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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 3/15/24 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 13-25 in the reply filed on 12/19/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13-18, 20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yousefiani et al. (US 20090269497 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Yousefiani teaches “a method for creation of the graded CTE composite structure” (which reads upon “a method of fabricating a composite article, the method comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0003]). Yousefiani teaches that “in an exemplary application where the intention is to attach a very high CTE member (e.g. one made from Inconel 718) to a very low CTE member (e.g. one made from an advanced extreme environment material such as a ceramic matrix composite) in an assembly which will be cycled between room temperature and 1200 F, the graded materials could be selected from Kovar, designated element 12, for a first layer, Alloy 42, designated element 14, for a second layer, Alloy 48, designated element 16, for a third layer, 15-5 PH, designated element 18, for a fourth layer and Inconel 718, designated element 20, for a fifth layer” (which reads upon “providing a first alloy having a first composition and a second alloy having a second composition, wherein the second composition is different than the first composition”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0040]). Yousefiani teaches that “a first attachment layer having a surface for attachment to a first structural component with a first CTE is defined 302 and a second attachment layer having a second surface for attachment to a second structural component with a second CTE is defined 304” (paragraph [0042]). Yousefiani teaches that “one or more layers of material each having a predetermined CTE intermediate the first attachment layer and the second attachment layer are provided 306 and build up of the first attachment layer, the intermediate layer(s), and the second attachment layer in graded order of CTE to create a composite billet or near net shape perform is accomplished” (which reads upon “depositing a first portion comprising the first alloy depositing a transition portion on the first portion, the transition portion comprising a transition material having a composition that is different than both the first composition of the first alloy and the second composition of the second alloy; and depositing a second portion comprising the second alloy on the transition portion such that the transition portion is sandwiched between the first portion and the second portion in a build direction from the first portion through the transition portion to the second portion whereby the transition portion comprising the transition material joins the first portion comprising the first alloy to the second portion comprising the second alloy”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0042]; the first attachment layer reads on the first alloy, the intermediate layer(s) reads on the transition portion, and the second attachment layer reads on the second alloy; see also FIG. 3A and associated discussion). Yousefiani teaches “gradually blending compositions at an alloy A-alloy B interlayer using mixed metal interlayers 58 a-58 c” (which reads upon “alloys”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claims 14-15, Yousefiani teaches the method of claim 13 as stated above. Yousefiani teaches “the graded materials could be selected from Kovar, designated element 12, for a first layer, Alloy 42, designated element 14, for a second layer, Alloy 48, designated element 16, for a third layer, 15-5 PH, designated element 18, for a fourth layer and Inconel 718, designated element 20, for a fifth layer” (paragraph [0048]; 15-5 PH reads on the transition material).
Regarding claim 16-17, Yousefiani teaches the method of claim 13 as stated above. Yousefiani teaches “gradually blending compositions at an alloy A-alloy B interlayer using mixed metal interlayers 58 a-58 c, and that a first interlayer 58 a adjacent the alloy A layer of 75% alloy A and 25% alloy B, a second interlayer 58 b of 50% of alloy A and alloy B and a third interlayer 58 c of 25% alloy A and 75% alloy B adjacent the alloy B layer are shown as examples” (paragraph [0047]; a 50/50 blend of alloy A and alloy B reads on the transition material).
Regarding claim 18, Yousefiani teaches the method of claim 13 as stated above. Yousefiani teaches “the graded materials could be selected from Kovar, designated element 12, for a first layer, Alloy 42, designated element 14, for a second layer, Alloy 48, designated element 16, for a third layer, 15-5 PH, designated element 18, for a fourth layer and Inconel 718, designated element 20, for a fifth layer” (paragraph [0048]; Kovar reads on an extreme-temperature material; Inconel 718 reads on a high-strength material).
Regarding claim 20, Yousefiani teaches the method of claim 13 as stated above. Yousefiani teaches “a transition ring 76 with three layers, titanium 78, alloy 42 80 and Kovar 82” (paragraph [0053]; Kovar reads on the transition material; Kovar is a refractory alloy other than a Nb-based alloy).
Regarding claims 22-23, Yousefiani teaches the method of claim 13 as stated above. Yousefiani teaches that “build-up fabrication processes using typical metal deposition techniques are employed in a first embodiment to create a composite billet or near net shape with graded CTE materials” (paragraph [0041]). Yousefiani teaches that “laser assisted near net shape manufacturing, laser sintering, spray forming or thermal spray forming nominally shown as bolts 29 a are employed to produce the CTE-graded layered composite near net shape preform 30 a” (paragraph [0041]; laser assisted near net shape manufacturing reads on a directed energy deposition process).
Regarding claim 24, Yousefiani teaches that “the intention is to attach a very high CTE member (e.g. one made from Inconel 718) to a very low CTE member (e.g. one made from an advanced extreme environment material such as a ceramic matrix composite)” (which reads upon “a method of joining two dissimilar alloys, the method comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0040]). Yousefiani teaches “a method for creation of the graded CTE composite structure” (paragraph [0003]). Yousefiani teaches that “a first attachment layer having a surface for attachment to a first structural component with a first CTE is defined 302 and a second attachment layer having a second surface for attachment to a second structural component with a second CTE is defined 304” (paragraph [0042]). Yousefiani teaches that “one or more layers of material each having a predetermined CTE intermediate the first attachment layer and the second attachment layer are provided 306 and build up of the first attachment layer, the intermediate layer(s), and the second attachment layer in graded order of CTE to create a composite billet or near net shape perform is accomplished” (which reads upon “forming a first portion comprising a first alloy forming a transition portion on the first portion; and forming a second portion on the transition portion, the second portion comprising a second alloy wherein the transition portion is sandwiched between the first portion comprising the first alloy and the second portion comprising the second alloy wherein the transition portion joins the first portion comprising the first alloy to the second portion comprising the second alloy”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0042]; the first attachment layer reads on the first alloy, the intermediate layer(s) reads on the transition portion, and the second attachment layer reads on the second alloy; see also FIG. 3A and associated discussion). Yousefiani teaches that “the graded materials could be selected from Kovar, designated element 12, for a first layer, Alloy 42, designated element 14, for a second layer, Alloy 48, designated element 16, for a third layer, 15-5 PH, designated element 18, for a fourth layer and Inconel 718, designated element 20, for a fifth layer” (which reads upon “wherein the first alloy is different than the second alloy, and the transition portion comprises a transition material that is different than both the first alloy and the second alloy”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0040]).
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 20180161931 A1).
Regarding claims 13 and 20, Li teaches “a method for joining two distinct alloys” (which reads upon “a method of fabricating a composite article, the method comprising providing a first alloy having a first composition and a second alloy having a second composition, wherein the second composition is different than the first composition”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0003]). Li teaches that “a first interface layer is formed directly on a substrate of the Ti6Al4V alloy” (which reads upon “depositing a first portion comprising the first alloy depositing a transition portion on the first portion, the transition portion comprising a transition material having a composition that is different than both the first composition of the first alloy and the second composition of the second alloy”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0026]). Li teaches that “the first interface layer material consists essentially of a single element metal (e.g., V, not an alloy)” (which reads upon “wherein the transition material a refractory element”, as recited in instant claim 20; paragraph [0026]; V, Vanadium, reads on a refractory element). Li teaches that “a preferred method for forming the first interface layer as well as subsequent layers is one of several available metal additive manufacturing processes” (paragraph [0027]). Li teaches “to attach the second bulk structural element to the substrate, using the multi-layer (e.g., three-layer) interface between the second bulk structural element and the first bulk structural element (i.e., the substrate), and that this attachment can be performed in various ways; but in a preferred embodiment it is performed by LMD, in the same manner that the three or more interface layers are formed” (which reads upon “depositing a second portion comprising the second alloy on the transition portion such that the transition portion is sandwiched between the first portion and the second portion in a build direction from the first portion through the transition portion to the second portion whereby the transition portion comprising the transition material joins the first portion comprising the first alloy to the second portion comprising the second alloy”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0030]). Li teaches that “a SS316 powder is deposited by LMD over the third interface layer” (which reads upon “second alloy”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0030]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 19, 21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yousefiani et al. (US 20090269497 A1), as applied to claims 13, 18, and 24 above, and further in view of Kestler et al. (US 20170189962 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Yousefiani teaches the method of claim 18 as stated above. Yousefiani teaches “the graded materials could be selected from Kovar, designated element 12, for a first layer, Alloy 42, designated element 14, for a second layer, Alloy 48, designated element 16, for a third layer, 15-5 PH, designated element 18, for a fourth layer and Inconel 718, designated element 20, for a fifth layer” (paragraph [0048]; Kovar reads on an extreme-temperature material; Inconel 718 is a Ni-based superalloy).
Yousefiani is silent regarding the extreme-temperature material is a Nb-based refractory alloy.
Kestler is similarly concerned with providing a powder formed of particles and solidifying the powder under the action of a laser beam or electron beam (paragraph [0001]). Kestler teaches that “suitability for this purpose is possessed, for example, by selective laser sintering (SLS), selective laser melting (SLM), laser metal deposition (LMD), electron beam melting (EBM) or powder bed and also inkjet head 3D printing” (paragraph [0007]; laser metal deposition (LMD) reads on a directed energy deposition process). Kestler teaches that “at present, refractory metals are not yet being solidified/compacted via additive manufacturing processes on an industrial scale” (paragraph [0020]). Kestler teaches that “one of the reasons why additive manufacturing processes have not yet become widely established for these materials is the limited availability of powders suitable for these manufacturing processes, and that with the powders used at present, the resulting materials properties and operational properties are of insufficient quality for a broad application of these manufacturing methods” (paragraph [0020]). Kestler teaches that “the object of the present invention, therefore, is to provide a process that allows the production of components from refractory metals with at least one of the following properties high surface quality high accuracy low wall thickness high density, and low error density, such as pores/pore clusters high static and dynamic strength high ductility fine-grained structure low inherent stresses” (paragraph [0023]). Kestler teaches that “the term refractory metal encompasses the metals based on niobium, tantalum, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten and rhenium. The refractory metal content of the refractory metal alloys of the invention is >50 at %, preferably >70 or >80 at %” (which reads upon “a Nb-based refractory alloy”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0034]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the Kovar of Yousefiani with a Nb-based refractory alloy, as taught by Kestler because recent advances in powder metallurgy now allow for powders suitable for these manufacturing processes using refractory metals including niobium resulting in at least one of the following properties high surface quality high accuracy low wall thickness high density, and low error density, such as pores/pore clusters high static and dynamic strength high ductility fine-grained structure low inherent stresses. It has been held that obviousness exists where the selection of a known material was based on its suitability for its intended use. MPEP § 2144.07. Here, Kestler teaches that niobium is suitable as a refractory material for use with additive manufacturing processes. Accordingly, the prior art renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 21, Yousefiani teaches the method of claim 13 as stated above. Yousefiani teaches “a transition ring 76 with three layers, titanium 78, alloy 42 80 and Kovar 82” (paragraph [0053]; Kovar reads on the transition material).
Yousefiani is silent regarding wherein the transition material is one of a Ti64 alloy and elemental Mo.
Kestler is similarly concerned with providing a powder formed of particles and solidifying the powder under the action of a laser beam or electron beam (paragraph [0001]). Kestler teaches that “suitability for this purpose is possessed, for example, by selective laser sintering (SLS), selective laser melting (SLM), laser metal deposition (LMD), electron beam melting (EBM) or powder bed and also inkjet head 3D printing” (paragraph [0007]; laser metal deposition (LMD) reads on a directed energy deposition process). Kestler teaches that “at present, refractory metals are not yet being solidified/compacted via additive manufacturing processes on an industrial scale” (paragraph [0020]). Kestler teaches that “one of the reasons why additive manufacturing processes have not yet become widely established for these materials is the limited availability of powders suitable for these manufacturing processes, and that with the powders used at present, the resulting materials properties and operational properties are of insufficient quality for a broad application of these manufacturing methods” (paragraph [0020]). Kestler teaches that “the object of the present invention, therefore, is to provide a process that allows the production of components from refractory metals with at least one of the following properties high surface quality high accuracy low wall thickness high density, and low error density, such as pores/pore clusters high static and dynamic strength high ductility fine-grained structure low inherent stresses” (paragraph [0023]). Kestler teaches that “the term refractory metal encompasses the metals based on niobium, tantalum, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten and rhenium, and that the refractory metal content is >90, >95 or 99 at %” (which reads upon “elemental molybdenum (Mo)”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0034]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the Kovar of Yousefiani with elemental molybdenum (Mo), as taught by Kestler because recent advances in powder metallurgy now allow for powders suitable for these manufacturing processes using refractory metals including niobium resulting in at least one of the following properties high surface quality high accuracy low wall thickness high density, and low error density, such as pores/pore clusters high static and dynamic strength high ductility fine-grained structure low inherent stresses. It has been held that obviousness exists where the selection of a known material was based on its suitability for its intended use. MPEP § 2144.07. Here, Kestler teaches that elemental molybdenum (Mo) is suitable as a refractory material for use with additive manufacturing processes. Accordingly, the prior art renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 25, Yousefiani teaches the method of claim 24 as stated above. Yousefiani teaches “the graded materials could be selected from Kovar, designated element 12, for a first layer, Alloy 42, designated element 14, for a second layer, Alloy 48, designated element 16, for a third layer, 15-5 PH, designated element 18, for a fourth layer and Inconel 718, designated element 20, for a fifth layer” (paragraph [0048]; Inconel 718 is a Ni-based superalloy). Yousefiani teaches “a local interface design 912 is chosen to provide for a blended interlayer interface which, for the exemplary application, constitutes powder or wire feed for initial layering of 75 % Alloy 42 and 25% Kovar, 84, second transition layering of 50 % Alloy 42 and 50% Kovar, 86 and a third transition layering of 75% Kovar and 25 % Alloy 42” (which reads upon “the transition material is a refractory alloy other than a Nb-based alloy”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0053]).
Yousefiani is silent regarding a Nb-based refractory alloy.
Kestler is similarly concerned with providing a powder formed of particles and solidifying the powder under the action of a laser beam or electron beam (paragraph [0001]). Kestler teaches that “suitability for this purpose is possessed, for example, by selective laser sintering (SLS), selective laser melting (SLM), laser metal deposition (LMD), electron beam melting (EBM) or powder bed and also inkjet head 3D printing” (paragraph [0007]; laser metal deposition (LMD) reads on a directed energy deposition process). Kestler teaches that “at present, refractory metals are not yet being solidified/compacted via additive manufacturing processes on an industrial scale” (paragraph [0020]). Kestler teaches that “one of the reasons why additive manufacturing processes have not yet become widely established for these materials is the limited availability of powders suitable for these manufacturing processes, and that with the powders used at present, the resulting materials properties and operational properties are of insufficient quality for a broad application of these manufacturing methods” (paragraph [0020]). Kestler teaches that “the object of the present invention, therefore, is to provide a process that allows the production of components from refractory metals with at least one of the following properties high surface quality high accuracy low wall thickness high density, and low error density, such as pores/pore clusters high static and dynamic strength high ductility fine-grained structure low inherent stresses” (paragraph [0023]). Kestler teaches that “the term refractory metal encompasses the metals based on niobium, tantalum, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten and rhenium. The refractory metal content of the refractory metal alloys of the invention is >50 at %, preferably >70 or >80 at %” (which reads upon “a Nb-based refractory alloy”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0034]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the Kovar of Yousefiani with a Nb-based refractory alloy, as taught by Kestler because recent advances in powder metallurgy now allow for powders suitable for these manufacturing processes using refractory metals including niobium resulting in at least one of the following properties high surface quality high accuracy low wall thickness high density, and low error density, such as pores/pore clusters high static and dynamic strength high ductility fine-grained structure low inherent stresses. It has been held that obviousness exists where the selection of a known material was based on its suitability for its intended use. MPEP § 2144.07. Here, Kestler teaches that niobium is suitable as a refractory material for use with additive manufacturing processes. Accordingly, the prior art renders the claim obvious.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q2: 3/30-4/3/26; Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights