DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 10, 2026 and April 20, 2026 has been entered.
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 .
Priority
The present application filed April 20, 2023 is a continuation-in-part (CIP) of US App. No. 16/751,868 (App ‘868) filed January 24, 2020.
Pending claim 1 lines 8-9 recite “cleaning the intermediate workpiece without removing the silicon particles agglomerated on the surface thereof”. App ‘868 is silent to this feature. Therefore, the pending claims are afforded a priority date of the filing of the instant application of April 20, 2023.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination filed April 20, 2026 and Remarks and Claim Amendments filed April 10, 2026.
Claims Filing Date
April 10, 2026
Amended
1, 21
New
28-29
Cancelled
2, 10, 14-20
Pending
1, 3-9, 11-13, 21-29
Withdrawn
12, 13
Under Examination
1, 3-9, 11, 21-29
The applicant argues support for the claim amendments in [0064] and [0065] of the original specification (p. 6 para. 2).
Applicant’s [0069] recites “etching the raw workpiece 300 with a fluoride etchant.”
Withdrawn Claim Objection
The following objection is withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 11 line 1 status identifier “(Proposed Amendment)”. MPEP 714.
Claim 11 line 1 is now “(Previously Presented)”.
Response to Remarks filed April 10, 2026
Wu in view of Yamamoto
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 7 paras. 2-3, filed April 10, 2026, with respect to Wu in view of Yamamoto have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim 1 rejection of Wu in view of Yamamoto has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues Wu does not etch with a fluoride etchant without creating smut (p. 7 para. 2) and Yamamoto etches with a mixture of nitric acid and phosphoric acid, not fluoride etchant (p. 7 para. 3).
New Grounds
In light of claim amendment and upon further search and consider claim 1 is now rejected over Wu in view of Yamamoto, Shockley, and Kuroda and over Wu in view of Yamamoto and Rayner.
Shockley and Kuroda discloses a low-fluoride etchant retains silicon particles agglomerated on the surface (Shockley 3:27-50, 64-70; Kuroda [0067]), where the etching of Yamamoto preferentially removes aluminum while exposing silicon (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2).
Alternatively, Rayner discloses a low-fluoride etchant retains silicon particles agglomerated on the surface ([0024], [0037], [0047], [0052]), where the etching of Yamamoto preferentially removes aluminum while exposing silicon (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2).
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 1-9, 11, and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (WO 2019/090398) in view of Yamamoto (JP H02-101181 machine translation), Shockley (US 3,333,579), and Kuroda (US 2014/0158335).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a method for forming a workpiece (component) ([001]), the method comprising:
fabricating, employing an additive manufacturing process (selective laser melting, SLM), a raw workpiece from aluminum alloy that includes silicon (Al-Si-Mg alloy) ([005]-[006], [028], [039]); and
(solution) heat-treating the raw workpiece to produce an intermediate workpiece, including subjecting the raw workpiece to a first temperature environment (500°C to 550°C), wherein the first temperature environment agglomerates silicon particles disposed on a surface of the raw workpiece (Si particles grow at the expense of adjacent smaller Si particles) ([005], [010]-[011], [030]).
Wu is silent to etching the intermediate workpiece without removing the silicon particles agglomerated on the surface thereof and without creating smut; applying a conversion coating onto the surface of the intermediate workpiece; and applying an organic coating on the conversion coating.
Yamamoto discloses forming a workpiece from an aluminum alloy that includes silicon (p. 2 para. 2, para. spanning pp. 2-3);
etching the intermediate workpiece without removing the silicon particles agglomerated on the surface thereof and without creating smut (silicon crystal grains are exposed with a relatively large amount of protrusion due to the etched treatment) (p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2);
applying a conversion coating onto the surface of the intermediate workpiece (oxide layer by anodizing) (p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2); and
applying an organic coating on the conversion coating (fluororesin) (p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to etch, conversion coat, and organic coat the workpiece of Wu for good wear resistance (Yamamoto p. 1 para. 1) by exposing the Si crystal grains and suppressing the falling off of the exposed Si crystal grains (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2).
Wu in view of Yamamoto discloses the etching of the intermediate workpiece (Yamamoto p. 3 para. 2).
Wu in view of Yamamoto is silent to a fluoride etchant.
Shockley discloses a silicon aluminum alloy (1:69 to 2:25) processed by etching including employing a low-fluoride concentration etchant to the surface of the intermediate workpiece such that the silicon particles agglomerated on the surface thereof are retained (preferential removal of aluminum from the alloy and exposure of the silicon using a solution of nitric acid and hydrofluoric acid) (3:27-50, 64-70).
Kuroda discloses etching including employing a low-fluoride concentration etchant to the surface of the intermediate workpiece such that the silicon particles agglomerated on the surface thereof are retained (0.5% HF (hydrofluoric acid) for Si grain observation) ([0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Wu in view of Yamamoto to etch using a solution of nitric acid and hydrofluoric acid with 0.5% HF because this achieves the goal of preferentially removing aluminum while exposing silicon (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2; Shockley 3:27-50, 64-70; Kuroda [0067]).
Regarding claim 3, Wu discloses subjecting the raw workpiece to a first temperature environment of 400°C to 550°C (500°C to 550°C) for 1 to 10 hours (0.25h to 12h) ([005], [010]-[011], [030]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Wu discloses hardening (quenching) the raw workpiece ([005], [012], [031]). According to applicant’s specification at [0062], “hardening the raw workpiece includes quenching”.
Regarding claim 5, Wu discloses subjecting the raw workpiece to an (artificial) aging process ([005], [014], [032]).
Regarding claim 6, Wu discloses subjecting the raw workpiece to a temperature environment of 1250C to 2000C (150°C to 190°C) for a period of 4 to 16 hours (2h to 16h) ([005], [014], [032]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 7, Wu discloses subjecting (solution heat treating) the raw workpiece to a temperature environment of 4000C to 5500C (500°C to 550°C) for 1 to 10 hours (0.25h to 12h); hardening (quenching) the raw workpiece; and subjecting the raw workpiece to an (artificial) aging process ([005], [010]-[014], [030]-[032]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8, Wu discloses fabricating the raw workpiece employing a laser powder bed process (selective laser melting, SLM) ([004]-[006], [028], [039]).
Regarding claim 9, Wu discloses employing a laser powder bed process to fabricate the raw workpiece from an aluminum alloy having a metal matrix (selective laser melting, SLM) ([004]-[006], [028], [039]) wherein the silicon is composed as agglomerated silicon particles that are dispersed within the metal matrix (Si particles grow at the expense of adjacent smaller Si particles) ([011]).
Regarding claim 11, Wu in view of Yamamoto discloses applying the conversion coating onto the surface of the intermediate workpiece comprises immersing the intermediate workpiece in a bath containing a coating material (anodizing using an electrolyte solution with a sulfuric acid concentration of 15% at a current density of 20 OA/n) (p. 3 para. 2, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 21, Wu discloses a method for forming a workpiece (component) ([001]), the method comprising:
fabricating, employing an additive manufacturing process (selective laser melting, SLM), a raw workpiece from aluminum alloy that includes silicon (Al-Si-Mg alloy) ([005]-[006], [028], [039]);
(solution) heat-treating the raw workpiece to produce an intermediate workpiece, including subjecting the raw workpiece to a first temperature environment (500°C to 550°C), wherein the first temperature environment agglomerates silicon particles disposed on a surface of the raw workpiece (Si particles grow at the expense of adjacent smaller Si particles) ([005], [010]-[011], [030]).
Wu is silent to etching the intermediate workpiece without creating smut; applying a conversion coating onto the surface of the intermediate workpiece; and applying an organic coating on the conversion coating.
Yamamoto discloses forming a workpiece from an aluminum alloy that includes silicon (p. 2 para. 2, para. spanning pp. 2-3);
etching the intermediate workpiece without creating smut (silicon crystal grains are exposed with a relatively large amount of protrusion due to the etched treatment) (p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2);
applying a conversion coating onto the surface of the intermediate workpiece (oxide layer by anodizing) (p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2); and
applying an organic coating on the conversion coating (fluororesin) (p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to etch, conversion coat, and organic coat the workpiece of Wu for good wear resistance (Yamamoto p. 1 para. 1) by exposing the Si crystal grains and suppressing the falling off of the exposed Si crystal grains (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2).
Wu in view of Yamamoto discloses the etching of the intermediate workpiece (Yamamoto p. 3 para. 2).
Wu in view of Yamamoto is silent to a fluoride etchant.
Shockley discloses a silicon aluminum alloy (1:69 to 2:25) processed by etching including employing a low-fluoride concentration etchant to the surface of the intermediate workpiece such that the silicon particles agglomerated on the surface thereof are retained (preferential removal of aluminum from the alloy and exposure of the silicon using a solution of nitric acid and hydrofluoric acid) (3:27-50, 64-70).
Kuroda discloses etching including employing a low-fluoride concentration etchant to the surface of the intermediate workpiece such that the silicon particles agglomerated on the surface thereof are retained (0.5% HF (hydrofluoric acid) for Si grain observation) ([0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Wu in view of Yamamoto to etch using a solution of nitric acid and hydrofluoric acid with 0.5% HF because this achieves the goal of preferentially removing aluminum while exposing silicon (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2; Shockley 3:27-50, 64-70; Kuroda [0067]).
Regarding claim 22, Wu discloses the fabricating, employing the additive manufacturing process, the raw workpiece comprises fabricating the raw workpiece employing a laser powder bed process (selective laser melting, SLM) ([004]-[006], [028], [039]).
Regarding claim 23, Wu discloses the heat-treating of the raw workpiece comprises subjecting the raw workpiece to a first temperature environment of 400°C to 550°C (500°C to 550°C) for 1 to 10 hours (0.25h to 12h) ([005], [010]-[011], [030]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 24, Wu discloses the heat-treating of the raw workpiece further comprises hardening (quenching) the raw workpiece ([005], [012], [031]). According to applicant’s specification at [0062], “hardening the raw workpiece includes quenching”.
Regarding claim 25, Wu discloses the heat-treating of the raw workpiece further comprises subjecting the raw workpiece to an (artificial) aging process ([005], [014], [032]).
Regarding claim 26, Wu discloses the raw workpiece to the (artificial) aging process comprises subjecting the raw workpiece to a temperature environment of 125°C to 200°C (150°C to 190°C) for a period of 4 to 16 hours (2h to 16h) ([005], [014], [032]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 27, Wu discloses subjecting the raw workpiece to a stress-relief temperature environment prior to the heat-treating of the raw workpiece ([005], [007]-[008], [028]-[029]).
Regarding claim 28, Wu in view of Yamamoto, Shockley, and Kuroda discloses the fluoride etchant containing 0.05 to 0.5 wt.% fluoride (0.5% HF) (Kuroda [0067]).
Regarding claim 29, Wu in view of Yamamoto, Shockley, and Kuroda discloses the fluoride etchant containing 0.05 to 0.5 wt.% fluoride (0.5% HF) (Kuroda [0067]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (WO 2019/090398) in view of Yamamoto (JP H02-101181 machine translation), Shockley (US 3,333,579), and Kuroda (US 2014/0158335) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Coates (US 3,400,057).
Regarding claim 11, Wu in view of Yamamoto discloses applying the conversion coating onto the surface of the intermediate workpiece (anodizing using an electrolyte solution with a sulfuric acid concentration of 15% at a current density of 20 OA/n) (p. 3 para. 2, Fig. 5).
Coates discloses immersing the intermediate workpiece in a bath containing a coating material (using conventional baths and anodizing conditions) (2:61-70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the anodizing of Wu in view of Yamamoto to use a bath because that is a conventional process (Coates 2:61-70).
Claims 1-9, 11, and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (WO 2019/090398) in view of Yamamoto (JP H02-101181 machine translation) and Rayner (US 2012/0129049).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a method for forming a workpiece (component) ([001]), the method comprising:
fabricating, employing an additive manufacturing process (selective laser melting, SLM), a raw workpiece from aluminum alloy that includes silicon (Al-Si-Mg alloy) ([005]-[006], [028], [039]); and
(solution) heat-treating the raw workpiece to produce an intermediate workpiece, including subjecting the raw workpiece to a first temperature environment (500°C to 550°C), wherein the first temperature environment agglomerates silicon particles disposed on a surface of the raw workpiece (Si particles grow at the expense of adjacent smaller Si particles) ([005], [010]-[011], [030]).
Wu is silent to etching the intermediate workpiece without removing the silicon particles agglomerated on the surface thereof and without creating smut; applying a conversion coating onto the surface of the intermediate workpiece; and applying an organic coating on the conversion coating.
Yamamoto discloses forming a workpiece from an aluminum alloy that includes silicon (p. 2 para. 2, para. spanning pp. 2-3);
etching the intermediate workpiece without removing the silicon particles agglomerated on the surface thereof and without creating smut (silicon crystal grains are exposed with a relatively large amount of protrusion due to the etched treatment) (p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2);
applying a conversion coating onto the surface of the intermediate workpiece (oxide layer by anodizing) (p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2); and
applying an organic coating on the conversion coating (fluororesin) (p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to etch, conversion coat, and organic coat the workpiece of Wu for good wear resistance (Yamamoto p. 1 para. 1) by exposing the Si crystal grains and suppressing the falling off of the exposed Si crystal grains (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2).
Wu in view of Yamamoto discloses the etching of the intermediate workpiece (Yamamoto p. 3 para. 2).
Wu in view of Yamamoto is silent to a fluoride etchant.
Rayner discloses a silicon aluminum alloy ([0024], [0052]) processed by etching with a fluoride etchant without removing the silicon particles agglomerated on the surface thereof and without creating smut ([0037], [0047], [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Wu in view of Yamamoto to etch as disclosed by Rayner to preferentially remove aluminum while exposing silicon (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2; Rayner [0037], [0047]).
Regarding claim 3, Wu discloses subjecting the raw workpiece to a first temperature environment of 400°C to 550°C (500°C to 550°C) for 1 to 10 hours (0.25h to 12h) ([005], [010]-[011], [030]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Wu discloses hardening (quenching) the raw workpiece ([005], [012], [031]). According to applicant’s specification at [0062], “hardening the raw workpiece includes quenching”.
Regarding claim 5, Wu discloses subjecting the raw workpiece to an (artificial) aging process ([005], [014], [032]).
Regarding claim 6, Wu discloses subjecting the raw workpiece to a temperature environment of 1250C to 2000C (150°C to 190°C) for a period of 4 to 16 hours (2h to 16h) ([005], [014], [032]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 7, Wu discloses subjecting (solution heat treating) the raw workpiece to a temperature environment of 4000C to 5500C (500°C to 550°C) for 1 to 10 hours (0.25h to 12h); hardening (quenching) the raw workpiece; and subjecting the raw workpiece to an (artificial) aging process ([005], [010]-[014], [030]-[032]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8, Wu discloses fabricating the raw workpiece employing a laser powder bed process (selective laser melting, SLM) ([004]-[006], [028], [039]).
Regarding claim 9, Wu discloses employing a laser powder bed process to fabricate the raw workpiece from an aluminum alloy having a metal matrix (selective laser melting, SLM) ([004]-[006], [028], [039]) wherein the silicon is composed as agglomerated silicon particles that are dispersed within the metal matrix (Si particles grow at the expense of adjacent smaller Si particles) ([011]).
Regarding claim 11, Wu in view of Yamamoto discloses applying the conversion coating onto the surface of the intermediate workpiece comprises immersing the intermediate workpiece in a bath containing a coating material (anodizing using an electrolyte solution with a sulfuric acid concentration of 15% at a current density of 20 OA/n) (p. 3 para. 2, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 21, Wu discloses a method for forming a workpiece (component) ([001]), the method comprising:
fabricating, employing an additive manufacturing process (selective laser melting, SLM), a raw workpiece from aluminum alloy that includes silicon (Al-Si-Mg alloy) ([005]-[006], [028], [039]);
(solution) heat-treating the raw workpiece to produce an intermediate workpiece, including subjecting the raw workpiece to a first temperature environment (500°C to 550°C), wherein the first temperature environment agglomerates silicon particles disposed on a surface of the raw workpiece (Si particles grow at the expense of adjacent smaller Si particles) ([005], [010]-[011], [030]).
Wu is silent to etching the intermediate workpiece without creating smut; applying a conversion coating onto the surface of the intermediate workpiece; and applying an organic coating on the conversion coating.
Yamamoto discloses forming a workpiece from an aluminum alloy that includes silicon (p. 2 para. 2, para. spanning pp. 2-3);
etching the intermediate workpiece without creating smut (silicon crystal grains are exposed with a relatively large amount of protrusion due to the etched treatment) (p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2);
applying a conversion coating onto the surface of the intermediate workpiece (oxide layer by anodizing) (p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2); and
applying an organic coating on the conversion coating (fluororesin) (p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to etch, conversion coat, and organic coat the workpiece of Wu for good wear resistance (Yamamoto p. 1 para. 1) by exposing the Si crystal grains and suppressing the falling off of the exposed Si crystal grains (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2).
Wu in view of Yamamoto discloses the etching of the intermediate workpiece (Yamamoto p. 3 para. 2).
Wu in view of Yamamoto is silent to a fluoride etchant.
Rayner discloses a silicon aluminum alloy ([0024], [0052]) processed by etching with a fluoride etchant without removing the silicon particles agglomerated on the surface thereof and without creating smut ([0037], [0047], [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Wu in view of Yamamoto to etch as disclosed by Rayner to preferentially remove aluminum while exposing silicon (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2; Rayner [0037], [0047]).
Regarding claim 22, Wu discloses the fabricating, employing the additive manufacturing process, the raw workpiece comprises fabricating the raw workpiece employing a laser powder bed process (selective laser melting, SLM) ([004]-[006], [028], [039]).
Regarding claim 23, Wu discloses the heat-treating of the raw workpiece comprises subjecting the raw workpiece to a first temperature environment of 400°C to 550°C (500°C to 550°C) for 1 to 10 hours (0.25h to 12h) ([005], [010]-[011], [030]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 24, Wu discloses the heat-treating of the raw workpiece further comprises hardening (quenching) the raw workpiece ([005], [012], [031]). According to applicant’s specification at [0062], “hardening the raw workpiece includes quenching”.
Regarding claim 25, Wu discloses the heat-treating of the raw workpiece further comprises subjecting the raw workpiece to an (artificial) aging process ([005], [014], [032]).
Regarding claim 26, Wu discloses the raw workpiece to the (artificial) aging process comprises subjecting the raw workpiece to a temperature environment of 125°C to 200°C (150°C to 190°C) for a period of 4 to 16 hours (2h to 16h) ([005], [014], [032]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 27, Wu discloses subjecting the raw workpiece to a stress-relief temperature environment prior to the heat-treating of the raw workpiece ([005], [007]-[008], [028]-[029]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (WO 2019/090398) in view of Yamamoto (JP H02-101181 machine translation), Shockley (US 3,333,579), and Kuroda (US 2014/0158335) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Coates (US 3,400,057).
Regarding claim 11, Wu in view of Yamamoto discloses applying the conversion coating onto the surface of the intermediate workpiece (anodizing using an electrolyte solution with a sulfuric acid concentration of 15% at a current density of 20 OA/n) (p. 3 para. 2, Fig. 5).
Coates discloses immersing the intermediate workpiece in a bath containing a coating material (using conventional baths and anodizing conditions) (2:61-70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the anodizing of Wu in view of Yamamoto to use a bath because that is a conventional process (Coates 2:61-70).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (WO 2019/090398) in view of Yamamoto (JP H02-101181 machine translation) and Rayner (US 2012/0129049) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Woods (5,102,033).
Regarding claim 28, Wu in view of Yamamoto and Rayner is silent to the fluoride etchant containing 0.05 to 0.5 wt.% fluoride.
Woods discloses fluoride etchant (2:28-32) containing 0.05 to 0.5 wt.% fluoride (about 0.10 to about 0.65 wt%) (3:5-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the fluoride (HF) in the etchant of Rayner to be about 0.10 to about 0.65 wt% for environmentally safe disposal of the used etchant (Woods 3:16-18). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (WO 2019/090398) in view of Yamamoto (JP H02-101181 machine translation) and Rayner (US 2012/0129049) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Woods (5,102,033).
Regarding claim 29, Wu in view of Yamamoto and Rayner is silent to the fluoride etchant containing 0.05 to 0.5 wt.% fluoride.
Woods discloses fluoride etchant (2:28-32) containing 0.05 to 0.5 wt.% fluoride (about 0.10 to about 0.65 wt%) (3:5-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the fluoride (HF) in the etchant of Rayner to be about 0.10 to about 0.65 wt% for environmentally safe disposal of the used etchant (Woods 3:16-18). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Related Art
Li (Li et al. Effect of heat treatment on AlSi10Mg alloy fabricated by selective laser melting: Microstructure evolution, mechanical properties and fracture mechanism. Materials Science & Engineering A 663 (2016) 116-125.)
Li discloses fabricating of AlSi1-Mg specimens by SLM (2.1. AlSi10Mg specimens fabricated by SLM) following by solution heat treatment at 450°C, 500°C, or 550°C for 2 h, water quenching, then artificial aging at 180°C for 12 h (2.2 Heat treatment of SLM-produced AlSi10Mg specimens).
Oketani (US 6,428,909)
Oketani discloses an aluminum-silicon alloy (1:58-67, 2:61-67, 3:1-9), etching to expose silicon gains (3:22-47), then forming a coating layer (2:1-3, 3:42-51), where the silicon grains provide sufficient wear (2:4-17, 3:52-57).
Kuroda (US 5,980,722)
Kuroda discloses an aluminum alloy containing silicon (1:7-17) manufactured by electrolytic etching to protrude the silicon from the surface (3:21-45) using phosphoric acid, sulfuric acid, sulfamic acid and the like (3:55-56, 5:17 to 6:65), anodizing (3:46-49), then plating (3:50-54, 7:1-20) with excellent adhesion die to the protruding silicon crystals (4:5-7, 53-67).
Golubev (Golubev et al. Behavior of structural components of aluminum alloys during chemical oxidation and anodizing in sulfuric acid. Korroziya i Zashchita Metal., Sbornik (1957) 328-41. STN Abstract.)
Golubev discloses etching a cast Al alloy with 0.5% HF does not affect the Si phase.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights