DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are pending, and claims 1-9 are currently under review.
Claims 10-15 are withdrawn.
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 of group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 5/13/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/13/2026.
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 1-9 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 1 recites a two-stage heat treatment “to mitigate diffusion…”, which is indefinite because this is a recitation of functional language of the two-stage heat treatment and it is unclear whether this requires some specific heat parameter of the two-stage heat treatment, or whether “mitigating diffusion” requires some particular amount or degree of mitigation of elemental diffusion. It is further unclear as to whether this requires elimination of diffusion, or whether this merely requires reduction/lessening of diffusion extent, and if it is the latter interpretation, it is unclear as to whether the reduction/lessening of diffusion is considered relative to some predetermined, arbitrary diffusion degree, or relative to prior testing or samples, or something else entirely. The examiner interprets the aforementioned limitation to merely be met by the claimed steps of heating to an intermediate sintering temperature, followed by heating to a second, higher temperature according to broadest reasonable interpretation.
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(s) 1-5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbati et al. (US 2019/0111480) in view of either one of Shivanath et al. (US 2019/0344344) or Stoyanov et al. (US 2016/0375493).
Regarding claim 1, Barbati et al. discloses a method of additive manufacturing with selective deposition of a binder material and also of an active component in spatially controlled distributions to metal powder layers to form a desired object (ie. site-specific alloyed sections) according to a three-dimensional model [abstract, 0005, 0042]. Barbati et al. further teaches that the object is thermally processed which can include a plurality of heating steps [0066].
Barbati et al. does not expressly teach that the thermal processing is a two-stage heat treatment to mitigate diffusion involving heating to a first temperature to initiate sintering, followed by heating to a second higher temperature as claimed. Shivanath et al. discloses a method of heat treating additively manufactured metal parts to obtain densified, high strength parts [abstract]; wherein said heating includes a step of heating to a sintering temperature of at least 1100 degrees C which would naturally be held at a predetermined time to initiate sintering because sintering is expressly taught to occur, followed by hardening and quenching which one of ordinary skill would readily understand to be a higher temperature than sintering [0043-0047, fig.1]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of Barbati et al. by utilizing a heat treatment of Shivanath et al. to obtain densified, high strength parts. The examiner notes that the two-step sintering and heat treatment of Shivanath et al. meets the limitation of mitigating diffusion as interpreted above.
Alternatively, Barbati et al. discloses a subsequent thermal processing of sintering can be performed at 500 to 2100 degrees C, which would naturally be held at a predetermined time to initiate sintering because sintering is expressly taught to occur [0066]. Barbati et al. does not disclose heating to a second temperature higher than the first temperature as claimed. Stoyanov et al. discloses that it is known to perform hot isostatic pressing after sintering at a temperature of 1425 degrees C in order to increase density [0029]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by performing a final hot isostatic pressing step to increase density as taught by Stoyanov et al. The examiner notes that the hot isostatic pressing of Stoyanov et al. overlaps with the claimed range (1425 degrees is higher than 500 degrees, for example), which is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Barbati et al. discloses deposition of the active component that alloys with the metal powder as stated above [0039]. The examiner notes that the arbitrary amount disclosed by Barbati et al. meets the claim because the claim does not specify the predetermined amount, such that any arbitrary amount meets the predetermined amount and therefore any arbitrary amount, such as that of Barbati et al., also meets the limitation of an excess and a predetermined amount as claimed.
Regarding claim 3 the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Barbati et al. further teaches deposition of the active component at multiple layers, which one of ordinary skill would understand to correspond to multiple passes as claimed [0046, fig.3].
Regarding claim 4 the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Barbati et al. further teaches that the active component can be deposited in various amounts to achieve a gradient of hardness, which one of ordinary skill would understand to naturally correspond to increasing hardness due to an increased amount of active component and resulting increased passes of active component deposition [0093].
Regarding claim 5 the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that Shivanath et al. expressly teaches hardening and quenching as heating as stated above, wherein one of ordinary skill would readily understand that hardening correlates to a phase change.
Regarding claims 7-8, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Barbati et al. does not expressly teach portions of alloying agent and non-patterned sections as claimed. However, the examiner notes that these limitation merely pertain to a particular deposition design/behavior of the additive manufacturing. Barbati et al. expressly teaches, and one of ordinary skill would readily understand, that additive manufacturing can be performed according to any desired 3D design/pattern model, which encompasses the claimed features [0042-0043]. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the claimed features merely correspond to a desired design/pattern as stated above, wherein the claimed features would have been an obvious design change known to one of ordinary skill. See MPEP 2144.04(I) & MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbati et al. (US 2019/0111480) and Shivanath et al. (US 2019/0344344) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Davidson et al. (2020, Site-specific alloying of low carbon steel through binder jet additive manufacturing).
Regarding claims 3-5, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Davidson et al. further teaches site-specific alloy of additively manufactured steel wherein a carbon-bearing agent is applied to the steel powder in multiple passes to incrementally increase carbon concentration and achieve desirable, optimized geometries and microstructures in a 3D printed object [p.1-2, 9]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by utilizing a carbon-bearing agent applied in multiple passes as stated above for the benefit of achieving desirable, optimized geometries and microstructures in a 3D printed objects. The examiner notes that a phase change during heating and increase in hardness would naturally result in the disclosure of Davidson et al. wherein carbon-bearing agents are deposited and then further heat treatment is performed.
Regarding claim 6, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Davidson et al. further formation of pearlite at deposited locations of increased C amount within ferrite [p.8-10].
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbati et al. (US 2019/0111480) and Shivanath et al. (US 2019/0344344) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hinch et al. (US 2020/0338819).
Regarding claims 7-8, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach portions of alloying agent and non-patterned sections as claimed. Hinch et al. discloses that it is known to selectively deposit a hardening agent during three-dimensional printing of metal parts [abstract, 0065]; wherein said hardening agent can be deposited just at the exterior surface portions to obtain a surface-hardened part, such as depicted in fig.3b for example [0008, fig.3]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by depositing a hardening agent as claimed such that a surface hardened part can be obtained. The examiner notes that an object having hardening agent deposited only to external surfaces therein naturally meets the claimed features. For example, Hinch et al. discloses a metal powder particle size of up to 200 micrometers [0067], such that the example [fig.3b] of Hinch et al. depicts an individual inner layer having hardening agent patterned on the outer edges with four unpatterned particles (ie. up to 800 micrometers) between. One of ordinary skill would further readily understand that object can be made of more than 4 layers, which would result in upper and lower external surfaces patterned with hardening agent and more than 4 layers between.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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 and overcome any/all 112(b) rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 9 is directed to the method of additive manufacturing as recited in claim 1, wherein the two-stage heat treatment parameters of temperature and duration as specified as particularly claimed. There is no prior art of record that teaches or suggests these features together.
The closest prior art of record is Barbati et al. and others as relied upon above. However, these references do not teach the particular heat treatment parameters as claimed. Therefore, there is no prior art of record that teaches or suggests the claimed features together.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights