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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendment filed 7/18/2025 is entered and fully considered. Claims 1-10 and 12-30 are pending. Claim 11 is cancelled. Claim 1 is amended. No new matter is added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither Dierkes and Thaler disclose that the first temperature is higher than 2545 C.
Examiner notes that the prior claim set did not explicitly require that the first temperature is higher than 2545 C. As such, the scope of the invention has been changed and the new requirements will be addressed hereinafter.
Applicant further argues that if the eutectic temperature is lower than 2545 C, it would not be obvious to perform heating up to a temperature in excess of 2545 C in Thaler in view of Dierkes. For example, if assuming the eutectic temperature of chromium diboride and SiC is 2050 C, it suffices to perform heating up to 2050 C or so. Thus there would be no reason to heat the temperature at the claimed temperature.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. DIERKES et al. discloses that it is preferred that the maximum temperature is higher than the melting point of the highest melting component in the eutectic system (Paragraph [0088]). Thus, there is a teaching of having the first temperature higher than the eutectic, per se.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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.
______________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 10, 12-18 and 20-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over THALER et al. (US 2009/0105062) in view of DIERKES et al. (US 2012/0237745) and evidenced by BROWN (US 7,404,647).
With respect to claim 1, THALER et al. discloses a sinterable powder mixture (Title) comprising a transition metal diboride and silicon carbide (Paragraph [0009], [0030]-[0033]). The metal diboride is a chromium diboride (Paragraph [0033]). The powder is pressed to form a green body, and then sintered (Paragraphs [0020]-[0025]). This method allows for shaped bodies having complex geometries to be made (Paragraphs [0004]-[0007]).
THALER et al. does not explicitly disclose irradiating the power with an energy beam based on shape data of the object. DIERKES et al. discloses a method for making a ceramic article (Title; Abstract) having complex three dimensional structures that cannot be produced by other methods of production (Paragraph [0032]) and allows for avoidance of waste material and is economically viable for prototype production, for the production of small series or the production of various articles wherein each article has a different shape (Paragraph [0042]). DIERKES et al. further discusses that in the art, various methods are used to free form fabricate these parts, such as by selective laser sintering and selective laser melting (Paragraph [0003]-[0008]). The parts are manufactured by providing a powder or powder mixture, depositing a layer of the powder or powder mixture on a surface, heating the layer by means of an energy beam, such as a laser (e.g., irradiating using an energy beam; Paragraph [0067]), to heat the powder to melt that powder that has been irradiated; cooling the irradiated region; and repeating the aforementioned steps to form the part (Paragraphs [0061]-[0063]). The energy beam is directed to an exposure pattern that defines the shape of the corresponding cross section of the final article (Paragraph [0066]). The energy beams are directed based on a computer using data obtained by sampling a three-dimension shape of a sample to be reproduced (Paragraph [0159]) (e.g., irradiating based on shape data of an object of shaping to preform shaping). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the parts of THALER et al. by layer-by-layer manufacturing, whereby a layer of the power is provided, then irradiating the powder in a pattern based on shape data, and melting the powders to solidify the cross-sectional shape of the part for that layer, then repeating the process until the part is formed, as taught by DIERKES et al.. This would allow one of ordinary skill to produce complex three dimensional structures that cannot be produced by other methods of production and also allow for avoidance of waste material, as well as provide economically viable prototype production, for the production of small series or the production of various articles wherein each article has a different shape.
DIERKES et al. further discloses that the powder used form a eutectic to lower the melting point and therefor reduce the maximum temperature needed to melt the powders (Paragraph [0078]). It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form a eutectic with the powders of THALER et al., as taught by DIERKES et al. so that the temperature needed to bond the layers is reduced.
This eutectic is formed from the powder mixture during melting so that distinct phases are formed to further improve the physical properties (Paragraphs [0082], [0083], [0084]). The eutectic phases are present in the melt itself (Paragraph [0088]). Thus, the eutectic is generated at the first temperature, which is the temperature at which the metal boride melts.
DIERKES et al. further discloses that the temperature is lowered to a second temperature such as room temperature (Paragraph [0243]), below the solidus temperature (Paragraph [0040]), ambient temperature (Paragraph [0045]), or even 1500C less than the heating temperature (Paragraph [0045]). These temperatures are lower than the eutectic point of the body (e.g., the temperature at which the powders melt).
DIERKES et al. discloses that it is preferred that the maximum temperature is higher than the melting point of the highest melting component in the eutectic system (Paragraph [0088]). Thus, there is a teaching of having the first temperature higher than the eutectic, per se.
The melting point of SiC is above 2589 C (See BROWN, Column 7, lines 28-35), as evidenced by BROWN. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to heat the first temperature to 2589C so that the temperature is heated to the melting point of the highest melting component in the eutectic system, according to DIERKES et al.
With respect to claim 2, THALER et al. discloses that the metal boride is a chromium diboride (Paragraphs [0033] and [0030]).
With respect to claim 3, THALER et al. discloses that the power is a mixture (Paragraphs [0020], [0035], [0036]), and the metal boride is a powder (Paragraph [0031]) and the silicon carbide is a powder (Paragraph [0029]).
With respect to claim 4, THALER et al. discloses that the silicon carbide powder (e.g., third phase) has an average power size of less than 20 microns (Paragraph [0031]).
With respect to claim 5, THALER et al. discloses that a green body is formed by pressing the granulated particles (Paragraph [0054]). As such, these compacted particles implicitly have a series of particles that can be theoretically outlined to include at least one of the boride particle and at least one of the silicon carbide particle.
With respect to claim 7, DIERKES et al. discloses that the energy beam is a laser beam (Paragraph [0071]).
With respect to claim 8, The chromium diboride necessarily has a melting point lower than a sublimation point of the silicon carbide (See claims 1 and 2).
With respect to claim 10, DIERKES et al. discloses that the irradiating causes the powders to melt (Paragraphs [0061]-[0063]).
With respect to claim 12, THALER et al. discloses that the material contains titanium diboride (Paragraph [0034]).
With respect to claim 13, THALER et al. discloses that the main phase (e.g. metal diboride) has a particle size of less than 20 microns. The SiC phase has an average particle size of less than 20 microns (Paragraphs [0030]-[0031]). Thus, the scope of THALER et al. overlaps with the claimed ranges. Specifically, the SiC can have an average particle size of 19 microns while the metal diboride can have a particle size of 10 microns.
With respect to claim 14, THALER et al. discloses that the main phase (e.g. metal diboride) has a particle size of less than 20 microns. The SiC phase has an average particle size of less than 20 microns (Paragraphs [0030]-[0031])..
With respect to claim 15, THALER et al. discloses that the main phase (e.g. metal diboride) has a particle size of less than 20 microns, and preferably less than 10 microns. (Paragraphs [0030]-[0031]). Less than 10 microns overlaps with the claimed 9 microns, or less. See, MPEP 2144.05, I.
With respect to claim 16, THALER et al. discloses that the main phase (e.g. metal diboride) has a particle size of less than 20 microns. The SiC phase has an average particle size of less than 20 microns (Paragraphs [0030]-[0031]). Thus, the scope of THALER et al. overlaps with the claimed ranges. Specifically, the scope of THALER et al. includes an average particle size of SiC of 19 microns and an average particle size of the metal diboride of 10 microns.
With respect to claim 17, THALER et al. discloses that the main phase (e.g. metal diboride) has a particle size of less than 20 microns. The SiC phase has an average particle size of less than 20 microns (Paragraphs [0030]-[0031])..
With respect to claim 18, THALER et al. discloses that the main phase (e.g. metal diboride) has a particle size of less than 20 microns, and preferably less than 10 microns. (Paragraphs [0030]-[0031]). Less than 10 microns overlaps with the claimed 9 microns, or less. See, MPEP 2144.05, I.
With respect to claim 20, DIERKES et al. discloses the formation of a lamination including plural layers by repeating the aforementioned operations (See rejection of claim 1) (Paragraphs [0042], [0061]-[0066]).
With respect to claim 21, DIERKES et al. discloses that the thickness of one of the layers is between 5 and 200 microns, and preferably between 20 and 70 microns (Paragraph [0138]).
With respect to claim 22, DIERKES et al. discloses that the thickness of one of the layers is between 5 and 200 microns, and preferably between 20 and 70 microns (Paragraph [0138]). DIERKES et al. further discloses that the layers are repeatedly applied until the desired height of the object is achieved (Paragraphs [0055], [0061], [0243]). Thus, the claimed ranges overlap with the scope of DIERKES et al.. Specifically, if a layer having a thickness of 200 microns is printed 5 times, then the overall height of the part is 1 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form at least 5 layers of material, so that the desired thickness of the part can be achieved.
With respect to claim 23, given that the size of the regions are not claimed, each particle of powder represents a localized region. Thus, there are implicitly a metal boride region(s) and silicon carbide region(s).
With respect to claim 24, DIERKES et al. discloses that the thickness of one of the layers is between 5 and 200 microns, and preferably between 20 and 70 microns (Paragraph [0138]). Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “lamella” as a “thin flat scale, membrane, or layer”. Thus, it would appear that the micron thin flat layers of each structure meets the plain meaning of the term “lamella”.
With respect to claim 25, The chromium diboride necessarily has a melting point lower than a sublimation point of the silicon carbide (See claims 1 and 2).
With respect to claim 26, DIERKES et al. discloses that the powder used form a eutectic to lower the melting point and therefor reduce the maximum temperature needed to melt the powders (Paragraph [0078]). It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form a eutectic with the powders of THALER et al., as taught by DIERKES et al. so that the temperature needed to bond the layers is reduced.
With respect to claim 27, The chromium diboride necessarily has a melting point lower than a sublimation point of the silicon carbide (See claims 1 and 2). DIERKES et al. discloses that the powder used form a eutectic to lower the melting point and therefor reduce the maximum temperature needed to melt the powders (Paragraph [0078]). It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form a eutectic with the powders of THALER et al., as taught by DIERKES et al. so that the temperature needed to bond the layers is reduced.
With respect to claim 28, THALER et al. shows the carbide grains and the metal boride grains dispersed throughout the component (Figure 1 and 2). While boron carbide is shown silicon carbide is disclosed as an alternative (Abstract). Thus, there implicitly exists grains of metal boride between grains of silicon carbide.
With respect to claim 29, DIERKES et al. discloses that the sizes of the grains produced are about 1 micron (Paragraph [0083], [0091])
With respect to claim 30, THALER et al. discloses that the powder size of the powders is between 1 and 100 microns (Paragraph [0131]) and produce grains sizes of 1 micron (Paragraphs [0083], [0091]). Thus, at a particle size of 10 microns, and a grain size of 1 micron, the grain size to particle size of the silicon carbide is 1/10.
____________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over THALER et al. (US 2009/0105062) in view of DIERKES et al. (US 2012/0237745) and evidenced by BROWN (US 7,404,647) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-8, 10, 12-18 and 20-30 above, and further in view of TANI et al. (US 5,034,355)
With respect to claims 6 and 9, THALER et al. discloses that the metal boride is a chromium diboride ((Paragraphs [0033] and [0030]). THALER et al. does not explicitly disclose that that the molar ratio of silicon carbide to chromium diboride is in the claimed ranges. TANI et al. discloses a composite material formed of silicon carbide and metal boride, such as chromium diboride (Column 3, lines 33-55). The volume ratio of the silicon carbide to the metal boride is from 5 to 50 vol% metal boride and the remainder silicon carbide so that the fracture toughness is improved while maintaining oxidation resistance at high temperatures (Column 3, lines 55-63). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the silicon carbide and chromium diboride of THALER et al. in a ratio of 5 to 50 vol% metal boride and the remainder silicon carbide so that the fracture toughness is improved while maintaining oxidation resistance at high temperatures.
When the silicon carbide (molar mass is 40 g/mol and density is 3.21 g/cm3) is present in an amount of 75 vol% and the chromium diboride (molar mass is 73.6 g/mol and density is 6.17 g/cm3)is present in an amount of 25 vol% the molar amount of silicon (at 100 cm3) is about 6 mols (e.g., (75cm3*3.21g/cm3)/40g/mol) and the molar amount of chromium diboride is about 2 mol (e.g., (25cm3*6.17g/cm3)/73.6g/mol). Thus, the ratio of silicon carbide to chromium diboride is about 3:1, or 3. This molar ratio is also the eutectic ratio of these components (See instant published paragraph [0033]).
__________________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over THALER et al. (US 2009/0105062) in view of DIERKES et al. (US 2012/0237745) and evidenced by BROWN (US 7,404,647) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-8, 10, 12-18 and 20-30 above, and further in view of EBERT et al. (US 2007/0145629).
With respect to claim 19, modified THALER et al. discloses that the laser is a Nd:YAG laser (DIERKES et al.; Paragraph [0123]), but does not disclose the wavelength of the laser.
EBERT et al. discloses the use of laser beams to sinter in a laminar fashion (Paragraph [0005]). The laser is a Nd:YAG laser having a wavelength of 1064 nm (Paragraph [0030]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the Nd:YAG laser of modified THALER et al. having a wavelength of 1064 nm, as taught by EBERT et al. so that each layer can be fused together.
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 ALEX B EFTA whose telephone number is (313)446-6548. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Philip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745