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 .
Claims 1 and 3-24 have been considered. Claim 1 amended, Claim 2 cancelled, and Claims 23-24 added in the amendment dated 1/26/2026.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/26/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
In Claim 23, “Hg-containing media” should read “Mercury (Hg)-containing media” to avoid confusion over what the abbreviation may be referring to (subsequent mentions of Hg could remain unchanged once it is established the first time in a claim). See MPEP 2173.05(a).
In claim 24, the first instance of “Mg content” should read “Magnesium (Mg) content” to avoid confusion over what the abbreviation may be referring to (subsequent mentions of Mg could remain unchanged once it is established the first time in a claim). See MPEP 2173.05(a).
It is noted that Claim 1 is indicated as “previously presented” but the proper status appears to be “currently amended”. Examiner also notes that the remarks indicate that Claim 15 was cancelled, but Claim 15 remains as “previously presented”. Applicant is requested in their next response to verify the status of all claims to ensure the proper claims have been amended and correspond to the claims listed in paragraph 2 above. In the interest of compact prosecution the Examiner will examine the case with the claim statuses listed in Paragraph 2 of this action, and any claim amendments or changes outside of Claims 1, 2, 23, and 24 that may have been made but not listed will be treated as not entered or considered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 would be allowed pending the objection to the claim.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While the prior art of record teaches a hybrid manufacturing system which can reinforce sections of the component, using a variety of materials, the references, either individually or in combination, do not teach the specific limitation of creating and reinforcing a region of a structure such that the material of the basic structure is an aluminum alloy with a magnesium content of less than 2%, and the material of the supporting structure is an aluminum alloy with a magnesium content of more than 2%, in combination with the other limitations of the claim. While the prior art indicates that any materials can be used, each of which would have its own particular makeups and resistances, the Examiner finds this specific arrangement to be non-obvious in the context of the remainder of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 3-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potter (US 20150362898) in view of Garcia (US 2017/0189996) and further in view of Kemmer et al. (US 2015/0076732, herein Kemmer).
Regarding Claim 1, Potter teaches: A method for producing a component manufactured in part additively for a technical device
manufacturing a basic structure of the component with a predefined wall thickness by means of a non-additive manufacturing method (Paragraphs 76 and 78, the initial object, Paragraph 69 shows thickness is adjusted in future steps if the projected stress is too high),
determining at least one region of the basic structure of the component by means of an optimization method (Paragraphs 56, 66, 74, the curved portion) that is to be reinforced or stiffened so that the component can handle a greater load than what which can be handled by the predefined wall thickness (Paragraphs 56, 66, 74, the curved portion),
wherein the predefined wall thickness of the basic structure is predefined on the basis of a minimum required wall thickness or as this minimum required wall thickness in order to be able to withstand a maximum design pressure (Potter, Paragraphs 63, 64, 69, and 70, thickness is used to determine whether or not the stress will exceed a threshold value and require the AM process, which then sets the thickness to an appropriate level), but fails to teach:
and applying, in the at least one region, a supporting structure to the basic structure by means of an additive manufacturing method to increase the wall thickness of said at least one region and thereby stiffen or reinforce the at least one region,
While Potter teaches a hybrid manufacturing system, in which part of the object is made using a conventional non-additive manufacturing method, and part is made using additive manufacturing, and that the parts made using additive manufacturing are identified and made thicker to withstand greater loads, Potter does not increase the thickness of an already manufactured basic structure made via non-additive means as claimed. However, Garcia teaches adding a supporting structure to an existing component using additive manufacturing to increase the thickness of a region (Paragraphs 13-19). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Garcia with Potter as being able to reinforce an existing structure as this hybrid method allows an optimization of thickness and weight (Paragraph 14) and allows for other reasons for thickness to be increased beyond just the expected load of Potter (Garcia, Paragraphs 4 and 6).
However, the combination of Potter and Garcia does not teach:
wherein the component is a pressure vessel wall, a pressure vessel lid, a pressure vessel base, a pipeline, a heat exchanger partition plate, a heat exchanger lamella, a heat exchanger cover plate, a heat exchanger edge strip, or a heat exchanger distributor.
While Potter discloses manufacturing an object without limitation, and that the components listed above appear to be only reciting intended use and do not impart any particular structure or limit to the claim, only what it is used for, in the interest of compact prosecution, Kemmer discloses an additive manufacturing system which discloses that, among the many objects that can be produced, includes pressure vessels (Paragraph 45). As Potter and Garcia both disclose hybrid manufacturing systems, and Kemmer discloses the known element of an additively manufactured pressure vessel, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the known pressure vessel of Kemmer with the known generic hybrid manufactured object of Potter and Garcia to achieve the predictable result of the object being a pressure vessel.
Regarding Claim 3, Potter teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein, in the course of the optimization method, an optimized wall thickness is determined for the at least one region, and wherein the supporting structure is applied to the basic structure in the at least one region on the basis of the optimized wall thickness by means of the additive manufacturing method (Paragraph 70).
Regarding Claim 4, Potter teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein, in the course of the optimization method, an adaptation of a locally required wall thickness of the component is carried out on the basis of loads acting on the component during operation (Paragraphs 64 and 70).
Regarding Claim 5, Potter teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein, in the course of the optimization method, a total wall thickness in the at least one region, composed of the predefined wall thickness of the basic structure and a thickness of the supporting structure (Paragraph 116, while some embodiment assemble parts of the whole separately as AM and non-AM, the embodiment described in Paragraph 116 allows the AM process to be performed directly on the forged initial object), is determined, and this total thickness is determined on the basis of the component being able to withstand a load acting on the component in the at least one region during operation (Paragraphs 25, 70).
Regarding Claim 6, Potter teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein, in the course of the optimization method, a stiffness of the component and/or a maximum occurring stress in the component and/or a geometric constraint are taken into account as a constraint (Paragraph 64).
Regarding Claim 7, Potter teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein, in the course of the optimization method, a topology optimization and/or a material optimization and/or a load optimization and/or a stress optimization and/or a flow optimization and/or a geometry optimization of the component is carried out (Paragraph 64).
Regarding Claim 8, Potter and Garcia teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the optimization method is carried out on the basis of a simulation of the component (Potter, Paragraph 11, Garcia, Paragraph 6).
Regarding Claim 9, Potter teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the supporting structure is applied to the basic structure in the at least one region by means of: (a) arc wire surfacing welding, and/or (b) selective laser sintering and/or (c) selective laser melting and/or (d) electron beam melting and/or (e) stereolithography and/or (f) fused deposition modeling and/or (g) cold spraying (Paragraph 41).
Regarding Claim 10, Garcia teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the basic structure and the supporting structure are manufactured from the same material (Paragraph 21).
Regarding Claim 11, Garcia teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the material of the basic structure is more resistant to a specific material (Paragraph 41).
Regarding Claim 12, Potter teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the basic structure of the component is manufactured by means of a non-additive primary forming method, and/or by means of a non-additive forming method, and/or by means of a non-additive joining method, and/or by means of a non-additive separation method (Paragraph 8).
Regarding Claim 13, Kemmer teaches: The method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the component is a component for a pressure vessel, or a component through which fluid flows for a heat exchanger (Paragraph 45).
Regarding Claim 14, Potter teaches: A component manufactured for a technical device, wherein the component is manufactured according to the method of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection).
Regarding Claim 15, Kemmer teaches: The component according to claim 14,
wherein the component is a pressure vessel wall, a pressure vessel lid, a pressure vessel base, a pipeline, a heat exchanger partition plate, a heater exchanger lamella, a heat exchanger cover plate, a heat exchanger edge strip, or a heat exchanger distributor (Paragraph 45).
Regarding Claim 16, Potter and Garcia teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the optimization method is carried out on the basis of a simulation of a technical device comprising the component (Potter, Paragraph 11, Garcia, Paragraph 6).
Regarding Claim 17, Potter teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the optimization method is carried out on the basis of a finite element method (Paragraph 11).
Regarding Claim 18, Potter and Garcia teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the basic structure and the supporting structure are manufactured from different aluminum alloys (Potter, Paragraphs 6 and 49 indicate the materials used for the base and support structure may be the same or different materials. Garcia, Paragraphs 8, 21, and 41 disclose aluminum alloy coatings are used for the base and additive material. Paragraph 41 also indicates that the powder may incorporate other elements to provide different characteristics. As such, the combination of references discloses the use of aluminum alloys, and suggests that two materials may be similar or different, and thus it would be obvious to use different aluminum alloys as disclosed by both references. Garcia, Paragraph 41: “ In some examples, the powder may incorporate any component providing higher or lower mechanical characteristics depending on circumstances.”).
Regarding Claim 19, Garcia teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the material of the basic structure is more resistant to mercury than material of the supporting structure (Paragraph 41 discloses that the powder material may incorporate other elements to provide different characteristics, and may be different than the base material. As all materials have different resistances, as disclosed by Garcia, the powder layer may have either more or less resistance to mercury than the base material depending on the circumstances).
Regarding Claim 20, Garcia teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the material of the supporting structure has a higher strength than the material of the basic structure (Paragraph 41 discloses that the powder material may incorporate other elements to provide different characteristics, and may be different than the base material. As all materials have different strengths, as disclosed by Garcia, the powder layer may have either more or less strength than the base material depending on the circumstances).
Regarding Claim 21, Potter teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the basic structure of the component is manufactured by casting, pressing, bending, rolling, welding, soldering, gluing, machining, and/or cutting (Paragraph 8).
Regarding Claim 22, Potter teaches: The method according to claim 1, but fails to teach:
wherein the component is a pressure vessel wall, a pressure vessel lid, a pressure vessel base, a pipeline, a heat exchanger partition plate, a heat exchanger lamella, a heat exchanger cover plate, a heat exchanger edge strip, or a heat exchanger distributor.
While Potter discloses manufacturing an object without limitation, and that the components listed above appear to be only reciting intended use and do not impart any particular structure or limit to the claim, only what it is used for, in the interest of compact prosecution, Kemmer discloses an additive manufacturing system which discloses that, among the many objects that can be produced, includes pressure vessels (Paragraph 45), which would include making a base and wall. As Potter and Garcia both disclose hybrid manufacturing systems, and Kemmer discloses the known element of an additively manufactured pressure vessel, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the known pressure vessel of Kemmer with the known generic hybrid manufactured object of Potter and Garcia to achieve the predictable result of the object being a pressure vessel.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potter (US 20150362898) in view of Garcia (US 2017/0189996).
Regarding Claim 23, Potter teaches:
A method for producing a component manufactured in part additively for a technical device, the method comprising:
manufacturing a basic structure of the component with a predefined wall thickness by means of a non-additive manufacturing method (Paragraphs 76 and 78, the initial object, Paragraph 69 shows thickness is adjusted in future steps if the projected stress is too high),
determining at least one region of the basic structure of the component, by means of an optimization method (Paragraphs 56, 66, 74, the curved portion), that is to be reinforced or stiffened so that the component can handle a greater load than that which can be handled by the predefined wall thickness (Paragraphs 56, 66, 74, the curved portion),
wherein the component is provided for storing or transporting Hg-containing media (Paragraphs 103-106, as an example, the components can be used to manufacture airplane parts. An airplane is capable of storing or transporting materials containing mercury), but fails to teach:
applying, in the at least one region, at supporting structure to the basic structure by means of an additive manufacturing method to increase the wall thickness of said at least one region and thereby stiffen or reinforce the at least one region, wherein the basic structure is more resistant to mercury than the supporting structure,
While Potter teaches a hybrid manufacturing system, in which part of the object is made using a conventional non-additive manufacturing method, and part is made using additive manufacturing, and that the parts made using additive manufacturing are identified and made thicker to withstand greater loads, Potter does not increase the thickness of an already manufactured basic structure made via non-additive means as claimed. However, Garcia teaches adding a supporting structure to an existing component using additive manufacturing to increase the thickness of a region (Paragraphs 13-19). Paragraph 41 discloses that the powder material may incorporate other elements to provide different characteristics, including corrosion resistance, and may be different than the base material. As all materials have different resistances, as disclosed by Garcia, the powder layer may have either more or less resistance to mercury than the base material depending on the circumstances. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Garcia with Potter as being able to reinforce an existing structure as this hybrid method allows an optimization of thickness and weight (Paragraph 14) and allows for other reasons for thickness to be increased beyond just the expected load of Potter (Garcia, Paragraphs 4 and 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant has argued that Potter does not disclose a component which is a pressure vessel wall, pressure vessel lid, pressure vessel base, a pipeline, a heat exchanger partition plate, a heat exchanger lamella, a heat exchanged cover plate, a heat exchanger edge strip, or a heat exchanger distributor. Applicant further argues that neither Potter nor Garcia discloses a component bearing the pressure of a pressurized fluid, or relevant considerations such as negative or positive pressures, for example, from a pressurized fluid. Firstly, Examiner notes that Kemmer was used to disclose these limitations rather than Potter or Garcia, however, the Examiner notes that while the Applicant has noted that Potter and Garcia do not teach relevant considerations of these components, such as the negative or positive pressures, these features aren’t claimed.
While the claims recite that the component is one of the listed elements, as currently recited, this is essentially non-functional descriptive material. None of these components, as claimed, appear to impart any particular structure or requirements to the component. Essentially, these limitations disclose what the component is intended to be used for, rather than what it is. While the Examiner recognizes that some of these components, in order to be used in an effective manner, may require certain considerations to meet particular criteria, the Examiner does not believe that these considerations or structural requirements should be read into the claims at this time. Simply saying the component is a “pressure vessel base” or “a pipeline” does not impart any particular physical characteristics that would be read into the component, as written, it is essentially a label indicating its intended use, defining it by what it is used for rather than what it is. The Examiner has reviewed the specification and searched for the claimed component terms, and can find no recitation of any particular structure of each of these elements that would necessitate reading more into the claim than is present.
Applicant has further argued that the additive layers of Potter do not serve to increase the wall thickness, however, Examiner notes that while Potter does modify thicknesses of an object in its model, recognizing high-stress areas, Garcia was used to teach the limitation including the additive manufacturing process explicitly being used to increase the thickness of a portion of the object.
Applicant has also argued that Kemmer is cited for disclosing pressure vessels, but does not disclose the hybrid manufacturing process and that Kemmers inclusion in the rejection is merely hindsight analysis. The Examiner does not agree. The combination of Potter and Garcia discloses a hybrid manufacturing system that can produce essentially any object, it is not stated to be limited in any way. As stated earlier in these remarks, the Applicants recitation of the components does not structurally limit the component in any way that the Examiner can identify, and they have been treated as intended use/nonfunctional description material, in that the limitation in question, at best, identifies what the object is to be used for rather than what it physically or structurally is. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner provided the Kemmer reference, which discloses that a known additively manufactured object (such as those created by Potter and Garcia, both individually and in combination) can be a pressure vessel, and thus would be within the scope of Potter and Garcia to create.
Similarly, regarding the arguments for Claims 18 and 19, the Examiner takes a similar position to the above. Garcia discloses that different materials can be used, each with different compositions and corrosion resistances, and that any of those materials can be used to provide the desired characteristics depending on the circumstances. The Examiner believes this teaching is sufficient to reject the currently broadly claimed limitations of “are manufactured from different aluminum alloys” and “more resistant to mercury”, as this is captured within Paragraph 41 of Garcia.
Contrasted with these broad recitations of the materials being different, or having different properties, as currently claimed in at least Claims 18, 19, 20, and 23, the Examiner notes that Claim 24 has been indicated as allowable because the specificity of the listed materials goes beyond what Garcia can be said to teach. While Garcia teaches different materials can be used, each with different physical characteristics, makeups, and properties, which as Examiner has stated above, is sufficient to reject the broad recitations in the other claims, the specific makeup of the basic structure being made of an alloy with a Mg content of less than 2%, and the supporting structure being made of an alloy with a Mg content of more than 2% is quite specific, and for this claim, the Examiner has found no prior art that would teach a basic and supporting structure being made of different alloys with these particular physical characteristics, and that applying Garcia to these specific makeups would only be able to be done using hindsight analysis. While having different characteristics is taught/would be obvious, arriving at this particularly claimed structure would not be.
The Examiner also believes it would be helpful to contrast allowable Claim 24 with rejected Claim 23, as the reasons for this are similar to the rationales listed above. Claim 23 indicates that the basic structure is more resistant to mercury than the supporting structure (presumably corresponding to the specific Mg contents listed in Claim 24), but in a broader way. Claim 23 also indicates that the component is provided for storing or transporting mercury-containing media, and while Examiner recognizes that this combination of both having a structure resistant to mercury, for the purpose of transporting mercury, is part of the inventive concept, as currently written, as the other limitations in the other claims, the last limitation of Claim 23 is nonfunctional descriptive material/intended use, in that it defines the component by what it is to be used for, rather than what it is. Technically, anything can store or transport mercury for a non-zero amount of time (as in Potter, used to design aircraft components, an aircraft can have mercury inside of it, fulfilling what is claimed), even if it may not be a “good” long term solution for it. Again, the Examiner recognizes the inventive concept of the hybrid manufacturing system, intended to transport mercury, and designing the alloys of both the traditional and additive materials to better support this intention to transport mercury, but as currently claimed, do not impart sufficient structure to the claim to overcome the prior art in Claims 1 and 3-23, but Claim 24s specificity does.
If Claim 23, for example, were to claim more specifics about the physical structure of a pressure vessel, such as the physical makeup or layout of the vessel, or to perhaps claim that the interior surface of the vessel has a particular mercury corrosion resistance, that could also be a way to capture the inventive concept by defining it by what it is, rather than what it is intended to be used for, in addition to Claim 24’s alloy composition, if Applicant is looking for other ways to capture the inventive concept. Alternatively, if Applicant were to claim the particular considerations of the pressure vessel, as they argued (regarding required positive/negative pressures it must withstand, etc), that may also be a path forward. The Examiner does not have any specific suggestions for claim language at this time however.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Strauss (US 2015/0268010) discloses reinforcing an existing structure using composite materials utilizing additive manufacturing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E FENNEMA whose telephone number is (571)272-2748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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, John Cottingham can be reached at 571-272-7079. 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.
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117