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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 1-6 and 16 in the reply filed on August 18, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that independent claim 1 recites a Ni-Cr-W-Mo-La alloy material powder for additive manufacturing while claim 7 recites an additive manufacturing process for producing three-dimensional articles with the alloy material according to claim 1and that as claim 7 depends from independent claim 1 and expressly recites all features of the Ni-Cr-W-Mo-La alloy material powder for additive manufacturing recited in independent claim 1. This is not found persuasive because neither group I nor group II is limited to all the structural features of independent claim 1. As admitted in applicant’s reply group I includes independent claim 16. Claim 16 in its entirety states:
PNG
media_image1.png
157
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A feature which is not required of independent claim 16 cannot be considered a constituent limitation of a feature required of both Group I (which includes claim 16) and group II. Arguments directed to features only claimed in claim 1 and not in claim 16 are not persuasive in showing that all the cited features of independent claim 1 are components of a technical feature linking group I and group II, which makes a contribution over the prior art.
Arguments that the C and Si in Godfrey (US20190247921) are optional are not persuasive in showing that the common technical feature is not a special technical feature because an optional disclosure is still a disclosure in the prior art, sufficient to show that a common technical feature does not make a contribution over the art.
Applicant further traverses in arguing that the product group of claims 1-6 and 16 and the process group of claims 7-15 and 17-21 are related as a product and a process specially adapted for manufacture of said product as listed in 37 CFR 1.475(b)(1) and therefore meet the requirements for unity of invasion. This is not found persuasive because 37 CFR 1.475(a) requires that 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, and 37 CFR 1.475(a) defines special technical features as those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions [which would include independent claim 16], considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. As described in the requirement for restriction limitations shared by the grouping of claims 1-6 and 16 [emphasis added] and by claims 7-15 and 17-21 do not make a contribution over the cited prior art and therefore do not qualify as special technical features under 37 CFR 1.475(a). 37 CFR 1.475(b) is an additional requirement for unity of invention that does not obviate the requirements of 37 CFR 1.475(a), and groups of invention which do not fulfill the requirements of 37 CFR 1.475(a) lack unity of invention whether or not the groups meet the requirements of 37 CFR 1.475(b).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-15 and 17-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on August 18, 2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0012] of the specification as filed, please replace the two (2) instances of “Hayes 230” with “Haynes 230”. See the remainder of the specification and the Haynes 230 brochure cited in the IDS dated July 29, 2024, as to why this correction is necessary.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, please delete “general” from the limitation “general size distribution”.
In claim 16, please delete the word “general” from the limitation “general size distribution”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
The term “generally spherical” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally spherical” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification does not set forth some metric, such as a threshold aspect ratio, which would inform one of skill in the art to what extent a powder morphology may deviate from a spherical structure and still be considered “generally” spherical. Different individuals have different definitions for the ranges of powder sphericity/or aspect ratio of particles which are or are not “generally” spherical, and it is not clear in view of the specification, the extent to which a spheroidal particle may be elongated and still be considered generally spherical.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oberbillig (WO2021123896A1). See MPEP 2154.01(a) for why a WIPO published application that names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (such as Oberbillig with respect to the present application), is prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding claim 16, Oberbillig discloses an alloy material powder for additive manufacturing processing (page 1 lines 4-6). One example of the alloy powder disclosed by Oberbillig (C27) comprises 0.019 wt% C and 0.068 wt% Si (Table 1). 0.019 wt% C lies in the range 0.001≤C≤0.045 wt %, and 0.068 wt% Si lies in the range 0.005≤Si≤0.20 wt %. Oberbillig classifies the example powder in three fractions (F1, F2, F3) (page 9 lines 2-5). Oberbillig discloses that fraction F2 has a general size distribution between 20 and 63 µm and that fraction F3 has a general size distribution between 63 (page 9 lines 2-5). Fraction 2 of example C27 disclosed by Oberbillig (Table 2, page 9 lines 2-5) meets all the structure recited in present claim 16. Oberbillig further discloses that for powder bed fusion additive manufacturing, a particle size range of 20-63 µm is preferred (page 7 lines 13-14).
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) 1-6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Etter (US20180015566) in view of Shiratori (US20220364207). Shiratori is the publication of an application for patent in the United States effectively filed prior to the earliest effective filing date of the present application.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-5, Etter discloses material powder for additive manufacturing (abstract, [00330], [0033-34]). Etter discloses that the provided material powder is an alloy [0030], thereby disclosing that the material powder is an alloy material powder. Etter discloses that the powder comprises a composition of the chemical elements shown in the table below, with amounts given in wt %:
Alloying Element
Etter
Present Invention
Cr (chromium)
20.00-24.00 ([0018], claim 1)
18.0-22.0 (claim 1)
W (tungsten)
13.00-15.00 ([0026], claim 1)
12.0-15.0 (claim 1)
Mo (molybdenum)
1.00-3.00 ([0027], claim 1)
1.0-3.0 (claim 1)
Al (aluminum)
0.20-0.50 ([0021], claim 1)
0.15-0.75 (claim 1)
La (lanthanum)
≤ 0.10 ([0025], [0040], claim 1)
0.005-0.05 (claim 1)
C (carbon)
0.04-0.15 ([0013], [0034-35], claim 1)
0.001≤C≤0.045 (claim 1)
Si (silicon)
≤ 0.75 ([0015], [0037], claim 1)
0.005≤Si≤0.20 (claim 1)
0.005≤Si≤0.10 (claim 5)
Ni (nickel) and impurities
Remainder (difference of the sum of the elemental contents of all mentioned elements, and in certain instances plus eventual residual constituents, to 100 wt %) ([0028], claim 1)
Remainder (claim 1)
Fe (iron)
≤ 3.00 ([0020], claim 1)
> 0 and < 5 (claim 3)
Co (cobalt)
≤ 5.00 ([0019], claim 1)
> 0 and < 7 (claim 3)
Ti (titanium)
≤ 0.10 ([0022], claim 1)
> 0 and < 0.5 (claim 3)
B (boron)
≤ 0.015 ([0023], [0039], claim 1)
> 0 and < 0.020 (claim 3)
Mn (manganese)
≤ 1.00 ([0014], [0038], claim 1)
> 0 and ≤ 0.25 (claim 3)
> 0 and < 0.10 (claim 4)
The amounts of individual elements disclosed by Etter ([0013-28], [0034-40], claim 1) meets, overlaps or encompasses ranges recited in present claims 1 and 3-5. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, and generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(I-II). The ranges for Ni, Cr, W, Mo, and La disclosed by Etter ([0013-28], [0034-40], claim 1) which Etter discloses as an alloy powder [0030] comprise sufficient amounts of Ni, Cr, W, Mo, and La for the alloy disclosed by Etter ([0013-28], claim 1) qualify as a Ni—Cr—W—Mo—La alloy powder material. Etter explicitly draws attention to the fact that the composition disclosed by Etter encompasses lower proportions of C, Si, and Mn than Haynes 230 alloy [0034-35], [0037-38].
Particles of the powder which Etter discloses as an alloy [0012], [0030] must necessarily have some size distribution, but Etter is silent on the size distribution of the disclosed powder.
Shiratori teaches an alloy material powder for additive manufacturing (abstract, [0001], [0014]). Shiratori teaches that the material powder comprises significant proportions of Ni, Cr, and Mo (abstract, [0015]). Shiratori teaches that the optimum particle size or particle size distribution of the alloy powder differs depending on the type of additive manufacturing method [0137]. Shiratori teaches that in the selective laser melting (SLM) method, the average particle size d50 is preferably 10 to 60 μm, more preferably 20 to 40 μm; a particle size d10 is preferably 5 to 35 μm, and a particle size d90 is preferably 20 to 100 μm [0138]. Shiratori teaches that in the selective laser melting (SLM) method, when the particle size of the metal powder is less than 10 μm, the depositability or ductility as a granular material is deteriorated, and thus the powder built as a powder bed tends to be biased. Shiratori teaches that when the particle size exceeds 100 μm, melting by the beam tends to be incomplete, and thus defects occur in the solidification structure or the surface roughness becomes large [0139].
Both Etter and Shiratori teach Ni-based alloy powder for use in additive manufacturing processes. The additive manufacturing process exemplified by Etter is selective laser melting [0029], [0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to provide the powder material disclosed by Etter [0012], [0030], with a general size distribution from 10-100 µm because Shiratori teaches that in the selective laser melting (SLM) method, when the particle size of the metal powder is less than 10 μm, the depositability or ductility as a granular material is deteriorated, the powder built as a powder bed tends to be biased, and that when the particle size exceeds 100 μm, melting by the beam tends to be incomplete, and defects occur in the solidification structure or the surface roughness becomes large [0139]. The powder material disclosed by Etter, applied above must necessarily have some size distribution, and Shiratori teaches that a distribution of 10-100 µm is the suitable range specifically for selective laser melting [0139] which is the very intended application of the powder material disclosed by Etter [0029], [0048].
Regarding claim 2, Etter is silent on the powder particle morphology. Shiratori teaches providing powder particles as spherical grains [0120], [0123], [0125]. Shiratori teaches that since the surface of the particles which have been spheroidized becomes smooth or the fluidity as a granular material becomes high, the modeling accuracy of the additively manufactured product can be improved, and defects during melting/solidification and defects in the solidification structure due to non-uniformity of chemical composition can be reduced [0120]. Shiratori teaches that high sphericity of provided particles results in improved accuracy of the additively manufactured product and reduced defects during melting/solidification and defects in the solidification structure due to non-uniformity of chemical composition [0125]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide the alloy powder particles disclosed by Etter in view of Shiratori, applied above as spherical particles because of the improved additive manufacturing and reduced defect development which Shiratori teaches for spherical powder particles [0120], [0125].
Regarding claim 6, Etter discloses material powder for additive manufacturing (abstract, [00330], [0033-34]). The powder particles disclosed by Etter [0012], [0030] must necessarily have some size distribution and morphology, but Etter is silent on the size distribution and morphology.
Shiratori teaches that since the surface of the particles which have been spheroidized becomes smooth or the fluidity as a granular material becomes high, the modeling accuracy of the additively manufactured product can be improved, and defects during melting/solidification and defects in the solidification structure due to non-uniformity of chemical composition can be reduced [0120]. Shiratori teaches that high sphericity of provided particles results in improved accuracy of the additively manufactured product and reduced defects during melting/solidification and defects in the solidification structure due to non-uniformity of chemical composition [0125]. Shiratori teaches that in the selective laser melting (SLM) method, the average particle size d50 is preferably 10 to 60 μm, more preferably 20 to 40 μm; a particle size d10 is preferably 5 to 35 μm, and a particle size d90 is preferably 20 to 100 μm [0138]. Shiratori teaches that in the selective laser melting (SLM) method, when the particle size of the metal powder is less than 10 μm, the depositability or ductility as a granular material is deteriorated, and the powder built as a powder bed tends to be biased, and that when the particle size exceeds 100 μm, melting by the beam tends to be incomplete, and defects occur in the solidification structure or the surface roughness becomes large [0139].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide the alloy powder particles disclosed by Etter in view of Shiratori, applied above as spherical particles because of the improved additive manufacturing and reduced defect development which Shiratori teaches for spherical powder particles [0120], [0125]. It further would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the powder disclosed by Etter, applied above with an overall distribution of 10-100 µm, wherein a d10 ranges from 5-30 µm, a d50 ranges from 20-40 µm and a d90 ranges from 20-100 µm because Shiratori teaches such a range as appropriate for selective laser melting [0137-138], therefore, such a range of sizes would predictably be suitable for the selective laser melting disclosed by Etter [0029], [0048]. A distribution of 10-100 µm, wherein a d10 ranges from 5-30 µm, a d50 ranges from 20-40 µm and a d90 ranges from 20-100 µm encompasses a range of some size distribution between 10 to 50 μm and a D50 of 28 to 38 μm. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 16, Etter discloses material powder for additive manufacturing (abstract, [00330], [0033-34]). Etter discloses that the provided material powder is an alloy [0030], thereby disclosing that the material powder is an alloy material powder. Etter discloses that the alloy powder comprises 0.04-0.15 wt% C ([0013], [0034-35], claim 1) and ≤0.75 Si ([0015], [0037], claim 1), which overlaps 0.001≤C≤0.045 wt % and 0.005≤Si≤0.20 wt %. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Etter discloses that the alloy is nickel based with a significant proportion of chromium ([0018], [0028], claim 1).
Particles of the powder which Etter discloses as an alloy [0012], [0030] must necessarily have some size distribution, but Etter is silent on the size distribution of the disclosed powder.
Shiratori teaches an alloy material powder for additive manufacturing (abstract, [0001], [0014]). Shiratori teaches that the material powder comprises significant proportions of Ni, and Cr (abstract, [0015]). Shiratori teaches that the optimum particle size or particle size distribution of the alloy powder differs depending on the type of additive manufacturing method [0137]. Shiratori teaches that in the selective laser melting (SLM) method, the average particle size d50 is preferably 10 to 60 μm, more preferably 20 to 40 μm; a particle size d10 is preferably 5 to 35 μm, and a particle size d90 is preferably 20 to 100 μm [0138]. Shiratori teaches that in the selective laser melting (SLM) method, when the particle size of the metal powder is less than 10 μm, the depositability or ductility as a granular material is deteriorated, and thus the powder built as a powder bed tends to be biased, and that when the particle size exceeds 100 μm, melting by the beam tends to be incomplete, and thus defects occur in the solidification structure or the surface roughness becomes large [0139].
Both Etter and Shiratori teach Ni-based alloy powder for use in additive manufacturing processes. The additive manufacturing process exemplified by Etter is selective laser melting [0029], [0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to provide the powder material disclosed by Etter [0012], [0030], with a general size distribution from 10-100 µm because Shiratori teaches that in the selective laser melting (SLM) method, when the particle size of the metal powder is less than 10 μm, the depositability or ductility as a granular material is deteriorated, and the powder built as a powder bed tends to be biased, and that when the particle size exceeds 100 μm, melting by the beam tends to be incomplete, and defects occur in the solidification structure or the surface roughness becomes large [0139]. The powder material disclosed by Etter, applied above must necessarily have some size distribution, and Shiratori teaches that a distribution of 10-100 µm is the suitable range specifically for selective laser melting [0139] which is the very intended use of the powder material disclosed by Etter [0029], [0048].
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US20230193424). Zhang is cited in the IDS filed October 1, 2025. Zhang is a publication of an application for patent in the United States, effectively filed prior to the earliest effective fling date of the present application.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-5, Zhang discloses a Ni—Cr—W—Mo—La alloy material powder for additive manufacturing [0005-06], [0016]. Zhang discloses that the powder comprises the elements in the ranges shown in the table below with values in wt %:
Alloying Element
Zhang ([0006], claim 1)
Present Invention
Cr
20-24
18.0-22.0 (claim 1)
W
13-15
12.0-15.0 (claim 1)
Mo
1-3
1.0-3.0 (claim 1)
Al
0.2-0.5
0.15-0.75 (claim 1)
La
0.001-0.004
0.005-0.05 (claim 1)
C
≤ 0.3
0.001≤C≤0.045 (claim 1)
Si
0.02-0.2
0.005≤Si≤0.20 (claim 1)
0.005≤Si≤0.10 (claim 5)
Ni and impurities
Balance
Remainder (claim 1)
Fe
< 3
> 0 and <5 (claim 3)
Co
< 5
> 0 and < 7 (claim 3)
Ti
< 0.1
> 0 and < 0.5 (claim 3)
B
< 0.015
> 0 and < 0.020 (claim 3)
Mn
0.01-0.2
> 0 and ≤0.25 (claim 3)
> 0 and <0.10 (claim 4)
The amounts of Cr, W, Mo, Al, C, Si, Ni, Fe, Co, Ti, B, Mn disclosed by Zhang ([0006], claim 1) meet, overlap or encompass amounts recited in present claims 1 and 3-5. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, and generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(I-II). Zhang discloses 0.001-0.004 wt% La ([0006], claim 1), whereas present claim 1 recites 0.005-0.05 wt % La. The lanthanum range disclosed by Zhang so closely approaches the lanthanum range recited in claim 1, that an alloy composition comprising 0.004 wt% La, which is within the range disclosed by Zhang ([0006], claim 1) would be expected to have the same properties as an alloy with the same composition but for 0.005% La, which is within the range recited in claim 1. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Zhang discloses that the powder has a size distribution of 15-75 μm [0016], which lies entirely between 10 and 100 μm.
Regarding claim 16, Zhang discloses an alloy material powder for additive manufacturing [0005-06], [0016]. Zhang discloses that the alloy powder comprises ≤ 0.3 wt % C and 0.02-0.2 wt % Si ([0006], claim 1). The amounts of C and Si disclosed by Zhang ([0006], claim 1) meet, overlap, or encompass values recited in claim 16. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, and generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(I-II). Zhang discloses that the powder has a size distribution of 15-75 μm [0016], which lies entirely between 10 and 100 μm.
Claim(s) 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US20230193424) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shiratori (US20220364207).
Regarding claim 2, the powder disclosed by Zhang [0005-06], [0016] must necessarily have some shape, but Zhang is silent on the powder morphology.
Shiratori teaches an alloy material powder for additive manufacturing (abstract, [0001], [0014]). Shiratori teaches that the material powder comprises significant proportions of Ni, Cr, and Mo (abstract, [0015]). Shiratori teaches that since the surface of the particles which have been spheroidized becomes smooth or the fluidity as a granular material becomes high, the modeling accuracy of the additively manufactured product can be improved, and defects during melting/solidification and defects in the solidification structure due to non-uniformity of chemical composition can be reduced [0120]. Shiratori teaches that high sphericity of provided particles results in improved accuracy of the additively manufactured product and reduced defects during melting/solidification and defects in the solidification structure due to non-uniformity of chemical composition [0125].
Both Zhang and Shiratori teach Ni-based alloy powders for additive manufacturing.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the alloy powder disclosed by Zhang, applied above as spherical powder because Shiratori teaches spherical powder as advantageous for accuracy and defect prevention in additive manufacturing [0120], [0123], [0125].
Regarding claim 6, Zhang discloses that the powder has a size distribution of 15-75 μm [0016], which overlaps a distribution of 10 to 50 μm. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Zhang is silent on the shape of the powder particles and is silent on the median (d50) of the powder particles.
Shiratori teaches an alloy material powder for additive manufacturing (abstract, [0001], [0014]). Shiratori teaches that the material powder comprises significant proportions of Ni, Cr, and Mo (abstract, [0015]). Shiratori teaches that since the surface of the particles which have been spheroidized becomes smooth or the fluidity as a granular material becomes high, the modeling accuracy of the additively manufactured product can be improved, and defects during melting/solidification and defects in the solidification structure due to non-uniformity of chemical composition can be reduced [0120]. Shiratori teaches that high sphericity of provided particles results in improved accuracy of the additively manufactured product and reduced defects during melting/solidification and defects in the solidification structure due to non-uniformity of chemical composition [0125]. Shiratori teaches that the optimum particle size or particle size distribution of the alloy powder differs depending on the type of additive manufacturing method [0137]. Shiratori teaches that in the selective laser melting (SLM) method, the average particle size d50 is preferably 10 to 60 μm, more preferably 20 to 40 μm [0138]. Shiratori teaches that in the selective laser melting (SLM) method, when the particle size of the metal powder is less than 10 μm, the depositability or ductility as a granular material is deteriorated, and thus the powder built as a powder bed tends to be biased, and that when the particle size exceeds 100 μm, melting by the beam tends to be incomplete, and thus defects occur in the solidification structure or the surface roughness becomes large [0139].
Both Zhang and Shiratori teach Ni-based alloy powders for additive manufacturing. Zhang discloses selective laser melting as the additive manufacturing process in which the powder is applied [0015-16], [0028-29].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide the alloy powder disclosed by Zhang, applied above as a spherical powder with a median (d50) size of 20 to 40 μm because Shiratori teaches spherical powder particles a median (d50) size of 20 to 40 μm as preferred conditions for powder feed material for selective laser melting additive manufacturing [0120], [0123], [0125], [0137-139], which is the intended application of the powder disclosed by Zhang [0015-16], [0028-29]. Applying spherical powder with a d50 of 20-40 µm would predictably yield the favorable results taught by Shiratori. 20-40 µm encompasses a range of 28-38 µm. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P O'KEEFE whose telephone number is (571)272-7647. The examiner can normally be reached MR 8:00-6:30.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/SEAN P. O'KEEFE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/ SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights