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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to claim 14, the claim states “wherein the extruded raw material of the solid composite additive is pressed by two symmetrical rollers”, this renders the claim indefinite since claim 9, from which claim 14 depends, previously sets forth “pressing the extruded raw material of the solid composite additive by a roller” therefore it is unclear if the two symmetrical rollers are in addition to the roller of claim 9 or if the limitation is intending to further define the roller of claim 9 to now be two symmetrical rollers. It is further noted that should the claim be intending to further define the roller of claim 9, this renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear how a single roller is not to be two rollers. It would be suggested to amend the recitation of a roller in claim 9 to set forth at least one roller.
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.
Claim(s) 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (US 2021/0053283).
In reference to claim 9, Liu et al discloses a solid composite additive manufacturing method for high-performance structural component, the method comprises the steps of
heating the rod-shaped raw material [see paragraph 0060] of the solid composite additive (102) to a solid solution temperature [see paragraph 0054], wherein the rod-shaped raw material is prepared by a casting method,
loading the rod-shaped raw material of the solid composite additive (102) after it is heated to the solid solution temperature into an extrusion die (16) and extruding the rod-shaped raw material into a set shape [see paragraph 0054],
laying the extruded raw material of the solid composite additive on a base plate (substrate 104) layer by layer according to a track to form a prefabricated billet of the solid composite additive [see figure 22; paragraph 0073, 0079], and
processing the prefabricated billet by a numerical control operation to obtain a metal part [see paragraph 0083; connected to robotic arm and therefore inherently controlled by numerical control, i.e. controller],
wherein the laying step comprises the following steps:
under conditions of set temperature and set deformation amount [broadest reasonable interpretation is being take to be any temperature and deformation amount], pressing the extruded raw material of the solid composite additive (102) by punch (forming tool 62) [see paragraph 0079],
after the extruded raw material of the solid composite additive are connected with the base plate (104), stacking the extruded raw material of the solid composite additive layer by layer according to the track to form the prefabricated billet of the solid composite additive [see figure 22].
Liu et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the pressing of the material is performed by a roller to form the prefabricated billet of the solid composite additive.
However, Liu et al does disclose the a forming tool can be used to aid in the forming of the prefabricated billet when depositing the raw material (102) in layers upon the base plate (substrate 104) [see paragraph 0079]. It is further noted that it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that dies, punches, and rollers are types of forming tools since each of these types of tools perform a deforming operation to deform a material.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the forming tool of Liu et al be a roller that presses the deposited layer, since it is known in the art that a general forming tool encompasses a roller and the same end result of deformation (pressing to bond layers) would be achieved.
In reference to claim 10, Liu et al discloses that the raw material (102) is heated to a malleable state prior to extrusion [see paragraph 0012] which is below the melting point of the material [see last 3 lines of paragraph 0008].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heat the raw material to a temperature of 0.3 to 0.75 of the melting point of the raw material since this would result in the raw material being in a malleable state prior to extrusion. It is further noted that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routing experimentation [see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233].
In reference to claim 11, Liu et al further discloses in the loading step, in a vacuum environment, extruding the rod-shaped raw material of the solid composite additive (102) laterally by an extrusion head (20) and the extrusion die (16), wherein the extrusion ratio of lateral extrusion is 5~15, as seen in figure 6.
In reference to claim 12, Liu et al discloses that the raw material (102) is heated to a malleable state prior to extrusion [see paragraph 0012] which is below the melting point of the material [see last 3 lines of paragraph 0008] and then extruded and pressed immediately following the heating.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the material would be extruded at a temperature below the melting point and the pressing would occur at a set temperature between room temperature and the extruded temperature based on any cooling occurring following the extrusion. It is noted that while Liu et al does not disclose the specific range of room temperature to 0.75 of the melting point, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routing experimentation [see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233].
In reference to claim 13, Liu et al further discloses the set deformation about is 15% to 60% as seen in figure 6.
In reference to claim 14, as best understood, modified Liu et al discloses the extruded raw material of the solid composite additive is pressed by a roller and an integrated pressure connection is achieved.
In reference to claim 15, modified Liu et al further discloses stacking the extruded raw material of the solid composite additive layer by layer according to the track to form the prefabricated billet of the solid composite additive further comprises subjecting the prefabricated billet of the extruded raw material of the solid composite additive to a subsequent heat treatment [see paragraph 0092; cooling channels are added to the extrusion die].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 21, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Liu et al does not disclose or suggest “a coordinated set of features” found within the claim language of claim 9 such as heating to a solid solution temperature to homogenize the inherently segregated cast microstructure or disrupting oxide films and prevent material degradation by operating the rolling step at a set temperature and set deformation and achieve uniform interlayer bonding or efficient deposition for complex high-performance parts by using a roller for pressing.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., homogenizing the inherently segregated cast microstructure, disrupting oxide films, eliminates voids, etc.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims [see In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993)]. It is further noted that Applicant appears to argue that these features are all present when preforming an additive manufacturing process with the raw material being 7075 aluminum, however the claim only broadly requires a raw material. Therefore the rejection of Liu et al is maintained since Liu et al discloses the heating is performed at a temperature below the melting point [see paragraph 0008], and the layers are pressed together to obtain a bond with a forming tool (i.e. roller) as required by the claim.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2021/0402687 to Anegawa et al discloses an additive manufacturing process where a roller is used to press and bond layers to one another after being deposited.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Debra Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)272-1904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4:30pm EST.
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, Chris Templeton can be reached on (571) 270-1477. 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.
/Debra M Sullivan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights