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 Status
An amendment, filed 1/12/2026, is acknowledged. Claim 5 is canceled; Claims 16-18 are newly added.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 9-15 and new corresponding claims 16-18, in the reply filed on 1/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/12/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 13 and 14 each recite “wherein comprising providing.” The phrase “wherein comprising” appears duplicative and should amended. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 9 recites “an initial layer comprising beryllium and at least one metal selected from the group consisting of iron, zirconium, tantalum, titanium, yttrium, molybdenum, niobium, chromium, nickel, cobalt, hafnium, tungsten, and strontium.” This limitation does not require a specific form of the beryllium and at least one metal. That is, the limitation may be met by a mixed material, for example, comprising a beryllium powder and at least one metal powder, an alloy material of beryllium and the at least one metal, or a composite material comprising beryllium and the at least one metal.
Claim 9 also recites “directing energy to a portion of the initial layer” and “cooling the initial layer” wherein the claim does not require any particular process or process parameters of these steps. Therefore, any amount of energy causing the formation of the claimed particles and any amount of cooling, by any means, would meet the claim limitations.
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) 9-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yurko (US 2016/0167133) in view of Webster (US 4017333).
With respect to Claim 9, Yurko teaches a method of additive manufacturing a beryllium-based article, the method comprising providing an initial layer on a surface, the initial layer comprising a beryllium powder, for example, a pure beryllium powder, a beryllium-aluminum alloy powder, or beryllium core-shell particles comprising a beryllium core and shell of nickel, exposing the initial layer to a heat source (thus, an energy source) promoting binding of the beryllium-containing composition within a given layer and between layers the step including curing and/or selective sintering or melting (e.g. by a laser beam energy source), then depositing one or more successive layers on at least a portion of the initial layer opposite of the surface, wherein the successive layers may comprise the same beryllium-containing powder, repeating the step of directing energy to at least a portion of the one or more successive layers to cure, sinter, and/or melt the layer(s), and wherein the additively formed plurality of layers may be subjected to a subsequent heat treatment, such as sintering, densifying the additively formed article. (para. 10-11, 13-14, 32, 34-44, 46-48). While Yurko does not recite a specific cooling step of the initial layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the initial layer after curing, sintering, and/or melting would necessarily begin cooling once the exposure to heat/energy causing the curing/sintering/melting is completed and thus, necessarily includes a step of cooling the initial layer before and/or while the next powder layer is deposited.
Thus, Yurko teaches a method comprising depositing an initial layer on a surface, the initial layer comprising beryllium and at least one metal such as nickel, directing energy to at least a portion of the initial layer, cooling the initial layer, depositing one more successive layers on at least a portion of the initial layer, such layers comprising beryllium, directing energy to at least a portion of the one or more successive layers, and further heating of the plurality of beryllium-containing layers. The reference is silent as to whether the first curing, sintering, and/or melting step causes the initial layer “to form a plurality of particles comprising an intermetallic compound of beryllium” and silent as to “nucleation on a portion of the plurality of particles to form grains having an average grain size of 1 to 40 microns.”
Webster teaches a method of making fine grained beryllium articles, the method comprising melting beryllium with alloying element(s), casting the melt and cooling such that a metal beryllide phase precipitates as fine grained particles no greater than 0.5 microns, then the cooled alloy is subjected to additional processing comprising annealing above its recrystallization temperature, thereby obtaining a beryllium alloy article with a fine grain size. (col. 1, ln. 28-62; col. 2, ln. 6-67). Webster teaches wherein the alloying element may include, for example, chromium or titanium and the resulting average grain size, may be, for example, 19 to 44 microns depending on the alloying composition. (Table 1). Thus, Webster teaches a method comprising directing energy to a beryllium alloy comprising a metal such as chromium or titanium to form a plurality of fine particles of an intermetallic compound of beryllium and the metal, cooling, then inducing beryllium nucleation on at least a portion of the plurality of particles to form a fine grained article with an average grain size overlapping the instantly claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Yurko, when sintering or melting the initial layer and the one or more successive layers, to melt the beryllium-containing material in each layer such that it forms a plurality of fine intermetallic metal-beryllium particles, then later subjecting the article to post-processing in order to induce beryllium nucleation to form an article having an average grain size selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claim overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Yurko to select an alloying element such as chromium or titanium, in order to enable the formation of very fine grains and the resulting desired mechanical properties. That is, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a metal such as chromium or titanium, in the amounts taught by Webster (0.01-1.0 weight%), to the pure beryllium powder of Yurko or to add or substitute a portion of the alloying element of the beryllium alloy powder of Yurko, in order to obtain the above-detailed benefits.
With respect to Claim 10, Webster teaches the addition of 0.01-1.0 weight% of the at least one metal, overlapping the claimed range. (col. 1, ln. 39-46; see also rejection of claim 9 above). Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claim overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claim 11, the method of Yurko in view of Webster teaches wherein the intermetallic compound is a beryllide. (see rejection of claim 9 above).
With respect to Claim 12, Yurko teaches wherein the energy is provided by an energy source, for example, a laser. (para. 44).
With respect to Claims 13-14, Yurko teaches wherein the beryllium is provided in powder form and may be in the form of an alloy powder or composite powder. (see rejection of claim 9 above; para. 32-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the beryllium and at least one metal powder of the combined method of Yurko and Webster in a single powder (e.g. alloy or composite) or mixed powder form, in order to provide a composition with the desired content of beryllium and the at least one metal to form the initial layer, successive layers, and thereby, form an article with a desired overall composition.
With respect to Claim 15, Webster teaches wherein the average grain size is, for example, 20 microns, falling within the claimed range. (see Table 1).
With respect to Claim 16, Webster teaches the addition of 0.01-1.0 weight% of the at least one metal, balance beryllium, resulting in a beryllium content of 99-99.99 wt%, overlapping the claimed range. (col. 1, ln. 39-46; see also rejection of claim 9 above). Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claim overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claim 18, the method of Yurko in view of Webster teaches wherein the intermetallic compound is a beryllide and the metal is chromium or titanium, thus teaching wherein the beryllide may comprise beryllium titanium or beryllium chromium. (see rejection of claims 9 and 11 above).
Claim(s) 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yurko (US 2016/0167133) in view of Webster (US 4017333) and Kenny (CA 2889477).
In the alternative to the above rejection of claims 9-16 and 18 (the rejection incorporated here by reference) and with respect to Claim 17, Yurko in view of Webster are deemed to teach a step of cooling as in claim 9 (see rejection above); however, the references are silent as to a specific cooling step and cooling rate.
Kenney teaches a method of additive manufacturing comprising selective sintering or melting of metal or alloy particles, where the reference teaches that additive manufacturing techniques such as selective laser sintering/melting are known to result in a high cooling rate (on the order of 106 Kelvin/second) and that high cooling rates are associated with forming “smaller (better) precipitates.” (para. 2, 5, 8-9, 56-57). The reference teaches wherein the method comprises one or more metals selected from beryllium, titanium, chromium, aluminum, and nickel, among others. (para. 60)
Thus, as evidenced by Kenney, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the selective laser sintering/melting method of Yurko would necessarily result in cooling of the initial layer and subsequently heated layers (meeting claim 9) and with a cooling rate far exceeding the claimed range of Claim 17. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Yurko in view of Webster to cause a high cooling rate (on the order of 106 Kelvin/second or more), as taught by Kenny, in order to form smaller, better, precipitates, as taught by Kenney, and therefore, enable finer average grain size after the induced nucleation step.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 112921258 drawn to a heat treatment method of a beryllium alloy.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A HEVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, 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.
/JOHN A HEVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735