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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 “wherein the at least partially sintering is followed by a hot isostatic pressing step or post infiltration” (emphasis added) and is considered indefinite as “or post infiltration” does not recite any particular method step and the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained and the public is not appropriately appraised the scope of the claim.
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN110744031 – machine translation) in view of Lu et al. (CN108396165 – machine translation provided in parent application) and claim 4 is further rejected in view of Ucok et al. (US 2013/0216813).
Considering claim 1, Li teaches three-dimensional materials of a network of a ceramic skeleton formed by 3D printing in a cast metal matrix (abstract). The ceramic skeleton is a three-dimensional network formed by a 3D printing process for ceramic and alloy metal powder and is subsequently sintered (p.2, last paragraph). The sintered ceramic skeleton is then placed in a sand mold (p. 3rd paragraph) and metal is cast therein (p.2, 1st paragraph) including where the cast metal may be an iron alloy (p.7, 4th paragraph). However, Li does not teach the claimed triply periodic minimal surface ceramic lattice structure comprising voids and micro-porous ceramic cell walls with a sintered or cast metal.
In a related field of endeavor, Lu teaches ceramic skeleton metal-matrix composites (abstract) having wear resistance, plasticity, and toughness (Paragraph 23). The composite comprises a ceramic skeleton in a metal matrix such that the matrix is filled inside and outside of the three-dimensional ceramic skeleton (Paragraph 8). Figure 1 (reproduced below) depicts the skeleton in the metal matrix where the skeleton comprises a ceramic lattice structure comprising multiple cell units (Paragraph 25). The composite is formed by 3D printing a skeleton and ceramic coating (Paragraphs 11-12) which is then sintered (Paragraph 13) and then the ceramic skeleton is placed in a casting mold and a matrix metal liquid is poured into the mold (Paragraph 14). The skeleton comprises voids between the nodes (Figure 2; Paragraph 26) and the skeleton comprises ceramic and metal particles where the metal particles melt during casting to increase porosity and is infiltrated by the matrix (Paragraph 23) (i.e. comprises voids and micro-porous ceramic cell walls where the micro-pores comprise cast metal). Figure 1 depicts where the lattice is embedded in a bi-continuous structure of the cast metal matrix. The lattice skeleton of Lu is considered the instantly claimed triple periodic minimal surface geometry consistent with applicant’s definition provided in Paragraph 13 of the originally filed specification.
PNG
media_image1.png
290
347
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As both Li and Lu teach methods for forming wear resistant materials they are considered analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Li with the porous lattice skeleton structure of Lu as this known to afford a composite having wear resistance, plasticity, and toughness (Lu Paragraph 23) and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claims 2 and 6, Li is silent regarding the claimed almost complete impregnation. However, Li teaches where the ceramic skeleton comprises cast iron (p.3, 2nd paragraph) and where it is sintered at 1200-1400 °C (p.4, 10th paragraph). These conditions and materials are substantially identical as that which applicant claims and discloses in Paragraphs 21 and 61 of the originally filed specification as forming the claimed hierarchical composite wear component and substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner are expected to behave the same, absent an objective showing, and therefore this almost complete impregnation is expected to be present. See MPEP 2112.02.
Considering claim 3, Li teaches where the post infiltrated composite is cooled (p.6, 4th paragraph) and is considered ‘post-infiltration’ as no particular step is recited due to indefiniteness as outlined above. See MPEP 2111.01.
Considering claim 4, Li teaches where the ceramic skeleton is 3D printed (p.2, last paragraph). However, Li and Lu are silent regarding the claimed binder jet technology or fused bed laser technology.
In a related field of endeavor, Ucok teaches casting preforms (abstract) for reinforcing molded articles to improve physical properties (Paragraph 1). The process disclosed is of forming a casting preform, arranging the preforms in a mold, and subsequently casting (Paragraph 21) of cast iron, stainless steel, etc. (Paragraph 24). The preforms are shaped bodies comprise ceramics (Paragraph 33) formed by 3D printing and laser sintering (Paragraph 32).
As Li, Lu, and Ucok teach methods of forming composite casting using preformed bodies they are considered analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Li and Lu and to combine the 3D printing taught by Li with the laser sintering (i.e. fused bed laser technology) taught by Ucok as this is considered a combination of prior art elements according to known methods and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claim 5, Li teaches examples of ceramic particles comprising a particle size of 0.8-5.2 microns (p.6, 1st paragraph). See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Francis et al. (US 2018/0185916) teaches a similar method of forming a composite as that which is claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH DUMBRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
SETH DUMBRIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/SETH DUMBRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784