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 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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the forging temperature" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-3, 6-7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al. (US 2021/0078078), as cited in the IDS dated 11/9/2023, hereinafter “Zhong.”
Regarding claim 1, Zhong teaches a method for treating at least one part of a metal component that is at least partially produced by additive manufacturing (claim 1, Fig. 1-3), wherein the method comprises the steps of heating said at least one part of said metal component to form at least one softened region (claim 1, [0031], Fig. 1-3), and applying a mechanical load to said at least one softened region to plastically deform the metal in said at least one softened region (claims 1, 14, and 15, [0031], Fig. 1-3).
Regarding claim 2, Zhong teaches the metal component being heated by a laser beam (claim 12, [0030], Fig. 1).
As to claim 3, Zhong teaches the metal component being heated at a desired forging temperature ([0027], [0029]), wherein said forging temperature range is between 980⁰C and 1100⁰C for a nickel-based alloy material ([0033]).
As to claim 6, Zhong teaches wherein the build substrate is moved relative to the energy beam ([0047]).
Regarding claim 7, Zhong teaches wherein the connecting device can move the forging head according to the movement of the energy source, and in some embodiments, the movement of the energy source and the movement of the forging head may also be independent from each other ([0028]).
With respect to claim 9, Zhong teaches wherein the forging treatment is performed on a layer basis (claim 1), which reads on the additive manufacturing process as recited.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong (US 2021/0078078) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liou et al. (US 2015/0360289), as cited in the IDS dated 11/9/2023, hereinafter “Liou.”
Regarding claim 5, Zhong teaches a method that reads on the limitations recited in claim 1, as detailed above. Zhong is silent as to wherein the step of heating the at least one part of the metal component includes heating the at least one part of the metal component so that the softened region extends to a maximum depth of 4 mm from a surface of the metal component, as required by claim 5. However, in the same field of endeavor, Liou teaches an additive manufacturing method that may be direct energy deposition, wherein the method comprises deep rolling the additive manufactured layer in order to impart residual stress to a depth of about 1.5 mm in the additively manufactured layer, thereby improving the resistance to metal fatigue and to stress corrosion (claims 1, 4 and 7, [0017], Fig. 2, [0031]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to impart residual stress to a depth of about 1.5 mm in the method Zhong, in order to improve resistance to metal fatigue and stress corrosion, as taught by Liou.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong (US 2021/0078078) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Hu et al. (CN 112496344), hereinafter “Hu,” wherein an English machine translation is used and cited herein.
Regarding claim 8, Zhong teaches a method that reads on the limitations recited in claims 1 and 7, as detailed above. Zhong is silent as to the method further comprising a step of mounting the heating device and/or the mechanical load-applying device, or the single tool, on a robot or computer numerical control (CNC) machine, as required by claim 8. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hu teaches the use of a robot arm and CNC machine in a direct metal deposition system comprising a forging head or forging rolling and a cladding head (claims 1 and 8, Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to mount the heating device and/or mechanical load-applying device or single tool of Zhong on a robot and/or CNC machine, as taught by Hu, for the purpose of predictably and repeatably performing the method of Zhong without the need for manual operation.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong (US 2021/0078078) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cloots et al. (EP 3542928), hereinafter “Cloots.”
Regarding claim 10, Zhong teaches a method that reads on the limitations recited in claim 1, as detailed above. Zhong is silent as to executing the steps of its method using a computer program containing computer program code arranged to cause a computer or processor to control the execution of the steps of the method, the computer program being stored on a computer readable medium or carrier wave. However, Cloots teaches that an additive manufacturing process may be executed using a computer program containing code arranged to cause a computer or processor to control the execution of the steps of the method, wherein the computer program may be stored in a computer readable medium ([0049]-[0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a computer program containing code arranged to cause a computer or processor to control the execution of the steps of the method, wherein the computer program may be stored in a computer readable medium, as taught by Cloots, to carry out the method of Zhong for the purpose of predictably and repeatedly performing the desired method without the need for manual operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 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 4 and 11, the closest prior art, Zhong (US 2021/0078078) teaches a method that reads on the limitations set forth in claims 1 and 6, as detailed above. However, the prior art alone or in combination fails to disclose or fairly suggest the limitations set forth in claims 4 and 11 in combination with the limitations set forth in claims 1 and 6. Thus, claims 4 and 11 are 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