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 .
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.
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.
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) 1-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (WO 2019/161137 A1) in view of Langan (US 2024/0254596) and Harrigan Jr et al (US 2016/0167129, cited in IDS filed 8/16/24).
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches a method of fabricating a metal matrix composite feedstock material for additive manufacturing (paragraph [0057-0059], note that the feedstocks may include the grain refining material (ceramic materials)), the method comprising:
processing powders into a billet (paragraph [0059], fabricated by conventional ingot process or by powder consolidation process), the billet comprising a metal matrix composite including ceramic particles embedded in an aluminum alloy matrix (paragraph [0042-0044], ceramic grain refiners); and
forming a metal matrix composite (MMC) feedstock material for additive manufacturing from the preform (paragraph [0057-0059], feedstock may be produced by atomization or formed into a wire).
Lin is quiet to extruding the billet into an extruded preform prior to forming into the feedstock.
Langan teaches additive manufacturing of Al-Mg-Li-Sc alloys, where the alloys may be provided as additive manufacturing feedstock in the form of powders, flakes, wires, rods, and the like (paragraph [0004]). Langan teaches that the alloy can be cast into a billet and extruded and drawn into a wire (paragraph [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lin so as to include a step of processing powders into a billet, extruding the billet, and drawing into a wire, as Lin teaches that the feedstocks can be formed by conventional processes (paragraph [0057-0059]), and that Langan teaches a known process for forming the shaped feedstock (paragraph [0015], extruded and drawn into a wire).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Lin is quiet to the ceramic particles are nanoscale ceramic particles and that the nanoscale ceramic particles are substantially fully embedded within grains and/or grain boundaries of the aluminum alloy matrix; and that the nanoscale ceramic particles remaining substantially fully embedded within the aluminum alloy matrix.
Harrigan Jr teaches the use of nanometer sized particles in aluminum as the nanometer size particles have similar size to precipitates, which will prevent them from agglomerating, resulting in a higher strength aluminum (paragraph [0008]). The nanometer sized particles are attached to micron sized particles so that the nanometer particles can be uniformly distributed within the aluminum grains (paragraph [0015]). The blended powders are processed into compacted billets that are metal worked, such as extruded (paragraph [0028]), to incorporate and distribute the particles into the aluminum (paragraph [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination such that the ceramic grain refiners of Lin are formed as nano-meter sized particles that are attached to micron sized particles, so as to uniformly distribute nano sized particles to increase the strength of the aluminum (paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches wherein the aluminum alloy matrix comprises aluminum and one or more alloying elements selected from the group consisting of: copper, magnesium, manganese, nickel, silicon, silver, tin and zinc (Lin, paragraph [0034], magnesium and silicon).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches wherein the nanoscale ceramic particles comprise a ceramic selected from the group consisting of a metal carbide, a metal oxide, metal beryllide, and/or a metal boride (Lin, paragraph [0044], ceramic material for grain refinement, including metal oxides, metal carbides, metal borides).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches wherein the nanoscale ceramic particles comprise a ceramic selected from the group consisting of: titanium diboride, titanium carbide, tungsten carbide, zirconium oxide, yttrium oxide, and lanthanum oxide (Lin, paragraph [0044], exemplary ceramics include TiB, TiB2, TiC).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches wherein the nanoscale ceramic particles are included in an amount of at least about 0.1% by volume and as much as about 5% by volume (note combination, Lin teaches grain refiners up to 5 wt% (paragraph [0042]) such as ceramic materials including metal oxides, metal borides, metal carbides (paragraph [0044])).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches wherein processing powders into a billet comprises: blending microscale metal particles and the nanoscale ceramic particles to form decorated particles (Harrigan, paragraph [0015], attaching nano-meter alumina particles to micron size particles of either alumina or aluminum); and after the blending, compacting the decorated powders to form the billet (paragraph [0015], billet), and wherein the microscale metal particles comprise elemental powders, master alloy powders, and/or prealloyed aluminum powders (Harrigan, paragraph [0015], micron size particles of alumina or aluminum).
Regarding claim 7, the combination is quiet to wherein the microscale metal particles have an average particle size in a range from about 3 microns to about 35 microns.
However, Harrigan does disclose that the use of the micron size particles increases the dispersion of the nano-size particles (paragraph [0012]), and that the micron size particles of alumina are lower in price than the smaller nano particles (paragraph [0014].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to determine an optimum size of the micron size particles, so as to ensure good dispersion of the nano-size particles as well as lower cost. Note that "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches wherein forming the MMC feedstock material comprises drawing the extruded preform into wire (note combination, where Langan teaches extruding and drawing in paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches wherein forming the MMC feedstock material comprises atomizing the extruded preform into powder (note combination, where Lin teaches atomization (paragraph [0058])).
Regarding claim 10, note that the claim is a product-by-process claim, where "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113(I).
The combination teaches a MMC feedstock material formed by the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) and comprising a metal matrix composite including an aluminum alloy matrix (paragraph [0057],[0059], powder or wire feedstock of the compositions above, paragraph [0034] teaches aluminum alloy) and nanoscale ceramic particles substantially fully embedded within the aluminum alloy matrix (Lin, paragraph [0057], may include the ceramic grain refining material, paragraph [0044], Harrigan Jr teaches nanoscale).
Regarding claim 11, Lin teaches a method of additively manufacturing a metal matrix composite component (paragraph [0046], additive manufacturing, note alloy in paragraph [0034] which may have ceramic grain refiners in paragraph [0044]), the method comprising:
processing powders into a billet (paragraph [0059], fabricated by conventional ingot process or by powder consolidation process), the billet comprising a metal matrix composite including ceramic particles embedded in an aluminum alloy matrix (paragraph [0042-0044], ceramic grain refiners); and
forming a feedstock material for additive manufacturing from the preform (paragraph [0057-0059], feedstock may be produced by atomization or formed into a wire);
and fabricating a metal matrix composite (MMC) component layer by layer from the feedstock material (paragraph [0046], additive manufacturing, layer-by-layer).
Lin is quiet to extruding the billet into an extruded preform prior to forming into the feedstock.
Langan teaches additive manufacturing of Al-Mg-Li-Sc alloys, where the alloys may be provided as additive manufacturing feedstock in the form of powders, flakes, wires, rods, and the like (paragraph [0004]). Langan teaches that the alloy can be cast into a billet and extruded and drawn into a wire (paragraph [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lin so as to include a step of processing powders into a billet, extruding the billet, and drawing into a wire, as Lin teaches that the feedstocks can be formed by conventional processes (paragraph [0057-0059]), and that Langan teaches a known process for forming the shaped feedstock (paragraph [0015], extruded and drawn into a wire).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Lin is quiet to the ceramic particles are nanoscale ceramic particles and that the nanoscale ceramic particles are substantially fully embedded within grains and/or grain boundaries of the aluminum alloy matrix; and that the nanoscale ceramic particles remaining substantially fully embedded within the aluminum alloy matrix.
Harrigan Jr teaches the use of nanometer sized particles in aluminum as the nanometer size particles have similar size to precipitates, which will prevent them from agglomerating, resulting in a higher strength aluminum (paragraph [0008]). The nanometer sized particles are attached to micron sized particles so that the nanometer particles can be uniformly distributed within the aluminum grains (paragraph [0015]). The blended powders are processed into compacted billets that are metal worked, such as extruded (paragraph [0028]), to incorporate and distribute the particles into the aluminum (paragraph [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination such that the ceramic grain refiners of Lin are formed as nano-meter sized particles that are attached to micron sized particles, so as to uniformly distribute nano sized particles to increase the strength of the aluminum (paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches wherein forming the feedstock material comprises drawing the extruded preform into wire (paragraph [0057], additive manufacturing feedstock, paragraph [0059], may be wire based, of the compositions described above, may be fabricated by conventional ingot or powder consolidation process, note combination with Langan who teaches forming wire feedstock by extruding and drawing (paragraph [0015])).
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches wherein forming the feedstock material comprises atomizing the extruded preform into powder (Lin, paragraph [0057], additive manufacturing feedstock, may be powder having the grain refining material therein, paragraph [0058], may be produced via any suitable method, including plasma atomization, gas atomization, or impingement of a molten aluminum alloy).
Regarding claim 14, the combination teaches wherein fabricating the MMC component layer by layer comprises: delivering the feedstock material into a printhead; melting the feedstock material to form a molten material; and depositing the molten material onto a substrate while the printhead is moved relative to the substrate, the molten material solidifying during or after deposition and being deposited in successive layers, thereby fabricating the MMC component layer by layer (note Lin teaches an additive manufacturing process which is layer by layer (paragraph [0046]) describing a first example example in which the feedstock is raised to a temperature above the liquidus temperature, and then implies depositing and forming the molten pool, note Langan teaches an additive manufacturing method where the feedstock is melted and then deposited (paragraph [0028-0029])).
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches wherein fabricating the MMC component layer by layer comprises: depositing the feedstock material onto a substrate to form a layer; melting one or more selected regions of the layer; cooling to solidify the one or more selected regions; and repeating the depositing, melting and cooling to form the MMC component layer by layer (note that Lin teaches an additive manufacturing process which is a layer by layer process with an example in paragraph [0046] where a powder feedstock is dispersed in a bed, and then at least a portion is selectively heated above a liquidus temperature and cooled).
Regarding claim 16, the combination teaches wherein fabricating the MMC component layer by layer comprises: delivering the feedstock material into a nozzle; and spraying the feedstock material out of an opening of the nozzle and onto a substrate in successive layers while the nozzle is moved relative to the substrate, the feedstock material adhering to the substrate, thereby forming the component layer by layer (note that Lin teaches a directed energy deposition process where the metal powders are sprayed (paragraph [0052]), thus suggesting a nozzle, and that the additive manufacturing process is layer-by-layer (paragraph [0046])).
Regarding claim 18, the combination teaches wherein the aluminum alloy matrix comprises aluminum and one or more alloying elements selected from the group consisting of: copper, magnesium, manganese, nickel, silicon, silver, tin and zinc (Lin, paragraph [0034], Aluminum with magnesium and silicon).
Regarding claim 19, the combination teaches wherein the nanoscale ceramic particles comprise a ceramic selected from the group consisting of a metal carbide, a metal oxide, metal beryllide, and/or a metal boride (Lin, paragraph [0044], ceramic grain refinement material including metal oxides, metal borides, metal carbides, note Harrigan Jr for nano-sized).
Regarding claim 20, note that the claim is a product-by-process claim, where "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113(I).
Note that the combination teaches an additively manufactured component formed by the method of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above) and comprising a metal matrix composite including an aluminum alloy matrix and nanoscale ceramic particles embedded within the aluminum alloy matrix (Lin teaches the aluminum alloy (paragraph [0034]) having ceramic particle grain refiners (paragraph [0042-0044]), and that Harrigan Jr teaches the ceramic particles may be nano-scale (abstract)).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as modified by Langan and Harrigan Jr et al as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Lees (US 2024/0131790).
Regarding claim 17, the combination is quiet to further comprising, during or after fabrication of the component, collecting excess feedstock material for recycling and/or reuse.
However, Lees et al teaches an additive layer manufacturing process (paragraph [0001]) and recognizes that powder feedstock is usually expensive, for which reason it is highly desirable to reuse any available excess powder from each layer (paragraph [0003]).
In view of the teachings of Lees et al, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination such that exceed feedstock is collected for recycle and/or reuse during or after fabrication of the component, as Lees et al teaches that powder feedstock is usually expensive and thus highly desirable to reuse (paragraph [0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACKY YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5749. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00.
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.
/JACKY YUEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735