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.
Claims 8 and 11-12 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.
Claim 8 claims one or more elements of manganese (less than 0.3 wt%), silicon (less than 0.5 wt%), magnesium (less than 0.5 wt%) and/or zinc ((less than 0.5 wt%) and further claims a total weight % of one or more of these elements is less than 1 wt%. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation less than 1 wt%, and the claim also recites the contents for each element which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 11 contains the limitation “as-processed” which is unclear because claim 1 refers to an aluminum alloy “in the form of a powder”. The powder is therefore not further processed beyond a powder and it is not clear how the powder would have the yield strength and elongation failure properties presently claimed as these properties are the result of additive manufacturing the powder to form a cohesive article/part (see par. [0039]).
Claim 12 contains the limitation “without additional heat treatment”. Since there is not a heating treatment presently claimed, it is not clear if this means without any heat application to the aluminum alloy powder or without additional heating after forming the alloy powder. Clarification is required.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neikov et al. (Powder Metallurgy and Metal Ceramics, Feb. 6 2009, pp. 249-256, Vol. 48, No. 5-6, cited in the IDS filed on 06/28/2024).
Regarding claims 1-3, 6-7, Neikov et al. discloses at Tables 4-5 discloses an aluminum alloy including 2% wt. Fe, 2% wt. Cr, 2% wt. Ti and 94% wt. (balance) of aluminum in the form of a powder. Where a prior art reference discloses a specific example within a claimed range, the prior art anticipates the range. MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 9, the alloy disclosed in Neikov et al. is free of scandium, zirconium and rare earth elements.
Regarding claim 10, the alloy powder is in the form of spherical particles (see Fig 3).
Regarding claims 11-12, given that the alloy composition of the aluminum alloy-based powders in Niekov et al. is the same as the composition presently claimed, it would inherently possess the same properties including the yield strength and elongation at failure values presently claimed, despite not explicitly measuring the properties. Inherent feature need not be recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time within the prior art disclosure. MPEP 2112 II.
Regarding claim 14, the powders may be separated into various fractions with values between 30-25 and 25-20 microns, lying within the presently claimed range. (page 254, Fig. 3).
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neikov et al. (Powder Metallurgy and Metal Ceramics, Feb. 6 2009, pp. 249-256, Vol. 48, No. 5-6, cited in the IDS filed on 06/28/2024) in view of Adachi et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2020/0063241).
Neikov et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Neikov et al. does not disclose a method of additive manufacturing as claimed in claim 13.
Adachi et al. a method of processing aluminum alloy powders by additive manufacturing for making parts and components having high-strength properties. (Abstract and par. [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the aluminum alloy powders of Neikov et al. in an additive manufacturing process as claimed.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to the aluminum alloy powders of Neikov et al. in an additive manufacturing process as disclosed in Adachi et al. in view of the teachings therein that aluminum alloy powders are known to be used for making parts having high-strength by this process. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have a reasonable expectation of success in applying the same method to the powders of Neikov et al. for forming aluminum alloy-based components to achieve the predictable result of forming a high-strength aluminum alloy product.
Claims 1-7, 9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2023/0311211).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 6-7, Watanabe et al. discloses a powder metal material for additive manufacturing that is an aluminum alloy including 0.1-3 mass% Ti, 1.0 mass% or less Cr and 0.05-5.0 mass% Fe, overlapping with the presently claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 4-5, the alloy may further contain 0.1-10.0 mass% copper. (par. [0025]).
Regarding claim 9, Watanabe et al. discloses a Zr content of 3.0 mass% or less (par. [0022]), Y of 3.0 mass% or lessand does not disclose the presence of Sc or other rare earth elements. Therefore, the alloy can be formulated to be free of Zr, Sc or rare earth elements as claimed.
Regarding claims 11-12, given that the alloy composition of the aluminum alloy-based powders in Watanabe et al. is the same as the composition presently claimed, it would inherently possess the same properties including the yield strength and elongation at failure values presently claimed, despite not explicitly measuring the properties. Inherent feature need not be recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time within the prior art disclosure. MPEP 2112 II.
Regarding claim 13, Watanabe et al. teaches using the powder in an additive manufacturing process to make a part. (Abstract).
Regarding claim 14, the average particle size of the powder is in the range of 10-200 micrometers (par. [0052]), overlapping with the presently claimed range.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2023/0311211) in view of Hartel (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2022/0002844)
Watanabe et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Watanabe et al. does not disclose that the powder metal material comprises spherical particles.
Hartel teaches aluminum alloy powders for use in additive manufacturing (Abstract) wherein the particles are mainly spherical. (par. [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the particles used in the additive manufacturing process disclosed in Watanabe et al. have a spherical shape.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a spherical shape in view of the teachings of Hartel that a mainly spherical shape is suitable for using aluminum alloy particles in an additive manufacturing process. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have a reasonable expectation of success that using spherical powders would be suitable or even advantageous for use in an additive manufacturing process due to the similarity in disclosures between Watanabe et al. and Hartel relating to aluminum alloy powders for additive manufacturing.
Claims 1-9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2020/0063241)
Regarding claims 1-3 and 6-7, Adachi et al. discloses an aluminum alloy additive powder for additive manufacturing (Abstract and par. [0001]) including 0.3-2 %wt. Fe (par. [0051]), 1.5-10 %wt. Cr (par. [0051]) and 0.2-3 %wt. Ti. (par. [0058]), overlapping with the presently claimed ranges.
Regarding claims 4-5, the alloy may contain 0.5-5 %wt. Cu (par. [0062]).
Regarding claim 8, the alloy may contain one of Si or Mg and wherein the Mg content is 0.5-5 wt%. (par. [0047).
Regarding claim 9, the alloy may or may not contain Zr and Sc (par. [0058]). Rare earth elements are not disclosed as being essential and would therefore be considered optional.
Regarding claims 11-12 given that the alloy composition of the aluminum alloy-based powders in Adachi et al. is the same as the composition presently claimed, it would inherently possess the same properties including the yield strength and elongation at failure values presently claimed, despite not explicitly measuring the properties. Inherent feature need not be recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time within the prior art disclosure. MPEP 2112 II.
Regarding claim 13, the aluminum alloy powder is disclosed to be used in an additive manufacturing process. (par. [0001]).
Regarding claim 14, the aluminum powders have an average particle diameter of 35 micrometers. (par. [ 0156]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2020/0063241) in view of Hartel (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2022/0002844).
Adachi et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Adachi et al. does not disclose that the powder metal material comprises spherical particles.
Hartel teaches aluminum alloy powders for use in additive manufacturing (Abstract) wherein the particles are mainly spherical. (par. [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the particles used in the additive manufacturing process disclosed in Adachi et al. have a spherical shape.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a spherical shape in view of the teachings of Hartel that a mainly spherical shape is suitable for using aluminum alloy particles in an additive manufacturing process. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have a reasonable expectation of success that using spherical powders would be suitable or even advantageous for use in an additive manufacturing process due to the similarity in disclosures between Adachi et al. and Hartel relating to aluminum alloy powders for additive manufacturing.
Claims 1, 4-7 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘680 (CN 115261680)
Regarding claims 1 and 6-7, ‘680 discloses an aluminum alloy workpiece made from aluminum particles (Abstract and page 4, first paragraph) having an alloy composition of 1-2.5% Fe, 1-2% Cr and 0.5-1.1% Ti. (page 3).
Regarding claims 4-5, the copper content in the alloy may vary between 1.5-3.0%. (page 3).
Regarding claims 11-12, the alloy composition has a room temperature yield strength of 500 MPa or more and elongation at break of no less than 8%. (page 3).
Regarding claim 13, the alloy workpiece is made by additive manufacturing. (page 1).
Regarding claim 14, the average particle diameter of the aluminum particles is in the range of 30-45 micrometers. (page 4, first paragraph).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘680 (CN 115261680) in view of Hartel (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2022/0002844).
‘680 is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
‘680 does not disclose that the powder metal material comprises spherical particles.
Hartel teaches aluminum alloy powders for use in additive manufacturing (Abstract) wherein the particles are mainly spherical. (par. [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the particles used in the additive manufacturing process disclosed in Adachi et al. have a spherical shape.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a spherical shape in view of the teachings of Hartel that a mainly spherical shape is suitable for using aluminum alloy particles in an additive manufacturing process. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have a reasonable expectation of success that using spherical powders would be suitable or even advantageous for use in an additive manufacturing process due to the similarity in disclosures between ‘680 and Hartel relating to aluminum alloy powders for additive manufacturing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 11/05/2025