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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are pending and are presented for this examination. Claim 1 is amended. Claim 3 is cancelled.
Status of Previous Rejection
102 over Kaufman is withdrawn in view of amendment of claim 1.
103 over Egidio is maintained from previous office action of 02/11/2026.
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 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 1-2 and 4-20, it is noted instant claim 1 is amended to require 0.04-0.5% Fe.
Egidio discloses a novel T6 rapid heat treatment for AlSi10Mg alloy produced by laser-based powder bed fusion (LBPF) (i.e. additive manufacturing) (Title). Laser-based powder bed fusion meets instant claims 1 and 5 required thermal consolidation. Hence, instant claim 1 required “an additive manufacturing process comprising depositing layer by layer an Al-based alloy from powder and performing a thermal consolidation to obtain a manufactured product” is met.
Table 1 (Page 286) displays gas atomized powders of AlSi10Mg alloy with nominal composition.
Table 1 last row also discloses nominal composition, according to EN AC-43000 as requirement given by the EN AC-43000 date sheet for AlSi10Mg. Such nominal compositions comprise overlapping ranges as required by instant claims 1-4, 13-18 as illustrated in Table 1 below. 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.
It should be noted Egidio explicitly discloses the AlSi10Mg alloy composition obtained by LBPF process matches the nominal composition, according to EN AC-43000. (Page 286 Col 1 II Experimental paragraph 2) Hence, Egidio suggests entire range of EN AC-43000 standard can be used as AlSi10Mg alloy for LBPF process.
Furthermore, Egidio explicitly discloses AlSi10Mg alloy is currently the most investigated Al alloy in AM, mainly for LPBF process according to Egidio (Page 1 Col 1 Introduction paragraph lines 1-6),
Hence, one skill in the art would be motivated to try to apply nominal composition of AlSi10Mg alloy, according to EN AC-43000 standard, in the LFBPF process of Egidio with expected success. See MPEP 2145 X B Obvious To Try
Table 1
Element
Applicant
(weight %)
Egidio et al.
EN AC-43000
Table 1
(weight %)
Overlap
(weight %)
Mn (Claim 1)
0.3-1
<0.45
0.3-0.45
Mg (Claim 1)
0.3-1
0.2-0.45
0.3-0.45
Si (Claim 2)
6-13
9-11
9-11
Fe (Claim 1)
0.04-0.5
<0.55
0.04-0.55
Ti (Claim 4)
<=0.2
<0.15
<0.15
Impurities (Claim 13)
<=0.3
<=0.2
<=0.2
Cu (Claim 14)
<=0.1
<0.05
<0.05
Ni (Claim 15)
<=0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Si (Claim 16)
9.5-11.5
9-11
9.5-11
Mg (Claim 17)
0.3-0.6
0.2-0.45
0.3-0.45
Mn(Claim 18)
0.3-0.6
<0.45
0.3-0.45
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.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s argument filed on 05/11/2026 is considered but is not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant argues that Egidio does not disclose that all AlSi10Mg alloy are usable for LBPF, argument is not persuasive because Egidio explicitly discloses AlSi10Mg alloy is currently the most investigated Al alloy in AM, mainly for LPBF process. Hence, Egidio suggests all AlSi10Mg alloy are usable for LBPF. Thus, applicant’s argument is allegation without any evidence support.
Applicant argues that there is no statement or suggestion in Egidio indication that their results with the tested powder can be extrapolated to the entire range of EN AC-43000 standard, argument is not persuasive because Egidio explicitly discloses the AlSi10Mg alloy composition obtained by LBPF process matches the nominal composition, according to EN AC-43000. (Page 3 Col 1 Experimental Section paragraph 2) Hence, Egidio suggests entire range of EN AC-43000 standard can be used as AlSi10Mg alloy for LBPF process.
Applicant argues composition of EN AC-43000 is used with respect to the specimen manufacture, and not the powders. Such argument is incommensurate in scope of claim 1 which merely requires Al alloy composition, not Al alloy powder composition. Since the AlSi10Mg alloy composition obtained by LBPF process matches the nominal composition, according to EN AC-43000, one skill in the art would be motivated and obvious to try to apply nominal composition of AlSi10Mg alloy, according to EN AC-43000 standard in the process of LBPF with expected success.
Applicant argues maximum YS and TS of Egidio are lower than YS and TS of instant claim 1. Such argument is incommensurate in scope of claim 1 which does not (emphasis added) require YS and TS at all.
Applicant argues instant application demonstrate unexpected result of higher Mn and Mg on increasing strength. Argument is not persuasive because due to overlapping composition of applying nominal composition of AlSi10Mg according to EN AC-430000 standard in similar process of LBPF, superior mechanical properties would be expected according to MPEP 2144.05 I absent evidence of the contrary.
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.
Applicant also argues example section of present application as filed enables a direct comparison of mechanical properties between the AlSiMgMn alloy and a standard AlSi10Mg alloy which nearly corresponds to the powder composition of Egidio, argument is not persuasive because a standard AlSi10Mg alloy in last row of Table 2 of instant application is not the closest prior art.
Evidence of unexpected properties may be in the form of a direct or indirect comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range, see MPEP § 716.02(d) - § 716.02(e)”. In the instant case, closest prior art is nominal composition of AlSi10Mg alloy, according to EN AC-43000 standard of Egidio, not (emphasis added) a standard AlSi10Mg alloy in last row of Table 2 of instant application. Egidio’s Mg and Mn ranges both overlaps claimed Mg and Mn ranges. Hence, superior mechanical properties are expected according to MPEP 2144.05 I.
Second, when the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
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). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) in the instant case, applying nominal composition of AlSi10Mg alloy, according to EN AC-43000 standard of Egidio, in the LBPF process of Egidio is expected to have similar mechanical properties.
Applicant lastly argues that subsequent publication by present inventor demonstrates how increase Mn and Mg contents serves to increase the strength. Such argument is completely incommensurate in scope of current rejection which replies on Egidio, not subsequent publication by present inventor.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights