DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-12 are pending and currently under review.
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jelis et al. (2015, Metallurgical and mechanical evaluation of 4340 steel produced by direct metal laser sintering).
Regarding claim 1, Jelis et al. discloses an additively manufactured component (ie. shaped article) made from steel powders having a composition as seen in table 1 below [table1]. The examiner notes that composition of Jelis et al. falls within the claimed range. Although Jelis et al. teaches further inclusions of non-recited elements of P and S, one of ordinary skill would understand P and S to be unavoidable impurities in steel, which meets the limitation of “consisting of…”.
Jelis et al. does not expressly teach an average carbide size meeting formula (3) as claimed. However, the examiner submits that Jelis et al. discloses an identical powder composition as well as a substantially identical method of manufacture such that an identical carbide size would have naturally flowed. See MPEP 2112. Specifically, the instant specification discloses obtaining the shaped article by providing a gas atomized powder having a powder size of 63 micrometers or less and performing laser processing [0036-0039, 0050-0053 instant spec.]. Jelis et al. discloses obtaining a gas atomized powder having sizes of up to approximately 43 micrometers, followed by laser melting [p.583-584, table2]. Since Jelis discloses an identical powder composition and substantially identical method of manufacture, an identical carbide size range of less than 3 micrometers meeting formula (3) would have naturally flowed. See MPEP 2112.
Jelis et al. does not expressly teach values of T1 and T2 meeting formulas (1) to (2) as claimed. However, the examiner notes that T1 and T2 merely further limit the claimed composition, wherein the anticipatory composition and carbide size of Jelis et al. further falls within the claimed value ranges as determined by the examiner.
Table 1.
Element (wt.%)
Claim 1 (wt.%)
Jelis et al. (wt.%)
C
0.2 – 0.6
0.39
Si
0 – 0.6
0.24
Mn
0 – 0.9
0.71
Cr
0 – 4
0.8
Ni
0 – 2
1.74
Mo
0 – 1.2
0.25
W
0 – 2
0
V
0 – 0.6
0
Al
0 – 0.1
0
Fe & Impurities
Balance
Balance
Regarding claim 2, Jelis et al. discloses the article of claim 1 (see previous). Jelis et al. further teaches quenching and tempering and achieving a hardness of 42 to 44 HRC [p.583, p.585]. Jelis et al. does not expressly teach a thermal conductivity range as claimed. However, the examiner notes that the instant specification expressly discloses that the claimed thermal conductivity is achieved by meeting the features of claim 1 [0061 instant spec.]. Since the disclosure of Jelis et al. anticipates the claimed composition and formulas (1) to (3) as stated previously, an identical thermal conductivity range would have naturally flowed. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 3, Jelis et al. discloses the article of claim 1 (see previous). Jelis et al. does not expressly teach a property of maintaining hardness after retention at 600 degrees C as claimed. However, the examiner notes that the instant specification expressly discloses that the claimed thermal conductivity is achieved by meeting the features of claim 1 [0061 instant spec.]. Since the disclosure of Jelis et al. anticipates the claimed composition and formulas (1) to (3) as stated previously, an identical thermal conductivity range would have naturally flowed. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claims 4-8, Jelis et al. discloses the article of claim 1 (see previous). As stated above, since Jelis et al. discloses an anticipatory composition and substantially identical manufacturing method, such that an identical carbide size range of at least 0.4 micrometers would have naturally flowed. See MPEP 2112. The examiner notes that the anticipatory composition and carbide size of Jelis et al. further falls within the claimed value ranges as determined by the examiner.
Regarding claims 9-10, Jelis et al. discloses the article of claim 1 (see previous). As stated above, Jelis et al. teaches quenching and tempering and achieving a hardness of 42 to 44 HRC, which falls within the claimed range [p.583, p.585]. Jelis et al. does not expressly teach a thermal conductivity range as claimed. However, the examiner notes that the instant specification expressly discloses that the claimed thermal conductivity is achieved by meeting the features of claim 1 [0061 instant spec.]. Since the disclosure of Jelis et al. anticipates the claimed composition and formulas (1) to (3) as stated previously, an identical thermal conductivity range would have naturally flowed. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claims 11-12, Jelis et al. discloses the article of claim 1 (see previous). Jelis et al. does not expressly teach a property of maintaining hardness after retention at 600 degrees C as claimed. However, the examiner notes that the instant specification expressly discloses that the claimed thermal conductivity is achieved by meeting the features of claim 1 [0061 instant spec.]. Since the disclosure of Jelis et al. anticipates the claimed composition and formulas (1) to (3) as stated previously, an identical thermal conductivity range would have naturally flowed. See MPEP 2112.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzawa et al. (WO2019220917, US 2021/0040591 referred to as English translation) alone or alternatively further in view of Tonomura et al. (US 2017/0327933).
Regarding claim 1, Fukuzawa et al. an additively manufactured component (ie. shaped article) made from steel powders having a composition as seen in table 2 below [abstract]. The examiner notes that composition of Fukuzawa et al. overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Fukuzawa et al. is further silent regarding the requirement any non-recited elements, which meets the limitation of “consisting of…”.
Fukuzawa et al. does not expressly teach an average carbide size meeting formula (3) as claimed. However, the examiner submits that an overlapping, substantially similar carbide size would have naturally flowed from the disclosure of Fukuzawa et al. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I). The instant specification discloses obtaining the shaped article and carbide size by providing a gas atomized powder having a powder size of 63 micrometers or less and performing laser processing [0036-0039, 0050-0053 instant spec.]. Fukuzawa et al. discloses obtaining a gas atomized powder having sizes of up to approximately 38 micrometers, followed by laser melting [0010, 0070]. Since Fukuzawa et al. discloses an overlapping powder composition and substantially identical method of manufacture, a substantially similar, overlapping carbide size range of less than 3 micrometers meeting formula (3) would have naturally flowed. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I).
Alternatively, Fukuzawa et al. does not expressly limit a carbide size meeting formula (3) as claimed. Tonomura et al. discloses that it is known to control carbide precipitates in hot work tool steels to have a size of 1 micrometer or larger to improve tool properties [abstract, 0041-0042]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the article of Fukuzawa et al. by controlling a carbide size as taught by Tonomura et al. for the aforementioned benefit.
The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach values of T1 and T2 meeting formulas (1) to (2) as claimed. However, the examiner notes that T1 and T2 merely further limit the claimed composition and carbide size, which still overlaps with the claimed ranges of the aforementioned prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Table 2.
Element (wt.%)
Claim 1 (wt.%)
Fukuzawa et al. (wt.%)
C
0.2 – 0.6
0.3 – 0.5
Si
0 – 0.6
0 – 2
Mn
0 – 0.9
0 – 1.5
Cr
0 – 4
3 – 6
Ni
0 – 2
0 – 1
Mo
0 – 1.2
Mo + 1/2W: 0.5 – 3.5
W
0 – 2
V
0 – 0.6
0.1 – 1.5
Al
0 – 0.1
0
Fe & Impurities
Balance
Balance
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned prior art discloses the article of claim 1 (see previous). Fukuzawa et al. further teaches quenching and tempering and achieving a hardness of 40 to 50 HRC, which overlaps with the claimed range [0011]. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Fukuzawa et al. does not expressly teach a thermal conductivity as claimed. However, the examiner notes that thermal conductivity is an intrinsic property which would naturally flow from the steel composition as recognized by one of ordinary skill. Since Fukuzawa et al. discloses an overlapping composition, an overlapping thermal conductivity range would have naturally flowed. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I). Alternatively, the examiner notes that the instant specification expressly discloses that the claimed thermal conductivity is achieved by meeting the features of claim 1 [0061 instant spec.]. The instant specification further processes the article through quenching at 1030 degrees C for 30 minutes, followed by oil quenching and tempering twice at 600 degrees C for 60 minutes and air cooling [0054]. Fukuzawa et al. meets formulas (1) to (3) as explained above, and Fukuzawa et al. further teaches quenching at 1000 to 1030 degrees C for one hour, oil cooling, and repeatedly tempering at 550 to 650 degrees C for 1 hour and air cooling [0064, 0071]. Since Fukuzawa et al. discloses an overlapping composition and substantially similar, overlapping processing method, the examiner submits that a substantially similar, overlapping thermal conductivity range would have naturally flowed. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3, the aforementioned prior art discloses the article of claim 1 (see previous). Fukuzawa et al. does not expressly teach a property of maintaining hardness after retention at 600 degrees C as claimed. However, the examiner notes that the instant specification expressly discloses that this property is achieved by meeting the features of claim 1 [0061 instant spec.]. Since the disclosure of the aforementioned prior art overlaps with the claimed composition and formulas (1) to (3) as stated previously, a substantially similar, overlapping property of maintaining hardness relative to that as claimed would have naturally flowed. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I). Alternatively, since Fukuzawa et al. meets formulas (1) to (3) and further discloses an overlapping composition and substantially similar, overlapping processing method as explained previously, the examiner submits that a substantially similar, overlapping property of maintaining hardness relative to that as claimed would have naturally flowed. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 4-8, the aforementioned prior art discloses the article of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the carbide size of Tonomura et al. further overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Alternatively, as stated above, since Fukuzawa et al. discloses an overlapping powder composition and substantially identical method of manufacture, a substantially similar, overlapping carbide size range of at least 0.4 micrometers would have naturally flowed. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I). The examiner notes that the overlapping composition and carbide size of Fukuzawa et al. alone or in view of Tonomura et al. further overlap the claimed value ranges as determined by the examiner. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 9-10, the aforementioned prior art discloses the article of claim 1 (see previous). As stated above, Fukuzawa et al. teaches quenching and tempering and achieving a hardness of 40 to 50 HRC, which overlaps with the claimed range [0011]. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Fukuzawa et al. does not expressly teach a thermal conductivity as claimed. However, the examiner notes that thermal conductivity is an intrinsic property which would naturally flow from the steel composition as recognized by one of ordinary skill. Since Fukuzawa et al. discloses an overlapping composition, an overlapping thermal conductivity range would have naturally flowed. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I). Alternatively, the examiner notes that the instant specification expressly discloses that the claimed thermal conductivity is achieved by meeting the features of claim 1 [0061 instant spec.]. The instant specification further processes the article through quenching at 1030 degrees C for 30 minutes, followed by oil quenching and tempering twice at 600 degrees C for 60 minutes and air cooling [0054]. Fukuzawa et al. meets formulas (1) to (3) as explained above, and Fukuzawa et al. further teaches quenching at 1000 to 1030 degrees C for one hour, oil cooling, and repeatedly tempering at 550 to 650 degrees C for 1 hour and air cooling [0064, 0071]. Since Fukuzawa et al. discloses an overlapping composition and substantially similar, overlapping processing method, the examiner submits that a substantially similar, overlapping thermal conductivity range would have naturally flowed. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 11-12, the aforementioned prior art discloses the article of claim 1 (see previous). Fukuzawa et al. does not expressly teach a property of maintaining hardness after retention at 600 degrees C as claimed. However, the examiner notes that the instant specification expressly discloses that this property is achieved by meeting the features of claim 1 [0061 instant spec.]. Since the disclosure of the aforementioned prior art overlaps with the claimed composition and formulas (1) to (3) as stated previously, an substantially similar, overlapping property of maintaining hardness relative to that as claimed would have naturally flowed. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I). Alternatively, since Fukuzawa et al. meets formulas (1) to (3) and further discloses an overlapping composition and substantially similar, overlapping processing method as explained previously, the examiner submits that a substantially similar, overlapping property of maintaining hardness relative to that as claimed would have naturally flowed. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 3 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzawa et al. (WO2019220917, US 2021/0040591 referred to as English translation) alone or in view of others as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Shimamura et al. (JP2017155306, machine translation of equivalent document JP6925781 referred to herein).
Regarding claims 3 and 11-12, the aforementioned prior art discloses the article of claims 1 and 6 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach hardness after retention at 600 degrees C for 100 hours. The examiner notes that this limitation is merely a product-by-process recitation which imparts a structure of being heated at 600 degrees C for 100 hours. See MPEP 2113. Shimamura et al. discloses that it is known to perform heating of tool steel components at 600 degrees C for 100 hours as a means of testing for softening resistance [0033]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the article of the aforementioned prior art by performing the aforementioned testing to test for softening resistance as taught by Shimamura et al. The examiner notes that the claimed hardness after retention is merely an instance of functional language which merely imparts an article structure that would be capable of meeting the claims. See MPEP 2173.05(I). Accordingly, the article of Fukuzawa et al., which already meets the claimed structure as explained above, would have been entirely capable of achieving the claimed hardness after being subjected to the testing of Shimamura et al. as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muto et al. (JP2018119177) in view of Tonomura et al. (US 2017/0327933).
Regarding claim 1, Muto et al. discloses a die steel (ie. shaped article) having a composition as seen in table 3 below [0010]. The examiner notes that the overlap between the composition of Muto et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Muto et al. is further silent regarding the requirement any non-recited elements, which meets the limitation of “consisting of…”.
Muto et al. does not expressly limit a carbide size meeting formula (3) as claimed. Tonomura et al. discloses that it is known to control carbide precipitates in hot work tool steels to have a size of 1 micrometer or larger to improve tool properties [abstract, 0041-0042]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the article of Muto et al. by controlling a carbide size as taught by Tonomura et al. for the aforementioned benefit.
The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach values of T1 and T2 meeting formulas (1) to (2) as claimed. However, the examiner notes that T1 and T2 merely further limit the claimed composition and carbide size, which still overlaps with the claimed ranges of the aforementioned prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
The examiner notes that the recitation of “produced from an Fe-based alloy powder” is a product-by-process limitation which is not considered to impart any further structural considerations to the claimed steel because the initial form of a powder is not considered to impart any further patentably distinct features to the final structure of the “shaped article” as claimed. See MPEP 2113. The examiner notes that one of ordinary skill would be entirely capable of melting a steel powder to obtain the steel of Muto et al., for example.
Table 3.
Element (wt.%)
Claim 1 (wt.%)
Muto et al. (wt.%)
C
0.2 – 0.6
0.2 – 0.5
Si
0 – 0.6
0 – 0.5
Mn
0 – 0.9
0 – 0.92
Cr
0 – 4
0 – 4
Ni
0 – 2
0 – 2
Mo
0 – 1.2
2Mo+W: 0 – 1.8
W
0 – 2
V
0 – 0.6
0.1 – 0.61
Al
0 – 0.1
0 – 0.08
Fe & Impurities
Balance
Balance
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned prior art discloses the article of claim 1 (see previous). Muto et al. further teaches quenching and tempering and achieving a thermal conductivity of 30 W/mk or more and a hardness of 40 HRC or more [0011-0012]. The examiner notes that the aforementioned properties of Muto et al. overlap with those as claimed. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3, the aforementioned prior art discloses the article of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach hardness after retention at 600 degrees C for 100 hours. However, the examiner notes that the instant specification expressly discloses that this property is achieved by meeting the features of claim 1 [0061 instant spec.]. Since the disclosure of the aforementioned prior art overlaps with the claimed composition and formulas (1) to (3) as stated previously, a substantially similar, overlapping property of maintaining hardness relative to that as claimed would have naturally flowed. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I). Alternatively, the instant specification further processes the article through quenching at 1030 degrees C for 30 minutes, followed by oil quenching and tempering twice at 600 degrees C for 60 minutes and air cooling [0054]. Muto et al. meets formulas (1) to (3) as explained above, and Muto et al. further teaches quenching at 1030 degrees C repeatedly tempering at 600 degrees C [0030]. Since Muto et al. discloses an overlapping composition and substantially similar, overlapping processing method, the examiner submits that a substantially similar, overlapping thermal conductivity range would have naturally flowed. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 4-8, the aforementioned prior art discloses the article of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the carbide size of Tonomura et al. further overlaps with the claimed ranges. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The examiner notes that the overlapping composition and carbide size of Muto et al. and Tonomura et al. further overlap the claimed value ranges as determined by the examiner. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 9-10, the aforementioned prior art discloses the article of claim 1 (see previous). As stated above, Muto et al. teaches quenching and tempering and achieving a thermal conductivity of 30 W/mk or more and a hardness of 40 HRC or more [0011-0012]. The examiner notes that the aforementioned properties of Muto et al. overlap with those as claimed. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 11-12, the aforementioned prior art discloses the article of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach hardness after retention at 600 degrees C for 100 hours. However, the examiner notes that the instant specification expressly discloses that this property is achieved by meeting the features of claim 1 [0061 instant spec.]. Since the disclosure of the aforementioned prior art overlaps with the claimed composition and formulas (1) to (3) as stated previously, a substantially similar, overlapping property of maintaining hardness relative to that as claimed would have naturally flowed. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I). Alternatively, the instant specification further processes the article through quenching at 1030 degrees C for 30 minutes, followed by oil quenching and tempering twice at 600 degrees C for 60 minutes and air cooling [0054]. Muto et al. meets formulas (1) to (3) as explained above, and Muto et al. further teaches quenching at 1030 degrees C repeatedly tempering at 600 degrees C [0030]. Since Muto et al. discloses an overlapping composition and substantially similar, overlapping processing method, the examiner submits that a substantially similar, overlapping thermal conductivity range would have naturally flowed. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 3 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muto et al. (JP2018119177) and Tonomura et al. (US 2017/0327933) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Shimamura et al. (JP2017155306, machine translation of equivalent document JP6925781 referred to herein).
Regarding claims 3 and 11-12, the aforementioned prior art discloses the article of claims 1 and 6 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach hardness after retention at 600 degrees C for 100 hours. The examiner notes that this limitation is merely a product-by-process recitation which imparts a structure of being heated at 600 degrees C for 100 hours. See MPEP 2113. Shimamura et al. discloses that it is known to perform heating of tool steel components at 600 degrees C for 100 hours as a means of testing for softening resistance [0033]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the article of the aforementioned prior art by performing the aforementioned testing to test for softening resistance as taught by Shimamura et al. The examiner notes that the claimed hardness after retention is merely an instance of functional language which merely imparts an article structure that would be capable of meeting the claims. See MPEP 2173.05(I). Accordingly, the article of Muto et al., which already meets the claimed structure as explained above, would have been entirely capable of achieving the claimed hardness after being subjected to the testing of Shimamura et al. as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734