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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not contain 50-150 words and was not presented on a separate sheet. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification contains numerous references to content in an “Appendix”. However, it is unclear whether this “Appendix” is part of the specification or not.
Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (by way of the “Appendix”) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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.
Claims 1-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Smith et al. (US 2022/0074024).
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 13-17, Smith discloses preparing an alloy melt comprising a metal element and at least one alloying element (¶ 27) from powders (¶ 28). The alloy melt is heated and held at a temperature of about 300-2,000°C to permit homogenization of the alloy (¶ 29). The metal element is a metal selected from Groups 1-16 of the periodic table, and may include a combination of elements, with exemplary metals including Ti, Zr, V, Cr, Mo, W, Fe, Co, Cu, Al, or Ni (¶ 32). These metal elements are necessarily present in a molar equivalent from about 0.0 to about 1.0. The alloying element is chosen to be one which has a lower electrochemical potential compared to the metal element, with a difference of at least 0.2 V (¶¶ 34-35). The resulting alloy undergoes dealloying to remove the alloying element (¶¶ 34-35), resulting in a porous structure having an average pore size of less than 1,000 nm (¶ 69).
Smith does not teach the nanoporous alloy has a specific strength that is about 2x to about 10x greater than a reference specific strength of a bulk alloy with the same composition and no nanoporous structure. However, since the process of Smith is substantially identical to the process used to make the claimed nanoporous alloy, one of ordinary skill in the art would except the prior art alloy to exhibit the same properties as those claimed, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 2, the dealloying is performed by acid leaching (¶ 60).
Regarding claim 3, the claimed limitation of dealloying by heating the alloy to sublime the sacrificial element is a product by process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113. In the instant case, the only physical limitation implied by the claimed process step is the removal of the sacrificial element from the precursor alloy. This removal is performed in the prior art (¶ 60). Thus, Smith is considered to render claim 3 obvious.
Regarding claim 4, the instant specification recognizes that bulk foams have a specific modulus within the claimed range (see Fig. 1). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the foam of Smith to have a specific modulus which lies within or overlaps the claimed range, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112 & 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 6, the alloy may have a face-centered cubic phase (¶ 50).
Regarding claim 7, when the metal elements chosen are refractory metals, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the resulting alloy phase to be body-centered cubic, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 8, Smith teaches the alloy may have multiple phases (¶¶ 99-104), and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the presence of multiple phases depends, in part, on the composition of the alloy.
Regarding claims 9-12, Smith teaches the alloying element is substantially removed, i.e., at least 99% is removed (¶ 66) without removing the metal elements (¶ 35); thus, the molar equivalents of the metal elements before and after dealloying would remain the same. Smith teaches the metal elements represent about 20%-60% of the alloy melt (¶ 45); accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a relative density to be within this range, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112. This overlaps the claimed ranges, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 19, Smith discloses a porous alloy comprising a metal element (¶ 27). The alloy is formed from heating an alloy melt and holding at a temperature of about 300-2,000°C to permit homogenization of the alloy (¶ 29). The metal element is a metal selected from Groups 1-16 of the periodic table, and may include a combination of elements, with exemplary metals including Ti, Zr, V, Cr, Mo, W, Fe, Co, Cu, Al, or Ni (¶ 32). These metal elements are necessarily present in a molar equivalent from about 0.0 to about 1.0. Smith teaches the porous alloy has a ligament size of about 1-200 nm (¶ 90), which overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. The alloy melt includes an alloying element which is later removed by dealloying (¶¶ 34-35), resulting in a porous structure having an average pore size of less than 1,000 nm (¶ 69).
Smith does not teach the nanoporous alloy has a specific strength that is about 2x to about 10x greater than a reference specific strength of a bulk alloy with the same composition and no nanoporous structure. However, since the process of Smith is substantially identical to the process used to make the claimed nanoporous alloy, one of ordinary skill in the art would except the prior art alloy to exhibit the same properties as those claimed, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is 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: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed continuous nanoporous alloy having the claimed composition.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang (CN 111254309) discloses a method of making a nanoporous alloy through chemical or evaporative dealloying; however, this nanoporous structure is formed as a layer on the alloy material and is not considered a continuous nanoporous alloy as claimed. Molina (US 2020/0189002) discloses a method of making a foam material using NaCl as the pore former. Yang (US 2020/0157663) discloses a method of making a porous high entropy alloy via chemical dealloying; however, the dealloying step is performed to remove a specific crystal phase, not an element. Ishihara (US 2014/0336047) discloses a method of making a porous alloy using a dealloying method; however, there is no heating step prior to the dealloying. As these cited references use a different method than the method for making the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect the claimed properties to be present in the prior art products.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOBEI WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5705. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/XIAOBEI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784