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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/10/2023 and 05/08/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 1-6, drawn to a hierarchical composite wear component.
Group II, claims 7-10, drawn to a method for the manufacturing of the hierarchical composite cast wear part.
The groups Group I-II of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Group I – II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of the claim 1, these technical features are not a special technical feature as it does not make any contribution over the prior art in view of Desiles, Stephane, et.al.[WO2021191199A1] (provided in the IDS, Desiles hereafter) and further in view of Vescera [US20110229715A1] (provided in the IDS, Vescera, hereafter), Desiles discloses a hierarchical composite wear component a reinforced part and a non-reinforced part, the reinforced part comprising a threedimensionally interconnected network of periodically alternating millimetric ceramic-metal composite granules with millimetric interstices (Hierarchical composite wear component consists of a metal matrix (non-reinforced part) comprising a particular reinforcement structure (a reinforced part) comprising dense ceramic-metal composite granules with millimetric size, and the reinforcement comprising a three-dimensionally interconnected network of periodically alternating millimetric ceramic-metal composite granules with millimetric interstices, see Desiles’s [0031], claim 1, FIG. 10), the ceramic-metal composite granules comprising at least 52 vol%, of micrometric particles of titanium carbide embedded in a first metal matrix (said ceramic-metal composite granules comprising at least 52 vol% of titanium carbide embedded in a first metal matrix, see Desiles’s [0032], claim 1), which is within the as recited in the instant claim. Desiles discloses the porosity of the ceramic-metal composite granules being lower than 5 vol%, (low porosity < 5 vol%, the ceramic-metal composite granules have a porosity of less than 5 vol%, more preferably less than 2 vol%, see Desiles’s [0031], claim 2) which is within as recited range in the instant claim, the volume fraction of porosity of the granules embedded in the first metal matrix being determined according to ISO 13383-2:2012 (the volume fraction of porosity of the granule embedded in the metal matrix is measured according to ISO 13383-2:2012, see Desiles’s [0056]);
wherein the three-dimensionally interconnected network of ceramic-metal composite granules with millimetric interstices is embedded in a second metal matrix (the three-dimensionally interconnected network of ceramic-metal composite granules with its millimetric interstices being embedded in the second metal matrix, see Desiles’s [0032], claim 1, FIG. 10), and the volume content of ceramic-metal composite granules in the reinforced part is comprised between 45 and 65 vol% (The volume content of ceramic-metal composite granules in the reinforced volume of the wear part is typically comprised between 45 and 65 vol%, see Desiles’s [0034], claim 1, FIG. 10), which is within as recited range in the instant claim.
Desiles teaches the composition of the first metal matrix (the first metal matrix example be Fe, Ni or Mo based, and is selected from the group consisting of ferro-based alloy, ferromanganese-based alloy, ferrochromium-based alloy and nickelbased alloy, see Desiles’s [0032], claim 5), which is substantially different from the composition of the second metal matrix (a ferrous alloy, preferably chromium cast iron or steel (second metal matrix), is cast in the mold and infiltrates only the interstices of the said reinforcement structure, see Desiles’s [0032], claim 1, FIG. 10);
wherein the second metal matrix comprises the ferrous cast alloy present in the millimetric interstices of the reinforced part (a ferrous cast alloy, preferably chromium cast iron or steel (second metal matrix), is cast in the mold and infiltrates only the interstices of the said reinforcement structure, see Desiles’s [0032], claim 1).
Desiles teaches the volume fraction of porosity of the granule embedded in the metal matrix is measured according to ISO 13383-2:2012, (see Desiles’s [0056]) and therefore, with Desiles’s teachings other volume percentage, including the volume percentage of additional carbides in the second metal matrix can be determined according to ISO 13383-2:2012.
But Desiles is silent about the millimetric interstices additionally comprising at least 1 vol% of micrometric carbide particles selected from the group consisting of tungsten carbide, vanadium carbide, molybdenum carbide, titanium carbide, niobium carbide, hafnium carbide and zirconium carbide, or mixtures thereof.
However, Vescera discloses a hierarchical composite wear component a reinforced part and a non-reinforced part, the reinforced part comprising a threedimensionally interconnected network of periodically alternating millimetric ceramic-metal composite granules with millimetric interstices, (a hierarchical composite material comprising a ferrous alloy (non-reinforced part) reinforced with titanium carbides (a reinforced part) with a defined geometry, in which said reinforced portion comprises an alternating macro-microstructure of millimetric areas concentrated with micrometric globular particles of titanium carbide separated by millimetric areas essentially free of micrometric globular particles of titanium carbide, said areas concentrated with micrometric globular particles of titanium carbide forming a microstructure contains the micrometric interstices between said globular particles are also filled by said ferrous alloy interstices, see Vescera’s Abstract, FIG. 3e-3h). Vescera then teaches the millimetric interstices additionally comprising less than 5 vol% of micrometric carbide particles selected from the group consisting of tungsten carbide, vanadium carbide, molybdenum carbide, titanium carbide, niobium carbide, hafnium carbide and zirconium carbide, or mixtures thereof (in some cases, the interstices between areas with high titanium carbide concentration, a low percentage of TiC less than <5% by volume with an angular shape 5 formed by precipitation, which is originated from a dissolution in the liquid metal of a small portion of globular carbide, formed during the SHS reaction, and the dimension of this carbide is also micrometric, see Vescera’s, [0083], FIG. 11).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention or species may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention or species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions have unity of invention (37 CFR 1.475(a)), applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. Where such evidence or admission is provided by applicant, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
A telephone call was made to David C. Bourgeau (Reg. 72,711) on 07/9/2026 to request an oral election to the above restriction requirement, and Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I: claims 1-6, drawn to a product of additively manufacturing a build piece and a support structure for mechanically supporting at least part of the build piece, is acknowledged.
Claims 7-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II: claims 7-10, drawn to,
there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Therefore, claims 1 - 6 are currently under examination on the merits in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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 1-6 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 the following limitations,
"the porosity" in line 7 and 8,
"the composition" in line 16 and 17,
"the ferrous cast alloy" in line 18,
"the group" in line 21,
There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 5 recites the following limitations, "the group" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 2 - 6 are being dependent on claim 1 and therefore are also rejected for the same reason applied to claim 1.
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 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.
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 1 - 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desiles, Stephane, et.al.[WO2021191199A1] (provided in the IDS, Desiles hereafter) and further in view of Vescera [US 20110229715A1] (provided in the IDS, Vescera, hereafter).
Desiles is a WIPO publication of a PCT international application that designates to the United States. The WIPO publication names two other inventors and was effectively filed on 03/27/2020 before the effective filing date 09/30/2021 of the claimed invention and is therefore, prior art under 102(a)(2). [See MPEP 2154.01(a)].
Regarding claim 1, Desiles discloses a hierarchical composite wear component a reinforced part and a non-reinforced part, the reinforced part comprising a threedimensionally interconnected network of periodically alternating millimetric ceramic-metal composite granules with millimetric interstices (Hierarchical composite wear component consists of a metal matrix (non-reinforced part) comprising a particular reinforcement structure (a reinforced part) comprising dense ceramic-metal composite granules with millimetric size, and the reinforcement comprising a three-dimensionally interconnected network of periodically alternating millimetric ceramic-metal composite granules with millimetric interstices, see Desiles’s [0031], claim 1, FIG. 10), the ceramic-metal composite granules comprising at least 52 vol%, of micrometric particles of titanium carbide embedded in a first metal matrix (said ceramic-metal composite granules comprising at least 52 vol% of titanium carbide embedded in a first metal matrix, see Desiles’s [0032], claim 1), which is within the as recited in the instant claim, and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, as because “In the case where the claimed ranges "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)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Desiles discloses the porosity of the ceramic-metal composite granules being lower than 5 vol%, (low porosity < 5 vol%, the ceramic-metal composite granules have a porosity of less than 5 vol%, more preferably less than 2 vol%, see Desiles’s [0031], claim 2) which is within as recited range in the instant claim, and the volume fraction of porosity of the granules embedded in the first metal matrix being determined according to ISO 13383-2:2012 (the volume fraction of porosity of the granule embedded in the metal matrix is measured according to ISO 13383-2:2012, see Desiles’s [0056]);
PNG
media_image1.png
526
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the three-dimensionally interconnected network of ceramic-metal composite granules with millimetric interstices is embedded in a second metal matrix (the three-dimensionally interconnected network of ceramic-metal composite granules with its millimetric interstices being embedded in the second metal matrix, see Desiles’s [0032], claim 1, FIG. 10), and the volume content of ceramic-metal composite granules in the reinforced part is comprised between 45 and 65 vol% (The volume content of ceramic-metal composite granules in the reinforced volume of the wear part is typically comprised between 45 and 65 vol%, see Desiles’s [0034], claim 1, FIG. 10), which is within as recited range in the instant claim.
Therefore, Desiles’s porosity of the ceramic-metal composite granules, and the volume content of ceramic-metal composite granules in the reinforced part, both are within as recited range in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected porosity of the ceramic-metal composite granules, the volume content of ceramic-metal composite granules in the reinforced part in a hierarchical composite wear component from the teachings of Desiles, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "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)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Desiles teaches the composition of the first metal matrix (the first metal matrix example be Fe, Ni or Mo based, and is selected from the group consisting of ferro-based alloy, ferromanganese-based alloy, ferrochromium-based alloy and nickelbased alloy, see Desiles’s [0032], claim 5) is substantially different from the composition of the second metal matrix (a ferrous alloy, preferably chromium cast iron or steel (second metal matrix), is cast in the mold and infiltrates only the interstices of the said reinforcement structure, see Desiles’s [0032], claim 1, FIG. 10);
wherein the second metal matrix comprises the ferrous cast alloy present in the millimetric interstices of the reinforced part (a ferrous cast alloy, preferably chromium cast iron or steel (second metal matrix), is cast in the mold and infiltrates only the interstices of the said reinforcement structure, see Desiles’s [0032], claim 1).
Desiles teaches the volume fraction of porosity of the granule embedded in the metal matrix is measured according to ISO 13383-2:2012, (see Desiles’s [0056]), therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention that other volume percentage, including the volume percentage of additional carbides in the second metal matrix would be determined according to ISO 13383-2:2012.
But Desiles is silent about the millimetric interstices additionally comprising at least 1 vol% of micrometric carbide particles selected from the group consisting of tungsten carbide, vanadium carbide, molybdenum carbide, titanium carbide, niobium carbide, hafnium carbide and zirconium carbide, or mixtures thereof.
However, Vescera discloses a hierarchical composite wear component a reinforced part and a non-reinforced part, the reinforced part comprising a threedimensionally interconnected network of periodically alternating millimetric ceramic-metal composite granules with millimetric interstices, (a hierarchical composite material comprising a ferrous alloy (non-reinforced part) reinforced with titanium carbides (a reinforced part) with a defined geometry, in which said reinforced portion comprises an alternating macro-microstructure of millimetric areas concentrated with micrometric globular particles of titanium carbide separated by millimetric areas essentially free of micrometric globular particles of titanium carbide, said areas concentrated with micrometric globular particles of titanium carbide forming a microstructure contains the micrometric interstices between said globular particles are also filled by said ferrous alloy interstices, see Vescera’s Abstract, FIG. 3e-3h). Vescera teaches the ceramic-metal composite granules comprising 35 and about 75 vol%, of micrometric particles of titanium carbide embedded in a first metal matrix (the reinforcement macro-microstructure in the areas of high titanium carbide concentration, the titanium carbide with a globular shape 4 is distinguished with a volume percentage in these areas between about 35 and about 75%, depending on the compaction level of the granules, and these globular TiCs are of micrometric size, see Vescera’s, [0082], FIG. 6), which is overlapping with as recited in the instant claim.
Vescera then teaches the millimetric interstices additionally comprising less than 5 vol% of micrometric carbide particles selected from the group consisting of tungsten carbide, vanadium carbide, molybdenum carbide, titanium carbide, niobium carbide, hafnium carbide and zirconium carbide, or mixtures thereof (in some cases, the interstices between areas with high titanium carbide concentration, a low percentage of TiC less than <5% by volume with an angular shape 5 formed by precipitation, which is originated from a dissolution in the liquid metal of a small portion of globular carbide, formed during the SHS reaction, and the dimension of this carbide is also micrometric, see Vescera’s, [0083], FIG. 11).
Therefore, Vescera’s millimetric interstices additionally comprising vol% of micrometric titanium carbide particles which is within as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced a millimetric interstices additionally comprising vol% of micrometric titanium carbide particles from the teachings of Vescera that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In the case where the claimed ranges, lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, is 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)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Vescera further discloses, during manufacturing of the hierarchical composite wear component, a SHS reaction is a “Self-propagating High temperature Synthesis” occurs between titanium powder and carbon powder to obtain titanium carbide TiC is strongly exothermic and the reaction spontaneously propagates (self-propagating) to the totality of the mixture of the reagents. Thereby obtained titanium carbide is said to be obtained in situ because it does not stem from the cast ferrous alloy (see Vescera’s [0075]) and SHS allows an easy infiltration of all the millimetric and micrometric interstices by the cast iron or cast steel (see Vescera’s [0079] FIGS. 3g and 3h). After SHS reaction areas with a high concentration of micrometric globular particles of titanium carbide (ceramic metal composite granules) is obtained, and which alternate with areas substantially free of globular titanium carbide. While areas with a low carbide concentration represent in reality the millimetric interstices 2 between the granules infiltrated by the cast metal (second metal matrix), see Vescera’s [0079]). The latter originate from a dissolution in the liquid metal of a small portion of globular carbide, formed during the SHS reaction. The formation of this angular TiC carbide is not desired but is a consequence of the manufacturing method, see Vescera’s, [0083]).
Vescera is in the same field of hierarchical composite wear component and thus considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, and Desiles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to combine Vescera’s teachings of the millimetric interstices additionally comprising micrometric carbide particles of titanium carbide that is form in-situ during the self-propagating SHS reaction while making the hierarchical composite wear component with Desiles’s hierarchical composite wear component, to keep additional micrometric carbide particles of titanium carbide in the millimetric interstices, less than 5 vol% to avoid the undesirable consequences.
Regarding claim 2, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 2, in addition, Desiles discloses the embedded ceramic-metal composite granules have an average particle size d50 between 0.5 and 10 mm, (the embedded ceramic-metal composite granules have an average particle size d50 between 0.5 and 10 mm, see Desiles’s claim 3), which is within as recited range in the instant claim.
Desiles further teaches the average particle size being determined by the following steps:
taking a photomicrographic picture of a polished cross section of a sample capturing at least 250 ceramic-metal granules across the field of view, (a photomicrographic panorama, such that there are at least 250 ceramic-metal granules across the field of view, of the polished cross section of the sample, is made by stitching see Desiles’s [0060]);
measuring the Feret diameter of the granules, (Feret diameter, is measured in all direction for each granule, see Desiles’s [0061]);
calculating the volume size distribution of the granules; calculating the d50 of the granules according to ISO 9276-2:2014 (Minimum and maximum Feret diameter of each granule of the image are determined and then size distribution D50 of the granules is to be understood as the volume weighted mean size x, according to ISO 9276-2:2014, see Desiles’s [0062]).
Regarding claim 3, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 3, in addition, Desiles discloses the embedded titanium carbide particles in the first metal matrix have an average particle size d50 between 0.1 and 50 µm (the embedded titanium carbide particles have an average particle size d50 between 0.1 and 50µm, see Desiles’s claim 4), which is within as recited range in the instant claim.
Desiles further teaches the average particle size of the embedded titanium carbide particles being determined by the linear-intercept method according to ISO 4499-3:2016 (granule or particle size measurements, and guidelines for the specimen preparation can be found in ISO 4499-1 :2020 and ISO 4499-3:2016, see Desiles’s [0054]).
Regarding claim 4, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 4, in addition, Desiles discloses the average particle size of the embedded titanium carbide particles being determined by the linear-intercept method according to ISO 4499-3:2016 (granule or particle size measurements, and guidelines for the specimen preparation can be found in ISO 4499-1 :2020 and ISO 4499-3:2016, see Desiles’s [0054]).
But Desiles is silent about the embedded micrometric carbide particles selected from the group consisting of tungsten carbide, vanadium carbide, molybdenum carbide, titanium carbide, niobium carbide, hafnium carbide, chromium carbide and zirconium carbide or mixtures thereof in the second metal matrix have an average particle size d50 between 0.1 and 50 µm.
However, Vescera discloses the interstices between areas with high titanium carbide concentration, a low percentage of TiC less than <5% by volume with an angular shape 5 formed by precipitation, which is originated from a dissolution in the liquid metal of a small portion of globular carbide, formed during the SHS reaction, and the dimension of this carbide is also micrometric, (see Vescera’s, [0083], FIG. 11). Vescera also discloses, the large majority of TiC particles have a size of less than 50 µm, and even less than 20 µm, or even 10 µm, and obtained in method for obtaining titanium carbide by self-propagating synthesis SHS (see Vescera’s, [0081], FIG. 11). Given all these teachings of Vescera, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, that the dimension of the carbide micrometric particle size in areas with low titanium carbide concentration also would have a size of less than 50 µm, and even less than 20 µm, or even 10 µm, as both areas of high titanium carbide concentration and areas with low titanium carbide concentration are being produced in-situ during the same self-propagating synthesis SHS.
Therefore, Vescera’s millimetric interstices additionally comprising micrometric titanium carbide particles diameter is within as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced interstices additionally comprising micrometric titanium carbide particles having a diameter from the teachings of Vescera, because “In the case where the claimed ranges “In the case where the claimed ranges, lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, is 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)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Regarding claim 5, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 5, wherein Desiles discloses the first metal matrix is selected from the group consisting of ferro-based alloy, ferromanganese-based alloy, ferrochromium-based alloy and nickel-based alloy, the composition of said ferro-based alloys (the first metal matrix example be Fe, Ni or Mo based, and is selected from the group consisting of ferro-based alloy, ferromanganese-based alloy, ferrochromium-based alloy and nickelbased alloy, see Desiles’s [0032], claim 5) being substantially different from the composition of the ferrous cast alloys of claim 1, as because Desiles’s ferrous cast alloys are preferably chromium cast iron or steel (second metal matrix), is cast in the mold (see Desiles’s [0032], claim 1, and claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 6, wherein Desiles discloses the second metal matrix comprises high chromium white iron or steel (preferably high chromium white iron or steel (second metal matrix), is cast in the mold, see Desiles’s [0032], claim 1).
Claim 1 - 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vescera [US20110229715A1] (provided in the IDS, Vescera, hereafter) and further in view of Ewa Olejnik, et.al. [US20180369905A1] (provided in the IDS, Olejnik, hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, Vescera discloses a hierarchical composite wear component a reinforced part and a non-reinforced part, the reinforced part comprising a threedimensionally interconnected network of periodically alternating millimetric ceramic-metal composite granules with millimetric interstices, (A hierarchical composite wear part comprising a ferrous alloy (non-reinforced part) reinforced with titanium carbides according to a defined geometry, wherein said reinforced portion comprises an alternating macro-microstructure of millimetric areas (1) concentrated with micrometric globular particles of titanium carbide (4) separated by millimetric areas (2) essentially free of micrometric globular particles of titanium carbide (4), said areas concentrated with micrometric globular particles of titanium carbide (4) forming a microstructure in which the micrometric interstices (3) between said globular particles (4) are also filled by said ferrous alloy, see Vescera’s Abstract, [0038]-[0039], claim 1, 10, FIG. 1, 2, and 3e-3h), the ceramic-metal composite granules (embedded in metal matrix, see Vescera’s FIG. 3(g)), comprising micrometric particles of titanium carbide embedded in a first metal matrix, (the micrometric interstices filled by said ferrous alloy (first metal matrix) (see Vescera’s FIG. 3(h), reinforced part), the ceramic-metal composite granules comprising 35 to 75 vol%, of micrometric particles of titanium carbide embedded in a first metal matrix (the reinforcement macro-microstructure comprises the areas of high titanium carbide concentration of the titanium carbide with a globular shape with a volume percentage between about 35 and about 75%, and these globular TiCs are of micrometric size (4 in Vescera’s FIG. 6), and the micrometric interstices (3 in Vescera’s FIG. 6) filled by said ferrous alloy (first metal matrix), see Vescera’s, [0082], FIG. 6), which is overlapping with as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have the ceramic-metal composite granules comprising a vol%, of micrometric particles of titanium carbide embedded in a first metal matrix from the teachings of Vescera, because “In the case where the claimed ranges overlaps and/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)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Vescera discloses the three-dimensionally interconnected network of ceramic-metal composite granules with millimetric interstices is embedded in a second metal matrix (the hierarchical composite (see Vescera’s FIG. 3(f) the interconnected network of ceramic-metal composite granules with its millimetric interstices (see Vescera’s FIG. 3(h)) is being embedded in the second metal matrix (see Vescera’s FIG. 3(g)), and the volume content of ceramic-metal composite granules in the reinforced part is comprised 55% vol% (the granules positioned in the portion to be reinforced comprises 55% by volume of porous granules, after reaction, in the reinforced portion, 55% by volume of areas with a high concentration of about 55% of globular titanium carbide are obtained, see Vescera’s [0113]), which is within as recited in the instant claim.
Vescera teaches the composition of the first metal matrix (one of the first metal matrix example is iron powder, see Vescera’s [0108], [0113], [0115]) is substantially different from the composition of the second metal matrix (cast iron or steel, second metal matrix), see Vescera’s [0108]);
wherein the second metal matrix comprises the ferrous cast alloy present in the millimetric interstices of the reinforced part (high temperature synthesis (SHS) allows an easy infiltration of all the millimetric and micrometric interstices by the cast iron or cast steel, see Vescera’s [0079], (FIGS. 3(g) and 3(h)).
Vescera then teaches the millimetric interstices additionally comprising less than 5 vol% of micrometric carbide particles selected from the group consisting of tungsten carbide, vanadium carbide, molybdenum carbide, titanium carbide, niobium carbide, hafnium carbide and zirconium carbide, or mixtures thereof (in some cases, the interstices between areas with high titanium carbide concentration, a low percentage of TiC less than <5% by volume with an angular shape 5 formed by precipitation, which is originated from a dissolution in the liquid metal of a small portion of globular carbide, formed during the SHS reaction, and the dimension of this carbide is also micrometric, see Vescera’s, [0083], FIG. 11).
Therefore, Vescera’s millimetric interstices additionally comprising vol% of micrometric titanium carbide particles which is within as recited in the instant claim.
Vescera teaches porosity varies from 5% for very highly compressed granules to 45% for slightly compressed granules (see Vescera’s [0191]), while this is merely close with the instant claim but differs from the instant claim as claim requires the porosity of less than 5% and Vescera is silent about the volume fraction of porosity of the granules embedded in the first metal matrix being determined according to ISO 13383-2:2012.
However, Olejnik discloses a composite wear component with a non-reinforced part (casting parts of machines and equipment, a base alloy (second metal matrix), a casting alloy poured into the mold cavity) (see Olejnik’s [0028]-[0031, FIG. 10) and a reinforced part (casting inserts with local composite zones resistant to abrasive wear, are reinforced with carbides in situ in castings) (see Olejnik’s [0028]-[0031], FIG. 10), a three dimensionally interconnected network of periodically alternating millimetric ceramic-metal composite granules (see Olejnik’s [0028]-[0031], FIG. 7, and 8) the ceramic-metal composite granules comprising a powder composition designed to produce local composite zones resistant to abrasive wear with increased strength and resistance to abrasive wear, thus improving further the durability of cast parts of said machines and equipment, allowing simultaneously for a convenient and easy application without the need to use any additional devices, wherein the composite zones are reinforced with carbides formed in situ using the reaction of the selfpropagating high temperature synthesis (SHS) in castings and the powder includes powder reactants of the formation of carbides and a moderator powders composition in the form of a mixture of metal powders, which after crystallization form matrix of the composite zone in casting (see Olejnik’s Abstract, [0005]-[0006]).
Olejnik then discloses as shown in Olejnik’s FIGS. 7 and 8, the composite zones (reinforced part) produced in cast L35GSM steel (non-reinforces part of a second metal matrix, ferrous cast alloy), and the composite zones of the casting inserts containing a moderator composition of cast Hadfield high-manganese steel with 21 wt. % Mn (first metal matrix) a substantially different composition than the base alloy (second metal matrix), and said moderator being a mixture of powders of Fe, FeMn, C, FeSi, Al). The transition region between the composite zone and the rest of casting visible in FIG. 7a. The fabricated composite zone contains mainly the submicron-sized TiC carbides uniformly distributed within the zone, (see Olejnik’s [0051], FIG.7 and 8, TABLE 7 and 8). Olejnik further discloses the absence of porosity in the Olejnik’s Sample D1 (see Olejnik’s Sample D1 in TABLE 7) would meet the limitations of the porosity of the ceramic-metal composite granules being lower than 5 vol% and within the range as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have the absence of porosity of the ceramic-metal composite granules from the teachings of Olejnik, because “In the case where the claimed ranges 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)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Although, Olejnik is silent about the volume fraction of porosity of the granules embedded in the first metal matrix being determined according to ISO 13383-2:2012, Olejnik presumably would meet the limitations because, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I)”. In this case, the claim is directed to the limitation of volume fraction of porosity of the granules embedded in the first metal matrix being determined according to ISO 13383-2:2012, and prior art teaches the absence of porosity in the microstructure of the granules embedded in the first metal matrix, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, that if Olejnik’s volume fraction of porosity being determined according to ISO 13383-2:2012, Olejnik’s microstructure would show the absences of porosity in the microstructure, because the microstructure is an intrinsic property of the material which would not change with a method of measuring.
Olejnik discloses casting insert produced in situ in casting the composite zones reinforced with carbides, in the form of granules, and a moderator, prevents the occurrence of an adverse phenomenon of the fragmentation of composite zones, and can move in molten alloy poured into the mold cavity (see Olejnik’s Abstract, [0028]-[0031, FIG.1 and FIG. 10). Olejnik’s further discloses a “reducing component" like Si, incorporated in order to bind the atoms of gas released during the reaction of the SHS synthesis proceeding in casting within the in situ generated composite zones and also to reduce or eliminate the defects in the form of porosity (see Olejnik’s [0027]) and Olejnik’s moderator contains Si (see Olejnik’s TABLE 8, [0051]). According to Olejnik, with the growing percent content of moderator composition of cast high-manganese steel with 21% Mn, the tendency towards dimensional stabilization starts prevailing and macroporosity defects disappear in respective zones (see Olejnik’s [0043]).
Olejnik is in the same field of composite wear component and thus considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, and Vescera.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to combine Olejnik’s teachings of using a metallic moderator containing Si with Vescera’s hierarchical composite wear component, for minimizing the porosity and thus for eliminating the defects in the form of porosity in the cast composite wear component for having a hierarchical composite wear component with required strength and abrasion wear resistant.
Regarding claim 2, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 2, in addition, Vescera discloses the embedded ceramic-metal composite granules have an average particle size d50 between 1 to 6 mm, (the obtained granules globally have a size preferably between 1 and 6 mm, see Vescera’s [0093], claim 8 and 9), which is within as recited range in the instant claim.
Although, Vescera is silent about the average particle size being determined by the steps of taking a photomicrographic picture of a polished cross section of a sample capturing at least 250 ceramic-metal granules across the field of view, measuring the Feret diameter of the granules, and calculating the volume size distribution of the granules; calculating the d50 of the granules according to ISO 9276-2:2014, Vescera presumably would meet these limitations because, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I)”. In this case, the claim is directed to a limitation of an average particle size d50 being determined according to ISO 9276-2:2014, and prior art teaches an identical particle size, ceramic-metal composite granules have an average particle size between 1 to 6 mm, which is within as recited range in the instant claim, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, that if Olejnik’s particle size is being determined according to ISO 9276-2:2014, it presumably would be the similar average particle size of between 1 to 6 mm, because particle size is an inherent property of the particle which would not change with a method of measuring.
Regarding claim 3, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 3, in addition, Vescera discloses embedded titanium carbide particles in the first metal matrix have an average particle size d50 less than 50 µm (the micrometric globular particles of titanium carbide (4) have a size of less than 50 µm, the major portion of the micrometric globular particles of titanium carbide (4) has a size of less than 20 µm, see Vescera’s [0080], claim 4 and 5), which is overlapping with as recited range in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced interstices additionally comprising micrometric titanium carbide particles having a diameter from the teachings of Vescera, because “In the case where the claimed ranges “In the case where the claimed ranges, overlaps and/or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, is 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)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Although, Vescera is silent about the average particle size of the embedded titanium carbide particles being determined by the linear-intercept method according to ISO 4499-3:2016, Vescera presumably would meet these limitations because, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I)”. In this case, the claim is directed to a limitation of an average particle size d50 of titanium carbide particles being determined according to ISO 4499-3:2016, and prior art teaches an identical particle size, less than 20 µm, which is overlapping as recited range in the instant claim, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, that if Vescera’s particle size is being determined according to ISO 4499-3:2016, it presumably would be the same particle size of less than 50 µm, because particle size is an inherent property of the particle which would not change with a method of measuring.
Regarding claim 4, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 4, in addition, Vescera discloses the interstices between areas with high titanium carbide concentration, a low percentage of TiC less than <5% by volume with an angular shape 5 formed by precipitation, which is originated from a dissolution in the liquid metal of a small portion of globular carbide, formed during the SHS reaction, and the dimension of this carbide is also micrometric, (see Vescera’s, [0083], FIG. 11). Vescera also discloses, the large majority of TiC particles have a size of less than 50 µm, and even less than 20 µm, or even 10 µm, and obtained in method for obtaining titanium carbide by self-propagating synthesis SHS (see Vescera’s, [0081], FIG. 11). Given all these teachings of Vescera, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, that the dimension of the carbide micrometric particle size in areas with low titanium carbide concentration also would have a size of less than 50 µm, and even less than 20 µm, or even 10 µm, as both areas of high titanium carbide concentration and areas with low titanium carbide concentration are being produced in-situ during the same self-propagating synthesis SHS.
Therefore, Vescera’s millimetric interstices additionally comprising micrometric titanium carbide particles diameter is within as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced interstices additionally comprising micrometric titanium carbide particles having a diameter from the teachings of Vescera, because “In the case where the claimed ranges “In the case where the claimed ranges, overlaps and/or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, is 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)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Although, Vescera is silent about the average particle size of the embedded titanium carbide particles being determined by the linear-intercept method according to ISO 4499-3:2016, Vescera presumably would meet these limitations because, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I)”. In this case, the claim is directed to an average particle size d50 of titanium carbide particles being determined according to ISO 4499-3:2016, and prior art teaches an identical particle size, less than 20 µm, which is overlapping as recited range in the instant claim, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, that if Vescera’s particle size is being determined according to ISO 4499-3:2016, it presumably would be the same particle size of less than 50 µm, because particle size is an inherent property of the particle which would not change with a method of measuring.
Regarding claim 5, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 5, wherein Vescera teaches the composition of the first metal matrix is selected from the group ferro-based alloy (the first metal matrix example is the iron powder, see Vescera’s [0108], [0113], [0115]).
Olejnik also teaches the composition of the first metal matrix is selected from the group ferro-based alloy (the first metal matrix, i.e. the moderator powder is a mixture of powders selected from the group of : ( a ) Fe , Cr , Mn , Si , Mo , C ; ( b ) Fe , Cr , Mn , Si , C ; ( c ) Co , Cr , W , C ; ( d ) Co , Fe , Ni , Mo , Cr , C ; ( e ) Ni , Cr , Mo , Nb , A1 , Ti , Fe , Mn , Si ; ( f ) Ni , Cr , Co , W , Nb , Al , Ti , C , B , Zr ; ( g ) Co , Ni , Fe (see Olejnik’s [0108]), and examples are the iron powder, cast Hadfield high-manganese steel with 21 wt. % Mn (first metal matrix) and said moderator being a mixture of powders of Fe, FeMn, C, FeSi, see Olejnik’s [0051], TABLE 8).
Regarding claim 6, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 6, wherein Vescera discloses the second metal matrix comprises high chromium white iron or steel (cast iron or steel (second metal matrix), Vescera’s [0108]).
Olejnik also teaches the second metal matrix comprises high chromium white iron or steel (cast iron or steel (as shown in Olejnik’s FIGS. 7 and 8, the composite zones (reinforced part) produced in cast L35GSM steel (non-reinforces part of a second metal matrix, ferrous cast alloy), see Olejnik’s [0051], TABLE 8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5421. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 7:00PM (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, Merkling Sally can be reached on (571)2726297. 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.
/NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights