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 Objections
Claims 3, 13, 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3 which depends on claim 2, lines 2-3, ‘a target nickel-based superalloy directed energy deposition structure’ should read “the target nickel-based superalloy directed energy deposition structure”
In claim 13, line 1, ‘a microstructure’ should read “the microstructure”
In claim 14 which depends on claim 2, lines 2-3, ‘a target microstructure of the target nickel-based superalloy directed energy deposition structure’ should read “the target microstructure of the target nickel-based superalloy directed energy deposition structure”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claim 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Mukherjee et al. (Mitigation of thermal distortion during additive manufacturing; Scripta Materialia, 127 (2017) 79-83).
Regarding claim 20, Mukherjee discloses that, a method of controlling microstructure of a nickel-based superalloy directed energy deposition structure (ABSTRACT; page 80, left column, lines 1-14), comprising:
providing a powder (ABSTRACT);
forming a directed energy deposition structure by performing directed energy deposition with the powder using a laser with a process variable (e.g., laser power); and
establishing a correlation between microstructure and an internal variable (e.g., Marangoni number or Fourier number) of the directed energy deposition structure (ABSTRACT; at least by inheritance, the internal variable (e.g., Marangoni number, Ma) of the nickel superalloy is correlated with the forming shape/deformation of the microstructure (i.e., the nickel-based superalloy directed energy deposition structure).
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.
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 1-2, 3-5, 10-12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being unpatentable over Mukherjee et al. (Mitigation of thermal distortion during additive manufacturing; Scripta Materialia, 127 (2017) 79-83) in view of Sayed et al. (US 2023/0001483).
Regarding claims 1-2, Sayed discloses a method of controlling microstructure of a nickel-based superalloy directed energy deposition structure (ABSTRACT; page 80, left column, lines 1-14), comprising:
providing a mixed powder comprising a nickel-based superalloy powder (ABSTRACT);
forming a nickel-based superalloy directed energy deposition structure by performing directed energy deposition with the mixed powder using a laser with a process variable (e.g., laser power); and
establishing a correlation between microstructure and an internal variable (e.g., Marangoni number or Fourier number) of the nickel- based superalloy directed energy deposition structure (ABSTRACT; at least by inheritance, the internal variable (e.g., Marangoni number, Ma) of the nickel superalloy is correlated with the forming shape/deformation of the microstructure (i.e., the nickel-based superalloy directed energy deposition structure) (related to claim 2)).
However, Mukherjee does not explicitly disclose that, a zirconia nano-powder is provided/mixed with the nickel-based superalloy powder.
In the same field of endeavor, 3d printing, Sayed discloses that, a zirconia nano-powder ([0043], lines 1-3 and lines 25-30 (i.e., nanomaterials including nano-zirconium oxide (ZrO2))) is provided/mixed with the nickel-based superalloy powder.
It would have been obvious to use the method of Mukherjee to have the method of controlling microstructure of a nickel-based superalloy directed energy deposition structure as Sayed teaches that it is known to have a zirconia nano-powder is provided/mixed with the nickel-based superalloy powder. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 3, Sayed does not explicitly disclose the target nickel-based superalloy directed energy deposition structure is performed by driving a process variable from the internal variable.
Mitigation of thermal distortion during (laser assisted) additive manufacturing, Mukherjee discloses that, as demonstrated in Equation (1) (on page 79), there is a relationship between the multiple process variables (e.g., ∆T is the maximum rise in temperature during the proves) and the internal variables (e.g., a strain parameter ε*). Thus, Mukherjee discloses that, the forming a target nickel-based superalloy directed energy deposition structure is performed by deriving a process variable from the internal variable, and performing directed energy deposition with the mixed powder under the derived process variable to form the target nickel-based superalloy directed energy deposition structure.
Regarding claims 4, 19, Mukherjee discloses that, the calculations were done for laser powers and scanning speeds in the commonly used ranges of 190 to 270 W and 12.7 to 25 mm/s (or 762-1500 mm/min.), respectively (See Table 2) (page 80, right column, lines 1-6) (overlapping the claimed ranges of 100 to 500 w of the laser power and 200 to 2000 mm/min. of the scanning speed in claims 4, 19, respectively).
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Mukherjee overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 5, 10, Mukherjee discloses that, the shape and size of the molten pool is affected by the magnitude of the convective velocity of liquid metal that is expresses by the Marangoni number, Ma:
PNG
media_image1.png
36
87
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where η is the viscosity, α is the thermal diffusivity of the alloy, L is the characteristic length of the molten pool, which is taken as the width of the molten pool, ΔT is the difference between the maximum temperature inside the pool and the solidus temperature of an alloy, and dγ/dT is
the sensitivity of surface tension with respect to temperature (Page 81, right column, lines 27-37 (Equation (4))) (related to claims 5, 10).
Reagrding claim 11, Mukherjee discloses that, a demonstrated in Fig. 4(b) in the teachings of Mukherjee, there is a range of Ma number (i.e., starting from 0) (including the density of the melting metal (see in Table 1)) overlap the claimed range of 1-5 in claim 11.
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Mukherjee overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, Mukherjee discloses that, a non-dimensional parameter that embodies both heat diffusion and accumulation of heat is the Fourier number (F):
PNG
media_image2.png
26
88
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where α, τ and w refer to thermal diffusivity, characteristic time scale and length, respectively (Page 81, left column, lines 1-5 from bottom and right column, lines 1-2 (Equation (2)) (related to claim 12).
Claims 6, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sayed et al. (US 2023/0001483) and Mukherjee et al. (Mitigation of thermal distortion during additive manufacturing; Scripta Materialia, 127 (2017) 79-83) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Soylemez (High deposition rate approach ….; Additive Manufacturing, 31 (2020) 100984).
Regarding claims 6, 8, 9, the combination does not disclose the concept/definition of either a volume energy density or the contact ratio as the internal variable.
In the same field of endeavor, melt pool, Soylemez discloses that, volumetric energy density (VED) was used to define the thresholds of the melt pool stable regimes (page 9, right column, lines 1-2 from bottom) (see below the equation 5).
PNG
media_image3.png
45
353
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Here, P represents the laser power (see in Table 1), t represents the powder layer thickness (page 2, left column, line 5), D represents the beam diameter (see in Fig. 7), and v represents the laser beam scanning velocity (page 2, left column, line 6).
As illustrated in Fig. 2, Soylemez discloses that, the width of the melt pool is represented by w and the depth of the melt pool is represented by d. As shown in Fig. 9(a), the aspect ratio (d/w) is in the range of 0-2. Here, the aspect ratio is considered as the equivalence to the contact ratio in claim 8. The range of 0-2 (d/w) is overlapping the claimed range of 0-1 in claim 9.
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Soylemez overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to use the method of the combination to have the additive manufacturing such as DED as Soylemez teaches that it is known to have the definitions of both the volume energy density and the contact ration as the internal variable. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sayed et al. (US 2023/0001483) and Mukherjee et al. (Mitigation of thermal distortion during additive manufacturing; Scripta Materialia, 127 (2017) 79-83) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Ghodsi et al. (Development of Yttria-stabilized zirconia reinforced Inconel 625 ….; Materials Science and Engineering A, 627 (2021) 142037).
Regarding claims 13, 14, the combination does not explicitly disclose the microstructure of the nickel-based superalloy directed energy deposition structure comprises at least a columnar grain structure.
In the same field of endeavor, development of Yttria-stabilized zirconia reinforced Inconel 625 metal matrix composite, Ghodsi discloses that, a well-known special columnar grain microstruce in the building direction of AM parts can be mentioned and attributed to the highly directional solidification (page 1, left column, lines 5-10) (related to claims 13, 14).
It would have been obvious to use the method of the combination to have the additive manufacturing such as DED as Ghodsi teaches that it is known to have the microstructure of the nickel-based superalloy directed energy deposition structure comprises at least a columnar grain structure. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claims 15, 16, the combination does not disclose the specific sizes of the nickel-based superalloy powder. Ghodsi discloses that, the gas atomized Inconel 625 (i.e., nickel-based superalloy powder) has the particle size ranged from 25 to 75 micron (page 3, left column (section 2.1), lines 1-2) (related to claim 16). Further, Ghodsi discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1b, based on the scale bar of the inset (i.e., the scale bar is 200 nm), the typical size of YSZ powder is within the claimed range of 20 to 200 nm (related to claim 16). Thus, Ghodsi discloses that, the nickel-based superalloy powder has a first average particle size, and the zirconia nano-powder has a second average particle size smaller than the first average particle size (related to claim 15).
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Ghodsi overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to use the method of the combination to have the additive manufacturing such as DED as Ghodsi teaches that it is known to have the nickel-based superalloy powder has a first average particle size, and the zirconia nano-powder has a second average particle size smaller than the first average particle size. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 17, the combination does not explicitly disclose the Inconel-1wt% YSZ metal matrix composite was prepared by the powder decoration method. The balance of the nickel-based superalloy powder in the Inconel will be 99 wt%. Ghodsi discloses that, the Inconel-1wt% YSZ metal matrix composite was prepared by the powder decoration method (page 3, left column (section 2.1), lines 7-8). The balance of the nickel-based superalloy powder in the Inconel will be 99 wt% (related to claim 17).
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Ghodsi overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to use the method of the combination to have the additive manufacturing such as DED as Ghodsi teaches that it is known to have the Inconel-1wt% YSZ metal matrix composite was prepared by the powder decoration method and the balance of the nickel-based superalloy powder in the Inconel will be 99 wt%. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The recited references do not disclose the volume energy density is in the range of 0-0.1 J/mm3 in claim 7.
The recited references do not disclose that, the nickel-based superalloy powder comprises, based on the total weight of the nickel-based superalloy powder, 50 wt% to 55 wt% of nickel (Ni), 17 wt% to 21 wt% of chromium (Cr), 4.75 wt% to 5.50 wt% of niobium (Nb), 2.8 wt% to 3.30 wt% of molybdenum (Mo), 0.65 wt% to 1.15 wt% of titanium (Ti), 0.20 wt% to 0.80 wt% of aluminum (Al), 0.1 wt% to 1 wt% of cobalt (Co), and a remainder including iron and inevitable impurities in claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIBIN LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on 571 270 7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights