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 Objections
Claims 1, 3, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, please rewrite “a temperature above 0.45*Tm, being Tm the melting temperature” as “a temperature above 0.45*Tm, Tm being the melting temperature”. Tm is the melting temperature 0.45*Tm is not Tm the melting temperature.
In claim 3, please rewrite “an element in an amount of at least 1.2% in respect of the weight of the material with a melting temperature below 580° C” as “an element with a melting temperature below 580° C in an amount of at least 1.2% in respect of the weight of the material”. The melting temperature below 580°C modifies the element, not the material.
In claim 19, please delete the word “the” from the limitation “the polymerization or curing trough exposition to a radiation”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 20, it is not clear if Tm/the melting temperature recited in claim 1 lines 5-6, claim 4 line 5, claim 5 line 4, claim 6 line 4, claim 20 line 2 and again in claim 20 lines 2-3, refers to an empirical temperature scale, such as Celsius, or to an absolute temperature scale, such as Kelvin. The present specification is inconsistent as to whether or not melting point should be interpreted as Celsius or to an absolute temperature. For example, page 54 lines 32-36 states “above 0.45 times the melting temperature (0.45*Tm, wherein temperature is in Celsius) of the phase or component with the lowest melting point among the relevant components/phases in the inorganic part of the material (Tm being the absolute temperature where the first liquid is formed under equilibrium conditions-in the rest of the document [Celsius is not a unit of absolute temperature]”; page 57 lines 20-26 states “In some embodiments, especially when the inorganic part of the material comprises a low melting point metal powder, inventor has found that certain relation must be met between melting temperature and density in at least one of the metallic powders within the inorganic part of the material. In different embodiments the melting temperature (in kelvin) of the metallic powder multiplied by the density (at 20°C and 1 atm) in (g/cm3) of such metallic powder is less than 2790, less than 2490, less than 1900, less than 1400, less than 900, and even less than 400 [in K* (g/cm3)]”. Page 58 lines 17-20, page 61 lines 21-27, page 70 lines 5-6, page 80 lines 21-23, page 95 lines 25-27, page 166 lines 28-31 disclose melting temperatures in Celsius. Page 79 lines 21-24 states “at least 22°C above 0.52 times the melting temperature (at least 22°C above 0.52*Tm) of the phase or component with the lowest melting temperature among the relevant components/phases in the inorganic part of the material, at least 22°C above 0.76*Tm, and even at least 22°C above 0.82*Tm”, and similar phrases are found on page 82 lines 10-15. Page 174 line 39 states “Temperatures are in Celsius.” Examples on page 182 lines 6-11, page 183 lines 9-10 report melting temperature in Kelvin, while examples on page 186 line 6, page 187 line 1, page 187 line 20 report melting temperature in Celsius. In claim 1 please specify whether or not the melting temperature is claimed in Celsius or Kelvin. To see why uncertainty as to empirical or absolute temperature is an issue in the presently worded claims, consider a melting temperature of 600
°
C which is equal to 873 K. A range above 0.45*Tm where Tm is 600
°
C is a range above 270
°
C which is equal to above 543 K, whereas a range above 0.45Tm where Tm is 873 K is above 393 K which is equal to above 120
°
C; therefore, the actual temperatures encompassed by the claimed ranges depend on the unit of temperature.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 recite the limitation " the inorganic part of the material" in claim 1 step 3, claim 7 line 2, claim 8 line 1, claim 9 line 1, claim 10 line 1, claim 11 line 1, claim 12 line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Material does not necessarily comprise an inorganic part, and it is not clear if the claims require material comprise an inorganic part, and therefore to what inorganic part “the inorganic part” refers. Note that dependent claims 4, 5, and 6 introduce “an inorganic part”, but claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 do not depend on dependent one of claim 4, 5, or 6.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the relevant components or phases" in step 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The material described in the specification and dependent claims comprises more than one component or phase, and it cannot be determined from claim 1 as worded which component or phase, if any is the relevant components or phases.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the shaped material obtained in step 3" in step 4 and “the shaped material obtained in step 3 or 4” in step 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Within claim 1, only step 2 necessarily shapes the material; therefore, it is not clear if "the shaped material obtained in step 3" and “the shaped material obtained in step 3 or 4” are the same of different shaped material. Applicant could consider refereeing to intermediate products following each step with different terms and providing explicit antecedent basis for each intermediate product.
Claims 2-20 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) because they depend on claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the organic part" in claim 13 line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A material does not necessarily comprise an organic part.
Claims 16, 17, 18, and 20 recite the limitation “the shaped material” in claim 16 line 2, claim 17 line 2, claim 18 lines 1-2, and claim 20 lines 1-2. It is not clear if “the shaped material” is “the shaped material obtained in step 2” recited in claim 1 step 3, “the shaped material obtained in step 3” recited in step 4, or “the shaped material obtained in step 3 or 4” recited in step 5.
Claim 17 claims “joining the shaped material to another element, structure, component, piece or any other.” As “any other” is not structure to which shaped material can be joined, it is not clear what joining to “any other” is intended to encompass. The limitation, as worded appears to be incomplete.
Claim 20 recites the limitation " the metallic part of the shaped material" in lines 1-2 and “the metallic part of the material” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 depends directly on claim 1. Claim 1 does not claim forming a metallic part or that the material comprising a part, let alone a metallic part. This limitation is particularly uncertain because it is not clear if the metallic part in the shaped material is the same metallic part in the material and claim 20 claims the same metallic part at different stages of production or if the metallic part in the shaped material is different from the metallic part in the material and claim 20 claims that some metallic part in the shaped material is materially different from some other metallic part in the material.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-8, 13-14, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danforth (US5738817) in view of Uihlein (EP2161088A1). References to Uihlein are directed to the examiner-supplied English language translation.
Regarding claim 1, Danforth discloses a method for shaping a material (column 2 lines 29-31, column 5 lines 14-23, claim 1). Danforth discloses taking a material (column 5 lines 15-17, column 7 line 55 to column 8 line 3, column 15 lines 5-22). Danforth discloses shaping the material using a shaping technique (column 5 lines 16-19, column 8 lines 27-57, column 11 lines 15-31). Danforth discloses subjecting the shaped material to a process at an elevated temperature and pressure (cold or warm isostatic pressing column 13 lines 51-65, densification by hot isostatic pressing column 14 lines 45-60). Danforth discloses subjecting the shaped material to a debinding process (column 5 lines 19-21, column 13 line 66 to column 14 line 15). Danforth discloses that the processes at elevated temperature and pressure result in some degree of consolidation (void removal column 13 lines 51-65, densification column 14 lines 45-60).
Danforth discloses that the material may comprise inorganic material which include metal elements silver, gold, platinum, nickel, aluminum, copper, gold, lead, magnesium, manganese, titanium, iron, and combinations and alloys thereof (column 5 lines 44-52), which are inorganic materials. Danforth teaches that the temperature and pressure processing sinters the shaped material (column 14 lines 50-54). Danforth does not disclose selecting parameters of elevated temperature and pressure steps relative to properties of these materials.
Uihlein teaches a method for shaping a material (abstract, claim 1, [0001], [0007]). Uihlein teaches taking a material [0007], [0010], [0016]. Uihlein discloses shaping the material using a shaping technique [0007], [0014], [0016]. Uihlein teaches subjecting the shaped material to a hot isostatic pressing process involving a pressure between 20 and 300 MPa [0007], [0020]. Uihlein teaches sintering at 800 to 1200°C when using a component material made of a nickel, titanium or cobalt-based alloys [0007]. Uihlein teaches subjecting the shaped material obtained to a debinding process [0007]. Uihlein teaches that the sintering and hot isostatic pressing are consolidating processes [0007], [0020].
Both Uihlein and Danforth teach similar processes for shaping materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to subject the shaped material disclosed by Danforth, applied above, to a hot isostatic pressing process at 20 to 300 MPa because Uihlein teaches that a range of 20 to 300 MPa is effective for hot isostatic pressing of a shaped component from which binder is removed [0007], [0020], and the hot isostatic sintering process disclosed by Danforth must occur at some pressure (column 14 lines 45-60). A range of 20 to 300 MPa overlaps a range of pressure above 55 MPa. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). In the nickel or titanium embodiments disclosed by Danforth (column 5 lines 44-52) it would have been obvious to perform the sintering at 800 to 1200°C, because Uihlein teaches 800 to 1200°C specifically for sintering titanium, nickel, or cobalt alloys [0007], and the hot isostatic press sintering disclosed by Danforth (column 14 lines 45-60) must occur at some temperature. A range of 800 to 1200°C is equivalent to a range of 1073 to 1473 K. The melting point of titanium is 1941 K, and the melting point of nickel is 1728K. 0.45*1941 is 873, and 0.45*1728 is 778. As a range of 1073 to 1473 K is above 873 K and 778 K, a process at a temperature of 800 to 1200°C, in embodiments where feed material is titanium or nickel is a process at a temperature above 0.45*Tm.
Regarding claim 2, Danforth discloses (column 5 lines 16-19, column 8 lines 27-57, column 11 lines 15-31) and Uihlein teaches [0007], [0014], [0016] an additive manufacturing shaping technique.
Regarding claim 3, Danforth discloses that the material taken comprises a mixture of solid particulate materials and a binder system (column 5 lines 23-26). Danforth discloses that the mixture comprises at least about 10 volume% solid particles and preferably at least about 50 volume% solid particles (column 5 lines 32-38), thereby disclosing up to about 90 volume% and preferably up to about 50 volume% binder system. Danforth discloses that preferred polymers of the binder have a relatively low glass transition temperature and a relatively low melting point specifically identifying polymers selected from the group consisting of polyvinyl alcohol, polyethylene, polyvinyl acetate, poly (vinyl ethers), poly (vinyl esters), vinyl ester copolymer, ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer and combinations thereof (column 7 lines 8-13). Danforth exemplifies 60 volume% inorganic material and 40 volume% binder (column 15 lines 16-18). Considering Danforth discloses that the material comprises a significant proportion of low-melting polymer (column 5 lines 23-38, column 7 lines 8-13), and the polymers disclosed by Danforth (column 7 lines 8-13) melt at temperatures below 580
°
C, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the range of structures encompassed by the amounts of low-melting polymer disclosed by Danforth (column 5 lines 23-38, column 7 lines 8-13, column 15 lines 16-18) meet, overlap, or encompass some element in an amount of at least 1.2% in respect of the weight of the material with a melting temperature below 580° C.
Regarding claim 7, Danforth discloses that the mixture may comprise one or more solid, particulate materials and a binder system “consisting of” organic materials (column 5 lines 24-27), thereby disclosing a mixture comprising one solid particulate material. Danforth discloses inorganic material as the solid particulate material (column 5 lines 34-57). A two-component mixture whose two components are one organic particulate material and a binder system consisting of organic material is a mixture wherein a relevant component or phase of the inorganic part of the material (the solid particulate material itself) is a component which is 100% by weight in respect of the weight of the inorganic part of the material.
Regarding claim 8, Danforth discloses that the material taken comprises a mixture of solid particulate materials and a binder system (column 5 lines 23-26). Danforth discloses that the mixture comprises at least about 10 volume% solid particles and preferably at least about 50 volume% solid particles (column 5 lines 32-38), and Danforth exemplifies 60 volume% inorganic material and 40 volume% binder (column 15 lines 16-18). Considering both the ranges disclosed by Danforth (column 5 lines 32-38) and the presently claimed range do not have an upper limit, and an upper limit when scaled by weight and when scaled by volume is 100%, the range of structures encompassed by the proportions in volume percentage disclosed by Danforth (column 5 lines 32-38) overlap the range of structures encompassed by the weight percentages recited in present claim 8. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 13, Danforth discloses that a major portion of the organic part is removed from the material in while applying the method (column 3 lines 46-47). Danforth discloses a two-stage debinding process wherein 95-97% of the binder is removed in a first stage (column 15 lines 59-62) and the remainder is removed in a second stage (column 16 lines 5-7). Danforth discloses that the binder is the organic phase (column 5 lines 24-57). A method wherein the remainder of an organic part is removed while applying the method is a method wherein after applying the method less than 24% by any proportion of the organic part remains in the material.
Regarding claim 14, Danforth discloses performing some extra shaping step involving material removal in certain areas at some point in the method (column 13 lines 51-59).
Regarding claim 17, Danforth discloses applying the disclosed process “to fabricate an unlimited variety of three-dimensional articles, including but not limited to turbine blades, seals, ceramic cores for use in investment casting, tooling for injection molding, cutting and milling tools, piezoelectric and ferroelectric components, electro-mechanical sensors and actuators, optical materials, artistic works, valves, rocket nozzles, fluidic logic devices, refractories, catalytic converter substrates, etc” (column 4 lines 46-55). As turbine blades, seals, tooling for injection molding, cutting and milling tools, electro-mechanical sensors, valves, rocket nozzles, , and catalytic converter substrates all require jointing to or incorporating into some other apparatus components, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to in some way join the shaped material to some other element, structure, component, or piece.
Regarding claim 18, Danforth discloses partially to fully densifying the shaped material (column 5 lines 20-23) and shows examples that achieve “greater than 95% of theoretical density” (column 16 lines 17-18). Considering a fully densified product is 100% theoretical density, and Danforth discloses examples which have greater than 95% theoretical density, the densities of the shaped material disclosed by Danforth (column 5 lines 20-23, column 16 lines 17-18) encompass the range of densities recited in claim 18. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 11, 13-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20110206933) in view of Yoshizawa (US20130037524).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a material for a shaping process (useful for various molded products) (abstract, [0013-14]). Kim discloses taking a material [0016-17], [0057], [0061]. Kim discloses that the material comprises an organic resin and inorganic (metallic) fibers [0016-17], [0061]. Kim discloses that the provided material further comprises low-melting inorganic material (low-melting metal) [0017-18], [0036]. Kim discloses shaping the material using a shaping technique [0057], [0059]. Kim discloses that the low-melting inorganic has a melting point lower than that of an organic constituent of the provided material which results in improved stability of the material during preparation [0038].
Kim suggests applying the material in a metal injection molding process [0004-05], but Kim does not disclose temperatures and pressure implicated in such a metal injection molding process.
Yoshizawa teaches a method for shaping a material (title, [0001]). Yoshizawa teaches taking a material comprising inorganic constituents and an organic binder [0019], [0025-26], [0028]. Yoshizawa teaches shaping the material using metal injection molding [0006], [0008], [0019], [0029-30]. Yoshizawa teaches that the material that is injected is at temperatures from 160 to 200
°
C under pressure about 100 MPa [0030], and Yoshizawa teaches cooling the shaped material from these conditions [0030], thereby teaching to some extent subjecting the shaped material to a pressure about 100 MPa and a temperature 160 to 200
°
C.
Both Kim and Yoshizawa suggest shaping a material comprising inorganic and organic constituents by metal injection molding.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to shape the material disclosed by Kim, applied above by metal injection molding because Kim suggests shaping the material by metal injection molding [0004-05]. In view of Kim’s silence on metal injection molding parameters, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to subject the material disclosed by Kim, applied above to a metal injection molding comprising a step of subjecting the molded material to a pressure about 100 MPa and a temperature 160 to 200
°
C because Yoshizawa teaches such conditions as effective for shaping a material comprising organic material and inorganic binder [0030]. A pressure of about 100 MPa directly meets the pressure recited in claim 1. Kim exemplifies an organic part comprising a component with a melting point of 228
°
C [0069], which is equivalent to 501 K, and 160 to 200
°
C is equivalent to 433 to 473 K. 0.45*501 K is 225 K; therefore a range of 160 to 200
°
C (433 to 473 K) is a temperature above 0.45*Tm, being Tm the melting temperature of the phase or component with the lowest melting temperature among the relevant components or phases in the inorganic part of the material disclosed by Kim, applied above.
Regarding optional steps 4 and 5, Kim discloses that adding the low melting metal results in advantages of stability during the preparation of the materials [0038]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the material comprising low melting metal and organic binder disclosed by Kim [0016-17], [0036], [0061] to known methods of metal injection molding in order to achieve the preparation stability disclosed by Kim [0038]. Yoshizawa teaches that a shaping method, comprising shaping feed material comprising metal and organic binder [0028-30], further comprises a step of subjecting the shaped material to a debinding process [0031-39] and subjecting the shaped material to a consolidation process [0040-43]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to subject the material comprising low melting metal and organic constituents disclosed by Kim [0016-17], [0036], [0061] to a shaping process comprising debinding and consolidation as taught by Yoshizawa for a material comprising inorganic and organic constituents [0019], [0028-43] because Yoshizawa is broadly open to working upon different feed materials [0018-19], and Kim teaches the combination of a low melting metal and organic binder yields advantageous stability during processing [0038].
Regarding claim 2, the shaping technique in the method disclosed by Kim in view of Yoshizawa, applied above is the metal injection molding taught by Yoshizawa [0028-30], which meets both metal injection molding (MIM), and injection molding techniques recited in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses that the material comprises 100 parts by weight of a polyamide-based resin [0016], 10 to 80 parts by weight of a long metal fiber including a metal [0016], and a low-melting point metal in an amount of 0.5 to 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the polyamide-based resin [0018]. Kim discloses that the low-melting point metal melts at a temperature lower than the melting point of the polyamide based resin [0038]. Kim discloses a polyamide based resin has a melting point of 300
°
C [0063]. Kim therefore discloses a low-melting point metal in an amount from 0.27% (
0.27
%
=
100
%
×
0.5
÷
(
0.5
+
100
+
80
)
)
to 8.33%
8.33
%
=
100
%
×
10
÷
10
+
100
+
10
. Example 1 of Kim comprises 1.52%
1.52
%
=
100
%
×
2
÷
2
+
100
+
29
of an element which Kim discloses melts at 228
°
C ([0069], Table 1). The ranges of 0.27-8.33% by weight of low-melting point metal disclosed by Kim [0016-17], [0038], [0063] overlap an element in an amount of at least 1.2% in respect of the weight of the material with a melting temperature below 580° C, and the low-melting point metal of example 1 of Kim ([0069], Table 1) meets an element in an amount of at least 1.2% in respect of the weight of the material with a melting temperature below 580° C. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses that the material comprises an organic part having at least one component and an inorganic part having at least one component [0016-17]. In an example, Kim discloses that a component of the organic part has a glass transition temperature of 125
°
C (398 K) [0063] and a component of the inorganic part has a melting temperature of 228
°
C (501 K) [0069]. As 0.45*501 K is 225 K, the material exemplified by Kim [0063], [0069] comprises a constituent of an organic part which has a glass transition temperature that is higher than 0.45 times the melting temperature of some component of the inorganic part of the material.
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses that the material comprises an organic part having at least one component and an inorganic part having at least one component [0016-17]. In an example, Kim discloses that a component of the organic part has a melting temperature of 300
°
C (578 K) [0063] and a component of the inorganic part has a melting temperature of 228
°
C (501 K) [0069]. As the degradation temperature of a polymeric material is necessarily higher than the melting temperature of that polymeric material, and the melting temperature of the inorganic component Tm is necessarily higher than 0.45*Tm, the example disclosed by Kim [0063], [0069] is material which comprises an organic part having at least one component and an inorganic part having at least one component, wherein a component of the organic part has a degradation temperature that is higher than 0.45 times the melting temperature of a relevant component of the inorganic part of the material.
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses that the material comprises 100 parts by weight of a polyamide-based resin [0016], 10 to 80 parts by weight of a long metal fiber including a metal [0016], and a low-melting point metal in an amount of 0.5 to 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the polyamide-based resin [0018]. The low-melting point metal proportion by weight of the mixture disclosed by Kim relative to the total weight of the inorganic part is 0.62%
0.62
%
=
100
%
×
0.5
÷
0.5
+
80
to 50%
50
%
=
100
%
×
10
÷
10
+
10
. A range of 0.62-50% by weight lies entirely within a range of at least 0.6% by weight in respect of the weight of the inorganic part of the material.
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses that the low-melting point metal includes a solid solution, which can include a first metal element comprising tin, bismuth, lead, or a combination thereof [0039] and that the low-melting point metal can include the first metal element in an amount of 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 99.1, 99.2, 99.3, 99.4, or 99.5 percent by weight [0042]. A component comprising 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 99.1, 99.2, 99.3, 99.4, or 99.5 percent bismuth by weight is a component wherein the total amount of Bi and Ga is at least 12% by weight % Ga+% Bi in respect of the weight of that metallic phase (the solid solution).
Regarding claim 13, Yoshizawa teaches two steps of removing organic binder from the shaped material [0031-36]. Considering Yoshizawa discloses two, sequential steps of removing organic materials [0031-36], in the application of the material disclosed by Kim to the process disclosed by Yoshizawa, as applied to the optional steps of claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that little of the organic part remains of the material after applying the method. As 24% is nearly ¼, a method wherein very little organic material remains would be expected to meet a method wherein after applying the method less than 24% by volume of the organic part remains in the material.
Regarding both claim 14 and claim 15, Yoshizawa teaches that an intended use of such shaped material is to form an electrode applied to a discharge surface treatment which employs electric discharge to form a coating on a subject body and a method of production thereof [0001], [0018-19]. In applying the material disclosed by Kim to the process disclosed by Yoshizawa as applied to optional steps 4 and 5 of claim 1 above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to that material to shape the intended product (electrode for discharge coating) taught by Yoshizawa for such process. Yoshizawa teaches that application of an electrode for discharge coating removes material from the electrode to build material up on a body (“a material escaping from the electrode 1 builds up on the subject body” [0018]); therefore, such an application is an extra step which involves both material removal in certain areas (thereby meeting additional limitations of present claim 14) and material build up (thereby meeting additional limitations of present claim 15).
Regarding claim 17, Kim discloses that the material may be used for “lamp sockets, lamp reflectors, electron chip sockets, connectors, and the like” [0059]. As lamp sockets, lamp reflectors, electron chip sockets, and connectors are all joined to some encompassing apparatus in their intended use, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to join the shaped material of the method disclosed by Kim in view of Yoshizawa to some other element, structure, component, or piece.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20110206933) in view of Yoshizawa (US20130037524) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuoka (US20190092941). Matsuoka is a publication of an application for patent in the United States, effectively filed prior to the earliest effective filing date of the present application.
Regarding claim 4, in an example, Kim discloses that a component of the inorganic part has a melting temperature of 228
°
C (501 K) [0069]. Kim discloses that the material comprises an organic part having at least one component and an inorganic part having at least one component [0016-17]. Kim discloses that the low-melting point metal melts at a temperature lower than the melting point of the polyamide based resin [0038]. Kim discloses that the polyamide resin may include “polycaproamide (nylon 6), polytetramethylene adipamide (nylon 46), polyhexamethylene adipamide (nylon 66), poly(hexamethylene nonanediamide) (nylon 69), poly(hexamethylene sebacamide) (nylon 610), poly(hexamethylenedodecanediamide), polyhexamethylene dodecanamide (nylon 612), nylon 611, nylon 1212, nylon 1012, polyundecanoamide (nylon 11), polydodecanamide (nylon 12), polyhexamethylene terephthalamide (nylon 6T), polyhexamethylene isophthalamide (nylon 6I), nylon 9T, nylon 10T, polyundecamethylene terephthalamide (nylon 11T), nylon 12T, nylon 12I, polyphthalamide (PPA), a polycaproamide/polyhexamethylene adipamide copolymer (nylon 6/66), a polyhexamethylene terephthalamide/polyhexamethylene isophthalamide copolymer (nylon 6T/61), a polyhexamethylene adipamide/polyhexamethylene terephthalamide copolymer (nylon 66/6T), poly-bis-(4-aminocyclohexyl)methanedodecamide (nylon PACM12), poly-bis-(3-methyl-4-aminocyclohexyl)methanedodecamide (nylon dimethyl PACM12), polymetaxylene adipamide (MXD 6), polyundeca methylene hexahydroterephthalamide (nylon 11T(H)), and the like, and combinations thereof” [0025]. Among this list, Kim specifies nylon 66 and PPA [0028], and Kim exemplifies PPA [0063]. Kim is silent on the heat deflection temperature of the polymeric resin under a particular load.
Matsuoka teaches shaping a material [0013], [0116]. Matsuoka teaches that the material comprises an organic part having at least one component and an inorganic part having at least one component [0012-13], [0022], [0028]. Matsuoka teaches that a component of the organic part has “a deflection temperature under load (HDT), as measured by a method in accordance with ISO-75 under a load of 0.45 MPa, of not lower than 100° C” [0022]. Matsuoka identifies both nylon 6 and nylon 66 (6, 6 nylon) as such polymers [0022].
Both Matsuoka and Kim in view of Yoshizawa teach material comprising an inorganic part and an organic part comprising a polyamide.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, that at least the nylon 6 and nylon 66 embodiments disclosed by Kim [0025], [0028] have a heat deflection temperature measured with a load of 0.45 MPa of not lower than 100° C (not lower than 373 K) because Matsuoka teaches that such polymers have a heat deflection temperature under a load of 0.45 MPa of not lower than 100° C [0022]. Considering 0.45 MPa differs from 0.46 MPa by only 0.01 MPa, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, would expect the deflection temperature of a material with a load of 0.45 MPa to be nearly identical to that for the same material measured with a load of 0.46 MPa according to any standard; therefore, in view of Matsuoka [0022], one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the heat deflection temperature of the 6 nylon or 66 nylon disclosed by Kim [0025] according to the ASTM D648-07 standard to be not lower than 100
°
C (not lower than 373 K). As 0.45*501 K is 225 K, an organic part comprising a component having a heat deflection temperature of not lower than 100
°
C (not lower than 373 K) with a load of 0.46 MPa, is a component which has a deflection temperature measured according to ASTM D648-07 test with a load of 0.46 MPa that is higher than 0.45 times the melting temperature of a relevant component of the inorganic part of the material.
Claim(s) 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danforth (US5738817) in view of Uihlein (EP2161088A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirata (US20160325356).
Regarding claim 12, Danforth discloses that the mixture may comprise one or more solid, particulate materials and a binder system consisting of organic materials (column 5 lines 24-27). Danforth discloses inorganic material as the solid particulate materials (column 5 lines 34-57). A powder mixture comprising more than one inorganic particle materials is an inorganic part of the material comprises a powder mixture comprising at least two powder fractions. Danforth discloses that the powder mixture comprises nanoscale powders alone or in combination with particles in a larger particle size range (column 6 lines 7-9). A mixture of nanoscale particles and particles in a larger particle size range is open to a mixture wherein one of the powder fractions has a D50 which is at least 3 times greater than the D50 of another powder fraction within the mixture, but Danforth does not disclose the extent to which the particles in the larger size range are large than nanoscale particles.
Hirata teaches a method for shaping a material [0008]. Hirata teaches taking a material comprising first and second inorganic particles [0009-10], [0041], [0045], [0086]. Hirata teaches shaping the material using a shaping technique [0042], [0092-98]. Hirata teaches first particles having a particle size of 0.1 micrometers to 30 micrometers [0049] and that second particles having a particles size of 0.001 micrometers to 10 micrometers [0019-20], [0089]. Hirata teaches that a ratio between an average particle size of the first inorganic particles and an average particle size of the second inorganic particles may be in a range of 50000:1 to 10:1 [0017]. Hirata teaches that since the ratio between the average particle size of the first inorganic particles and the average particle size of the second inorganic particles is in a range of 50000:1 to 10:1, it is possible to perform shaping in a state in which the first inorganic particles are set as a main material, and it is easy for the second inorganic particles to penetrate into a space between the main material (the first inorganic particles) [0018], and as a result, it is possible to form a shaping cross-sectional layer in which a density of the inorganic particles is increased with a relatively uniform manner, and thus it is possible to obtain a three-dimensional shaped article in which the density of the inorganic particles is increased with a relatively uniform manner [0018], which results in suppressing the dimensional variation (shrinkage) of the three-dimensional shaped article in the case of performing the sintering treatment and which allows shaping a three-dimensional shaped article with relatively high dimensional accuracy [0018]. Hirata teaches debinding and consolidating the shaped material (degreasing and sintering) [0083], [0119].
Both Hirata and Danforth in view of Uihlein teach similar processes for shaping a material. Danforth discloses a desire to avoid forming voids resulting from incomplete filling of material in forming layers (column 11 lines 44-48). Danforth teaches that the process results in less than 5% internal voids (column 16 lines 21-26). Danforth discloses mixing material constituents to avoid shrinkage defects (column 5 lines 55-64).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide the inorganic powder particle mixture disclosed by Danforth, applied above, with one powder fraction having an average particle size 10-50000 times greater than an average particle size an average diameter of a second powder fraction because Hirata teaches that when the ratio between the average particle size of the first inorganic particles and the average particle size of the second inorganic particles is in a range of 50000:1 to 10:1, it is possible to perform shaping in a state in which the first inorganic particles are set as a main material, and it is easy for the second inorganic particles to penetrate into a space between the main material (the first inorganic particles) [0018], which Hirata teaches improves uniform density and suppresses shrinkage effects [0018]. Danforth is open the material as a mixture of differently sized powder (column 6 lines 2-9), and application of differently sized particles would predictably result in the improved density and reduced shrinkage effects on sintering taught by Hirata [0018].
Regarding claim 19, Danforth discloses shaping with an additive manufacturing process based on the polymerization or curing (column 3 lines 21-44, column 10 line 63 to column 11 line 2), but Danforth in view of Uihlein is silent on the mechanism of curing. Hirata teaches that such a curing comprises radiation where the material is cured by radiation with different categories of light [0090]. Hirata teaches that such curable resins include ultraviolet curable resin, visible light curable resin, x-ray curable resins, and infrared curable resins [0090]. Hirata teaches that an additive (curing agent 8b) as a constituent of the provided material in order to attain curing under specific conditions [0086], [0090]. It would have been necessary for one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the curing disclosed by Danforth (column 3 lines 21-44, column 10 line 63 to column 11 line 2) by some mechanism. In order to achieve the curing, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to cure by exposing to radiation of visible or infrared light because Hirata teaches that visible light or infrared light may predictably cure material for such shaping techniques [0086], [0090]. As a wavelength of 460 nm lies in the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, and infrared light has a longer wavelength than visible light, irradiation with visible or infrared light as taught by Hirata [0090] irradiates at a range of wavelengths which overlap or meet a wavelength of 460 nm or more. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danforth (US5738817) in view of Uihlein (EP2161088A1) as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Ritter (US 5960249).
Regarding claim 16, Danforth discloses heating an intermediate of the shaped material (column 12 line 50 to column 13 line 8), and Danforth discloses globally heating the shaped material (column 13 line 16-36). Danforth teaches applying the method to form a turbine blade (column 4 lines 46-55), and Uihlein also teaches manufacturing turbine blades [0008]. Considering both Danforth and Uihlein teach manufacturing turbine blades, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to apply the method disclosed by Danforth in view of Uihlein to form a turbine blade. Danforth in view of Uihlein does not disclose that manufacturing a turbine blade comprises locally heat treating shaped material.
Ritter teaches a method for manufacturing a turbine blade (column 1 lines 6-11). Ritter teaches taking a material, shaping the material, and consolidating the material (column 3 line 42 to column 4 line 8). Ritter teaches locally heat treating an outer layer (shell) of the material in order to induce grain growth (column 4 line 55-58). Ritter teaches that the undesired fine grain structure “would be expected with a powder metallurgy product” (column 4 lines 51-52).
Danforth discloses that the material is shaped from a mixture comprising metal powder (column 5 lines 24-57). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to locally heat treat the outer layer (shell) of the turbine blade disclosed by Danforth in view of Uihlein because Ritter teaches that coarsening the surface grains with a method comprising heat treating the shell of a turbine blade offsets the undesired grain structure imparted in producing the blade by powder metallurgy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claim 1 claims a method for shaping a material. Claim 1 claims taking a material. Claim 1 claims shaping the material using a shaping technique. Claim 1 claims subjecting the shaped material obtained in step 2 to a process involving a pressure above 55 MPa and a temperature above 0.45*Tm, being Tm the melting temperature of some phase or component with the lowest melting temperature among some relevant components or phases in some inorganic part of the material. Claim 9 depends on claim 1. Claim 9 further claims that some inorganic part of the material comprises a metallic phase comprising at least 16% by weight % Li in respect of the weight of such metallic phase. Claim 10 depends on claim 1. Claim 10 claims that some inorganic part of the material comprises more than one metallic phase, wherein one metallic phase has at least 32% by weight % Li in respect of the weight of such metallic phase, and wherein the % Li is below 18% by weight in respect of the overall weight of the metallic phases, and % Mg is above 12% by weight in respect of the overall weight of the metallic phases.
Present office action rejects independent claim 1 over Danforth (US5738817) in view of Uihlein (EP2161088A1) and over Kim (US20110206933) in view of Yoshizawa (US20130037524). None of Danforth, Uihlein, Kim, or Yoshizawa discloses lithium as feed material. Claim 9 defines over Danforth in view of Uihlein and over Kim in view of Yoshizawa at least in claiming that some inorganic part of the material comprises a metallic phase comprising at least 16% by weight % Li in respect of the weight of such metallic phase. Claim 10 defines over Danforth in view of Uihlein and over Kim in view of Yoshizawa at least in claiming that some inorganic part of the material comprises more than one metallic phase, wherein one metallic phase has at least 32% by weight % Li in respect of the weight of such metallic phase, and wherein the % Li is below 18% by weight in respect of the overall weight of the metallic phases, and % Mg is above 12% by weight in respect of the overall weight of the metallic phases.
US20180010218 (effectively filed prior to the earliest effective filing date of the present application), US20170369972 (cited in the IDS filed September 21, 2023), and US5059390 (filed in the IDS filed September 21, 2023) each discloses an alloy comprising Mg and Li. US20180010218 and US20170369972 disclose a single phase alloy with an overall composition of not more than 16% LI, which would at best touch the composition range of claim 9 and would not meet the microstructure limitation of claim 10. US5059390 discloses an overall amount of LI lower than that recited in claim 9 and the reference is silent on the segregation of LI and Mg into the disclosed phases. References do not disclose shaping material of which some organic part meets the claimed lithium limitations wherein the method comprises some step at a temperature relative to a melting point of some inorganic part and at a particular pressure. Claim 9 defines over US20180010218, US20170369972, and US5059390 at least in claiming subjecting the shaped material obtained in step 2 to a process involving a pressure above 55 MPa and a temperature above 0.45*Tm, being Tm the melting temperature of some phase or component with the lowest melting temperature among some relevant components or phases in some inorganic part of the material and that some inorganic part of the material comprises a metallic phase comprising at least 16% by weight % Li in respect of the weight of such metallic phase. Claim 10 defines over US20180010218, US20170369972, and US5059390 at least in claiming subjecting the shaped material obtained in step 2 to a process involving a pressure above 55 MPa and a temperature above 0.45*Tm, being Tm the melting temperature of some phase or component with the lowest melting temperature among some relevant components or phases in some inorganic part of the material and that some inorganic part of the material comprises more than one metallic phase, wherein one metallic phase has at least 32% by weight % Li in respect of the weight of such metallic phase, and wherein the % Li is below 18% by weight in respect of the overall weight of the metallic phases, and % Mg is above 12% by weight in respect of the overall weight of the metallic phases.
Though the present action does not reject claim 20 over prior art, the lack of a rejection is entirely due to uncertainty as to how claim 20 is intended to be interpreted, particularly as claim 20 appears to claim that a metallic part has a different melting point from that same metallic part in a different stage of production.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US5268140 shapes a mixture of an iron-based particles and thermoplastic material at about 50-150
°
F and compaction pressures of from about 5 to 100 tons per square inch.
US5397530 discloses that “for metal powder compositions containing a thermoplastic coating is generally above the glass transition temperature of the thermoplastic material. Preferably, the die and composition are heated to a temperature that is about 25-85 Centigrade degrees above the glass transition temperature. Normal powder metallurgy pressures are applied at the indicated temperatures to press out the desired component. Typical compression molding techniques employ compaction pressures of about 5-100 tsi (69-1379 MPa)” (column 6 lines 6-17).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P O'KEEFE whose telephone number is (571)272-7647. The examiner can normally be reached MR 8:00-6:30.
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 (571) 272-6297. 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.
/SEAN P. O'KEEFE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/ SPE, Art Unit 1738