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 .
Claim Status
An amendment, filed 6/2/2026, is acknowledged. Claims 1, 3, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claim.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “mixing a plurality of metal powders including titanium and iron to form a blended powder, wherein the iron comprises greater than 2.5% by weight of the blended powder.” This limitation is interpreted to require that the blended powder comprise greater than 2.5 wt% iron and any non-zero amount of titanium. Additionally, the limitation requires blending a plurality of powders but does not limit the composition of these constituent powders so long as the blended mixture meets the claimed composition.
Claim 1 also recites “performing a diffusion bonding process…forming a near net shape preform, the near net shape preform being denser than the porous sheet and having a density less than fully density” and “consolidating the near net shape preform.” These limitations are both drawn to steps of densifying/consolidation and do not require an intermediate step nor exclude a continuous process; therefore, these steps may be interpreted as two separate steps or a single step where at some mid-point of the densifying/consolidation step, the object is considered a near net shape preform.
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) 1-6, 8-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ecer (US 6048432)(previously cited) in view of Moxson (US 7311873)(previously cited), Reichman (US 3888663)(previously cited) and Schade (US 2006/0285989).
With respect to Claims 1, 3, and 14, Ecer teaches a method of making a complex-shaped object from laminated layers, the method comprising steps of forming a compacted elongated green part comprising a metal powder such as a metal alloy powder, cutting the elongated green part into a plurality of laminae, each laminae corresponding to a cross section/slice of a three-dimensional part to be manufactured, stacking the laminae/cross sections in predetermined order to form part, heating the stacked cross sections and then applying pressure to consolidate the stacked cross sections to obtain a fully dense near net-shaped part. (col. 1, ln. 5-16; col. 4, ln. 44 to col. 5, ln. 67; col. 10, ln. 35-49; Fig. 1). Ecer wherein forming the elongated green part comprises cutting a cold pressed sheet having a predetermined density and teaches controlling a compaction ratio, the ratio of the density of the part after consolidation to that of the powder laminae before consolidation. (col. 5, ln. 27-32; col. 8, ln. 34-58). In particular, the reference teaches wherein the compacted laminae preferably have a density “less than 90% of theoretical density to create the interparticle shearing action necessary for development of high strength during consolidation.” (col. 9, ln. 11-20).
Thus, Ecer teaches a method comprising providing a metal powder, pressing the metal powder to form a sheet of compacted powder with less than full density (and thus, constituting “a porous sheet of compacted powder”), cutting the porous sheet to form a plurality of cross sections, stacking the plurality of cross sections and heating the stack to bond the plurality of cross sections together forming a near net shape preform being denser than the porous sheet and then applying pressure, thereby consolidating the near net shape preform to form a full density near net shape component. As Ecer teaches a step of bonding the plurality of cross sections, the step comprising densifying/consolidating the cross sections, over time, to form a full density near net shape component, this step/process is deemed to meet both the claimed bonding step process and the claimed consolidating step, wherein an arbitrary intermediate level of densification in the process may be deemed to constitute forming the “near net shape preform.” (see also claim interpretation section above).
Ecer teaches providing a metal alloy powder and teaches mixing the alloy powder with a second powder such as graphite (col. 12, ln. 38-46); however, the reference does not specifically teach mixing a plurality of metal powders to form a blended powder.
Moxson teaches a method of making a densified metal part, the method comprising steps of mixing a plurality of metal powders to form a blended powder with a desired composition, cold direct powder rolling of the powder mixture, thereby forming a compacted powder sheet (deemed to comprise pressing as rollers press/compact the powder to form a sheet), the compacted powder sheet not having 100% density (e.g. teaching initial 60% density, 90% after additional cold rolling) and thus, comprising a porous sheet. (col. 3, ln. 1-46; col. 4, 1-44; col. 7, ln. 5, ln. 3-35). Moxson teaches additional compacting steps and finally sintering in order to obtain a near fully-dense part (i.e. consolidating the preform to form a full density component) useful for, for example, aircraft parts, automotive parts, and applications requiring high strength with light weight. (col. 1, ln. 6-27; col. 2, ln. 44-63; col. 5, ln. 27-55).
Thus, Ecer and Moxson are both drawn to methods of compacting a metal powder followed by consolidating the compacted metal powder to form a fully dense part. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a step of providing a pre-alloyed metal powder with a step of mixing a plurality of metal powders to form a blended powder with a desired overall composition, as taught by Moxson, in order to allow for more granular control over the composition of the powder and resulting part.
As detailed above, Ecer teaches steps of heating the stack of cross sections and then applying pressure to bond and consolidate the cross sections to form a full density near net shape component. The reference does not specifically refer to the heating step as diffusion bonding; however, as the reference teaches a step comprising heating the cross sections such that they bond, forming a near net shape part being more dense than the porous sheet, it is deemed to meet the instant limitation. Moreover, Claim 1 does not require that the diffusion bonding and consolidating step are separate. In fact, as both steps are essentially drawn to the same result of consolidating/bonding and increasing the density of the cross sections, the limitations are interpreted such that they may comprise the same step or sub-portions of the same overall process step.
In the alternative, Reichman teaches a method of making metal-based part, the method comprising steps of providing a powder mixture comprising metal powder, pressing the powder, heating the pressed powder in a vacuum furnace to a sintering temperature and carrying out diffusion bonding increasing the density to form a near net shape preform, the sintered preform is then further densified by subjecting it to heat treatment and/or hot pressing to obtain a part with a density approaching 100% theoretical density. (col. 2, ln. 28-63; col. 7, ln. 24-47; col. 8, ln. 22-54). Thus, Reichman teaches a method comprising performing a diffusion bonding process on a pressed powder (lower density/porous) to form a near net shape preform being denser than the pressed powder, the diffusion bonding taking place in a vacuum furnace and comprising sintering, and further consolidating the near net shape preform to form a full density near net shape component, the consolidating comprising hot pressing and/or heating the preform in a furnace.
Ecer and Reichman are both drawn to methods of subjecting a pressed powder body to additional heating and pressure in order to bond and consolidate the powder and achieve a component with full density. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Ecer in view of Moxson to substitute a heating and hot pressing step for steps of first performing a diffusion bonding process to form a near net shape preform being denser than the pressed powder, the diffusion bonding taking place in a vacuum furnace and comprising sintering, and then further consolidating the near net shape preform to form a full density near net shape component, the consolidating comprising hot pressing and/or heating the preform in a furnace, as taught by Reichman, in order to better control the bonding and consolidation of the stack of pressed porous powder cross sections and achieve a component with full density.
Finally, with respect to the composition of the plurality of metal powders, Ecer teaches an example comprising a titanium-aluminum based powder and also iron based powder (col. 13, ln. 34-39). Moxson teaches forming a powder mixture comprising titanium, aluminum, vanadium (col. 4, ln. 52-67) and recognizes the utility of fully density titanium-based parts for automotive parts (abstract). Ecer, Moxson, and Reichman, however, do not teach a specific example comprising greater than 2.5 wt% iron and also comprising titanium
Schade teaches an iron-based powder composition useful for powder metallurgical processes including diffusion bonding techniques, including for example, manufacturing structural components balancing strength, density, and corrosion resistance, wherein the powders may be a mixture of powders, and wherein the composition of the powder mixture may comprise an iron base, preferably 70wt% or more, and may further comprise up to 0.2 wt% titanium and up to 0.1 wt% aluminum, and may further comprise vanadium and/or graphite. (para. 2-7, 53-55, 65, 103). Thus, Schade teaches the utility of a metal powder composition, including a powder mixture, for powder metallurgical techniques such as diffusion bonding.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Ecer in view of Moxson and Reichman, comprising a method of forming a high strength fully density near net shape part comprising a diffusion bonding step and that may comprise an iron-based powder composition, to select an Fe-based powder composition comprising Ti and optionally further Al and/or V, as taught by Schade, in order to form an structural component with desired properties such as strength and/or corrosion resistance. In other words, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a known metal composition for powder metallurgy in the powder metallurgy process of Ecer in view of Moxson and Reichman, to obtain predictable results and having the benefit of a high density near net shape part. Furthermore, as Schade teaches a powder composition comprising an Fe base, preferably 70 wt% or more, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claim 13, Ecer in view of Moxson, Reichman, and Schade teach a method of manufacturing a component comprising steps of forming a porous sheet of compacted metal powder from a blend of a plurality of metal powders comprising Ti and more than 2.5 wt% Fe, cutting the porous sheet to form a plurality of cross sections, stacking the plurality of cross sections to form a stack, diffusion bonding the stack to form a near net shape preform and then consolidating the near net shape preform by applying heat and/or pressure to form a full density near net shape component. (see rejection of claim 1, incorporated here by reference. Finally, with respect to the preamble limitation “high strength component,” Ecer teaches forming a “high strength integral part,” deemed to meet the instant limitation. (see col. 13, ln. 2-6).
With respect to Claim 2, Ecer in view of Moxson, Reichman, and Schade teach wherein the plurality of metal powders include powdered metals and/or powdered metal alloys. (see rejection of claim 1 above; Moxson, col. 4, ln. 11-67).
With respect to Claim 4, Ecer teaches wherein the porous sheet may be formed by cold pressing or drawing, and also teaches embodiments wherein a ceramic porous sheet is formed by roll compacting. (col. 8, ln. 41-65). Moxson teaches wherein the blended powder is pressed into a porous sheet by cold rolling. (see, e.g., col. 5, ln. 3-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Ecer, teaching a step of forming a pressed/compacted powder part having an elongated shape such as a sheet, to use a known method of forming a pressed powder sheet such as cold rolling, as taught by Moxson, in order to form a pressed powder sheet with a desired density. The substitution one technique of pressing powder into a sheet for another, having the same function and effect would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claims 5 and 15, Ecer teaches both cutting a sheet into a plurality of cross sections and additionally cutting each cross section to form slice of a three-dimensional part, wherein the latter cutting is specifically taught to be achieved by a laser, drill, or mill cutter. (col. 9, 35-51). Either cutting step disclosed by Ecer is deemed to meet the instant limitation of “cutting.” Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the first cutting step by one of the conventional cutting techniques disclosed by Ecer, such as laser cutting, in order to achieve precisely cut cross sections.
With respect to Claim 6, Ecer teaches cutting the porous sheet to form slices corresponding to a three-dimensional object, removing portions of one or more layers/cross sections and therefore, resulting in a plurality of scrap. (see Figs. 1, 4).
With respect to Claim 8, Ecer in view of Moxson, Reichman, and Schade teach wherein diffusion bonding comprises stacking the plurality of cross sections to form a stack of cross sections and heating the stack of cross sections to a sintering temperature thereby causing diffusion bonding. (see rejection of claim 1).
With respect to Claims 9 and 16, Ecer in view of Moxson, Reichman, and Schade teach wherein the diffusion bonding comprises stacking the plurality of cross sections to form a stack of cross sections and applying a vacuum in a vacuum furnace. (see rejection of claims 1 and 13 above).
With respect to Claims 11-12 and 18-19, Ecer teaches subjecting the full density near net shape component to additional processing steps such as removing excess portions, forming a final product (col. 13, ln .1-2) and constituting one or more of machining and surface treatment.
With respect to Claim 20, Ecer in view of Moxson, Reichman, and Schade teach consolidating the stack of cross sections comprising heating introducing the near net shape preform into a furnace and heating to a predetermined temperature to achieve densification (thus, a “first temperature.”). (see rejection of claims 1 and 13 above).
Claim(s) 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ecer (US 6048432) in view of Moxson (US 7311873), Reichman (US 3888663) and Schade (US 2006/0285989), as applied to claim 6 (with respect to Claim 7) and claim 13 (with respect to claim 17), further in view of Litvintsey (US 2004/0258553)(previously cited).
With respect to Claims 7 and 17, Ecer teaches a method resulting in the formation of a plurality of scrap (see rejection of claim 6 above); however, the reference is silent as to a step of reusing the scrap.
Litvintsey teaches a method of powder pressing/rolling, wherein “small amounts of the scrap in the form of trimmed edges of hot compacted sheets are grinded and recycled in the powder mixture.” (abstract; para. 57). Thus, Litvintsey teaches a method comprising processing a plurality of scrap by grinding for reuse with a powder mixture.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Ecer in view of Moxson, Reichman, and Schade, to grind the plurality of scrap to form a process scrap and reuse the processed scrap by mixing it with the powder mixture of a plurality of metal powders, as taught by Litvintsey, in order to reduce costs and/or improve the sustainability of the method.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach a method as in claim 1, further comprising stacking the plurality of cross sections to form a stack of cross sections and using a laser or ultrasonic device to perform diffusion bonding on the stack of cross sections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/2/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments. Specifically, prior art Martino, used to teach a composition comprising Fe, Ti, Al, and V does not specifically teach a composition comprising Ti and more than 2.5 wt% Fe. Therefore, the 103 rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ecer in view of Moxson, Reichman, and Schade, as detailed above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended limitations drawn to composition are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant further argues that the amended claims require a “two step diffusion bonding process,” distinct from the prior art which teach a single step densification process. (Remarks, p. 8). These arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
Claim 1 recites “performing a diffusion bonding process…forming a near net shape preform, the near net shape preform being denser than the porous sheet and having a density less than fully density” and “consolidating the near net shape preform.” These limitations are both drawn to steps of densifying/consolidation and do not require an intermediate step nor exclude a continuous process; therefore, these steps may be interpreted as two separate steps or a single step where at some mid-point of the densifying/consolidation step, the object is considered a near net shape preform.
As detailed in the rejection above, Ecer teaches a step of bonding the plurality of cross sections, the step comprising densifying/consolidating the cross sections, over time, to form a full density near net shape component, this step/process is deemed to meet both the claimed bonding step process and the claimed consolidating step, wherein an arbitrary intermediate level of densification in the process may be deemed to constitute forming the “near net shape preform.” (see also claim interpretation section above). Therefore, the references are deemed to meet the claim, as amended.
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 JOHN A HEVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JOHN A HEVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights