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 .
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment, filed 02/04/2026, has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 9, 14, and 17-20 are amended, claims 7 and 8 are cancelled, and no claims are newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-6 and 9-20 are pending and considered in this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 02/04/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith et al. “Development and Processing of Novel Aluminum Powder Metallurgy Materials for Heat Sink Applications”.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Smith et al. (hereinafter “Smith”) teaches an alloy comprising a mixture of aluminum, tin, and magnesium (“III. Materials”) with a specific example of Al-2.0Mg-1.5Sn (Fig. 9B at right). Smith’s disclosure of 2.0 Mg meets the claimed “about 2.5%” Mg.
In the interest of the clarity of the record, Applicant’s specification does not provide a definition of the word ‘about’ but expressly intends to embrace approximations as indicated by the statement at Paragraph 0041 that “[t]his modification is desired for various reasons including industrial practice, material, manufacturing, and assembly tolerances, and testing capability”.
With regard to the language of the preamble “for liquid phase sintering in binder jet printing”, it is noted that this is the intended use of the claimed alloy. MPEP 2111.02.II. describes that ‘if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed inventions, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”.
In the instant case, “for liquid phase sintering in binder jet printing’ is not treated as a limitation because the body of the claim sets forth the structurally complete alloy.
Nevertheless, even if it were a limitation, there is no prima facie reason to believe that the alloy of Smith would not be capable of liquid phase sintering in binder jet printing.
Smith further teaches that the sintered samples achieve densities that are 95% and above the full theoretical densities (Figure 2 and “IV. Results and Discussion”) but is silent to the liquid phase fraction during sintering.
However, the sintering described by Smith would be expected to be liquid phase sintering and have a liquid phase fraction between about 8 and 20% because Smith’s sintering is substantially similar to the sintering temperatures used by Applicant in at least Paragraph 0032 of the specification. In the interest of the clarity of the record, it is noted that Smith uses 630C while Applicant uses 630C as well for the Al6061+1 wt% Sn example disclosed in the spec.
It has been held that ‘where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 2-4, Smith teaches the alloy as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches that the alloys were members of the Al-Mg-Sn ternary systems and “[all] blends were formulated from elemental powders of aluminum, tin, and magnesium” (“III. Materials”).
Regarding claim 6, Smith teaches the alloy as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches that the specific example of Al-2.0Mg-1.5Sn (Fig 9B at right) includes 1.5% Sn which meets the claimed “about 1%” Sn as claimed.
In the interest of the clarity of the record, Applicant’s specification does not provide a definition of the word ‘about’ but expressly intends to embrace approximations as indicated by the statement at Paragraph 0041 that “[t]his modification is desired for various reasons including industrial practice, material, manufacturing, and assembly tolerances, and testing capability”.
Regarding claim 9, Smith teaches the alloy as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches that the specific example of Al-2.0Mg-1.5Sn (Fig 9B at right) is an alloy of aluminum where aluminum is the balance.
Regarding claim 10, Smith teaches an alloy comprising a mixture of aluminum, tin, and magnesium (“III. Materials”) with a specific example of Al-2.0Mg-1.5Sn (Fig. 9B at right). Smith’s disclosure of 2.0 Mg meets the claimed “about 2.5%” Mg.
Further, at “II. Experimental Procedures” the assorted blends of Al, Mg, and Sn powders are combined with 1.5 wt% of a powdered lubricant, compacted, shaped, and then sintered in a laboratory-scale furnace under a nitrogen atmosphere. The samples were heated through a thermal profile that included a 20 minute hold at 673 K (400C) for de-lubrication purposes, a hold of 30 minutes at 903 K (630C) for sintering and finally gas quenching to ambient.
Thus, Smith teaches mixing Al, Sn, and Mg to form a mixture (2.0% Mg meets “about 2.5%” Mg as claimed), selectively combing the mixture with a binder (i.e. the powdered lubricant) to form a shape (see “[t]wo specimen geometries were produced-- rectangular bars… and cylinders…), debinding the mixture (i.e. ‘de-lubrication’), and sintering the mixture with nitrogen.
While Smith does not expressly describe the sintering as ‘liquid phase sintering’, the sintering described by Smith would be expected to be liquid phase sintering because it is substantially similar to the sintering temperatures used by Applicant in at least Paragraph 0032 of the specification. In the interest of the clarity of the record, it is noted that Smith uses 630C while Applicant uses 630C as well for the Al6061+1 wt% Sn example disclosed in the spec.
It has been held that ‘where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
In the interest of the clarity of the record, Applicant’s specification does not provide a definition of the word ‘about’ but expressly intends to embrace approximations as indicated by the statement at Paragraph 0041 that “[t]his modification is desired for various reasons including industrial practice, material, manufacturing, and assembly tolerances, and testing capability”.
With regard to the language of the preamble “for binder jet printing”, it is noted that this is the intended use of the claimed alloy. MPEP 2111.02.II. describes that ‘if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed inventions, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”.
In the instant case, “for binder jet printing’ is not treated as a limitation because the body of the claim sets forth the structurally complete alloy and positively recited method steps. Notably, the body of the claim does not recite any binder jet printing steps.
Nevertheless, even if it were a limitation, there is no prima facie reason to believe that the alloy of Smith would not be capable of being used for binder jet printing.
Regarding claim 11, Smith teaches the method as applied to claim 10 above and further teaches that the method includes a 20 minute hold at 673 K (400C) for de-lubrication purposes and a hold of 30 minutes at 903K (630C) for sintering (“II. Experimental Procedures”) which meets the claimed “holding the mixture at about 500C between debinding and liquid phase sintering” because Smith teaches that the samples are heated through a thermal profile and expressly discloses two holds. There are numerous interpretations of how this disclosure from Smith could read on the claim as currently presented; please note, there are no bounds to the duration of the hold nor is there any recitation of the debinding conditions or liquid phase sintering conditions. As one example, the increasing of the temperature from the de-binding to the hold at 30 minutes for sintering at 630C could meet the claimed ‘holding’ at about 500C because the increase in temperature from 400C to 630C would necessarily pass through the temperature of 500C for some duration such that a ‘hold’ at or around 500C would necessarily occur.
Regarding claims 12-14, Smith teaches the alloy and method as applied to claim 10 above and further teaches that the alloys were members of the Al-Mg-Sn ternary systems and “[all] blends were formulated from elemental powders of aluminum, tin, and magnesium” (“III. Materials”).
Regarding claim 15, Smith teaches the alloy and method as applied to claim 10 above and further teaches that the specific example of Al-2.0Mg-1.5Sn (Fig 9B at right) includes 2.0 Mg which meets the claimed range of “about 2.5%” Mg.
Regarding claim 16, Smith teaches the alloy and method as applied to claim 10 above and further teaches that the specific example of Al-2.0Mg-1.5Sn (Fig 9B at right) includes 1.5% Sn which meets the claimed “about 1%” Sn as claimed.
In the interest of the clarity of the record, Applicant’s specification does not provide a definition of the word ‘about’ but expressly intends to embrace approximations as indicated by the statement at Paragraph 0041 that “[t]his modification is desired for various reasons including industrial practice, material, manufacturing, and assembly tolerances, and testing capability”.
Regarding claim 17, Smith teaches the alloy and method as applied to claim 10 above and further teaches that the sintered samples achieve densities that are 95% and above the full theoretical densities (Figure 2 and “IV. Results and Discussion”) which meets the BRI of “full” as claimed. No definition of ‘full’ has been provided in the specification.
Smith is silent to the liquid phase fraction during sintering. However, the sintering described by Smith would be expected to be liquid phase sintering and have a liquid phase fraction greater than about 8% because Smith’s sintering is substantially similar to the sintering temperatures used by Applicant in at least Paragraph 0032 of the specification. In the interest of the clarity of the record, it is noted that Smith uses 630C while Applicant uses 630C as well for the Al6061+1 wt% Sn example disclosed in the spec.
It has been held that ‘where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 18, Smith teaches the alloy and method as applied to claim 10 above and further teaches that the specific example of Al-2.0Mg-1.5Sn (Fig 9B at right) is an alloy of aluminum where aluminum is the balance.
Regarding claim 19, Smith teaches an alloy comprising a mixture of aluminum, tin, and magnesium (“III. Materials”) with a specific example of Al-2.0Mg-1.5Sn (Fig. 9B at right). Smith’s disclosure of 2.0 Mg meets the claimed “about 2.5%” Mg and “1.5 Sn” meets the claimed “about 1%” Sn.
In the interest of the clarity of the record, Applicant’s specification does not provide a definition of the word ‘about’ but expressly intends to embrace approximations as indicated by the statement at Paragraph 0041 that “[t]his modification is desired for various reasons including industrial practice, material, manufacturing, and assembly tolerances, and testing capability”.
With regard to the language of the preamble “for liquid phase sintering in binder jet printing”, it is noted that this is the intended use of the claimed alloy. MPEP 2111.02.II. describes that ‘if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed inventions, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”.
In the instant case, “for liquid phase sintering in binder jet printing’ is not treated as a limitation because the body of the claim sets forth the structurally complete alloy.
Nevertheless, even if it were a limitation, there is no prima facie reason to believe that the alloy of Smith would not be capable of liquid phase sintering in binder jet printing.
Smith further teaches that the sintered samples achieve densities that are 95% and above the full theoretical densities (Figure 2 and “IV. Results and Discussion”) but is silent to the liquid phase fraction during sintering.
However, the sintering described by Smith would be expected to be liquid phase sintering and have a liquid phase fraction between about 8 and 20% because Smith’s sintering is substantially similar to the sintering temperatures used by Applicant in at least Paragraph 0032 of the specification. In the interest of the clarity of the record, it is noted that Smith uses 630C while Applicant uses 630C as well for the Al6061+1 wt% Sn example disclosed in the spec.
It has been held that ‘where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 20, Smith teaches the alloy as applied to claim 19 above and further teaches that the alloys were members of the Al-Mg-Sn ternary systems and “[all] blends were formulated from elemental powders of aluminum, tin, and magnesium” (“III. Materials”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Smith is limited to conventional solid-state powder metallurgy sintering while the instant application is to liquid phase sintering in binder jet printing. This is not persuasive because this is the language of the preamble of the claim such that binder jet printing is the intended use of the claimed alloy (see analysis at bottom of Page 6 to top of Page 7 of the Office Action mailed 11/04/2025). Further, Applicant produces no evidence that Smith’s alloy would not be capable of use in a binder jet printing process. Also, considering the teachings of Smith itself, the reference expressly teaches that the density of the sintered object is 95% and above (Fig. 2 and “IV. Results and Discussion”) and Smith’s sintering conditions are substantially similar to the sintering temperatures used by Applicant in at least Paragraph 0032 of the specification (Smith uses 630C while Applicant uses 630C).
Applicant’s arguments with regard to claim 10 are not commensurate in scope with the claims regarding the presence of lubricant. Smith teaches a method that meets the recited steps in the claimed invention and again, ‘for binder jet printing’ is intended use. The body of the claim itself has no features that limit the steps to an actual binder jet printing process.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 ALEXANDRA M MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-8502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm, EST.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
ALEXANDRA M MOORE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1738
/ALEXANDRA M MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights