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 6/9/2026, is acknowledged. Claims 9 and 13-14 are amended; Claim 1-4 and 6-8 are canceled; Claims 19-25 are newly added. Claims 9-25 are currently pending.
The objection to claims 13-14 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claims.
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, 18, 20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yurko (US 2016/0167133)(previously cited) in view of Webster (US 4017333)(previously cited).
With respect to Claim 9 and 24, 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-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, 50). 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 an alloying element (see para. 32 “The beryllium particles may be primarily composed of pure beryllium or a beryllium alloy”; para. 50, “the beryllium powder itself might be an alloy, for example with aluminum” and thus, teaches broadly a beryllium alloy with aluminum being merely an example/preferred example), 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, meeting claim 9 and resulting in a step comprising the formation of particles comprising beryllium titanium and/or beryllium chromium meeting claim 24. (see also rejection of claim 18 below).
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).
With respect to Claim 20, Yurko teaches wherien the energy source comprises a laser having a power density of 104 W/mm2 to 107 W/mm2 overlapping the instantly claimed range. (para. 44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping 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, Yurko teaches wherein the beryllium-containing powder has a particle size of 1-200 microns (para. 33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an effective diameter of the energy source to match or exceed the size of individual particles, and thus overlapping the claimed range, in order to balance heating/manufacturing time with the precision/granularity of the additive manufacturing process. Finally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an energy source scanning speed from the claimed range in order to balance process speed and precision, from the broad claimed range, with a predictable result of success. That is, selecting a suitable laser scanning speed would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art carrying out a laser scanning method.
With respect to claim 22, Yurko teaches an additive manufacturing method wherein each layer is based on a cross-section that may have a different pattern in order to additively build up an article with a desired shape. (see, e.g. para. 2-9, 36-45).
With respect to Claim 23, Yurko in view of Webster teach each limitation of claim 23 (see rejection of claims 9 and 24 above, incorporated here by reference). Additionally, Yurko teaches wherein beryllium or beryllium-containing powder is deposited for the additive manufacturing method and the method may comprise more than one deposition means and thus, encompasses a method wherein the composition of each layer may be altered and beryllium absent additional elements may be deposited in one or more layers (see rejection of claim 9 above; para. 32, 36, 50). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to, in addition to the steps outlined in the above rejection, perform a step of depositing a beryllium powder that does not contain the nucleant precursor (e.g. titanium or chromium) in order to form a compositionally tailored/graded additively manufactured article, thereby, allowing for more precise control over the structure and properties of the article. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art may select to form one or more layers of beryllium absent a nucleant precursor element, in order to form portions of the article having modifies properties such as enhanced elongation for formability or higher or lower hardness or strength.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yurko (US 2016/0167133) in view of Webster (US 4017333) as applied to claim 9 above, further in view of Paranthaman (US 2021/0057149).
With respect to Claim 21, Yurko teaches that the method may comprise an additive manufacturing technique comprising a binder (e.g. binder jetting), wherein the binder one or more respective layers is cured by exposure to a heat source prior to sintering (para. 6, 31, 42, 44); however, the reference is silent as to a temperature for such curing.
Paranthaman teaches an additive manufacturing method comprising binder jetting, wherein the binder that binds a metal powder is heated to a temperature of 30-250 °C, for example, by exposure to electromagnetic radiation. (para. 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Yurko in view of Webster, to include a step of using an energy source to heat and cure a binder in the initial or one or more successive layers to a temperature of 30-250 °C, as taught by Paranthaman, in order to sufficiently cure the additively formed layer(s) prior to sintering. 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.
Claim(s) 1-18 and 20-24 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) and further in view of Paranthaman (US 2021/0057149) with respect to Claim 21.
In the alternative to the above rejection of claims 9-16, 18, and 21-24 (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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: the prior art of record fails to teach a method as in claim 9 wherein the at least one metal is selected from the group consisting of iron, yttrium, cobalt, hafnium and strontium.
Additionally, the prior art of record fails to teach a method as in claim 24, wherein the beryllide is selected from the group consisting of iron beryllium, beryllium strontium, and beryllium hafnium.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendment to claim 9, deleting “nickel” from the list of elements overcome the 103 rejection over Yurko in view of Webster. Specifically, Applicant argues that prior art Yurko teaches a material comprising beryllium and nickel but is silent as to beryllium with one of the elements recited in the amended claim 9. These arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
Yurko is not limited to nickel as an alloying/additional element, but instead broadly teaches beryllium and at least one alloying element. (see para. 50, “the beryllium powder itself might be an alloy”; para. 32 “The beryllium particles may be primarily composed of pure beryllium or a beryllium alloy.”). The 103 rejection over Yurko in view of Webster did not rely on the nickel content of Yurko to mee the claim limitations. Yurko teaches a method of additively manufacturing a beryllium-based article, and teaches that the beryllium may include additional elements (such as nickel), but the rejection relies on Webster to teach the additional element(s) that form an intermetallic compound with beryllium. In particular, 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.
Applicant also argues that the fine grain/particle size taught by Webster relies on “severe mechanical deformation” (Remarks, p. 7) and that Webster is not drawn to layer-wise powder deposition. These arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
First, the claims require “inducing beryllium nucleation” and do not limit the method of doing so. Therefore, even if Webster required severe mechanical deformation to achieve the fine grain size, such a modification would meet the instant limitation. Second, Webster teaches formation particles with a size smaller than the claimed range (0.5 microns) and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that mere heat treatment, without mechanical deformation, could be used to grow such grains within the claimed range, with a predictable result of success.
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 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
Prosecution Insights