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
Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of JP 2021-168725 filed October 14, 2021 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Receipt is also acknowledged of a copy of WO 2023/063170, the WIPO publication of PCT/JP2022/037127 filed October 4, 2022.
Restriction Requirement
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.
Group I, claims 1-6, drawn to an aluminum powder mixture.
Group II, claim 7, drawn to a metal powder for additive manufacturing.
Group III, claim 8, drawn to a metal additive manufacturing product.
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.
The groups 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:
The inventions of Groups I-III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of the aluminum powder mixture according to Claim 1, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art of Hartel (WO 2020/089299 with citations from US 2022/0002844) in view of Tanaka (US 2015/0004041).
Hartel discloses an aluminum powder ([0001]), said aluminum powder comprising:
oxygen ([0029]); and
one or more elements selected from Ca, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, Si, and Zn, wherein
a content of the oxygen is 0.3 mass% or less (up to 0.3 wt%) ([0029]), and a total content of the one or more elements selected from Ca, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, Si, and Zn is 0.4 mass% or more and 5.0 mass% or less (Fe and Ni of 1 to 16 wt%, such at least 2 to 10 wt% Ni and 0.5 to 6 wt% Fe) ([0001], [0014], [0028]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Hartel is silent to the aluminum powder with a mixture obtained by mixing two or more powders containing aluminum.
Tanaka discloses an aluminum powder mixture obtained by mixing two or more powders containing aluminum (mixture of pure aluminum powder and aluminum alloy powder) ([0018], [0022]-[0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the aluminum powder of Hartel to be an aluminum powder mixture obtained by missing two or more powders containing aluminum to form an alloy of aluminum and additive(s) through heat treatment, which saves energy required for manufacturing, promotes sintering with heat generated during formation of the intermetallic compound, and increases strength by forming a dispersed intermetallic compound (Tanaka [0022]). Furthermore, a mixture of pure aluminum powder and aluminum alloy powder is an art recognized equivalent to an aluminum alloy powder (Tanaka [0018]). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose. MPEP 1244.06(II).
Restriction Election
During a telephone conversation with Mitsuhiro Haraguchi on May 21, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-6. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 7 and 8 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or 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 must provide reasons in support thereof. Applicant may 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.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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.
Priority
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amended claims filed April 9, 2024 and Applicant’s May 21, 2026 oral restriction election.
Claims Filing Date
April 9, 2024
Amended
1, 3-8
Pending
1-8
Withdrawn
7, 8
Under Examination
1-6
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 1-6 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 line 2 “said aluminum powder” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if this refers to line 1 “An aluminum powder mixture” or line 2 “powders containing aluminum”.
Claim 4 lines 2-3 and 5 “a pure aluminum powder or an aluminum alloy powder” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 4 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 lines 1-2 recite “An aluminum powder mixture obtained by mixing two or more powders containing aluminum”, but does not further limit the “two or more powders containing aluminum” that the aluminum powder mixture constitutes. It is unclear how a pure aluminum powder or an aluminum alloy powder are related to the aluminum powder mixture of claim 1. The claim 1 lines 4-8 composition of the aluminum powder is not pure aluminum.
Claim 4 lines 3-4 “the pure aluminum powders and the aluminum alloy powders constituting the aluminum powder mixture” renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 5 lines 2-3 and claim 6 line 4 “laser diffraction/scattering method” renders the claims indefinite. It is unclear if the method is laser diffraction or scattering or if it is laser diffraction and scattering.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected as depending from claim 1.
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, 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (CN 109909492 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Hu discloses an aluminum powder mixture ([0013], [0019]-[0020], [0054]) obtained by mixing two or more powders containing aluminum ([0014]-[0018], [0059], [0067]), said aluminum powder comprising:
oxygen ([0033]); and
one or more elements selected from Ca, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, Si, and Zn (Mg) ([0013], [0020]), wherein
a content of the oxygen is 0.3 mass% or less (≤ 1000 ppm, 0.1 wt%) ([0033]), and
a total content of the one or more elements selected from Ca, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, Si, and Zn is 0.4 mass% or more and 5.0 mass% or less (3.9-5.1% Mg) ([0013], [0020]).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 2, Hu discloses the aluminum powder mixture according to Claim 1 as cited above, wherein at least one of the powders constituting the aluminum powder mixture is a pure aluminum powder having a purity of 99% or more (pure aluminum is at least 99.95% aluminum) ([0014], [0016], [0020], [0059], [0067], [0075]).
Regarding claim 5, Hu discloses the aluminum powder mixture according to Claim 1 as cited above, wherein a volume-based 50%-cumulative particle size measured by a laser diffraction/scattering method is 10 um or more and 100 um or less (D50 35-50 um) ([0030], [0039]).
Regarding claim 6, Hu disclose the aluminum powder mixture according to Claim 1 as cited above, wherein Y = (D90 - D10)/D50, that is calculated from a volume-based 10%-cumulative particle size (D10), a volume-based 50%-cumulative particle size (D50), and a volume-based 90%- cumulative particle size (D90), measured by a laser diffraction/scattering method, is in a range of 0.5 < Y<2.0 (D10 15-35 um, D50 35-50 um, D90 55-75 um; Y is 0.4 to 1.7; (55-35)/50 to (75-15)/35) ([0029]-[0031], [0039]-[0041]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (CN 109909492 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yasuda (JP 2018-168403 machine translation).
Regarding claim 3, Hu discloses the aluminum powder mixture according to Claim 1 as cited above.
Hu is silent to at least one of the powders constituting the aluminum powder mixture is an aluminum alloy powder in which a total content of one or more elements selected from Ca, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, Si, and Zn as alloy components is 2.0 mass% or more and 25.0 mass% or less.
Yasuda discloses an aluminum powder mixture ([0017]-[0018]), wherein at least one of the powders constituting the aluminum powder mixture is an aluminum alloy powder in which a total content of one or more elements selected from Ca, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, Si, and Zn as alloy components is 2.0 mass% or more and 25.0 mass% or less (1-30 wt% Mg aluminum alloy powder) ([0009]-[0010], [0017]-[0018], [0029], [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the aluminum powder mixture of Hu to use 1-30 wt% Mg aluminum alloy powder to manufacture a sintered body without processes that increase costs, where the magnesium in an aluminum alloy powder forms a strong necking bond and obtains a high-strength sintered body (Yasuda [0018]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (CN 109909492 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yasuda (JP 2018-168403 machine translation) as evidenced by Okamoto (H. Okamoto. J. Phase Equilib., Vol 19 (No. 6), 1998, p 598).
Regarding claim 4, Hu discloses the aluminum powder mixture according to Claim 1 as cited above.
Hu is silent to a difference MH - ML (°C) between a melting point ML (°C) of a pure aluminum powder or an aluminum alloy powder having a lowest melting point among the pure aluminum powders and the aluminum alloy powders constituting the aluminum powder mixture and a melting point MH (°C) of a pure aluminum powder or an aluminum alloy powder having a highest melting point being 10°C or more and 100°C or less.
Yasuda discloses an aluminum powder mixture ([0017]-[0018]), wherein a difference MH - ML (°C) between a melting point ML (°C) of a pure aluminum powder or an aluminum alloy powder having a lowest melting point among the pure aluminum powders and the aluminum alloy powders constituting the aluminum powder mixture and a melting point MH (°C) of a pure aluminum powder or an aluminum alloy powder having a highest melting point being 10°C or more and 100°C or less (pure Al melts at 660°C, 1 to 30 wt% Mg-Al alloy melts between about 480°C and 660°C, for a difference of about 0 to 180°C) (Yasuda [0009]-[0010], [0017]-[0018], [0029], [0035]; Okamoto).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the aluminum powder mixture of Hu to use 1-30 wt% Mg aluminum alloy powder to manufacture a sintered body without processes that increase costs, where the magnesium in an aluminum alloy powder forms a strong necking bond and obtains a high-strength sintered body (Yasuda [0018]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda (JP 2018-168403 machine translation) in view of Hu (CN 109909492 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Yasuda discloses an aluminum powder mixture obtained by mixing two or more powders containing aluminum (mixing pure aluminum and aluminum alloy powder containing 1-30 wt% Mg) ([0017]-[0018], [0028]-0030]), said aluminum powder comprising:
one or more elements selected from Ca, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, Si, and Zn (Mg) ([0017]-[0018], [0029]), wherein
a total content of the one or more elements selected from Ca, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, Si, and Zn is 0.4 mass% or more and 5.0 mass% or less (mix 70 to 95% pure Al powder with 5 to 30% aluminum alloy powder containing 1 to 30 wt% Mg, reads on a total content of Mg of 0.05 to 9% (95% pure Al + 5% (Al-1% Mg) to 70% pure Al + 30% (Al-30% Mg)) ([0017]).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Yasuda discloses an oxide film on the surface of aluminum alloy powder inhibits necking during sintering ([0004]) and that magnesium reduces an aluminum oxide film during sintering ([0010], [0012]).
Yasuda is silent to an aluminum powder mixture comprising oxygen, a content of the oxygen is 0.3 mass% or less.
Hu discloses an aluminum powder ([0020]) comprising oxygen, a content of the oxygen is 0.3 mass% or less (≤ 1000 ppm, 0.1 wt%) ([0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the aluminum powder mixture of Yasuda to limit the oxygen to less than or equal to 0.1 wt% (1000 ppm) to meet the quality requirements for industrial-grade metal 3D printing powder materials (Hu [0034]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 2, Yasuda discloses the aluminum powder mixture according to Claim 1 as cited above, wherein at least one of the powders constituting the aluminum powder mixture is a pure aluminum powder having a purity of 99% or more ([0009]-[0010], [0014], [0017]-[0020], [0028]). Generally, differences in concentration of temperature (or purity) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature (or purity) is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In the event it is determined the pure aluminum disclosure of Yasuda does not render obvious claim 2, then the below rejection in view of Hu is applied.
Hu discloses pure Al that is 99.95% Al ([0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the pure aluminum of Yasuda to be 99.95% Al because this is a known purity level of raw material pure aluminum for use in powder metallurgy (Hu [0014], [0016]).
Regarding claim 3, Yasuda discloses the aluminum powder mixture according to Claim 1 as cited above, wherein at least one of the powders constituting the aluminum powder mixture is an aluminum alloy powder in which a total content of one or more elements selected from Ca, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, Si, and Zn as alloy components is 2.0 mass% or more and 25.0 mass% or less (1-30 wt% Mg aluminum alloy powder) ([0009]-[0010], [0017]-[0018], [0029], [0035]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, Yasuda discloses the aluminum powder mixture according to Claim 1 as cited above, wherein a volume-based 50%-cumulative particle size measured by a laser diffraction/scattering method is 10 um or more and 100 um or less (pure aluminum powder average particle size of 100 um or less and aluminum alloy powder average particle size of 100 um or less) ([0028]-[0029]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda (JP 2018-168403 machine translation) as applied to claim 1, and as evidenced by Okamoto (H. Okamoto. J. Phase Equilib., Vol 19 (No. 6), 1998, p 598).
Regarding claim 4, Yasuda discloses the aluminum powder mixture according to Claim 1 as cited above, wherein a difference MH - ML (°C) between a melting point ML (°C) of a pure aluminum powder or an aluminum alloy powder having a lowest melting point among the pure aluminum powders and the aluminum alloy powders constituting the aluminum powder mixture and a melting point MH (°C) of a pure aluminum powder or an aluminum alloy powder having a highest melting point is 10°C or more and 100°C or less (pure Al melts at 660°C, 1 to 30 wt% Mg-Al alloy melts between about 480°C and 660°C, for a difference of about 0 to 180°C) (Yasuda [0009]-[0010], [0017]-[0018], [0029], [0035]; Okamoto).
PNG
media_image1.png
581
1099
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda (JP 2018-168403 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Narumi (US 2015/0217371).
Regarding claim 6, Yasuda disclose the aluminum powder mixture according to Claim 1 as cited above.
Yasuda is silent to Y = (D90 - D10)/D50, that is calculated from a volume-based 10%-cumulative particle size (D10), a volume-based 50%-cumulative particle size (D50), and a volume-based 90%- cumulative particle size (D90), measured by a laser diffraction/scattering method, is in a range of 0.5 < Y<2.0.
Narumi disclose an aluminum powder ([0045]), wherein Y = (D90 - D10)/D50, that is calculated from a volume-based 10%-cumulative particle size (D10), a volume-based 50%-cumulative particle size (D50), and a volume-based 90%- cumulative particle size (D90), measured by a laser diffraction/scattering method, is in a range of 0.5 < Y<2.0 (more preferably greater than or equal to 1.0 and less than or equal to 3.5) ([0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the aluminum powder mixture of Yasuda to limit (D90-D10)/D50 to more preferably 1.0 to 3.5 for filling to exert a more uniform compression force on the green compact, which obtains a more uniform density in which a variation in residual stress is suppressed and a decrease in dimensional accuracy according to contraction is decreased (Narumi [0057]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-7 of copending Application No. 18/258,491 (App ‘491, reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because App ‘491 discloses an aluminum powder mixture with an overlapping composition, including oxygen content, and D50 (claims 1, 4, 5).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of copending Application No. 18/849,362 (App ‘362, reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because App ‘362 discloses an aluminum powder with an overlapping composition (claims 1-2), including oxygen amount (claims 3-4), and median diameter (claim 5).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Related Art
Wu (CN 107829003 machine translation)
Wu discloses mixing pure Al powder with a median particle size of 60-100 um and binary alloy powders of Al-Mg, Al-Si, and Al-Cu with a median particle size of less than 50 um ([0011]-[0012], [0022]) to form an alloy with 0.5-2.5% Mg, 0.2-1.5% Si, 3.0-5.0% Cu, and 0.1-1.0% Sn ([0013]). Wu discloses the pure aluminum powder and binary alloy powders are inexpensive ([0019]) and that the alloying elements are added for sintering to form a eutectic liquid phase with Al that promotes wettability ([0020]).
Matsumara (JP H10-156583 machine translation)
Matsumara discloses a mixed powder of aluminum alloy powder with about 5 to 20 wt% Si and 0.2 wt% or less O ([0011]-[0014]) with an average particle size usually 500 um or less ([0015]).
Qi (Qi et al. Managing both high strength and thermal conductivity of a laser powder bed fused Al-2.5Fe binary alloy: Effect of annealing on microstructure. Materials Science & Engineering A 805 (2021) 140591.)
Qi discloses an Al-2.5Fe alloy with 2.45 wt% Fe, 0.11 wt% Si, 0.22 wt% O, and balance Al (Table 1) for use in additive manufacturing (Abstract) fabricated with a mean particle size of 17.4 um (2. Experimental procedure).
Hirano (JP 2005-048285 machine translation)
Hirano discloses a raw material that is a mixed powder of 80% or more of Al-Cu-Si alloy powder (A-1) and pure Al powder (A-2) with 20% or less raw material powder (B) ([0010], [0015]-[0023], Fig. 1).
Al- (0.2-2% Cu)- (10-45% Si) and pure Al at a mass ratio of 50-80% Al alloy powder to 50-20% Al pure powder to form a powder with a final composition of (0.2-4% Cu)- (0.2-2% Mg)- (10-35% Si)- balance Al ([0010]).
Jiang (CN 102358924 machine translation)
Jiang discloses a mix of Si-Al alloy powder and pure Al powder to obtain mixtures with 5-60% Si ([0011]) to manufacture a gradient Si-Al alloy ([0014]).
Morimoto (CA 1176490)
Morimoto discloses a parent powder consisting of an aluminum-base alloy powder with an aluminum-phase powder (2:3-11) including at least one of Cr, Ti, Mn, Cu, St, Co, Sb, Zr, Se, and Sn (5:11 to 6:7) to form a liquid phase during sintering (6:3 to 7:28).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights