well as “a computing unit” in claims 1, 3 and 4, as well as “a prediction unit” in claims 1 and 8, as well as “a database unit” in claims 2 and 5, as well as “a production plant” in claim 9, as well as “a CAD model” in claims 6 and 15, as well as “a computer readable storage” and “at least one processor” in claim 19 merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations of “storing assignments of material properties and/or materials to amorphicity values” similarly recited in claims 2 and 11, as well as “storing an assignment of material properties to critical cooling rates and/or amorphicity values, in particular in a database unit” similarly recited in claims 5 and 14 are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) The additional limitation of “a production plant designed to produce the component to be produced using the at least one production parameter, in particular by an additive manufacturing method or an injection molding method” recited in claim 9, “producing the component to be produced using the at least one production parameter, in particular by an additive manufacturing method or an injection molding method”, in claim 18 only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f). These limitations can alternatively be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. This is akin to cutting hair after first determining the hair style, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 3 and 12 are directed to further defining the determination of a cooling rate, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 4 and 13 are directed to further defining the comparison of cooling rates, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 6 and 15 are directed to further defining how the cooling behavior is determined, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 7 and 16 are directed to further defining the breaking up of the component in to volumes to determine its cooling behavior, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 8 and 17 are directed to further defining the simulation of a load on the component, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (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 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 1-7, 10-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. “ANSYS-Based Simulation and Optimization on Temperature Field of Amorphous Ingot Made by Water Quenching.”
Regarding claim 1, Zhao anticipates a simulation unit which is designed to determine a cooling behavior of at least a part of a component to be produced, said component having amorphous properties (Figures 2, 4-6, Abstract, Section 2, ANSYS is used to determine the behavior of the produced ingot that is amorphous
PNG
media_image1.png
366
382
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
a computing unit which is designed to determine at least one amorphicity value at least for a part of the component to be produced, taking account of the determined cooling behavior; and (Section 2,cooling rates and critical cooling rates are determined and compared to determine process parameters, by comparing cooling rate to be greater than or equal to the critical cooling rate, this creates a binary 1 or 0 in the form of a true false value; Section 3, during testing and based on cooling rate and critical cooling rate, the amount of crystilization is found)
Examiner’s Note: [0036] of the specification states “[t]he amorphicity value can be determined by comparing the cooling rate with the critical cooling rate.”
a prediction unit which is designed to indicate mechanical properties of the component to be produced, taking account of a geometry of the component to be produced, the at least one amorphicity value, at least one production parameter and/or a production method (Sections 2 and 3, the alloy is poured into a tube with a diameter of 5 to 15mm and wall thicknesses that range from 1 to 3mm with a 0.5mm step)
Regarding claim 2, Zhao anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Zhao also anticipates wherein a database unit which is designed to store assignments of material properties and/or material information to amorphicity values. (Section 2, Ansys stores a 3D model of the alloy containing properties and information in relation to cooling rate in relation to critical cooling rate and is stored in the computer running the simulation program)
Regarding claim 3, Zhao anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Zhao also anticipates the computing unit is further designed to determine a cooling rate of at least a part of the component to be produced, taking account of the determined cooling behavior. (Figures 2, 4-6, Sections 2 and 3, the cooling rate of the ingot in the quartz tube cooling environment, based on varying parameters, is determined)
Regarding claim 4, Zhao anticipates the limitations of claim 3. Zhao also anticipates wherein the computing unit is further designed to compare a/the determined cooling rate with a critical cooling rate, in particular one that is alloy-dependent, wherein the computing unit is designed to carry out the determination of the amorphicity value, taking account of the comparison. (Section 2 and 3, the cooling rate determined is dependent on the alloy used, cooling rates and critical cooling rates are determined and compared to determine process parameters, by comparing cooling rate to be greater than or equal to the critical cooling rate, this creates a binary 1 or 0 in the form of a true false value)
Regarding claim 5, Zhao anticipates the limitations of claim 4. Zhao also anticipates wherein the database unit is designed to store an assignment of material properties to, critical cooling rates and/or amorphicity values. (Abstract, Sections 2 and 3, Ansys stores the material properties, critical cooling rates and the results of the comparison between cooling rates and critical cooling rates)
Regarding claim 6, Zhao anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Zhao also anticipates wherein the component to be produced is indicated by a component description in particular by a CAD model, wherein the simulation unit is designed to carry out the determination of the cooling behavior using the component description (Figures 1-2 and 4-6, Sections 2 and 3, an ANSYS CAD model is designed to determine the cooling behavior of the alloy ingot)
Regarding claim 7, Zhao anticipates the limitations of claim 6. Zhao also anticipates wherein a/the component description indicates a plurality of volume elements, wherein the simulation unit is designed to determine a cooling behavior for at least a part of the volume elements, preferably for all volume elements. (Figure 1, Section 2, sliced 2D volumes are used of the 3D volume whole
PNG
media_image2.png
318
366
media_image2.png
Greyscale
)
In regards to claim 10, it is the method embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1.
In regards to claim 11, it is the method embodiment of claim 2 with similar limitations to claim 2, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 2.
In regards to claim 12, it is the method embodiment of claim 3 with similar limitations to claim 3, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 3.
In regards to claim 13, it is the method embodiment of claim 4 with similar limitations to claim 4, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 4.
In regards to claim 14, it is the method embodiment of claim 5 with similar limitations to claim 5, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 5.
In regards to claim 15, it is the method embodiment of claim 6 with similar limitations to claim 6, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 6.
In regards to claim 16, it is the method embodiment of claim 7 with similar limitations to claim 7, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 7.
In regards to claim 19, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 10 with similar limitations to claim 10, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 10.
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.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Weizhong et al. “A Numerical Simulation of a Ni-based Bulk Metallic Glass During Compressive Deformation and Fracture.”
Regarding claim 8, Zhao anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Zhao does not explicitly recite the prediction unit is designed to simulate at least one mechanical load case for the component to be produced, in particular using a/the component description and/or an FEM simulation.
Weizhong teaches the prediction unit is designed to simulate at least one mechanical load case for the component to be produced, in particular using a/the component description and/or an FEM simulation. (Sections 2 and 3, Table 1, Figures 2-6, A load is applied in ABAQUS using a component description, alloy description, dimensions and constraints so that the model can be simulated using Finite elements)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Zhao with Weizhong as the references deal with simulating amorphous alloys, in order to implement a system that simulates the response of the alloy when a load is applied. Weizhong would modify Zhao by also simulating the response of the alloy when a load is applied. The benefit of doing so is the plasticity of the bulk metallic glasses used can be improved, which can improve their application as a potential engineering material. (Weizhong Section 1)
In regards to claim 17, it is the method embodiment of claim 8 with similar limitations to claim 8, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 8.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Kim et al. “Microstructure and mechanical properties of powder-injection-molded products of Cu-based amorphous powders and Fe-based metamorphic powders.”
Regarding claim 9, Zhao anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Zhao does not explicitly recite wherein a production plant designed to produce the component to be produced using the at least one production parameter, in particular by an additive manufacturing method or an injection molding method.
Kim teaches wherein a production plant designed to produce the component to be produced using the at least one production parameter, in particular by an additive manufacturing method or an injection molding method. (Abstract, Tables 1 and 2, Sections 1, 3-3.3, a powder injection system is used to produce an amorphous alloy from the injected powders, using a number of powder injection molding parameters
PNG
media_image3.png
214
388
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Zhao with Kim as the references deal with quantifying amorphous alloys, in order to implement a system produces the amorphous alloy by powder injection molding. Kim would modify Zhao producing the amorphous alloy by powder injection molding. The benefit of doing so is a very hard and thermally stable, hardness, high-temperature hardness, and wear resistance alloy can be produced. (Kim Abstract)
In regards to claim 18, it is the method embodiment of claim 9 with similar limitations to claim 9, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zheng et al. USPPN 2004/0230411: Also teaches the determination of the cooling behavior of an amorphous material using cooling rates and critical cooling rates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188