DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 6, 12, and 13 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.
Claims 2 and 12 recite that a fine primary powder that comprises a coarse metal powder (in the case of claim 2) or a second metal powder that comprises a spherical powder (in the case of claim 12) is “an elemental powder, a pre-alloyed powder, an intermetallic compound powder, a carbide powder, a composite powder, a master alloy powder or a combination thereof”. An issue arises if one selects only a carbide powder as the comprising fine primary powder. Carbides are classified as a ceramic; if only it is selected, then the powder in question would no longer be a metal but rather a ceramic. Therefore, it is unclear if the second coarse powder and the comprising fine primary powder in claim 2, and the second powder in claim 12 must be metallic. For the purpose of examination, the claims are interpreted as the fine primary powder and second powder can be either the recited metals, a ceramic consisting of carbides, or a combination thereof.
Claims 6 and 13, “...total weight of the alloying element accounts for less than 10% by weight...” and “the alloying element includes at least one of the following...” render the claims indefinite. It is unclear how the recited 10 wt% relates to the other recited weight percentages for the recited elements. Based on the wording of the claim, one may select only one of the recited elements. However, the listed ranges for the recited elements have stricter ranges than the recited 10%. Therefore, it is unclear which range (i.e. the 10 wt% or the listed percentage for a particular element) fulfills the recited limitations when only one element is selected. For the purpose of examination, the claims are interpreted as requiring only one of the listed elements in their respective claimed range.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takajo (US 4561893 A) in view of Bose (US 20210331237 A1), as evidenced by Sandmeyer Steel Company (“Specification Sheet: Alloy 316/316L”)
Regarding claim 1, Takajo teaches a process of producing a sintered body, which includes pressing of a metal powder into a green body followed by sintering at a temperature of 1150OC (Col. 4 Ln. 60 – Col 5 Ln. 5).
While Takajo’s powder reads on the claimed matrix powder, Takajo does not teach the inclusion of a second coarse metal powder.
Bose teaches a powder that comprises agglomerated granules (Abstract, Fig. 1). The agglomerated granule is spherical and further comprises smaller metallic particles ([0004], [0070]). These granules have an average particle size of 20-100 µm [0016], which reads on the claimed median size of less than 100 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
Additionally, Bose teaches that that the powder can comprise other material in addition to the granulated granules ([0096], [0106], Fig. 4). To elaborate, the powder can comprise an agglomerated metallic granule (Fig. 4 # 406) and a second metallic powder comprised from a different material from the agglomerated particle (Fig. 4 # 412). Bose teaches that this mixed powder enables a sintered microstructure wherein material comprising the agglomerated powder is dispersed in matrix of the second particle material [0106]. Bose teaches that this microstructure is advantageous because it ultimately increases hardness and wear resistance of the sintered body. Particularly, this advantageous result is achieved by dispersing phase areas of high hardness and wear resistance in a matrix of a relatively softer phase. [0106]. Bose teaches that these hard and wear resistant phases can be varied by varying the volume percentage (and by extension, the weight percentage) of the granulated particles in the powder [0106].
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Bose’s agglomerated particles in Takajo’s taught powder because the inclusion of the agglomerated particles can ultimately enable an advantageous result of a body with increased hardness and wear resistance. Additionally, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the volume and weight percentage of the agglomerated powder in the combined powder to the claimed weight percentage ranges (i.e. 5% to 50%). Claimed ranges of a result effective variable are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result, which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art. (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claim 2, Bose teaches that the metallic particles that comprise the agglomerated particle can be steel [0073]. These steel particles read on the claimed fine primary powder comprising a pre-alloyed powder. The particles that comprise the granules can have an average particle size of 1-5 µm [0073], which reads on the claimed median particle size of less than 15 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
Regarding claim 3, Bose teaches that the granules can be formed via a spray drying process [0070].
Regarding claim 4, Bose teaches that the granules have an average particle size of 20-100 µm [0016], which reads on the claimed median size of less than 45 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
Regarding claim 5, Takajo teaches that their powder comprises an alloy steel (Abstract), which is a pre-alloyed powder.
Regarding claim 6, Takajo’s powder consists essentially of the elements in Table 1 below (Abstract). Takajo’s taught ranges are also listed. Takajo teaches that their powder can comprise less than 1.0 wt% Mo, which fulfills the limitation recited in claim 6.
Table 1
Takajo
Claim 7
Claim 8
Element
Composition (wt%)
Ni
0.4-1.3
0.5-2.5
0.5-4.5
Cu
0.2-0.5
0.5-2
Ni and Cu in total
0.6-1.5
Mo
0.1-0.3
0.2-1.5
0.2-1.5
Mn
0-0.3
0.01-1.0
0.01-1.0
C
0-0.02
Si
0-0.1
N
0-0.1
Fe
Bal.
Bal.
Bal.
Regarding claim 7, the claimed composition ranges are compared with Takajo’s taught alloy powder composition in Table 1 above. In all, Takajo’s taught composition ranges read on the claimed composition ranges of the first coarse powder. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
Regarding claim 8, the claimed composition ranges are compared with Takajo’s taught alloy powder composition in Table 1 above. In all, Takajo’s taught composition ranges read on the claimed composition ranges of the first coarse powder. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
Regarding claim 9, Bose teaches that the particles that comprises their granules can comprise 316L steel [0073], which comprises the elements shown in Table 2 below (Sandmeyer Steel is used as evidence of the 316L composition).
Table 2
Bose/ Sandmeyer Steel
Claim 9
Element
Composition (wt%)
C
0-0.15
Si
0-3
0-1.5
Mn
0-2
0-2
Ni
6 or more
5-20
Cr
12-26
8-20
Mo
0-5
0-5
Cu
0-5
Nb
0-2
Fe
Bal.
Bal.
Overall, Bose’s taught granule-comprising powder composition reads on the claimed fine powder composition. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
Claims 1 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takajo (US 4561893 A) in view of Horata (US 6348081 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Takajo teaches a process of producing a sintered body, which includes pressing of a metal powder into a green body followed by sintering at a temperature of 1150OC (Col. 4 Ln. 60 – Col 5 Ln. 5).
While Takajo’s powder reads on the claimed matrix powder, Takajo does not teach the inclusion of a second coarse metal powder.
Horata teaches a method for producing a workpiece, wherein a granulated powder is pressed to form a green body, and then sintered at a temperature between 1100 and 1350OC (Col. 3 Ln. 9-10, Clm. 1, Clm. 4). The granulated particle is portrayed as spherical (Fig. 1 #6). The granulated mixed powder comprises smaller large-diameter and small-diameter powders. These two comprising powders read on the claimed fine primary powder. The large-diameter powder has an average diameter of 30- 150 µm and the small powder has an average diameter of 1-20 µm (Col. 2 Ln. 55-61, Clm. 1). The granule is produced in such a way that the small-diameter particles adhere to the surfaces of the large-diameter particles (Abstract; Col. 4 Ln. 18-23; Fig. 1 # 2, 4, 6). A person skilled in the art would know that, at minimum, one layer of small-diameter powder particles would adhere to the surface of a large-diameter powder particle.
Therefore, Horata’s taught granulated powder would have a minimum diameter between 32 – 190 µm (i.e. the sum of the large-diameter powder diameter and two small-diameter powder diameters). This range reads on the claimed second coarse metal powder size of less than 100 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
Horata teaches that their granulated powder displays an excellent flow rate when compared to a non-agglomerated powder, which ultimately enables a high-strength green body, and a high-density sintered body with improved corrosion resistance (Col. 2 Ln. 43-53, Col. 12. Ln. 12-37).
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Horata’s granulated powderthe granulated poiwder in Takajo’s taught powder because the inclusion of the agglomerated particle can ultimately enable an advantageous result of a high-strength green body, and a high-density sintered body with improved corrosion resistance. Additionally, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the volume and weight percentage of the agglomerated powder in the combined powder to the claimed weight percentage ranges (i.e. 5% to 50%). Claimed ranges of a result effective variable are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result, which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art. (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claim 4, a person skilled in the art would know that, at minimum, one layer of small-diameter powder particles would adhere to the surface of a large-diameter powder particle. Therefore, Horata’s taught granulated powder would have a minimum diameter between 32 – 190 µm (i.e. the sum of the large-diameter powder diameter and two small-diameter powder diameters). This range reads on the claimed second coarse metal powder size of less than 45 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
Regarding claim 5, Takajo teaches that their powder comprises an alloy steel (Abstract), which is a pre-alloyed powder.
Regarding claim 6, Takajo’s powder consists essentially of the elements in Table 1 above (Abstract). Takajo’s taught ranges are also listed. Takajo teaches that their powder can comprise less than 1.0 wt% Mo, which fulfills the limitation recited in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, the claimed composition ranges are compared with Takajo’s taught alloy powder composition in Table 1 above. In all, Takajo’s taught composition ranges read on the claimed composition ranges of the first coarse powder. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
Regarding claim 8, the claimed composition ranges are compared with Takajo’s taught alloy powder composition in Table 1 above. In all, Takajo’s taught composition ranges read on the claimed composition ranges of the first coarse powder. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
Regarding claim 9, Horata teaches that both the small- and large-diameter powders are stainless steel, and may have the composition ranges shown in Table 3 below. Horata also teaches that the powders may also include elements such as Cu, Nb, and Sn (Col. 5 Ln. 43-48). Overall, Horata’s taught small-diameter and large-diameter powder compositions read on the claimed second coarse powder composition. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
Table 3
Horata
Claim 16
Element
Composition (wt%)
C
0-0.15
Si
0-3
0-1.5
Mn
0-2
0-2
Ni
6 or more
5-20
Cr
12-26
8-20
Mo
0-5
0-5
Cu
0-5
Nb
0-2
Fe
Bal.
Bal.
Claims 10-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horata (US 6348081 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Horata teaches a method for producing a workpiece, wherein a granulated powder is pressed to form a green body, and then sintered at a temperature between 1100 and 1350OC (Col. 3 Ln. 9-10, Clm. 1, Clm. 4). The granulated particle is portrayed as spherical (Fig. 1 #6). The granulated mixed powder comprises a large-diameter powder and a small-diameter powder. These two comprising powders read on the claimed first and second metal powders. The large-diameter powder has an average diameter of 30- 150 µm and the small powder has an average diameter of 1-20 µm (Col. 2 Ln. 55-61, Clm. 1), which read on the claimed median first powder particle size of 50-110 µm and the claimed median second powder particle size of less than 15 µm. The small powder comprises 30-70% of the total weight of the granulated powder (Col. 2 Ln. 62-65, Clm. 1), which reads on the claimed weight percentage range of the second metal powder in the granulated powder (5-50%). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
Regarding claim 11, Horata’s large-diameter powder comprises a steel powder, which is a pre-alloyed powder.
Regarding claim 12, Horata’s small-diameter powder comprises a steel powder, which is a pre-alloyed powder.
Regarding claim 13, Horata teaches that both the small- and large-diameter powders are stainless steel (i.e. and Fe-based powder), and may have the composition ranges shown in Table 3 above. Horata teaches that the large-diameter powder can comprise less than 2 wt% Mo, which fulfills the limitation recited in claim 13.
Regarding claim 16, Horata teaches that both the small- and large-diameter powders are stainless steel, and may have the composition ranges shown in Table 3 above. Horata also teaches that the powders may also include elements such as Cu, Nb, and Sn (Col. 5 Ln. 43-48). Overall, Horata’s taught small-diameter powder composition reads on the claimed second powder composition. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horata (US 6348081 B1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of James (ASM Handbook, Volume 7, Powder Metallurgy “Ferrous Powder Metallurgy Materials”).
Regarding claim 14, a comparison between Horata’s composition teachings and the composition ranges recited in claim 14 is shown in Table 4 below.
Table 4
Horata
Claim 14
Element
Composition (wt%)
C
0-0.15
Si
0-3
Mn
0-2
0.01-1.0
Ni
6 or more
0.5-2.5
Cr
12-26
Mo
0-5
0.2-1.5
Fe
Bal.
Bal.
While Horata’s taught Mn and Mo composition ranges read on the claimed Mn and Mo ranges, their Ni range exceeds the claimed Ni ranges.
James teaches that admixed steel powders with nickel additions between 2 and 4 wt% demonstrate significantly improved toughness, particularly after heat treating (pg. 298-299, “Iron-Nickel and Nickel Steels”). Additionally, James teaches an FLN-4205 admixed powder with the composition range shown in Table 5 below (pg. 305, James Table 14).
Table 5
Composition (wt%)
Element
James
Claim 14
C
0.4-0.7
Ni
1.3-2.5
0.5-2.5
Mo
0.49-0.85
0.2-1.5
Mn
0.2-0.4
0.01-1.0
Fe
Bal.
Bal.
The Ni, Mo, and Mn composition ranges in James’ taught FLN-4205 powder read on the claimed Ni, Mo, and Mn ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to substitute Horata’s small-diameter powder composition with James’ powder composition because using James’ powder would enable an advantageous result of a sintered body with improved toughness after heat-treating.
Regarding claim 15, a comparison between Horata’s teachings, James’ teachings, and the composition ranges recited in claim 15 is shown in Table 6 below.
Table 6
Horata
James
Claim 15
Element
Composition (wt%)
C
0-0.15
0.4-0.7
Si
0-3
Mn
0-2
0.2-0.4
0.01-1.0
Ni
6 or more
1.3-2.5
0.5-4.5
Cr
12-26
Mo
0-5
0.49-0.85
0.2-1.5
Cu
0.5-2
Fe
Bal.
Bal.
Bal.
The Ni, Mo, and Mn composition ranges in James’ taught FLN-4205 powder read on the claimed Ni, Mo, and Mn ranges; however, it does not include Cu. Additionally, Horata teaches that the powders used in their invention may also include elements such as Cu, Nb, and Sn (Col. 5 Ln. 43-48).
Cu is a well-known additive in the art and is typically added to increase strength and wear resistance of Fe-based metals (see James pg. 298 “Iron-Copper and Copper Steels”). Additionally, James tabulates other metal powders similar to the taught FLN-4205 powder with Cu compositions ranging from 1.0-3.0 wt% (see James pg. 305 Table 14). These Cu compositions read on the claimed Cu range of 0.5-2 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
Therefore, as discussed with claim 14, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to substitute Horata’s small-diameter powder composition with James’ powder composition because using James’ powder would enable an advantage result of a sintered body with improved toughness after heat-treating. Additionally, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to add up to 1.0-3.0 wt% to the substituted FLN-4205 powder and expect a well-known and advantageous result (e.g. increased strength and wear resistance).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAVIER FLORES whose telephone number is 571-272-9130. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/J.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights