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 .
Priority
Applicant’s priority claim to US Provisional Application 63/416,757 filed October 17, 2022 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed August 20, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
A copy of Non-Patent Literature Document Cite No. 3. UNITED ALIMINUM. Aluminum Alloy Data Sheet, 24 October 2021 has not been received.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Claims filed February 15, 2024. Independent claim 1 is directed to a “solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product”. Independent claim 11 is also directed to a “solid state additive manufactured aluminum alloy”. Claims 1 and 11 recite the same product composition and grain structure. Claim 11 includes additional product-by-process limitations. MPEP 2113. Therefore, the claims under examination are directed to a “solid state additive manufactured aluminum alloy” product.
Claims Filing Date
February 15, 2024
Cancelled
21-35
Under Examination
1-20
Claim Objection
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 lines 3-5 recite “the additive manufactured aluminum alloy product” and lines 5-6 “the solid-state additive manufactured aluminum product”. The same language should be used to refer to the same product.
Claim 11 lines 1, 3, 8 “solid state” does not have a dash, whereas claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-16, and 18-20 recite “solid-state”.
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.
Claim 1 line 4 “minimal void space” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what amount of void space is considered “minimal” and how one of ordinary skill can distinguish “minimal void space” from non-minimal void space. It appears that “minimal void space” is a relative term and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. For the purpose of examination a product that does not require void space, such as pores, will be interpreted as having “minimal void space”.
Claim 8 lines 1-2 “The solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product of claim 1, further comprising a substrate that receives the solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product” renders the claim indefinite. The product and substrate are separate. How can the product be itself and something else (the substrate)? Does the product include a substrate? If so, then how can the product receive itself? How does a substrate that receives the product further limit the claimed product? For the purpose of examination claim 8 will be interpreted as “a substrate that receives the…product” being a product-by-process limitation that does not further limit the structure of the claimed product. MPEP 2113(I).
Claims 2-7, 9, and 10 are rejected as depending from claim 1.
Claim 11 lines 1-5 “The solid state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product by adding an aluminum alloy to a surface of a substrate…, wherein the aluminum alloy is added in a solid state as a first aluminum alloy layer to the surface of the substrate…” renders the claim indefinite. It uses product-by-process language. MPEP 21123(I). Claim 11 is directed to a “solid state additive manufactured aluminum alloy” product. It is unclear whether the aluminum alloy product includes the substrate or is separate from the substrate. For the purpose of examination claim 11 will be interpreted as the aluminum alloy product being separate from the substrate, such that the claimed “solid state additive manufactured aluminum alloy” requires the alloy product, but not the substrate.
Claim 18 lines 1-2 “The solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product of claim 1, further comprising a substrate that receives the solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product” renders the claim indefinite. The product and substrate are separate. How can the product be itself and something else (the substrate)? Does the product include a substrate? If so, then how can the product receive itself? How does a substrate that receives the product further limit the claimed product? For the purpose of examination claim 8 will be interpreted as “a substrate that receives the…product” being a product-by-process limitation that does not further limit the structure of the claimed product. MPEP 2113(I).
Claims 12-17, 19, and 20 are rejected as depending from claim 11.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 18 line 2 “a substrate that receives the solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy” fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 11 upon which it depends. Claim 11 lines 1-4 already require producing a “solid state additive manufactured aluminum alloy” by “adding an aluminum alloy to…a substrate”. Therefore, in independent claim 11 a substrate has already received the solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-5, 8-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over de Salvo (de Salvo and Afonso. Fatigue strength and microstructure evaluation of Al 7050 alloy wires recycled by spray forming, extrusion and rotary swaging. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 30 (2020) 3195-3209.).
Regarding claim 1, de Salvo discloses a solid-state aluminum alloy product (wire) (2.1 Material),
wherein at least 60% percent by volume of the aluminum in the aluminum alloy product are present as equiaxed grains (solution treatment produces fully recrystallized and equiaxed grains), with aspect ratios less than 2:1, after heat treatment (solution treatment and aging) of the aluminum alloy product (equiaxed grains have approximately equal dimensions in all directions, such that the aspect ratio is approximately 1:1) (3.1 Microstructure paras. 6-9, Fig. 7),
wherein there is minimal void space between metal atoms of the aluminum alloy product (3.1 Microstructure paras. 6-9, Fig. 7), and
wherein the solid-state aluminum product comprises a composition that falls within the scope of that claimed (2.1 Material).
Element
Claim 1
de Salvo 2.1 Material
Cu
2.0 to 2.6
2.15
Mg
1.9 to 2.6
1.93
Zn
5.7 to 6.7
6.07
Zr
0.08 to 0.15
0.08
Si, Ti, Cr, Fe, or Mn
No more than 0.7
Fe: 0.08
Si: 0.05
Al
Remainder
Balance
The aluminum alloy product being solid-state additive manufactured has been considered and determined to recite a product-by-process claim limitation that does not further limit the structure of the claimed aluminum alloy product. The aluminum alloy product of the prior art (de Salvo abstract, 2.1 Material, 3.1 Microstructure paras. 6-9, Fig. 7) reads on the claim grain structure, void space, and composition. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113(I).
When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 is eminently fair and acceptable. MPEP 2113(III).
Regarding claim 2, de Salvo discloses an ultimate tensile strength (Ftu) of at least 515 MPa (7050 aged 586 +/- 7 MPa) (Table 2).
Regarding claim 3, de Salvo discloses a tensile yield strength (Fty) of at least 455 MPa (7050 aged 465 +/- 6 MPa) (Table 2).
Regarding claim 4, de Salvo discloses an elongation to fracture or ductility (e) of at least 11 % (7050 aged 16 +/- 1 %) (Table 2).
Regarding claim 5, a single track of deposited solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product has been considered and determined to recite a product-by-process limitation that further limits the structure of the claimed “solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product” to being a single layer. De Salvo discloses a solid-state aluminum alloy product in the form of a wire (2.1 Material), such that it satisfies the structure of being a single layer of the claimed deposited single track.
Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113(I).
When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 is eminently fair and acceptable. MPEP 2113(III).
Regarding claim 8, a substrate that receives the solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product has been considered and determined to recite a product-by-process limitation that does not further limit the structure of the claimed “solid-state additive manufactured product”. (See above associated 112(b) rejection.) The aluminum alloy product of the prior art (de Salvo abstract, 2.1 Material, 3.1 Microstructure paras. 6-9, Fig. 7) reads on the claimed grain structure, void space, and composition. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113(I).
When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 is eminently fair and acceptable. MPEP 2113(III).
Regarding claim 9, de Salvo discloses at least 75% percent by volume of the aluminum in the solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product are present as equiaxed grains (solution treatment produces fully recrystallized and equiaxed grains) (3.1 Microstructure paras. 6-9, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 10, de Salvo discloses at least 90% percent by volume of the aluminum in the solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product are present as equiaxed grains (solution treatment produces fully recrystallized and equiaxed grains) (3.1 Microstructure paras. 6-9, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 11, de Salvo discloses a solid state aluminum alloy (wire) (2.1 Material), wherein
at least 60% percent by volume of aluminum in the added, heat treated (solution treatment and aging) first aluminum alloy layer are present as equiaxed grains (solution treatment produces fully recrystallized and equiaxed grains), with aspect ratios less than 2:1 (equiaxed grains have approximately equal dimensions in all directions, such that the aspect ratio is approximately 1:1) (3.1 Microstructure paras. 6-9, Fig. 7), and wherein
there is minimal void space between metal atoms in the added, heat treated first aluminum alloy layer (3.1 Microstructure paras. 6-9, Fig. 7), and wherein
the solid state additive manufactured aluminum alloy comprises a composition that falls within the scope of that claimed (2.1 Material).
Element
Claim 11
de Salvo 2.1 Material
Cu
2.0 to 2.6
2.15
Mg
1.9 to 2.6
1.93
Zn
5.7 to 6.7
6.07
Zr
0.08 to 0.15
0.08
Si, Ti, Cr, Fe, or Mn
No more than 0.7
Fe: 0.08
Si: 0.05
Al
Remainder
Balance
The solid state aluminum alloy being additive manufactured and produced by adding an aluminum alloy to a surface of a substrate using a solid state additive manufacturing process, wherein the aluminum alloy is added in a solid state as a first aluminum alloy layer to the surface of the substrate at a first tool temperature between 360 degrees Celsius to 485 degrees Celsius and then heat treated, has been considered and determined to recite a product-by-process claim limitation that does not further limit the structure of the claimed aluminum alloy product. The aluminum alloy product of the prior art (de Salvo abstract, 2.1 Material, 3.1 Microstructure paras. 6-9, Fig. 7) reads on the claimed grain structure, void space, and composition. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113(I).
When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 is eminently fair and acceptable. MPEP 2113(III).
Regarding claim 12, de Salvo discloses an ultimate tensile strength (Ftu) of at least 515 MPa (7050 aged 586 +/- 7 MPa) (Table 2).
Regarding claim 13, de Salvo discloses a tensile yield strength (Fty) of at least 455 MPa (7050 aged 465 +/- 6 MPa) (Table 2).
Regarding claim 14, de Salvo discloses an elongation to fracture or ductility (e) of at least 11 % (7050 aged 16 +/- 1 %) (Table 2).
Regarding claim 15, a single track of deposited solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product has been considered and determined to recite a product-by-process limitation that further limits the structure of the claimed “solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product” to being a single layer. De Salvo discloses a solid-state aluminum alloy product in the form of a wire (2.1 Material), such that it satisfies the structure of being a single layer of the claimed deposited single track.
Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113(I).
When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 is eminently fair and acceptable. MPEP 2113(III).
Regarding claim 18, a substrate that receives the solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product has been considered and determined to recite a product-by-process limitation that does not further limit the structure of the claimed “solid-state additive manufactured product”. (See above associated 112(b) rejection.) The aluminum alloy product of the prior art (de Salvo abstract, 2.1 Material, 3.1 Microstructure paras. 6-9, Fig. 7) reads on the claimed grain structure, void space, and composition. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113(I).
Regarding claim 19, de Salvo discloses at least 75% percent by volume of the aluminum in the solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy are present as equiaxed grains (solution treatment produces fully recrystallized and equiaxed grains) (3.1 Microstructure paras. 6-9, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 20, de Salvo discloses at least 90% percent by volume of the aluminum in the solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy are present as equiaxed grains (solution treatment produces fully recrystallized and equiaxed grains) (3.1 Microstructure paras. 6-9, Fig. 7).
Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over de Salvo (de Salvo and Afonso. Fatigue strength and microstructure evaluation of Al 7050 alloy wires recycled by spray forming, extrusion and rotary swaging. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 30 (2020) 3195-3209.) as applied to claim 1 above and as evidenced by Chalco (Chalco Aluminum. 7075 O/T6/T7351/F Aerospace Aluminum Wire.).
Regarding claim 6, de Salvo as evidenced by Chalo discloses a plurality of overlapping tracks of solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product (wire) (de Salvo 2.1 Material; Chalco p. 3 aluminum wire in a coil, such that the wire of the coil is necessarily overlapping).
The limitation of a plurality of overlapping tracks of deposited solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product has been considered and determined to recite a product-by-process limitation that does not further limit the structure of the claimed “solid-state additive manufactured product”. (See above associated 112(b) rejection.) The aluminum alloy product of the prior art (de Salvo abstract, 2.1 Material, 3.1 Microstructure paras. 6-9, Fig. 7; Chalo p. 3) reads on the claimed overlapping tracks of grain structure, void space, and composition. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113(I).
Regarding claim 7, de Salvo as evidenced by Chalco discloses adjacent tracks overlap by at least 10% (de Salvo 2.1 Material; Chalco p. 3 aluminum wire coil).
Regarding claim 16, de Salvo as evidenced by Chalco discloses a plurality of overlapping tracks of solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product (wire) (de Salvo 2.1 Material; Chalco p. 3 aluminum wire in a coil, such that the wire of the coil is necessarily overlapping).
The limitation of a plurality of overlapping tracks of deposited solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product has been considered and determined to recite a product-by-process limitation that does not further limit the structure of the claimed “solid-state additive manufactured product”. (See above associated 112(b) rejection.) The aluminum alloy product of the prior art (de Salvo abstract, 2.1 Material, 3.1 Microstructure paras. 6-9, Fig. 7; Chalo p. 3) reads on the claimed overlapping tracks of grain structure, void space, and composition. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113(I).
Regarding claim 17, de Salvo as evidenced by Chalco discloses adjacent tracks overlap by at least 10% (de Salvo 2.1 Material; Chalco p. 3 aluminum wire coil).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoder (Yoder et al. Deformation-based additive manufacturing of 7075 aluminum with wrought-like mechanical properties. Materials and Design 198 (2021) 109288.) as evidenced by Teal Sheets (Teal Sheets. International Alloy Designations and Chemical Composition Limits for Wrought Aluminum and Wrought Aluminum Alloys. The Aluminum Association. January 2015.) in view of Fang (CN 114107760 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1. Yoder discloses a solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product (AA7075 printed using a MELD 2D machine) (col. 1 para. 3),
wherein at least 60% percent by volume of the aluminum in the additive manufactured aluminum alloy product are present as equiaxed grains, with aspect ratios less than 2:1, after heat treatment (T6) of the additive manufactured aluminum alloy product (equiaxed grains have approximately equal dimensions in all directions, which read on as aspect ratio of approximately 1:1) (graphical abstract, para. spanning cols. 1-2),
wherein there is minimal void space between metal atoms of the additive manufactured aluminum alloy product (graphical abstract, para. spanning cols. 1-2), and
wherein the solid-state additive manufactured aluminum product comprises an overlapping compositions (AA7075) (Abstract, col. 1 para. 3; Teal Sheets p. 12).
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).
Element
Claim 1
AA 7075 Teal Sheets p. 12
Cu
2.0 to 2.6
1.2 to 2.0
Mg
1.9 to 2.6
2.1 to 2.9
Zn
5.7 to 6.7
5.1 to 6.1
Zr
0.08 to 0.15
-
Si, Ti, Cr, Fe, or Mn
No more than 0.7
Si: 0.40 max
Cr: 0.18 to 0.28
Fe: 0.50 max
Mn: 0.30 max
Al
Remainder
Remainder
Yoder is silent to 0.08 to 0.15 wt%.
Fang discloses a 7XXX aluminum alloy ([n0001]) with 0.1 to 0.15 wt% Zr ([n0015]).
It would have been obvious to add 0.1 to 0.15 wt% Zr to the 7075 aluminum alloy of Yoder to inhibit recrystallization and refine the recrystallized grains (Fang [n0015]). 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 2, Yoder discloses an ultimate tensile strength (Ftu) of at least 515 MPa (541 MPa) (abstract, col. 2 para. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Yoder discloses a tensile yield strength (Fty) of at least 455 MPa (477 MPa) (abstract, col. 2 para. 1).
Regarding claim 4, an elongation to fracture or ductility (e) of at least 11 % has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed aluminum alloy. The prior art discloses an aluminum alloy product that renders the claimed structure and composition prima facie obvious (Yoder abstract. graphical abstract, cols,. 1-2; Teal Sheets 7075 p. 12; Fang [n0015]), such that the claimed property naturally flows.
Regarding claim 5, Yoder discloses a single track of deposited solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product (the first deposit reads on a single track) (graphical abstract, col. 1 para. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Yoder discloses a plurality of overlapping tracks of deposited solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product (4 layers of overlapping deposit) (graphical abstract, col. 1 para. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Yoder discloses adjacent tracks overlap by at least 10% (4 layers of overlapping deposit with each subsequent deposit on 100% of the previous deposit) (graphical abstract, col. 1 para. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Yoder discloses a substrate that receives the solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product (graphical abstract, col. 1 para. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Yoder discloses at least 75% percent by volume of the aluminum in the solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product are present as equiaxed grains (graphical abstract, para. spanning cols. 1-2).
Regarding claim 10, Yoder discloses at least 90% percent by volume of the aluminum in the solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product are present as equiaxed grains (graphical abstract, para. spanning cols. 1-2).
Regarding claim 11, Yoder discloses a solid state additive manufactured aluminum alloy produced by adding an aluminum alloy to a surface of a substrate using a solid state additive manufacturing process (AA7075 printed using a MELD 2D machine) (col. 1 para. 3),
wherein the aluminum alloy is added in a solid state as a first aluminum alloy layer to the surface of the substrate and then heat treated (T6) (col. 1 paras. 3-4, col. 2 para. 1),
wherein at least 60% percent by volume of aluminum in the added, heat treated
first aluminum alloy layer are present as equiaxed grains, with aspect ratios less than 2: 1 (equiaxed grains have approximately equal dimensions in all directions, which read on as aspect ratio of approximately 1:1) (graphical abstract, para. spanning cols. 1-2), and
wherein there is minimal void space between metal atoms in the added, heat treated first aluminum alloy layer (graphical abstract, para. spanning cols. 1-2), and
wherein the solid state additive manufactured aluminum alloy comprises an overlapping compositions (AA7075) (Abstract, col. 1 para. 3; Teal Sheets p. 12).
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).
Element
Claim 11
AA 7075 Teal Sheets p. 12
Cu
2.0 to 2.6
1.2 to 2.0
Mg
1.9 to 2.6
2.1 to 2.9
Zn
5.7 to 6.7
5.1 to 6.1
Zr
0.08 to 0.15
-
Si, Ti, Cr, Fe, or Mn
No more than 0.7
Si: 0.40 max
Cr: 0.18 to 0.28
Fe: 0.50 max
Mn: 0.30 max
Al
Remainder
Remainder
Yoder is silent to 0.08 to 0.15 wt%.
Fang discloses a 7XXX aluminum alloy ([n0001]) with 0.1 to 0.15 wt% Zr ([n0015]).
It would have been obvious to add 0.1 to 0.15 wt% Zr to the 7075 aluminum alloy of Yoder to inhibit recrystallization and refine the recrystallized grains (Fang [n0015]). 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).
The surface of the substrate being at a first tool temperature between 360 degrees Celsius to 485 degrees Celsius has been considered and determined to recite a product-by-process limitation that does not further limit the structure of the claimed aluminum alloy. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113(I).
Regarding claim 12, Yoder discloses an ultimate tensile strength (Ftu) of at least 515 MPa (541 MPa) (abstract, col. 2 para. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Yoder discloses a tensile yield strength (Fty) of at least 455 MPa (477 MPa) (abstract, col. 2 para. 1).
Regarding claim 14, an elongation to fracture or ductility (e) of at least 11 % has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed aluminum alloy. The prior art discloses an aluminum alloy product that renders the claimed structure and composition prima facie obvious (Yoder abstract. graphical abstract, cols,. 1-2; Teal Sheets 7075 p. 12; Fang [n0015]), such that the claimed property naturally flows.
Regarding claim 15, Yoder discloses a single track of deposited solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product (the first deposit reads on a single track) (graphical abstract, col. 1 para. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Yoder discloses the solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product comprises a plurality of overlapping tracks of deposited solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product (4 layers of overlapping deposit) (graphical abstract, col. 1 para. 3).
Regarding claim 17, Yoder discloses adjacent tracks overlap by at least 10% (4 layers of overlapping deposit with each subsequent deposit on 100% of the previous deposit) (graphical abstract, col. 1 para. 3).
Regarding claim 18, Yoder discloses a substrate that receives the solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product (graphical abstract, col. 1 para. 3).
Regarding claim 19, Yoder discloses at least 75% percent by volume of the aluminum in the solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product are present as equiaxed grains (graphical abstract, para. spanning cols. 1-2).
Regarding claim 20, Yoder discloses at least 90% percent by volume of the aluminum in the solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product are present as equiaxed grains (graphical abstract, para. spanning cols. 1-2).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/380,565 (App ‘565) in view of Fang (CN 114107760 machine translation).
App ‘565 discloses a solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product (claims 1, 5-8, 11, 15-18) with a substantially similar equiaxed grain structure and aspect ratio (claims 1, 9-11, 19, 20) and mechanical properties (claims 2-4, 12-14).
Element
Claims 1, 11
App ‘565 Claims 1, 11
Cu
2.0 to 2.6
1.2 to 2
Mg
1.9 to 2.6
2.1 to 2.9
Zn
5.7 to 6.7
5 to 6
Zr
0.08 to 0.15
-
Si, Ti, Cr, Fe, or Mn
No more than 0.7
No more than 0.5
Al
Remainder
Remainder
App ‘565 is silent to 0.08 to 0.15 wt%.
Fang discloses a 7XXX aluminum alloy ([n0001]) with 0.1 to 0.15 wt% Zr ([n0015]).
It would have been obvious to add 0.1 to 0.15 wt% Zr to the 7075 aluminum alloy of App ‘565 to inhibit recrystallization and refine the recrystallized grains (Fang [n0015]).
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).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Related Art
The following US Applications are applicant’s related work and disclose substantially similar solid-state manufactured aluminum alloy product structures, but different compositions:
18/380,574 directed to a 5000-type aluminum alloy.
18/380,572 directed to a 6000-type aluminum alloy.
18/385,720 direction to an aluminum lithium alloy, aluminum copper alloy, or an aluminum lithium copper alloy.
Mason (Mason et al. Process-structure-property relations for as-deposited solid-state additively manufactured high-strength aluminum alloy. Additive Manufacturing. 40 (2021) 101879.)
Mason discloses an AA7050 manufactured by AFS-D with 100% overlap at the crossover section
(Abstract, 2. Materials and methods, Fig. 1) with an equiaxed microstructure (3.1. Microstructure, Figs. 10, 12).
Mallon (Mallon et al. On the effect of microstructure on the torsional response of AA7050-T7651 at elevated strain rates. Materials Science & Engineering A 639 (2015) 280-287.)
Mallon discloses an aluminum alloy 7050 plate processed by friction stir welding (2. Material and specimen geometry) to form small, equiaxed grains (4.1. Microstructural observations) with a similar tensile strength (Fig. 7).
Fang (CN 114107760 machine translation)
Fang discloses a 7XXX aluminum alloy ([n0001]) with overlapping composition ([n0009], [n0011]-[n0021]) and mechanical properties ([n0010]) and a fine equiaxed crystal matrix ([n0007], [n0022], [n0053]).
Element
Claims 1-4, 11-14
Fang Disclosure
Fang Citation
Cu
2.0 to 2.6
1.6 to 2.5
[n0014]
Mg
1.9 to 2.6
1.6 to 2.5
[n0013]
Zn
5.7 to 6.7
4.8 to 6.3
[n0012]
Zr
0.08 to 0.15
0.1 to 0.15
[n0015]
Si, Ti, Cr, Fe, or Mn
No more than 0.7
Ti: 0.01 to 0.08
[n0016]
Al
Remainder
Remainder
UTS
At least 515 MPa
610 to 710 MPa
[n0010]
TYS
At least 455 MPa
535 to 625 MPa
[n0010]
Elongation
At least 11%
13 to 16%
[n0010]
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-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