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 .
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 3 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. Claim 3 recites, “An additively manufactured body made of a Ni-based alloy, the additively manufactured body being produced by additive manufacturing using the mixed powder for additive manufacturing according to claim 2,” however, the claim fails to specifically recite how the mixed powder is being used in the additive manufacturing process, e.g., as the sole feedstock, as one of several feedstock materials, as a minor additive, as a base material upon which the body is manufactured, etc., and hence, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention and could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement.
Claim 4 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. Claim 4 recites, “An additively manufactured body made of a Ni-based alloy, comprising: Al and Ti in a range satisfying a relational expression: 0.5 mass% ≤ (Al + 1/2Ti) ≤ 2.8 mass%; and an oxide in an amount of 0.2 to 1.5 mass%,” however, the claim does not recite a basis for the recited “Al + 1/2Ti” mass% nor a basis for the claimed 0.2 to 1.5 mass% oxide amount, e.g., based on the additively manufactured body, based on the alloy, etc. Hence, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention and could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement.
Claim Interpretation
Consistent with MPEP § 2111, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation wherein “the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” However, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 f.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993.) It is also noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Further, it is noted that product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “Even 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 art product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985.)
Hence, given the above, the Examiner has interpreted the claimed “Ni-based alloy” as being any alloy that comprises non-trace amounts of Ni. With respect to the “body” of instant claim 3, given that the claim does not clearly specify how the “mixed powder” is being used in the additive manufacturing process, as discussed in detail above, such that the mixed powder may be utilized in any manner, the resulting additively manufactured body need not have the same composition as the “mixed powder” of instant claim 2. Lastly, with respect to instant claim 4, the recited mass% values have been interpreted as being calculated on any basis, e.g., the total mass of the additively manufactured body, the total mass of the Ni-based alloy, etc.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoshimoto (US2023/0151471A1). Yoshimoto discloses a metal alloy powder for melt-solidification-shaping such as additive manufacturing, wherein the metal alloy powder is a Fe-based alloy containing elements as recited in Paragraphs 0033-0039 including 2.5 to 9.0 mass% of Ni (thus reading upon the claimed “Ni-based”; Paragraphs 0031-0039) and further preferably comprising 0.3 to 1.5 mass% of Al (Paragraphs 0072-0073, Claims 5-8), with working examples specifically having an alloy composition reading upon the claimed “Ni-based alloy powder” with a content of Al + 1/2Ti within the claimed range of 0.5 to 2.8 mass% as in instant claim 1 (Table 1, see for example, Ex. 1, 3-4, 7 and 9), and given that Yoshimoto clearly discloses that the surface of the metal particles may be coated with metal oxide nanoparticles (Paragraphs 0097-0098), Yoshimoto discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claim 1.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (US2020/0399744A1). Smith discloses an additive manufacturing powdered composite material (12) comprising a powder (2) of metal particles (4) coated with a coating (22) of ceramic particles (8), wherein the metal particles (4) may include a ternary NiCoCr alloy with select additions of minor amounts of other elements, and the ceramic particles (8) may include yttrium oxide or other oxides (Abstract, Paragraphs 0043, and 0059). Smith discloses that the composite material (12) is suitable for additive manufacturing into a component for high temperature application, and specifically discloses an additively manufactured component that includes a metal matrix formed from the alloy with the ceramic particles dispersed in the matrix (Abstract). Smith specifically discloses an embodiment wherein the composite material (12) comprises metal particles (4) including an alloy of “30-35 wt % cobalt, 26-31 wt % chromium, 0-3.0 wt % rhenium, 0-1.0 wt % aluminum, 0.01-0.1 wt % carbon, 0-1.0 wt % titanium, and nickel making up a balance of a weight of the alloy” (Paragraph 0010); or in another embodiment, metal powder (2) that is a solid solution alloy including a balance of Ni; Co: 30-35 wt %; Cr: 26-31 wt %; C: 0.01-0.1 wt %; at least one of a) Re: 0.1-3.0 wt %; b) Al: 0.1-1.0 wt %; and c) Ti: 0.1-1.0 wt %; optionally with Nb: 0.25-1.5 wt %; and optionally with W: 1.5-4.5 wt % (Paragraph 0050, i.e., a nickel-based alloy powder, comprising, as a chemical component, Al and Ti, having a content thereof substantially overlapping the claimed “(Al + 1/2Ti)” mass% range of instant claims 1 and 4); wherein the ceramic particles (8) are preferably nano-sized (Paragraph 0054) and include yttrium oxide, hafnium oxide, zirconium oxide, aluminum oxide, thorium oxide, or combinations thereof (Paragraph 0053); particularly yttrium oxide, hafnium oxide, zirconium oxide, or combinations thereof (Paragraph 0010); with an amount of ceramic particles (8) used to mix with the metal powder (2) to make the composite material (12) ranging from 0-2wt% or 0.5-1.5wt% or 0.9-1.1 wt% of the total weight of the composite material (12) (Paragraph 0055, with the latter two ranges falling within the claimed oxide mass% as in instant claims 2 and 4). Hence, the Examiner takes the position that Smith discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claims 1-4.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sehrt (Nanoparticle improved metal materials for additive manufacturing). Sehrt discloses nanoparticle modification of standard metal powder materials, particularly HASTELLOY X and Tool steel having chemical compositions as recited in Table 1 (reading upon the claimed alloy composition as recited in instant claims 1 and 4), for use in additive manufacturing processes, by adsorption of 1 wt% of aluminum oxide nanoparticles on the metal powder surfaces (as in instant claims 2 and 4) to produce a composite powder, and then utilizing the composite powder in an additive manufacturing process to produce test specimens or an “additively manufactured body” in the experimental examples (Entire document, particularly Section 2 Experimental methods and technologies, Appendix). Hence, the Examiner takes the position that Sehrt discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claims 1-4.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hagiya (US2025/0018467A1). Hagiya discloses an alloy powder material for additive manufacturing comprising oxide nanoparticles attached to surfaces of alloy powder particles (Entire document, particularly Abstract), wherein Hagiya specifically discloses examples comprising Ni-based alloy powders, i.e., powders A and B, having a composition including 0.9% Al and 0.003% Ti (Paragraphs 0078-0080), with several working examples having an additive amount of the oxide nanoparticles falling within the claimed range of 0.2 to 1.5 mass% as shown in Table 2, see for example, Nos. 1, 3-5, and 9, which are used to produce test pieces by an additive manufacturing process (Examples, Paragraph 0108). Hence, Hagiya anticipates instant claims 1-4.
The applied reference has a common applicant and/or inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peng (US2016/0002471A1). Peng discloses composite powders for additive manufacturing formed by treating a base powder with a treating additive having a primary size smaller than an average particle size of the powder (Abstract), particularly a nano scale primary size (Paragraphs 0025 and 0029), to distribute a layer of the treating additive on a surface of a particle of the powder (Abstract), with working examples specifically comprising INCONEL® 718 powder having a composition as recited in Table 5 (reading upon the claimed “(Al + 1/2Ti)” content”) as a base powder and fumed silica having a particle size of less than 20 nm, i.e., oxide nanoparticles, provided on the surfaces of the INCONEL® 718 powder (Examples) with at least one example comprising the fumed silica in a dosage amount with respect to a total weight of the treating additive and the powder falling within the claimed range of 0.2 to 1.5 mass% as shown in Table 1 (Example 1, particularly 3700 ppm of the fumed silica with INCONEL® 718 powder, see also Fig. 5, Paragraph 0012). Hence, Peng anticipates instant claims 1-2, and given that Peng clearly discloses that the treated powder is for use in additive manufacturing, the Examiner takes the position that an additively manufactured body made from the treated powder would have been clearly envisaged by one skilled in the art such that Peng discloses the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 3-4 with sufficient specificity to also anticipate instant claims 3-4.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma (Development of Oxide Dispersion Strengthening (ODS) Alloys Powder for Additive Manufacturing). Ma discloses powder feedstock for additive manufacturing wherein in one embodiment, the powder comprises Y2O3 (oxide) nanoparticles attached to a surface of INCONEL® 718 (“IN718”) starting powder having a composition as shown in Table 4.1 (page 61) reading upon the claimed “nickel-based” alloy and “(Al + 1/2Ti)” content as recited in instant claims 1 and 4, by mechano-chemical bonding (MCB), with various working examples having a content of the Y2O3 (oxide) nanoparticles falling within the claimed 0.2 to 1.5 mass% relative to a mass of the mixed powder as shown in Table 4.2, and given that the resulting powder feedstocks are utilized to produce an additive manufactured article by AM printing (Pages 60-62), Ma anticipates instant claims 1-4.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US2020/0399744A1) as applied above to claims 1-4 and further discussed below.
The teachings of Smith are discussed in detail above (and incorporated herein by reference), and although the Examiner is of the position that the reference is anticipatory with respect to instant claims 1-4 as discussed above given the substantial overlap in the Al + 1/2Ti content of the specific nickel-based alloy as recited in Paragraph 0050 of Smith, the Examiner alternatively takes the position that the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1-4 would have been obvious over the teachings of Smith given that one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to utilize any content of Al and Ti within the ranges taught by Smith thereby reading upon and/or rendering the claimed content range of (Al + 1/2Ti).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights