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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/23/2026 has been entered.
Status of Previous Rejection
All previous art rejections are withdrawn in view of amendment filed on 08/26/2026.
Two new grounds of art rejections are rendered in view of amendment filed on 08/26/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are pending and are presented for this examination. Claims 1-2, 4, 13-18 are amended.
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) 1-2, 4-5 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui (CN112853168A).
As for claims 1-2, 4-5 and 13-18, Cui discloses AlSi10Mg powder used as starting material for selective laser melting process. (Title) Table 1 illustrates broad ranges of each and every elemental composition overlapping instant claimed ranges.
Table 1
Element
Applicant
(weight %)
Cui et al.
Claim 3
Overlap
(weight %)
Mn (Claim 1)
0.48-1
<=0.5
0.48-0.5
Mg (Claim 1)
0.49-1
0.2-0.55
0.49-0.55
Si (Claim 2)
6-13
7.5-11.5
7.5-11.5
Fe (Claim 1)
0.04-0.5
0.08-0.15
0.08-0.15
Ti (Claim 4)
<=0.2
0
0
Impurities (Claim 13)
<=0.3
0
0
Cu (Claim 14)
<=0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Ni (Claim 15)
<=0.05
0
0
Si (Claim 16)
9.5-11.5
7.5-11.5
9.5-11.5
Mg (Claim 17)
0.49-0.6
0.2-0.55
0.49-0.55
Mn(Claim 18)
0.48-0.6
<=0.5
0.48-0.5
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Hence, based on the teaching of Cui, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, to select the amount of each element within the ranges disclosed by Cui in order to arrive at aluminum alloy of claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kauffmann (US20200149136A1)
As for claims 1-2, 4-5 and 13-18, Kaufmann discloses an additive manufacturing process by using an Al-Si based starting material in the form of a powder or wire. The additive manufacturing process is selective laser melting, which supports instant claims 1 and 5 required thermal consolidation process. Table 2 below illustrates broad range of the Al-Si based starting material consisting of Si, Fe, Mn and Mg and optional Ti (claim 1) all overlapping instant claimed ranges.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Hence, based on the teaching of Kauffmann, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, to select the amount of each element within the ranges disclosed by Kauffman in order to arrive at aluminum alloy of claimed invention.
Table 2
Element
Applicant
(weight %)
Kaufmann et al.
Claims 1 and 4
Overlap
(weight %)
Mn (Claim 1)
0.48-1
<=0.9
0.48-0.9
Mg (Claim 1)
0.49-1
0.1-7
0.49-1
Si (Claim 2)
6-13
0.05-12
6-12
Fe (Claim 1)
0.04-0.5
0.5-1.5
0.5
Ti (Claim 4)
<=0.2
0-1
<=0.2
Impurities (Claim 13)
<=0.3
0
0
Cu (Claim 14)
<=0.1
0.05-2.5
0.05-0.1
Ni (Claim 15)
<=0.05
0
0
Si (Claim 16)
9.5-11.5
0.05-12
9.5-11.5
Mg (Claim 17)
0.49-0.6
0.1-7
0.49-0.6
Mn(Claim 18)
0.48-0.6
<=0.9
0.48-0.6
Claim(s) 6-12 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui or Kauffmann (US20200149136A1) and in view of Egidio (NPL document “A Novel T6 Rapid Heat Treatment for AlSi10Mg Alloy Produced by Laser-Based Powder Bed Fusion: Comparison with T5 and Conventional T6 Heat Treatments” published on 02/2022).
As for claims 6-12 and 19-20, neither Kauffman nor Cui explicitly discloses post heat treatment of additively manufactured AlSi10Mg alloy product.
Egidio discloses a novel T6 rapid heat treatment for AlSi10Mg alloy produced by laser-based powder bed fusion (LBPF) (i.e. additive manufacturing) (Title). Egidio reports on the effects of a T5 heat treatment and a novel T6 heat treatment on microstructure and mechanical behavior of the LPBF AlSi10Mg alloy, consisting of rapid solution (10 minutes at 510 °C) followed by artificial aging (6 hours at 160 °C). As a result, the strength-ductility balance was improved by increasing both YS and elongation to failure.
T6 rapid heat treatment meets instant claim 6 required heat treating step and instant claim 8 required T6 treatment. Table IV (Page 288) discloses T6 rapid heat treatment comprises SHT (Solution heat treatment) at 510 degree C for 10 minutes, water quenching at room temperature, AA (artificial aging) at 160 degree C for 6 hours.
Hence, AA(artificial aging) at 160 degree C for 6 hours supports instant claim 7 required aging step and instant claim 11 required second heat treatment. SHT (Solution heat treatment) at 510 degree C for 10 minutes supports instant claim 11 required first heat treatment. Water quenching at room temperature supports instant claims 19-20 required cooling step by water quench.
Table IV (Page 288) also discloses T5 Direct Artificial aging (AA) at 160 degree C for 4 hours, which supports instant claim 9 required T5 treatment.
Stress relieving with an annealing temperature around 300 degree C up to 2 hours (Page 285 Col 1 paragraph 3 lines 1-2) supports instant claim 10 required stress relief treatment.
Since Stress relieving is first applied to as built additive manufactured AlSi10Mg alloy to completely relieve residual stress, stress relief followed by T6 heat treatment as required by instant 12 would have been obvious for the benefit of relieving residual stress of the additive manufactured AlSi10Mg alloy.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made to apply T5 heat treatment and a novel T6 heat treatment as suggested by Egidio, in the additive manufacturing process of Kauffman or Cui for the benefit of improved strength-ductility balance by increasing both YS and elongation to failure as Egidio explicitly teaches T5 heat treatment and a novel T6 heat treatment advantageously improves strength ductility balance by increasing both YS and elongation to failure .
Response to Argument
In response to applicant’s argument filed on 08/26/2026 that Egidio does not disclose or suggest amended claim 1 with respect to amended Mn and Mg amount, argument is moot since Egidio is withdrawn as primary reference. Newly cited Kauffman or Cui discloses amended Mn and Mg amount as illustrated in Tables 1-2 above.
Applicant is invited to submit 132 Dec demonstrating criticality of Mg and Mg amount.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNY R WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5515. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 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.
/JENNY R WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
