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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 9/29/23 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 4/22/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: Chemical element names are abbreviated. The first time each element is used the full name should be spelled out, i.e., Carbon, rather than just C.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schall et al. (US 20190153557 A1), in view of Anderson et al., Feedstock powder processing research needs for additive manufacturing development, Current Opinion in Solid State and Materials Science 22 (2018) pp. 8–15.
Regarding claim 1, Schall teaches “a ferritic steel of the following composition” (which reads upon “comprising a composition of ferritic stainless steel”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0010]). Schall teaches “C about 0.1 to about 0.8 wt.-%” (which reads upon “C having a content of 0.05 mass % or more and 1.00 mass % or less”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0011]). Schall teaches “Nb about 0.2 to about 1.0 wt.-%,” (which reads upon “Nb having a content of 0.05 mass % or more and 1.50 mass % or less”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0014]). Schall teaches “optionally other elements in a total amount of less than about 3 wt.-% (impurities)” (which reads upon “and impurities”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0033]). Schall teaches that “carbon-containing ferritic steels may be improved in their high temperature performance, in particular their high temperature creep resistance, if the content of Nb, V, and Mn is adequately adjusted” (paragraph [0008]). Schall teaches that “the present invention relates to turbo charger component, in particular a turbine housing, comprising a ferritic steel of the following composition” (paragraph [0036]).
It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Here, the claimed range of 0.05 mass % or more and 1.00 mass % or less overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art of C about 0.1 to about 0.8 wt.-%. Here, the claimed range of 0.05 mass % or more and 1.50 mass % or less overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art of Nb about 0.2 to about 1.0 wt.-%. Accordingly, the prior art renders the claim obvious.
Schall is silent regarding a sintering metal powder to be used in sintering.
Anderson is similarly concerned with fabricating complex integrated parts (abstract, page 8). Anderson teaches that “AM can permit ultimate agility/customization for rapid component and system design changes in commercial products, as well as enabling component part consolidation and “impossible” composite materials or structures” (page 8). Anderson teaches that “additive manufacturing of metallic alloys remains challenging” (page 8). Anderson teaches that “a spherical powder shape is preferred for feedstock powders in all of these AM technologies to enhance flowability, layer spreading, and loose powder packing, particularly in powder bed types” (which reads upon “metal powder”, as recited in the instant claim; page 8). Anderson teaches that “specific PBF processes include Selective Laser Sintering (SLS), Direct Laser Metal Sintering (DLMS), and Electron Beam Melting (EBM), all of which involve highly localized melting (typically) of powders and re-solidification of the “micro-weld” fusion zone” (which reads upon “sintering”, as recited in the instant claim; page 8). Anderson teaches that “powder made by rapid spinning cup process (RSC), vacuum (soluble gas) atomization (VA), rapid solidification rate (RSR) process for rotating disk atomization, (free-fall) gas (Ar) atomization (GA), and rotating electrode process (REP)” (page 10; multiple ways to make metal powder from a metal alloy). Anderson teaches that “the selection of powder size distributions from “classic” spherical, aerospace-quality powder atomization methods includes three types of centrifugal atomization methods, with one type of (high rpm) spinning rod method (REP) that is fed from a (high cost) precisely machined solidified ingot and plasma melted at the tip” (page 10). Anderson teaches that “two rotating disk methods of centrifugal atomization, RSC and RSR, appear in Fig. 2 with different rpm capability and are fed from a (versatile, low cost) molten alloy stream source” (page 10). Anderson teaches that “there also are two types of spray nozzle methods represented in Fig. 2, one called vacuum (soluble gas) atomization (VA) that is not prominent now and one for (free-fall) gas atomization (GA) that is widely practiced with a typical broad size distribution, both starting with (low cost) molten alloy that is either forced upward through a gas atomization nozzle or poured down through a free-fall nozzle, respectively, and that the currently available gas atomization options also include electrode induction melting gas atomization (EIGA) that is practiced by numerous powder makers” (page 10). Anderson teaches that Table 1 provides a summary of powder characteristics by manufacturing process (page 10). Anderson teaches that “when viewed with the criteria of an existing broad base of industrial practitioners to permit greatest impact of fundamental processing developments, the CC-GA method rises to the top for potential to accelerate AM as the advanced manufacturing method of choice for a wide spectrum of applications” (page 11). Anderson teaches that “initial recognition of the importance of AM to advanced manufacturing in the US came from formation in 2012 of “America Makes” as the first industry/university/national laboratory consortium formed in the National Network of Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) by the cooperation of several Federal Agencies, and that the recent ground swell of interest in research on atomization and AM and the critical need to link together the industrial powder making and AM communities also stimulated the USDOC through NIST to commission technology road-mapping efforts by ASM International and by Penn State University, respectively” (page 11). Anderson teaches that “Additive manufacturing (AM) promises to redesign traditional manufacturing by enabling the ultimate in agility for rapid component design changes in commercial products and for fabricating complex integrated parts, and that by significantly increasing quality and yield of metallic alloy powders, the pace for design, development, and deployment of the most promising AM approaches can be greatly accelerated, resulting in rapid commercialization of these advanced manufacturing methods” (page 8).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the alloy of Schall to be a powder, as taught by Anderson to enable creating parts using additive manufacturing, thus enabling the ultimate in agility for rapid component design changes in commercial products and for fabricating complex integrated parts.
Regarding claim 2, modified Schall teaches the powder of claim 1 as stated above. Schall teaches “C about 0.1 to about 0.8 wt.-%” (paragraph [0011]). Schall teaches “Nb about 0.2 to about 1.0 wt.-%,” (paragraph [0014]). Schall is silent regarding a desired ration of carbon to niobium, however, we can perform the calculations. Taking the midpoint of each range, (C(.8-.1)/2+.1=.45; Nb(1-.2)/2+.2=.6; C/Nb = .45/.6=0.75), which is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, modified Schall teaches the powder of claim 1 as stated above. Schall teaches “C about 0.1 to about 0.8 wt.-%” (paragraph [0011]). Schall teaches “Nb about 0.2 to about 1.0 wt.-%,” (paragraph [0014]). We can perform the calculations. C+Nb = (.1+.2) – (.8+1) = .3 – 1.8 wt %. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Here, the claimed range of 0.20 mass % or more and 1.50 mass % or less overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art of .3 – 1.8 wt %. Accordingly, the prior art renders the claim obvious. See also the embodiment in paragraphs [0081] – [0087], teaching a range of C+Nb .4-1.1 wt %.
Regarding claim 4, modified Schall teaches the powder of claim 1 as stated above. Schall teaches “Cr about 15.0 to about 23.0 wt.-%” (paragraph [0012]). Schall teaches “Si about 0.5 to about 1.8 wt.-%” (paragraph [0019]). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Here, the claimed range Si is 0.20 mass % or more and 0.80 mass % or less overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art Si about 0.5 to about 1.8 wt.-%. Here, the claimed range Cr is 12.0 mass % or more and 30.0 mass % or less overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art of Cr about 15.0 to about 23.0 wt.-%. Accordingly, the prior art renders the claim obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Coulier et al. (US 20220388065 A1). Coulier teaches using metal powder in 3D printing (Additive Manufacturing) of parts including turbine, stator, motor, rotor, impeller, engine, piston parts (paragraph [0194]). Coulier teaches that “the steel may comprise stainless steel of at least one crystalline structure selected from the group consisting of austenitic, superaustenitic, ferritic, martensitic, duplex, and precipitation-hardening martensitic” (paragraph [0196]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights