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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/16/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending in the application.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoyama et al. (US20190263056A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 7 and 12, Ootaki teaches a steel sintered body (shaped article, abstract) comprising:
A base (substrate) made by high-speed steel; (See claim 9)
and a solidified layer (steel material used for the build portion) made of high-speed steel whose composition is different from the base (See claim 9); the spread powder layer over the substrate of the is considered to read on a solidified layer continuously disposed on the surface of the base;
Regarding the claim limitation of the boundary between the base and solidified layer not being visually identified in a 200X magnified observation image of a section intersecting the image; Motoyama only shows a backscattered electron image of the interface (Fig 5) but not a photo from an optical microscope as used in the disclosure of the present invention. However, as Motoyama teaches the interface is a compositionally graded layer closer to the composition of the substrate toward the substrate [0161], and the products are formed by controlled thin layers of powder additively laminated (See claim 1) is considered similar to the disclose method [0062]; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected a similar visual boundary to be present at the interface under the expectation that products formed by substantially similar methods have similar properties including the claimed limitation of the cross-section having a plurality of granular portions and intersecting lines in the base metal. (See MPEP 2112.01(I));
Regarding the method limitations of Claim 7, the step of forming each powder layer by melting powder [0051] reads on forming a cladding portion and solidifying each layer; where the step of forming first begins by spreading the powder [0039]; then irradiating powder layer with a scanning layer beam to a temperature sufficient to melt and solidify the cladding which is considered to be significantly above 130 C and the temperature of the first surface is considered to be higher than a martensitic finish temperature of the base (reading on claim 12)
Regarding claim 2, Motoyama teaches no cracks are present [0146] (Table 3)
Regarding Claims 3, 9 and 16, Motoyama teaches the base has a carbon content of 0.6% (Table 1, YXR3), reading on the claimed range of 0.5-0.9%
Regarding Claims 4 and 17, Motoyama teaches the base contains 1.8% V, 4.3% Cr, 2.9% Mo, and 0.4% Mn and 1.5% Si (Table 1, YXR3) reading on element group (1) of 2-4% V, 3-15% Cr, 0.5-4% Mo; and element group (2) of 0.2-1% Mn, 0.2-4% V, 3-15% Cr, 0.5-4% Mo and 0-2.5% Si.
Regarding Claims 5, 10 and 18-20, the solidified layer has a C content of 0.9% (M2 of Table 1) reading on 0.5-1.5% C.
Regarding Claim 6, the solidified layer comprises: 0.2% Si, 0.3% Mn, 4.3% Cr, 6% W, 5.1% Mo and 1.8% V (M2 of Table 1) reading on the claimed range of 0-1% Mn, 1-3% V, 3-5.5% Cr, 4-6% Mo, and 5-7.5% W.
Regarding Claim 8, as the base and layer materials of the prior art read on the claimed compositions for both (Table 1), one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the respective base and layer materials to have a similar difference in martensitic start temperatures under the expectation that similar products have similar properties. (See MPEP 2112.01(I))
Regarding Claim 13, it is interpreted that the energy density of the laser used for each layer is the same for each layer including a second to last layer formed (See Table 2)
Regarding Claim 14, it is interpreted the height of each layer (layer pitch) is the same for each layer [0135]
Regarding Claim 15, the prior art teaches a laser power of 100-300 W [0057] overlapping with the claimed range of 300 W or more, in the case where a claim overlaps with a range taught by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the claimed range. (See MPEP 2144.05(I))
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitation of a cross-section of the base including a plurality of granular portions and a plurality of intersecting lines; however the present disclosure only teaches this limitation is a result of the performed method steps observed at the interface of the base and solidified layer; as the prior art method and base material and solidified layers are similar, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the microstructure in the base to look similar under the expectation that similar products made by similar methods have similar properties. (See MPEP 2112.01(I))
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 RICARDO D MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-6691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 am- 4 pm.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 5712726297. 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.
/RICARDO D MORALES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
