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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I: claims 1-7 and 11 in the reply filed on 6/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/18/2026.
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 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (CN 114192148), hereinafter “Yu,” wherein an English machine translation is used and cited herein.
Regarding claim 1, Yu teaches a method for preparing a multiscale metallic metamaterial, comprising the steps of preparing a 3D printed metallic material by 3D printing with selective laser melting (SLM) using a metal alloy powder as a raw material, thereby forming a 3D printed metallic material having a pore array structure, annealing the 3D printed metallic material to obtain an annealed metallic material, and immersing the annealed metallic material in an alkaline or acidic solution, which reads on a chemical etching solution, for chemical dealloying, thereby obtaining the multiscale metallic metamaterial (Abstract, [0007], [0011]-[0026], Figs. 1-3). Yu includes an SEM image of the 3D printed metallic powder, which shows micron-scale pores. Yu also teaches that the metal alloy powder has a diameter of 15-150µm, which would be expected to have micron-scale pores after the SLM process.
As to claim 2, Yu teaches wherein the annealing is conducted at 350-800⁰C for 1-3 hours ([0022]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Yu teaches wherein the metal alloy powder has a diameter of 15-150 µm ([0020]), which overlaps with a Dv50 of 40-45 µm. Yu further teaches wherein the metal alloy powder is a CuMn alloy comprising, by mass, 37-62% Cu and 0-70% Mn ([0019]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed chemical composition. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7, and 11 are 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:
Regarding claims 3-5, 7, and 11, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest a method having the processing limitations as recited. In particular, the closest prior art, Yu (CN 114192148), teaches a method that reads on the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above.
Regarding claim 3, Yu teaches wherein the 3D printed metallic material is constructed by unit cells arranged in an array (Fig. 2), but fails to teach or fairly suggest wherein each of the unit cells is selected from the group consisting of a square honeycomb unit cell, a simple cubic unit cell, and a gyroid unit cell, in a hexahedral structure of square honeycomb unit cells, only one pair of opposite faces is provided with a through hole, surfaces with the through hole of two adjacent unit cells in an array of the square honeycomb unit cells are in contact with each other, and the 3D printed metallic material constructed by the square honeycomb unit cells is in a square honeycomb structure, and in a hexahedral structure of simple cubic unit cells, each pair of three pairs of opposite faces is provided with a through hole; and the 3D printed metallic material constructed by the simple cubic unit cells is in a simple cubic structure, as required by claim 3. Thus, claim 3 is distinct over the teachings of the prior art. Claim 4 further limits the subject matter of claim 3 and is thus also distinct over the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claim 5, Yu teaches wherein the 3D printing is performed with working parameters comprising a laser power of 300-1200 W, a scanning speed of 200-1200 mm/s, and a layer thickness of 20-80 µm ([0021]). However, Yu teaches a laser power of 300-1200 W, which is outside of the instantly claimed range of 80-100 W. Furthermore, Yu does not teach or fairly suggest wherein a laser diameter is 50-60 µm, a hatch spacing is 100-110 µm, and the metal alloy powder during the 3D printing is at a temperature of 80-100⁰C, as required by claim 5. Thus, claim 5 is distinct over the teachings of the prior art. Claim 11 further limits the subject matter of claim 5 and is thus also distinct over the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claim 7, Yu teaches wherein the chemical etching solution is a sulfuric acid solution and the dealloying temperature is 10-60⁰C ([0024]-[0025]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range. However, Yu fails to teach or fairly suggest wherein the sulfuric acid solution has a molarity of 0.2-0.3 mol/L and wherein the dealloying is conducted for greater than or equal to 5 days, during which, the chemical etching solution is replaced once every third hour, as required by claim 7. In contrast, Yu taches wherein the mass concentration of sulfuric acid in the solution is 5-50% ([0025]), which equates to 0.52-7.11 mol/L. Furthermore, Yu teaches wherein the dealloying treatment duration is between 2 and 36 hours ([0025]). Thus, claim 7 is distinct over the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY M LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0483. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1177. 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.
/ANTHONY M LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights