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
Responsive to the amendment filed 3 April 2026 claim 1, 3, 5-11, 15, 17, and 18 are amended. Claims 1-9 and 15-20 are currently under examination.
Status of Previous Rejections
Responsive to the amendment filed 3 April 2026 the rejections under 35 USC 112 are withdrawn. The rejections are changed only in response to applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 11,999,011 (hereinafter “Moorehead”).
Regarding claim 15, Moorehead teaches a method of in situ alloying (see title). Moorehead teaches that the invention is used to manufacture high entropy alloys, which include multiple components (see OVERVIEW). This is considered to meet the limitation of a multi principal element alloy. For example Moorehead teaches that a HEA MoNbTaW near-equimolar alloy is used (see col. 5).
Moorehead teaches that elemental metal powders are supplied from hoppers and mixed (see col 3). Moorehead teaches that a composition of the alloy is selected, such as a Mo20Nb30Ta20W30 or a Mo30Nb30Ta20W20 (see col 5). Thus Moorehead clearly envisions a step of selecting a set of alloying elements and a respective amount of two or more feedstock materials.
Moorehead teaches that the flow rates of the powders are set such that the desired composition is determined (see col 3 or Fig 3 and col. 10). Moorehead teaches that the deposition rate is controlled via the RPM rate of the dispenser in the powder hoppers (see col 5-6). Moorehead teaches that a flow rate vs powder hopper RPM calibration experiment is performed (See col 5-6). Moorehead teaches that the mass flow rate then changed in order to match a different sample composition (See Fig 3 and col 10) .
Moorehead teaches that a directed energy deposition apparatus is used (See Fig 1 and col 9). Moorehead teaches that a composition that is deposited is changed via altering a feed rate of one or more of the feedstocks (see SUMMARY, col 6 or Fig 2 and col 9-10). Moorehead envisions that the different compositions are deposited as different samples in a series (see Fig 2 and col 10). Thus Moorehead clearly envisions additive manufacturing with the materials mixing in situ.
Regarding claim 19, Moorehead teaches that a directed energy deposition apparatus is used (See Fig 1 and col 9).
Regarding claim 20, Moorehead teaches that a composition of the alloy is selected, such as a Mo20Nb30Ta20W30 or a Mo30Nb30Ta20W20 (see col 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,999,011 (hereinafter “Moorehead”).
Regarding claim 1, Moorehead teaches a method of in situ alloying (see title)., Moorehead teaches that the invention is used to manufacture high entropy alloys, which include multiple components (see OVERVIEW). This is considered to meet the limitation of a multi principal element alloy. For example Moorehead teaches that a HEA MoNbTaW near-equimolar alloy is used (see col. 5).
Moorehead teaches that elemental metal powders are supplied from hoppers and mixed (see col 3). Moorehead teaches that a composition of the alloy is selected, such as a Mo20Nb30Ta20W30 or a Mo30Nb30Ta20W20 (see col 5). Thus Moorehead clearly envisions a step of selecting a target composition as claimed.
Moorehead teaches that the flow rates of the powders are set such that the desired composition is determined (see col 3 or Fig 3 and col. 10). The step 310 of Moorehead of setting material delivery rate to match the composition matches the claim step of determining a theoretical feed rate. Moorehead teaches that the deposition rate is controlled via the RPM rate of the dispenser in the powder hoppers (see col 5-6). Moorehead teaches that a flow rate vs powder hopper RPM calibration experiment is performed (See col 5-6). Moorehead teaches that the mass flow rate then changed in order to match a different sample composition (See Fig 3 and col 10) . Thus Moorehead clearly envisions a step of determining a series of relative feed rates.
Moorehead teaches that a directed energy deposition apparatus is used (See Fig 1 and col 9). Moorehead teaches that a composition that is deposited is changed via altering a feed rate of one or more of the feedstocks (see SUMMARY, col 6 or Fig 2 and col 9-10). Moorehead envisions that the different compositions are deposited as different samples in a series (see Fig 2 and col 10). However Moorehead teaches that in one embodiment, the deposition method can be used to create a sample part, which has different composition in different regions (see col 6, ll. 49-64).
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan at time of filing to have altered the method of Moorehead as by using a sample which has different composition (Moorehead, col 6), because Moorehead teaches that this is useful for generation of parts with varying strength properties (col 6). The part having different compositions in different regions, such as to generate a different strength, is a functionally graded material by definition.
Moorehead teaches that the measured chemical compositions of deposited material can be compared with the predictions of flow rates (see col 5-6). Thus Moorehead clearly envisions the step of analyzing the article to determine an empirical feed rate.
Moorhead teaches further that the entire process is calibrated and that the predictability of the composition that is deposited is improved using empirical fitting parameters (see col. 10). Thus Moorehead clearly envisions a step of matching the production feed rate to the empirical rates.
Regarding claim 2, Moorehead teaches that a powder is remelted, which leads to a homogeneous composition (see cols 6-7).
Regarding claim 3, Moorehead teaches that the process includes mixing of elemental powders (see Fig 3 and col 10).
Regarding claim 4, Moorehead teaches that in one embodiment, the deposition method can be used to create a sample part, which has different composition in different regions (see col 6, ll. 49-64). Moorehead teaches that the feed rates of the individual hoppers may be adjusted on the fly to tune the composition (col 6).
Regarding claims 5-6, Moorehead teaches that the rate of deposition of each of the hoppers may be adjusted (SEE COL 6). For example, Moorehead envisions that Mo20Nb30Ta20W30 or a Mo30Nb30Ta20W20 may be used (see col 5). Thus a percentage is varied when choosing to employ these two compositions.
Regarding claim 7, Moorehead teaches that the flow rates of the powders are set such that the desired composition is determined (see col 3 or Fig 3 and col. 10).
Regarding claim 8, Moorehead teaches an equimolar (equiatomic) composition may be used (See OVERVIEW or col. 5).
Regarding claim 16, Moorehead is applied to the claims as stated in the rejections of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 and of claim 15 under 35 USC 102.
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan at time of filing to have altered the method of Moorehead as by using a sample which has different composition (Moorehead, col 6), because Moorehead teaches that this is useful for generation of parts with varying strength properties (col 6). The part having different compositions in different regions, such as to generate a different strength, is a functionally graded material by definition.
Claim(s) 9, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,999,011 (hereinafter “Moorehead”) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Hofmann et al., “Developing Gradient Metal Alloys through Radial Deposition Additive Manufacturing,” Sci. Rep. 4, 5357; DOI:10.1038/srep05357 (2014) (hereinafter “Hofmann”).
Regarding claim 17, Moorehead teaches to measure the samples deposited (see col 5-6). Moorehead does not teach any specific means to measure the composition.
Hofmann teaches a method of additive manufacturing to develop gradient alloys (see title, p. 2 and Fig 1). Hofmann teaches that the composition of the gradient alloy is measured using x-ray diffraction (see p 2 and Fig 1).
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan to have practiced the method of Moorehead including measuring the composition, and to have used XRD in order to achieve the measurement because Hofmann teaches in the same field of endeavor to measure the composition using XRD (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 9, Hofmann teaches that different alloys may be used to make a gradient structure (see pp. 5-6). Hofmann teaches that a 304 L stainless including chromium is used (Table 2 and p 6). It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan to have altered the invention of Moorehead as by using stainless 304 L because Hofmann teaches that this is a suitable material for manufacturing of additive alloys (pp 5-6).
Regarding claim 18, Hofmann teaches that different alloys may be used to make a gradient structure (see pp. 5-6). Hofmann teaches that an Inconel 625 is used (see p. 6), which contains Co. It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan to have altered the invention of Moorehead as by using stainless 304 L and Inconel 625 because Hofmann teaches that these are each a suitable material for manufacturing of additive alloys (pp 5-6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art Moorehead does not disclose that flow rates of powders are such that a desired composition is determined. Applicant argues that Moorehead does not disclose selection of any alloy, and therefore cannot disclose selecting flow rates of elemental powders. The examiner disagrees with this argument because it is not commensurate in scope with the prior art. Moorehead as cited teaches Mo30Nb30Ta20W20 (see col 5). This is at least one example of a selection of a target composition, which is a multi principal element alloy. Moorehead as was cited at col. 3 teaches “Various aspects of the present disclosure have been shown to be beneficial when used in the context of forming material of different compositions, by dynamically modifying rates at which the respective materials are provided during a deposition process.” Thus “materials of different composition” requires an alloy selection, such as the ones specifically disclosed at col. 5, and further the flow rates are set, to do this. Because Moorehead as previously cited requires selection of alloys in the examples and other cited portions, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the compositions of Moorehead in the examples are not “desired compositions” because Moorehead “does not initially identify a desired composition” (remarks, pp. 9-10). This argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the prior art. The skilled artisan reading Moorehead immediately realizes that the example compositions are a “target” composition and are desired to be made. Moorehead did not seek to form an unspecified alloy at random, nor would a skilled artisan upon following the teachings.
Applicant cites the portions of Moorehead which applicant argues show Moorehead teaches that the flow rates are empirically determined beforehand matched to an alloy, then arguing that Moorehead does not select specific flow rates in order to generate a specific alloy. The examiner disagrees with this position. Moorehead seeks to generate the targeted alloy, as described. The fact that Moorehead generates other alloys to learn how to generate the targeted alloy is part of the process, and the selection of the example alloy (or any other desired target alloy) is then the goal after that groundwork be done. The mere fact that Moorehead “shows the work” in generating a desired alloy is not evidence that a targeted desired alloy cannot be generated. For this reason applicant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with what the prior art teaches, and is not persuasive.
Regarding the obviousness rejections, Applicant similarly argues that Moorehead does not teach or suggest selecting a desired target composition. The same response to arguments is reiterated. As was cited, Moorehead (col 3) discloses to adjust composition “by dynamically modifying rates” of the deposition of the elements of the composition. This is not a random modification to arrive at a random composition.
Applicant argues “there is no objective reason to modify Moorehead” (Remarks at p 13). Applicant seems to be arguing that the generation of a “predicted sample composition” excludes the selection of a desired target alloy. The examiner disagrees with this position. The predicted composition of Moorehead would be desired to be achieved by the plain meaning of each of those terms. Further as was cited Moorehead teaches to generate desired properties by altering the composition, which necessarily includes multiple desired target compositions. For these reasons applicant’s arguments lack persuasive merit.
When all of the arguments are considered as a whole, the evidence against patentability outweighs evidence of patentability.
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 CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights