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
Applicant’s amendment has been entered. Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 16-20 are pending. Claims 6 and 13-15 are cancelled. Adding “with a grain size” to claim 1 line 6 has overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112(b). Cancelling claims 13-15 has rendered moot the rejection of claims 13-15 under 35 USC 112(d). Claiming the process parameters are selected to partially melt or fuse powder particles has overcome the rejections under 35 USC 103 over Martin (US20190161836) in view of Prichard (US20220055103) as the sole secondary reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fridy et al (WO 2020/122992 A1), hereinafter Fridy. Fridy is cited in prior office action(s).
Regarding claim 20, Fridy discloses an additively manufactured component (metallic part produced by a method wherein least a region of an outer surface of an additively manufactured metallic preform is sealed: abstract, [0004]). Fridy discloses selecting feedstock to produce a product with a target grain size [0025]. Fridy discloses that the method to produce the product comprises forming a metallic preform by an additive manufacturing process [0004], [0023], [0029-30], and imparting a predetermined amount of porosity to the metallic preform [0032]. Fridy discloses that the additive manufacturing forms the metallic preform, and therefore imparts the porosity resulting from additively manufacturing the preform, via partially melting or fusing particles of a powder used to form the metallic preform by the additive manufacturing process [0029], [0031], wherein the amount of porosity is at least 30% by volume [0032], which overlaps a range of 0.005% to 60% by volume. Fridy discloses working the metallic preform isostatically [0035], [0037], which is a process which uniformly impart some amount of deformation to the material. Fridy discloses that working the metallic preform isostatically comprises cold isostatic pressing the metallic preform ([0035], [0037], claim 1). Fridy discloses thereafter, heat treating the metallic preform [0045-46].
Claim 20 is a product-by-process claim which defines the patentability of the claimed product by the structure implied by the recited process steps and not by the manipulation of the recited steps. See MPEP 2113. Considering the significant degree of overlap between the range of preform porosities disclosed by Fridy [0032] and the range of predetermined preform porosities recited in claim 1, in combination with the steps of the method of manufacturing disclosed by Fridy [0004], [0029], [0031-32], [0035], [0037], [0045-46], Fridy appears to disclose a range of products which are the same or similar to the structure of the product encompassed by present claim 20. See MPEP 2113(II).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-12, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US20190161836) in view of Prichard (US20220055103) and Kestler (US20160115571). Martin, Prichard, and Kestler are cited in prior office action(s). Prichard is the publication of an application for patent in the United States effectively filed before the earlies filing date of the present application.
Regarding claim 1, Martin discloses a method for additively manufacturing a component [0038], [0051], [0162-166] having a recrystallized grain structure [0154-156] with a target grain size [0173-174]. Martin discloses forming a metallic preform (additively manufactured component which is a near-net shape or a green part [0193]) by an additive manufacturing process [0162-166]. Martin discloses controlling process parameters of the additive manufacturing process [0064], [0149], [0157], [0161], [0192] including feed composition parameters which impart an amount of porosity to the metallic preform [0154], [0157], [0192]. Martin sets ranges of values for the porosity of the metallic preform (additively manufactured component) [0161], [0192], thereby to some extent predetermining the porosity of the metallic preform. Martin discloses that the porosity of the additively manufactured component is caused by, and thereby imparted via partially melting or fusing particles of a powder used to form the metallic preform by the additive manufacturing process, to create voids between the partially melted or fused particles [0007-08], [0154], [0156], [0158], [0192]. Martin broadly discloses that the amount of porosity of the metallic preform is 0-75% by volume [0192], which encompasses 0.005% to 60% by volume. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Martin discloses working the metallic preform to impart some amount of deformation to the material [0195], [0197], wherein working the metallic preform comprises cold pressing the metallic preform to impart the deformation [0195], [0197]. Martin discloses heat treating the metallic preform and forming a final component [0136], [0141]. [0195-196]. Martin discloses that the post-processing causes directional grain flow [0197], thereby disclosing that the post-processing changes the shape of the grains, thereby imparting the target grain structure, which Martin discloses has a target grain size [0173-174]. As a change in grain size necessarily accompanies a change in grain shape, Martin manipulates a process wherein the metallic preform comprises a material having an initial grain structure with a grain size different from the target grain size.
Martin discloses that the working may comprise a powder metallurgy processing technique, which may be cold pressing [0195], which is open to cold isostatic pressing, but Martin does not disclose that the working comprises cold isostatic pressing.
Prichard teaches a method for additively manufacturing a component [0002], [0006]. Prichard teaches forming a metallic preform (green article) by an additive manufacturing process [0011-12], [0019]. Prichard teaches that the additive manufacturing process results in a preform with a relative density of 35% to 55% of the full (theoretical) density [0021], [0036]. As porosity is 100% minus percent theoretical density, Prichard teaches additive manufacturing results in a preform having a porosity of 45% (
45
%
=
100
%
-
55
%
)
to 65% (
65
%
=
100
%
-
35
%
) which overlaps a range of porosities of 0.005% to 60%. Prichard teaches working the metallic preform isostatically [0011], [0034] to uniformly impart some amount of deformation to the material [0027], [0029], [0035]. Prichard teaches that working the metallic preform isostatically comprises cold isostatic pressing the metallic preform to impart the deformation [0002], [0011], [0021], [0034]. Prichard teaches that the applied pressure in the cold isostatic process causes the deformation [0021], [0034-36], and that the porosity (relative density) of the manufactured product depends on the pressure applied in the cold isostatic pressing step [0021]. Prichard teaches that cold isostatic pressing results in the formation of a highly compacted product having a uniform density [0035]. Prichard teaches thereafter, heat treating the metallic preform to sinter the metallic preform and form a final component [0038].
Both Martin and Prichard teach additively manufacturing a metallic preform and thereafter working the preform.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to work the metallic preform of the method disclosed by Martin, applied above, by cold isostatic pressing because Martin’s disclosure of subjecting the additively manufactured part to cold pressing [0195] is open to cold isostatic pressing, and Prichard teaches cold isostatic pressing as effective for controlling porosity (relative density) of an additively manufactured component [0011], [0021], [0034-36]. Considering Martin discloses a porosity in a range of 0-75% [0192], Martin discloses that large voids are undesirable [0161], and Prichard teaches that cold isostatic pressing reduces porosity (increases relative density) [0021], cold isostatically pressing the metallic preform of the method disclosed by Martin, applied above, would be expected to reduce the porosity to within some desired (and thereby predetermined) range. As Prichard teaches that the cold isostatic pressing is a working process which imparts deformation by applying pressure [0035], and that a predetermined amount of pressure controls porosity [0021], Prichard establishes the predetermined pressure, and therefore the degree of deformation, which is predetermined to some extent, in the cold isostatic pressing as a variable which determines the result of part porosity. Absent a showing that an amount of deformation of 2% to 60% cold work is truly a nonobvious difference in kind and not merely a difference in degree from the process disclosed by Martin in view of Prichard, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, would have arrived at some degree of deformation in the range of 2% to 60% as the result of obvious, routine, optimization of the cold isostatic pressing conditions taught by Prichard [0034-36] in the process disclosed by Martin, in view of Prichard, applied above. See MPEP 2144.05(II), particularly MPEP 2144.05(II)(b).
Martin discloses that processing the additively manufactured component may comprise sintering [0195] and heat treating [0196]. Martin discloses heat treating to further control porosity [0196]. Prichard teaches performing a sintering heat treatment on the component following cold isostatic pressing [0038]. Prichard teaches that sintering further controls porosity [0038]. Martin’s disclosure of sintering [0195] and heat treating to further control porosity [0196] is open to a sintering heat treatment to control porosity. In view of Prichard’s teachings of a sintering heat treatment following the cold isostatic pressing to further reduce porosity [0036-38], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to subject the cold isostatically pressed component disclosed by Martin in view of Prichard, applied above, to a sintering heat treatment after cold isostatic pressing. Martin discloses that alloy microstructure crystallizes upon solidification [0008], [0154-155], [0174], and Prichard teaches that sintering is performed in a partial liquid state [0038]; therefore, some degree of solidification and recrystallization would occur in the sintering treatment disclosed by Martin in view of Prichard, applied above. Martin discloses a desired grain size for the final product [0140], [0154-155], [0173-174], and Martin discloses forming that product by sintering and heat treating [0195-197]; therefore, the resulting product following the sintering in the process disclosed by Martin, in view of Prichard has a desired, and therefore predetermined, size and structure.
Though Martin discloses controlling composition parameters to affect porosity [0064], [0149], [0154-157], [0161], [0192], and Martin discloses that the porosity of the additively manufactured component is caused by, and thereby imparted via partially melting or fusing particles of a powder used to form the metallic preform by the additive manufacturing process [0007-08], [0154], [0156], [0158], [0192], Martin does not disclose that the same parameters selected to impart porosity to the metallic preform are the parameters selected to partially melt or fuse particles of a powder used to form the metallic preform.
Kestler teaches a method for additively manufacturing a component [0001], [0012]. Kestler teaches additively manufacturing a porous metallic preform (open-pore framework) by “for example selective laser melting (SLM) or selective electron beam melting (EBM)” [0012]. Kestler teaches that in the additive manufacturing process to manufacture the porous structure, data for the guiding of the laser or electron beam, scan rate, exposure pattern and radiation intensity are predetermined by software from the desired 3-dimensional shape and the desired porosity or pore size distribution of porous preform [0018]. Kestler teaches that the additive manufacturing process adjusts irradiation speed (scan rate) or irradiation energy (radiation intensity) to control porosity [0018], and Kestler exemplifies controlling irradiation energy to set porosity [0039]. Kestler teaches that the laser or electron beam partially melts or fuses powder material in the additive manufacturing process [0012].
Both Kestler and Martin in view of Prichard, applied above, teach additively manufacturing a porous preform for which the porosity is in some way limited. Martin discloses simulating effects of laser power and velocity fields in the additive manufacturing process [0071-72], thereby disclosing that parameters to melt or fuse the powder material may be adjusted.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to select parameters to melt or fuse particles of a powder in the process disclosed by Martin in view of Prichard, applied above, to attain a predetermined porosity because Kestler teaches that adjusting such parameters are effective in determining the porosity of an additively manufactured component [0012], [0018]. As Martin teaches that such parameters can be adjusted [0071-72], one of ordinary skill in the art could have adjusted parameters to achieve a known outcome, and selecting such parameters to achieve an intended porosity would predictably provide greater flexibility in achieving the porosity result disclosed by Martin [0154-157], [0192] because Kestler teaches this result for selecting parameters for additively manufactured components [0012], [0018].
Regarding claims 2, 7, and 16, Martin discloses that porosity [0159-161] and working [0195-197] affect the grain size and structure. Prichard teaches that the applied pressure in the cold isostatic pressing determines final part porosity [0021]; therefore, the combination of Martin in view of Prichard and Kestler, applied above, discloses that the porosity and degree of deformation (working) determine grain size and structure of the final component. As the grain size and structure of the final component of the method disclosed by Martin in view of Prichard, applied above depends on the combination of porosity and degree of deformation, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to select porosity and degree of working in the process disclosed by Martin in view of Prichard in order to produce/impart the target grain size and structure disclosed by Martin [0154-155], [0173-175], thereby meeting the additional limitations recited in claims 2 and 16. Selecting a degree of deformation and porosity to attain a target grain size of the final component bases that target grain size of the final component to some extent on the porosity and degree of deformation, thereby meeting the additional limitations recited in claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Martin discloses [0058], [0128-131]; Prichard teaches [0019], and Kestler teaches [0012], [0017-18] that forming the metallic preform by the additive manufacturing process comprises additively printing the metallic preform using a powder bed fusion technique.
Regarding claims 3, 5, 9, and 11, Martin discloses simulating effects of laser power and velocity fields in the additive manufacturing process [0071-72], thereby disclosing that energy, scan path, and scan speed at which an electromagnetic radiation beam is used in the additive manufacturing process [0058], [0128-131] may be adjusted. Martin does not disclose controlling the irradiation energy or speed to impart a porosity. Kestler teaches that in the additive manufacturing process to manufacture the porous structure, data for the guiding of the laser or electron beam, scan rate, exposure pattern and radiation intensity are predetermined by software from the desired 3-dimensional shape and the desired porosity or pore size distribution of porous preform [0018]. Kestler teaches that the additive manufacturing process adjusts irradiation speed (scan rate) or irradiation energy (radiation intensity) to control porosity [0018], and Kestler exemplifies controlling irradiation energy to set porosity [0039].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to control the irradiation speed and irradiation energy of an electromagnetic beam used in the additive manufacturing process disclosed by Martin in view of Prichard applied above in view of the effectiveness disclosed by Kestler of adjusting irradiation speed and energy [0018], [0039] to control porosity [0018] for such additive manufacturing processes [0012], thereby permitting porosity to remain within the ranges disclosed by Martin [0192]. Controlling irradiation speed meets the additional limitations recited in claims 3 and 9, and controlling irradiation energy meets the additional limitations recited in claims 5 and 11.
Regarding claim 12, Martin discloses that forming the metallic preform by the additive manufacturing process results in void segregation [0196], thereby disclosing that forming the preform comprises additively printing a preform comprising some first region which has a greater concentration of voids than the concentration of voids of some second region. As porosity is by definition, an overall void volume fraction, in disclosing that additive manufacturing results in void segregation [0196] Martin discloses forming a first portion of the metallic preform having a first porosity and a second portion of the of the metallic preform having a second porosity, the first porosity different from the second porosity. Martin discloses an acceptable range of porosities for the additively manufactured preform [0192], thereby to some extent predetermining porosities in the additively manufactured preform, which necessarily includes the porosities of the first and second portions.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Martin in view of Prichard and Kestler, as applied to claim 1 above, forms an additively manufactured component (Martin [0038], [0051], [0193-197]); therefore, the combination of Martin in view of Prichard and Kestler discloses a component which has the structure of an additively manufactured component formed according to the method of claim 1.
Claim(s) 4, 10, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US20190161836) in view of Prichard (US20220055103) and Kestler (US20160115571) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Geisen (DE102016224060A1). Geisen is cited in prior office action(s). References to Geisen are directed to the examiner-supplied English language translation.
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Martin discloses simulating effects of laser power and velocity fields in the additive manufacturing process [0071-72], thereby disclosing that a scan path, at which an electromagnetic radiation beam is used in the additive manufacturing process [0058], [0128-131] may be adjusted. Martin does not disclose controlling the irradiation path to impart a porosity. Kestler teaches that in the additive manufacturing process to manufacture the porous structure, data for the guiding of the laser or electron beam, scan rate, exposure pattern and radiation intensity are predetermined by software from the desired 3-dimensional shape and the desired porosity or pore size distribution of porous preform [0018]. Kestler teaches that the additive manufacturing process adjusts irradiation speed (scan rate) or irradiation energy (radiation intensity) to control porosity [0018], and Kestler exemplifies controlling irradiation energy to set porosity [0039].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to control the irradiation path (exposure pattern) of an electromagnetic beam used in the additive manufacturing process disclosed by Martin in view of Prichard applied above in view of the effectiveness disclosed by Kestler of adjusting irradiation path [0018], [0039] to control porosity [0018] for such additive manufacturing processes [0012], thereby permitting porosity to remain within the ranges disclosed by Martin [0192].
Martin in view of Prichard and Kestler does not disclose that controlling exposure path comprises controlling a number of passes.
Geisen teaches a method for additively manufacturing a component [0001], [0009]. Geisen teaches additively manufacturing a preform of the component comprising a porous portion ([0025], [0030], [0066], Fig. 3). Geisen teaches controlling irradiation parameters such that the porous region is not irradiated in every layer, and is irradiated in every second to fifth layer (claim 11, [0025], [0035-36], [0068]), thereby controlling the number of passes in which the overall porous portion is irradiated. Geisen contrasts the porous portion of the preform with the completely solidified component [0026], thereby suggesting that the component has a porosity less than the porosity of the support structure. Geisen teaches that forming the porous portion may also be accomplished by controlling irradiation energy or speed [0033-34], [0037].
Both Geisen and Martin in view of Prichard and Kestler teach controlling additively manufacturing parameters to produce a porous preform.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to control the production of the porous structure in the process disclosed by Martin in view of Prichard and Kestler by controlling the number of times the porous portion is irradiated because Geisen teaches that adjusting the number of times a porous portion is irradiated is effective at producing a porous portion of a preform [0025], [0035-36], [0068]. Considering Geisen teaches controlling irradiation energy and irradiation speed as effective for producing the porous structure [0033-34], [0037], and Geisen suggests that other portions of the additively manufactured preform are less porous [0026], controlling the number of times the porous portion is irradiated would be predicted to impart a desired porosity, at least to the degree that Kestler teaches that adjusting irradiation speed and irradiation energy affect porosity [0018]. Controlling the number of times an overall component preform is irradiated, controls the number of irradiation passes used to form that component preform.
Regarding claim 19, Martin discloses simulating effects of laser power and velocity fields in the additive manufacturing process [0071-72], thereby disclosing that energy, scan path, and scan speed at which an electromagnetic radiation beam is used in the additive manufacturing process [0058], [0128-131] may be adjusted. Martin does not disclose controlling the irradiation energy, irradiation speed, or number of irradiation passes to impart a porosity. Kestler teaches that in the additive manufacturing process to manufacture the porous structure, data for the guiding of the laser or electron beam, scan rate, exposure pattern and radiation intensity are predetermined by software from the desired 3-dimensional shape and the desired porosity or pore size distribution of porous preform [0018]. Kestler teaches that the additive manufacturing process adjusts irradiation speed (scan rate) or irradiation energy (radiation intensity) to control porosity [0018], and Kestler exemplifies controlling irradiation energy to set porosity [0039].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to control the irradiation speed and irradiation energy of an electromagnetic beam used in the additive manufacturing process disclosed by Martin in view of Prichard applied above in view of the effectiveness disclosed by Kestler of adjusting irradiation speed and energy [0018], [0039] to control porosity [0018] for such additive manufacturing processes [0012], thereby permitting porosity to remain within the ranges disclosed by Martin [0192].
Martin in view of Prichard and Kestler does not disclose that controlling exposure path comprises controlling a number of passes.
Geisen teaches a method for additively manufacturing a component [0001], [0009]. Geisen teaches additively manufacturing a preform of the component comprising a porous portion ([0025], [0030], [0066], Fig. 3). Geisen teaches controlling irradiation parameters such that the porous region is not irradiated in every layer, and is irradiated in every second to fifth layer (claim 11, [0025], [0035-36], [0068]), thereby controlling the number of passes in which the overall porous portion is irradiated. Geisen contrasts the porous portion of the preform with the completely solidified component [0026], thereby suggesting that the component has a porosity less than the porosity of the support structure. Geisen teaches that forming the porous portion may also be accomplished by controlling irradiation energy or speed [0033-34], [0037].
Both Geisen and Martin in view of Prichard and Kestler teach controlling additively manufacturing parameters to produce a porous preform.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to control the production of the porous structure in the process disclosed by Martin in view of Prichard and Kestler by controlling the number of times the porous portion is irradiated because Geisen teaches that adjusting the number of times a porous portion is irradiated is effective at producing a porous portion of a preform [0025], [0035-36], [0068]. Considering Geisen teaches controlling irradiation energy and irradiation speed as effective for producing the porous structure [0033-34], [0037], and Geisen suggests that other portions of the additively manufactured preform are less porous [0026], controlling the number of times the porous portion is irradiated would be predicted to impart a desired porosity, at least to the degree that Kestler teaches that adjusting irradiation speed and irradiation energy affect porosity [0018]. Controlling the number of times an overall component preform is irradiated, controls the number of irradiation passes used to form that component preform.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US20190161836) in view of Prichard (US20220055103) and Kestler (US20160115571) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Augustin (US20220243307). Augustin is cited in prior office action(s). Augustin is the publication of an application for patent in the United States, effectively filed prior to the earliest effective filing date of the present application.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Martin discloses that the additively manufactured component may be any from broad categories of components (a structure, a coating, a geometric object, a billet, an ingot (which may be a green body or a finished body), a net-shape part, a near-net-shape part, a welding filler, and combinations thereof), disclosing that the geometry of an additive manufacturing part is unlimited [0193]. Martin does not specify that the final component is a turbomachine component.
Augustin teaches additively manufacturing a component [0043-46]. Augustin teaches that the feed material for the additive manufacturing is a powdered aluminum alloy [0043], [0050], [0109]. Augustin teaches achieving favorable properties by controlling grain structure [0027], [0058], [0109]. Augustin teaches that the component is a gas turbomachine engine vane [0001-03], [0029], [0041-42].
Both Augustin and Martin in view of Prichard and Kestler teach additively manufacturing a component. Martin discloses that the feed material for the additive manufacturing process is a powdered aluminum alloy ([0085], [0126], [0128], claim 2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to form a gas turbomachine engine vane as the additively manufactured component in the method disclosed by Martin in view of Prichard and Kestler, applied above because Augustin teaches a gas turbomachine engine vane as an appropriate component to be additively manufactured from an aluminum alloy powder [0001-03], [0029], [0041-43], [0050], [0109]. In view of Martin’s disclosure that the geometry of an additively manufactured aluminum alloy part is unlimited [0193], the process disclosed by Martin in view of Prichard and Kestler would predictably be capable of producing any desired geometry, which is open to a gas turbomachine engine vane. A gas turbomachine engine vane meets the additional limitations of both claim 17 and claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 USC 103 over Martin (US20190161836) in view of Prichard (US 20220055103), applicant argues that Martin correlates the resulting equiaxed grain structure with the inclusion of grain-refining particles, not intentionally selecting process parameters of the additive manufacturing process to impart a predetermined amount of porosity to the metallic preform. This argument is not persuasive in overcoming the present rejection because the office action relies on Kestler (US20160115571) to meet the newly-claimed limitation that the process parameters [the same process parameters, which claim 1 claims selecting to impart a predetermined amount of porosity] are selected to partially melt or fuse powder particles. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145(IV).
Arguments that paragraph [0192] of Martin refers to the porosity of the finished component and not the additively manufactured preform are not persuasive because Martin explicitly refers to the component as “the final additively manufactured component” [0192],and Martin refers to the additively manufactured component as the component which may be subjected to further post processing. For example, paragraph [0195] of Martin states “possible powder metallurgy processing techniques that may be applied to the additive manufactured or welded component include hot pressing, cold pressing, low-pressure sintering, extrusion, pressureless sintering, and metal injection molding, for example”, and paragraph [0196] of martin gives “porosity may be removed or reduced in the final component. For example, a secondary heat and/or pressure (or other mechanical force) treatment may be done to minimize porous voids present in an additively manufactured component”. Applicant is also reminded that Prichard teaches a relative density of the preform, from which a porosity may be calculated, and the porosity calculated from the relative density taught by Prichard ranges from 45-65% (35-55% relative density) [0021], [0036]. Applicant’s dismissal of this range taught by Prichard as “a passive result of conventional additive manufacturing techniques” actually supports the conclusion that this porosity would be expected from an additive manufacturing process. Much as claiming a latent or inherent feature or recognizing a result which naturally flows from a latent or inherent feature cannot serve as the basis for patentability (MPEP 716.02(f), 2112, 2145(II)), a step of selecting a porosity which would otherwise naturally result from the additive manufacturing process does not manipulate a nonobvious difference in specific activity.
Further, pointing out that “Martin discloses that the intermediate additively manufactured component has a microstructure which "may be substantially free of porous defects" (i.e., at least 99 vol% of the additively manufactured metal component contains now porous voids having an effective diameter of at least 1 micron." Martin at [0160]” (direct quote from page 8 of applicant’s remarks filed March 9, 2026) actually provides more support that the presently claimed intermediate porosity overlaps that of Martin, because the presently claimed intermediate porosity of 0.005% to 60% by volume, which when subtracted from 100% of the volume yields 40-99.995% of the claimed intermediate volume free of pores. Martin’s teaching of a preference for a structure with at least 99% of the structure free of pores does not amount to a teaching away from the claimed process, which processes intermediate preform structures with 99-99.995% by volume free of pores.
Applicant is also reminded that Martin broadly discloses a porosity “from 0% to about 75%” [0192], which is significantly broader than the at least 99% containing no pores (porosity of at most 1%) disclosed by Martin [0160], on which applicant focuses. Martin is relevant prior art for all that the reference teaches, including the broader porosity range, and a preferred low porosity does not amount to a teaching away (MPEP 2123).
Arguments that Prichard discloses the use of CIP in an effort to decrease the porosity are not persuasive because such a result is within the bounds of present claim 1. Prichard discloses that CIP increases the density from the range of about 35% to 55% of theoretical density to the range of about 55% to 70% of theoretical density [0021], [0036]. A theoretical density of about 55-70% has a porosity of about 30-45%, which is entirely within the range that claim 1 recites for the metallic preform, prior to CIP, and is certainly not a complete removal of porosity. Considering CIP is a consolidation process, which increases the density and decreases the porosity, as indicated by paragraphs [0021] and [0036] of Prichard, the porosity of the final component recited in claim 1 is less than the porosity of the metallic preform, and an argument that Prichard decreases the porosity in the final component cannot be persuasive in showing that claim 1 defines over Martin in view of Prichard, when the actual, decreased porosity taught by Prichard [0021], [0036] is within the value which the present invention claims prior to CIP. Put more simply, arguments that Prichard decreases porosity by CIP are not persuasive when the actual results of the consolidation taught by Prichard [0021], [0036] are still more porous than the metallic preform of claim 1 which could have a porosity as low as 0.005%.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims define over the prior art by virtue of their dependence on claim 1. This argument is not persuasive for the reasons given above, with respect to claim 1. Applicant should also note that independent claim 1 is a process claim, for which patentability is defined by the manipulation of the recited process steps, whereas product-by-process claim 20 is a product claim, for which patentability is determined by the structure, not manipulation of the process steps (MPEP 2113). Arguments which focus entirely on manipulation of recited process steps are not persuasive in demonstrating how the resulting structure is different. MPEP 608.01(n)(III) provides the example “if claim 1 recites a method of making a specified product, a claim to the product set forth in claim 1 would not be a proper dependent claim if the product can be made by a method other than that recited in the base method claim, and thus, does not include the limitations of the base claim”.
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 SEAN P O'KEEFE whose telephone number is (571)272-7647. The examiner can normally be reached MR 8:00-6:30.
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, 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.
/SEAN P. O'KEEFE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/ SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights