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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are amended, pending and are presented for this examination.
Status of Previous Rejection
All prior art rejections are maintained in view of amendment of claim 1.
112 2nd paragraph rejections of claims 1-20 are withdrawn in view of amendment of claims 1-20.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 08/20/2024 and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Instant claim 1 amendment “produced using temperature control” is product by process limitations in a product claim according to MPEP 2113.
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 proper. See MPEP 2113.
According to MPEP 2113, determination of patentability of product is based on the product itself. That is, the patentability of product does not depend on its method of production unless the process of making the claimed product imparts any structural and/or functional limitation and characteristic on the claimed product.
Hence, examiner takes the position if prior art discloses same product with same structural limitations, it meets the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8-13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wei (NPL document “Solid-state additive manufacturing high performance aluminum alloy 6061 enabled by an in-situ micro-forging assisted cold spray” published in 2020).
As for claims 1-3, 5, 8-13, 15 and 18-20, instant claim 1 amended “produced using temperature control” is product by process limitations in a product claim. Hence, it is not given patentable distinction over prior art according to claim interpretation above.
Wei discloses a solid state additive manufactured aluminum alloy 6061 by micro-forging assisted cold spraying (MF-CS-AA6061).
The MF-CS-AA6061 consists of equiaxed fine Al grains, which suggests 100% by volume of the Aluminum in the additive manufactured aluminum ae present as equiaxed grains (abstract). Since equiaxed Al grains means each grain is equal in length, width and height which suggests aspect ratio is 1, instant claims 1 and 11 required aspect ratio less than 2:1 is met.
100% by volume of the Aluminum in the additive manufactured aluminum present as equiaxed grains also meets instant claims 9-10 and 19-20 required at least 75% and at least 90%.
Since the MF-CS-AA6061 is fully dense (Page 9 Conclusion paragraph line 1); and atoms are metallically bonded within an individual particle and porosity content are minor and can be neglected (Page 4 Col 2 paragraph 2 last ten lines) after heat treatment, instant claims 1 and 11 required “wherein there is minimal void space between metal atoms of the additive manufacture aluminum alloy product” is met.
Instant claim 11 is substantially the same as instant claim 1 except instant claim 11 requires how the claimed alloy is produced. Limitations with respect to how the claimed alloy is produced have been considered, but does not provide a patentable distinction because determination of patentability of product is based on the product itself. That is, the patentability of product does not depend on its method of production unless the process of making the claimed product imparts any structural and/or functional limitation and characteristic on the claimed product according to MPEP 2113.
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 proper. See MPEP 2113.
In the instant case, Wei discloses same solid state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product as required by instant claim 1 as indicated above. Hence, wei also discloses instant claim 11.
Figure 2a show the MF-CS-AA6061 deposit presents a fully dense microstructure while microstructure defects are not present all. (Page 4 Section 3.1 Microstructure and mechanical properties of MF-CS AA6061) paragraph 1 lines 1-4) Hence, instant claim 5 and 15 required single track is expected.
Figure 6(b) discloses YS after stress relieved (SR) heat treatment of the MF-CS-AA6061 is at least 279 MPa. UTS after T6 heat treatment is at least 310 MPa. Hence, instant claims 2-3, 12-13 are met.
Figure 1(b) discloses a substrate receives the solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product. Hence, instant claims 8 and 18 are met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4, 11-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei.
As for claim 11, Wei discloses instant claim 11 required solid state additive manufactured aluminum alloy produced. Hence, instant claimed adding step is met as illustrated in Figure 1(b) which discloses a pure Al plate are used as substrate to receive the solid state additive manufactured aluminum alloy. First tool temperature is 300 degree C which is close to claimed 315-550 degree C.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
As for claims 4 and 14, Figure 6(b) discloses recrystallization annealed (RA)solid state additive manufactured aluminum alloy has Elongation 9.32+/-0.73% which is close to claimed at least 12%.
As for claim 15, it is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 5 above.
As for claims 12-13, 18-20, they are rejected for the same reasons as indicated in rejection of claims 2-3 and 8-10 above.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei in view of Ikeuchi (NPl document “Neural Network Modelling of Track Profile in Cold
Spray Additive Manufacturing” published in 2019).
As for claims 5-6 and 15-16, Wei does not expressly disclose single track or overlapping tracks.
Ikeuchi discloses a single track is for smallest processing unit (i.e. simple geometry) and plurality of overlapping tracks are for higher processing unit (i.e. more complex geometry) in cold spraying technology. That is, Ikeuchi suggests single or overlapping tracks is merely a design choice depending on the geometric complexity of the final product.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made to form single tract or plurality of overlapping tracks of deposited solid state AM aluminum alloy as suggested by Ikeuchi, in the product of Wei depends on the complexity of the final product.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei in view of Ikeuchi and Singh (NPL document “Influence of Cold Spray Parameters on Bonding Mechanisms: A Review” published in 2021).
As for claims 7 and 17, neither Wei nor Ikeuchi discloses adjacent tracks overlap by at least 10%.
Singh suggests the overlapping ratio in cold spraying significantly influences the quality and accuracy of the additive manufacturing process. A higher overlapping ratio such as greater than 10% can lead to better dimensional accuracy and improved product quality by reducing the development and growth of defects during the 3D build process.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made to form plurality of overlapping tract wherein adjacent tracks overlapping by at least 10% as suggested by Singh, in the product of Wei in view of Ikeuchi for better dimensional accuracy and improved product quality.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s argument filed on 09/09/2026 is considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant first argues Wei does not use temperature control during addition of the powder material, argument is incommensurate in scope of claim 1 which is direct to a product, not a process of making. How the product is produced is not given patentable distinction over prior art if prior art discloses all the structure limitations as claimed according to claim interpretation above.
Applicant then argues “superior equiaxed submicron fine Al grains with random orientation” does not mean “at least 60% by volume” as claimed, it should be noted We explicitly discloses “AA6061 consists of superior equiaxed submicron fine Al grains with random orientation”. (Abstract line 7) “Consist of” means “composed of”. Since We does not disclose other non-equiaxed grain, it meets claimed “at least 60%”. Whether We discloses heat treatment post deposition can drastically effect resulting microstructure and properties and temperature used in the process does effect the final microstructure are incommensurate in scope of claim 1 which is directed to a product, not a process.
Applicant also argues temperature in Wei is outside the tool temperature recited in claims 15 and 16, argument is incommensurate in scope of claims 15 and 16, which does not recite tool temperature at all.
In response to applicant's argument that Ikechi is not combinable with Wei the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the instant case, both Wei and Ikeuchi uses same cold spray additive manufacturing. Hence, Wei and Ikeuchi are combinable.
In response to argument that Ikeuchi is related to a titanium cold spray product while Wei is a 600-series Aluminum alloy product. Argument is not persuasive because Ikeuchi merely uses commercial grade 2 titanium as an example of powder feedstock. The fact Wei discloses cold spray allows for excellent flexibility in the selection of oxygen sensitive powder material (Page 1 Introduction paragraph 2) suggests the cold spray is applicable to other material as powder feedstock material. Hence, Wei and Ikeuchi are combinable.
Applicant lastly argues office does not identify reasoning as to why the skilled person would below the general cold spray in Singh designed to enhance adhesion would produce the same microstructure specified in the claim, argument is not persuasive because applicant cannot argue Singh individually while rejection of claims 7 and 17 are based upon Wei, Ikeuchi and Singh, not Singh alone. The fact Wei already discloses claimed microstructure meets claim 7 and 17 already since claim 7 and 17 depends on claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNY R WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5515. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. 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.
/JENNY R WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights