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 1-10, in the reply filed on 1/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/21/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 9/18/2023. These drawings are accepted.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION - The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the total mass of the aluminum alloy" in lines 13 and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the level of the first surface" in lines 14 and 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 does not define the units for Vr or Vrmax in lines 14 and 16, respectively. For purposes of this office action, the units for Vr or Vrmax will be assumed to be K/s based on Vrmin in line 20. However, “w” in equation (1) is percentage by weight of zirconium, which has no units, and the other values (9.106 and 4.106) have no units. It is not clear how to compare Vr, Vrmin, and Vrmax with inconsistent units as claimed.
Claim 1 recites “strictly higher than a minimum value Vrmin” in line 20. It is not clear what limitation “strictly” represents and if “strickly” is superfluous.
Claims dependent on any of the rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10-2020-20806 A1 (based on the machine translation) in view of Loh et al in International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer.
DE 10-2020-208086 A1 (DE ‘086) teaches a component made of an aluminum-nickel alloy with 80.0-99.5 wt.% aluminum and 0.5-15.0 wt.% nickel [0001]. The component is at least partially manufactured using additive manufacturing [0001]. The process uses layer-by-layer melting of metal powder using a laser beam [0002]. The alloy can also contain zirconium [0013] in 0-1.0 wt.% [0026]. The molten material is cooled in a range of 103 K/s to 109 K/s [0035]. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art discloses the utility of the composition over the entire disclosed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness based on overlapping ranges by showing the criticality of the claimed range or by showing that the art, in any material respect, teaches away from the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2144.05 III. Based on at least 0.7 wt.% Zr, the Vrmax in equation 1 is 2.27 [Wingdings font/0xFB] 106 K/s (0.7 wt.% Zr) to 5.0 [Wingdings font/0xFB] 106 K/s (1.0 wt.% Zr) based on DE ‘086. However, DE ‘086 does not teach the cooling rate at the start of solidification at a level of a surface of the molten bath is lower than a value defined by equation (1) based on at least 0.7 wt.% Zr and higher than a minimum value of 106 K/s as recited in Claim 1.
Loh et al teaches a heat transfer model for selective laser melting with additive manufacturing with layers of powders (page 288) and melting with a laser beam (Figs. 1 and 2). The rate of temperature change in K/s is represented in Fig. 14 with respect to the center of the melt pool, the melt boundary, and the interface between bulk and powder for aluminum alloys (page 296). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the cooling rate at the start of solidification at a level of a surface of the molten bath at least overlap the range of 2.27 [Wingdings font/0xFB] 106 K/s to 5.0 [Wingdings font/0xFB] 106 K/s, since Loh et al teaches a point within the critical distance from the center region will receive a strong heat flux from the laser beam, and this heat flux will cause a high temperature difference between this point within the critical distance with those outside the critical distance, resulting in the steep drop in temperature.
Regarding Claim 2, DE ‘086 teaches a cooling range of 103 K/s to 109 K/s [0035], which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 3, DE ‘086 teaches the presence of Zr that forms precipitates of strength-enhancing phases [0006], which reads on an aluminum alloy functionalized with particles containing Zr.
Regarding Claim 6, DE ‘086 teaches an overlapping range of Zr of 0-1.0 wt.% [0026].
Regarding Claim 7, DE ‘086 teaches an overlapping range of Zr of 0-1.0 wt.% [0026].
Regarding Claim 8, DE ‘086 teaches an overlapping range of Zr of 0-1.0 wt.% [0026].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 9, and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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.
DE ‘086 does not suggest adding zirconium in the form of YSZ (yttriated zirconia; see page 1 of the specification), ZrO2, and ZrSi2, particles or one of mixtures thereof as in Claim 4.
DE ‘086 does not suggest adding zirconium to the aluminum alloy during liquid atomization as in Claim 5.
DE ‘086 teaches an aluminum-nickel alloy with 0.5-15% wt.% Ni, less than 1.0 wt.% Cu, less than 1.0 wt.% Si, and less than 1.0 wt.% Fe [0001]. However, DE ‘086 does not suggest the aluminum alloy composition for 2024 (Cu 3.8-4.9%), 2219 (Cu 5.8-6.8%), and 7075 (5.56-6.1% Zn) as in Claim 9 or for 6061 (0.80-1.20% Mg) as in Claim 10.
WO 2018/049051 A1 (WO ‘051) teaches aluminum alloy powders for use in additive manufacturing (abstract). The additive manufacturing processes include selective laser sintering, selective laser melting, and electron beam melting [0017]. The method comprises dispersing a powder in a bed, selectively heating a portion of the powder via a laser to a temperature above the liquidus temperature, forming a molten pool, and cooling. The cooling rate is at least 1,000,000 °C [0018]. The aluminum alloys include 2xxx, 6xxx, and 7xxx [0029] as described in Claims 9 and 10. The powder feedstock can include non-metal particles [0049] such as oxides [0050] and zirconium [0028]. However, WO ‘051 does not suggest a composition of at least 0.7% by weight as in Claim 1.
CN 108315577 (CN ‘577, based on the machine translation) teaches a 7XXX series aluminum matrix composite powder for laser additive manufacturing [0001] with 0.05-3% Zr [0021]. Aluminum alloy is gas atomized [0019]. However, CN ‘577 does not suggest a cooling rate of molten aluminum alloy of higher than 106 K/s as in Claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 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 D. Hendricks can be reached at (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 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/TIMA M. MCGUTHRY-BANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733