DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of electing Group I (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on August 18, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-22 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a canceled invention. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 18, 2025.
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.
Claims 1-8, 12-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Poole et al. (US 20150299825 A1).
Regarding to claim 1, Poole teaches a method of fabricating metallic glass (Abstract, [0005]) comprising: depositing a layer of metallic glass forming alloy to a selected portions of an object (Abstract, [0021]); and then heating the deposited layer of metallic glass forming alloy on the object by laser melting for example to melt and fuse the deposited layer of metallic glass forming alloy on the object (Abstract, [0006], [0009], [0021], [0025], [0035],[0040]); and then cooling the melted layer of liquid phase metallic glass to form or fuse a layer of solid phase metallic glass on the portion of object (Abstract, [0006], [0009], [0028]); wherein the cooling process is selected from the group consisting of: conduction quenching via the platen for example ([0028], [0037], [0045]).
Regarding to claim 2, Poole teaches wherein the at least one layer of metallic glass forming alloy comprises Zr for example ([0049], [0060]).
Regarding to claim 3, Poole teaches wherein the object is made of a material with a higher melting temperature than the melting temperature of the metallic glass forming alloy because the metallic glass powder is melted on the platen (object) and the platen 102 maintain its shape as shown in Figs. 1 and 2, if the platen’s (object) melting temperature is lower than the metallic glass’s, the platen will be melted when the metallic glass is melted ([0035], Figs. 1, 2).
Regarding to claim 4, Poole teaches wherein the at least one layer of metallic glass forming alloy is in a form of powder for example (Abstract, [0021]).
Regarding to claim 5, Poole teaches wherein the at least one layer of metallic glass forming alloy is cut to match the shape of the at least a portion of the object before applying ([0040], [0041]).
Regarding to claim 6, Poole teaches wherein the at least one layer of metallic glass forming alloy is heated to at least 150 °C above the melting temperature of the metallic glass forming alloy for example ([0025]).
Regarding to claim 7, Poole teaches wherein the heating is applied by a heating source such as a laser for example (Abstract, [0021]).
Regarding to claim 8, Poole teaches wherein the heating takes place on a heating platform comprising a heating block such as the platen ([0037]).
Regarding to claim 12, Poole teaches wherein the cooling takes place immediately after the heating is complete (Abstract, [0025], [0048]).
Regarding to claim 13, Poole teaches wherein the heating and cooling take place in vacuum ([0015], [0043]).
Regarding to claim 16, Poole teaches wherein the layer of solid phase metallic glass has a microstructure selected from the group consisting of: fully amorphous, amorphous and crystalline, and fully crystalline ([0045]).
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole et al. (US 20150299825 A1) as applied to claims 1-8, 12-13 and 16, and further in view of Zielinski et al. (US 2017/0205143 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Poole teaches a method comprising heating by a heated conduction platen takes place in a vacuum as disclosed above. Poole doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the heating block comprises a material selected from the group consisting of copper, brass, steel and stainless steel. However, an analogous art, Zielinski teaches a method comprising heating takes place in a vacuum condition by a heated conduction platen which made from copper for example ([0005], [0080]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a heated conduction platen which made from copper for example to the method in Poole, because Zielinski disclosed the use of a heated conduction platen which made from copper for example can be automatically controlled to heat electronics ([0005]).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole et al. (US 20150299825 A1) as applied to claims 1-8, 12-13 and 16, and further in view of Muramatsu et al. (US 2008/0034796 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Poole teaches a method of forming metallic glass as disclosed above. Poole doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the layer of solid phase metallic glass has a uniform thickness throughout the layer, and the thickness ranges from about 1 micron to about 1 millimeter. However, an analogous art, Muramatsu teaches a method of forming metallic glass wherein the uniform thickness of the metallic glass is 1 mm or less for example ([0024], [0110]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the uniform thickness of the metallic glass is 1 mm or less for example to the method of metallic glass in Poole, because Muramatsu disclosed the metallic glass has the uniform thickness of 1 mm or less as desired ([0024], [0110]).
Regarding claim 15, Poole teaches a method of forming metallic glass as disclosed above. Poole doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the layer of solid phase metallic glass has a surface roughness ranging from about 0.020 micron Ra to about 250 micron Ra. However, an analogous art, Muramatsu teaches a method of forming metallic glass wherein the surface roughness of the metallic glass is 0.1 µm to 5 µm Ra for example ([0078], [0079]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the surface roughness of the metallic glass is 0.1 µm to 5 µm Ra for example to the method of metallic glass in Poole, because Muramatsu disclosed the use of the surface roughness of the metallic glass is 0.1 µm to 5 µm Ra for example to reduce the friction and reduce the surface defects as a whole ([0081]-[0084]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art to claim 1 is considered to be Poole et al. (US 20150299825 A1) and Muramatsu et al. (US 2008/0034796 A1). However, none of these references, either individually or in combination, teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the conduction quenching is applied by at least one conduction quenching block, and the at least one conduction quenching block is aligned with the heating block in the center or wherein the conduction quenching is applied by two conduction quenching blocks; wherein a first conduction quenching block is above the heating block and not touching, and a second conduction quenching block is below the heating block; wherein the two conduction quenching blocks and the heating block are aligned in the center” as recited in claims 10-11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI YAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7181. The examiner can normally be reached on MTTHF.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAH-WEI YUAN can be reached on 5712721295. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAI Y ZHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717