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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant has not filed an amendment with the response filed October 10, 2025. Claims 1-2, 5-10, and 12-21 are pending of which claims 6-8 and 13-17 remain withdrawn from consideration. Claims 3-4, and 11 are cancelled.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 9-10, 12, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kollenberg, Wolfgang (WO 2014/067990 A1, of record, hereinafter referred to as "Kollenberg") in view of Hirata et al. (US 2016/0325356, hereinafter referred to as "Hirata"). US 9908819 is herein relied upon as the English language equivalent of Kollenberg. WO2014/067990 A1 was cited in the IDS dated January 30, 2020, and US9908819 was cited in the IDS dated December 5, 2022. Hirata was cited in prior action(s).
Regarding claim 1, Kollenberg discloses a method of 3D printing (Title, column 14 lines 35-38). Kollenberg discloses providing a layer of a powder bed comprising powder bed particles (layer which contains a ceramic, ceramic glass, or glass powder column 3 lines 1-2, column 16 lines 11-14). Kollenberg discloses that the powder bed particles comprise ceramic particles (column 3 lines 1-2, column 15 lines 31-53). Kollenberg discloses jetting a functional binder (solidifying composition) onto selected parts of the layer (column 3 lines 3-4, column 16 lines 18-24, column 17 lines 48-56). Kollenberg discloses that the binding agent (solidifying composition) locally fuses the powder bed particles of the powder bed in situ (column 3 lines 30-37, column 4 lines 41-47, column 14 lines 35-46) and binds together build material and becomes part of the build material (column 3 lines 30-37, column 15 lines 1-6, column 14 lines 35-46). Kollenberg discloses that the binder (solidifying composition) comprises an organometallic material (column 3 lines 3-6, column 4 lines 10-21). Kollenberg discloses that binder itself comprises 0.01-99.98% by weight of the organometallic material (column 3 lines 3-11; claim 1). A range of 0.01-99.98% by weight organometallic material encompasses the range 5-50%w/w organometallic material. 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).
Kollenberg discloses sequentially repeating steps of providing a powder bed layer on a previously formed layer and applying binder (solidifying composition) in select portions (column 16 lines 9-17, 44-47), thereby disclosing sequentially repeating the steps of applying a layer of powder on top and selectively jetting functional binder, multiple times to provide a powder bed bonded at selected locations by printed functional binder (solidifying composition). Kollenberg discloses separating the formed article and unbound powder of the powder bed (column 3 lines 15-16, column 14 lines 44-46, column 16 lines 66-67), thereby disclosing taking a resultant bound 3D structure out of the powder bed.
Kollenberg does not explicitly disclose that binder (solidifying composition) infiltrates into pores in the powder bed, but Kollenberg discloses that the solidifying composition reacts and affects properties of the formed article (column 3 lines 30-41), and Kollenberg discloses that constituents of the binder (solidifying composition) remain within the formed article on the microscopic level (column 15 lines 1-6). Considering Kollenberg discloses that the binder (solidifying composition) in some way affects the internal microstructure of the article formed from the powder bed material, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to infiltrate the binder (solidifying composition) in the process disclosed by Kollenberg, as applied above, into any pores that are present in the powder bed material in order to achieve the results of the binder (solidifying composition) affecting properties within the formed article disclosed by Kollenberg (column 3 lines 30-41, column 15 lines 1-6, column 18 lines 42-50).
Kollenberg discloses the ceramic powder of the powder bed has a particle size in a range of 0.1 to 500 µm (column 15 lines 41-45); however, Kollenberg does not teach metallic or ceramic nanoparticles, or metallic or ceramic microparticles as a component of a binder composition.
Hirata teaches an inkjet method for forming a three-dimensional shaped article by selectively applying a liquid binding agent to a thin layer of shaping material [0008], [0041-0042]. Hirata teaches the shaping material can be a powder of ceramic particles of an average particle size 0.1 to 30 µm [0046-0049]. Hirata teaches that the liquid binding agent includes second ceramic particles with an average particle size 0.001 µm (1 nm) to 10 µm (10,000 nm) [0086-89]. Hirata teaches that the combination of shaping material powder and liquid binding agent ceramic particles of different particle sizes allows the binding agent particles to easily enter voids between the shaping material powder particles and increase a density of the shaping material in a uniform manner [0089]. Hirata teaches that an amount of the binding agent ceramic particles (inorganic particles 8a which are included in the liquid binding agent 8) is adjusted in such a manner that a ratio between the weight of the shaping material (inorganic particles 2a which are included in the shaping cross-sectional layer 6 that is formed) and the weight of the inorganic particles applied with the binder is in a range of 400:1 to 3:1 [0015-16], [0103]. Hirata teaches that with a ratio between base material and added inorganic particles within a range of 400:1 to 3:1, “it is possible to perform shaping in a state in which the first inorganic particles are set as a main material” [0016]; that “it is possible to obtain a three-dimensional shaped article in which a density of the inorganic particles is relatively high due to the second inorganic particles which are applied to the main material” [0016], and as a result, “the dimensional variation (shrinkage) of the three-dimensional shaped article in the case of performing the sintering treatment is further suppressed, and thus it is possible to shape a three-dimensional shaped article with relatively high dimensional accuracy” [0016].
Both Kollenberg and Hirata teach inkjet processes for forming a three-dimensional shaped article from ceramic powders of overlapping particle sizes. Kollenberg discloses sintering of the printed green body after removing the body from the powder bed (column 14 lines 44-46, column 15 lines 4-6, column 18 lines 15-22), and Kollenberg teaches accounting for dimensional changes caused by shrinkage during production (column 14 lines 53-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the green body production method of Kollenberg, as applied above, by including secondary ceramic particles with an average particle size of 0.001-10 µm in the solidifying binder composition disclosed by Kollenberg, as applied above, at a ratio between base material and added inorganic particles within a range of 400:1 to 3:1 as taught by Hirata in order to improve infiltration of the solidifying composition between voids of the ceramic powder bed as taught by Hirata [0086-89], thereby predictably increasing a density of the formed structure, preventing shrinkage during sintering and shaping a product with high dimensional accuracy as taught by Hirata [0016], [0089]. A binder constituent which fills voids, as taught by Hirata [0086-89], would also meet a binder which to some extent infiltrates into pores.
Kollenberg discloses that the bound 3D structure (green body) formed by introducing the binder to the build material comprises 85-100% by weight of build material and 1-15% by weight of binder on a basis of the bound structure (green body) (column 15 lines 49-65). Combining Kollenberg in view of Hirata, as applied above would therefore encompass a range of bound structures comprising 85-100% by weight of build material disclosed by Kollenberg (column 15 lines 49-65) and a ratio between base material and added inorganic particles within a range of 400:1 to 3:1 taught by Hirata [0015-16], [0103], which yields a range of 0.21%
0.21
%
=
85
%
/
400
to 33.3%
33.3
%
=
100
%
/
3
by weight of the inorganic particles added with the binder component based on the weight of the bound structure. As Kollenberg discloses 1-15% of binder based on the total of the bound structure (green body) (column 15 lines 49-65), the combination of Kollenberg in view of Hirata, as applied above would yield a concentration of at least 0.61%
0.61
%
=
0.21
%
/
35
%
×
100
%
based on the total weight of the binder with the upper limit determined by the presence of other binder constituents disclosed by Kollenberg (column 3 lines 3-11; claim 1) because
33.3
%
/
1
%
×
100
%
>
100
%.The method disclosed by Kollenberg in view of Hirata, as applied above, wherein bound 3D structure (green body) formed by introducing the binder to the build material comprises 85-100% by weight of build material and 1-15% by weight of binder on a basis of the bound structure (green body) as disclosed by Kollenberg (column 15 lines 49-65) and the weight of additional ceramic micro/nanoparticles applied with the binder is in a range of 400:1 to 3:1 as taught by Hirata [0015-16], [0103] defines a range of compositions encompassing a binder with 10-60% w/w of ceramic microparticles or ceramic nanoparticles. 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 average particle size range taught by Hirata of 0.001 µm (1 nm) to 10 µm (10,000 nm) [0020], [0025], [0089] encompasses both nanoparticles and microparticles. Hirata does not specify providing both nanoparticles and microparticles within a common binder, but Hirata’s identification of the particle size range as an average particle size [0020], [0025], [0089] indicates that individual, provided particles have different sizers. Hirata teaches that because of size discrepancy between build material particles and particles added as binder constituents, it is possible to allow the added binder particles (inorganic particles 8a) to easily enter a void between the build material particles (inorganic particles 2a) [0018], [0020], [0026], [0089]. Hirata also teaches that when build material particles are provided such that individual particles have different sizes, the volume filling ratio is improved [0051-52]. Hirata teaches that an improved void filling ratio reduces the dimensional variation (shrinkage) of the manufactured three-dimensional shaped article [0018], [0020], [0130] and improves the mechanical strength of a sintered article [0052].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to supply the secondary ceramic particles in the process disclosed by Kollenberg in view of Hirata as applied above in two, disparate particle sizes because Hirata teaches that providing particles of different particle sizes improves volume filling ratio in manufacturing an article [0018], [0020], [0026], [0089], even when difference in particle size is within a single particle feed [0051-52]. Considering Hirata teaches that the degree of size difference affects the void filling [0089], one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at a binder comprising both nanoparticles and microparticles as the result of obvious, routine optimization from within the average particle size range of 0.001 µm (1 nm) to 10 µm (10,000 nm) [0020], [0025], [0089], which encompasses both nanoparticles and microparticles, in order to best reduce dimensional variation and improve mechanical strength, as taught by Hirata for powder mixtures of different sizes [0018], [0020], [0052], [0089], [0130]. See MPEP 2144.05(II) parts A and B. Further note that the present disclosure’s interpretation of nanoparticles of 1 to 100 nm (claim 9, page 10 lines 33-35) touches the present disclosure’s interpretation of microparticles of 0.1 to 10 microns (claim 10, page 11 lines 1-2) at the point 100 nm which is the same length as 0.1 microns. The average particle size range of 0.001 µm (1 nm) to 10 µm (10,000 nm) taught by Hirata [0020], [0025], [0089] encompasses 0.1 microns/100 nm. Considering Hirata teaches the particle size value as an average [0020], [0025], [0089], Hirata teaches at least one embodiment wherein ceramic binder particles are provided both with a size greater than 0.1 µm/100 nm and a size less than 0.1 µm/100 nm [0020], [0025], [0089], which meets a binder comprising both microparticles and nanoparticles in view of the present disclosure (page 10 line 33 to page 11 line 2, claims 9-10).
Regarding claim 2, Kollenberg discloses sintering of the printed green body after removing the body from the powder bed (column 14 lines 44-46, column 15 lines 4-6, column 18 lines 15-22).
Regarding claim 5, Kollenberg discloses the organometallic compound has one metal atom selected from a list of elements including Cu (column 4 lines 10-16), and Kollenberg discloses specific copper-containing organometallic compounds suitable as a binder (column 10 line 51 to column 11 line 14) thereby disclosing an organometallic as a copper metal precursor.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the ceramic micro/nanoparticles taught by Hirata, relied upon above, have a size of 0.001 µm (1 nm) to 10 µm (10,000 nm) [0086-0088]. Hirata teaches that this particle size combination of shaping material powder and liquid binding agent ceramic particles allows the binding agent particles to easily enter voids between the shaping material powder particles and increase a density of the shaping material in a uniform manner [0089]. In order for one of ordinary skill in the art to attain the effects of the ceramic micro/nanoparticles, taught by Hirata, relied upon above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to include the secondary ceramic particles of 0.001-10 µm in size in the solidifying binder, which Hirata teaches achieves the favorable results [0086-89]. A range of 0.001-10 µm encompasses both the ranges recited in claim 9 and claim 10. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, and generally differences in a parameter will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such parameter is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(I-II).
Regarding claim 12, Kollenberg teaches a component of the binder (solidifying composition) at a temperature of 15-150
°
C (column 16 lines 48-53). Kollenberg is silent on the temperature at which the binder (solidifying composition) is jetted, but considering Kollenberg discloses that the binder (solidifying composition) is manipulated at a temperature of 15-150
°
C, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to jet the binder (solidifying composition) at a temperature of 15-150
°
C in order to ensure the binder (solidifying composition) may be manipulated. A temperature range of 15-150
°
C overlaps the presently claimed range. 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).
Regarding claim 18, Kollenberg teaches that the organometallic compound has 1 to 3 metal atoms, including Cu, with 1 to 3 ligands (column 4 lines 10-16, 47-49), and that the organometallic ligand can be selected from mixtures of metal tetramethylcyclopentadienylide, pentamethylcyclopentadienylide, cyclopentadienylide, and isocyanoacetate compounds (column 4 lines 56-64, column 5 lines 22-23, 51, column 6 lines 23-24, column 7 line 62-63, 42). In view of Kollenberg’s disclosure of Cu, cyclopentadienyl, and isocyanide compounds as organometallic binder (solidifying composition) constituents, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art that a copper metal precursor comprises cyclopentadienyl and/or isocyanide ligands would predictably serve as an appropriate organometallic component of a functional binder (solidifying component).
Regarding claim 19, Kollenberg discloses a method of 3D printing (Title, column 14 lines 35-38). Kollenberg discloses providing a layer of a powder bed comprising powder bed particles (layer which contains a ceramic, ceramic glass, or glass powder column 3 lines 1-2, column 16 lines 11-14). Kollenberg discloses that the powder bed particles comprise ceramic particles (column 3 lines 1-2, column 15 lines 31-53). Kollenberg discloses jetting a functional binder (solidifying composition) onto selected parts of the layer (column 3 lines 3-4, column 16 lines 18-24, column 17 lines 48-56). Kollenberg discloses that the binding agent (solidifying composition) locally fuses the powder bed particles of the powder bed in situ (column 3 lines 30-37, column 4 lines 41-47, column 14 lines 35-46) and binds together build material and becomes part of the build material (column 3 lines 30-37, column 15 lines 1-6, column 14 lines 35-46). Kollenberg discloses that the binder (solidifying composition) comprises an organometallic material (column 3 lines 3-6, column 4 lines 10-21). Kollenberg discloses that binder itself comprises 0.01-99.98% by weight of the organometallic material (column 3 lines 3-11; claim 1). A range of 0.01-99.98% by weight organometallic material encompasses the range 5-50%w/w organometallic material. 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).
Kollenberg discloses sequentially repeating steps of providing a powder bed layer on a previously formed layer and applying binder (solidifying composition) in select portions (column 16 lines 9-17, 44-47), thereby disclosing sequentially repeating the steps of applying a layer of powder on top and selectively jetting functional binder, multiple times to provide a powder bed bonded at selected locations by printed functional binder (solidifying composition). Kollenberg discloses separating the formed article and unbound powder of the powder bed (column 3 lines 15-16, column 14 lines 44-46, column 16 lines 66-67), thereby disclosing taking a resultant bound 3D structure out of the powder bed.
Kollenberg does not explicitly disclose that binder (solidifying composition) infiltrates into pores in the powder bed, but Kollenberg discloses that the solidifying composition reacts and affects properties of the formed article (column 3 lines 30-41), and Kollenberg discloses that constituents of the binder (solidifying composition) are within the formed article on the microscopic level (column 15 lines 1-6). Considering Kollenberg discloses that the binder (solidifying composition) in some way affects the internal microstructure of the article formed from the powder bed material, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to infiltrate the binder (solidifying composition) in the process disclosed by Kollenberg, as applied above, into any pores that are present in the powder bed material in order to achieve the results of the binder (solidifying composition) affecting properties within the formed article disclosed by Kollenberg (column 3 lines 30-41, column 15 lines 1-6, column 18 lines 42-50).
Kollenberg discloses that the binder must ensure that the powder particles “glue” to each other, and the green body acquires sufficient solidity and must exactly form the given contour (column 14 lines 35-40). Kollenberg further identifies density as an important material property of the green body itself (prior to sintering) and discloses infiltrating the green body with material for the purpose of increasing density and reducing porosity (column 14 lines 57-61). Kollenberg discloses that the porosity of the finished product formed from processing the resultant bound 3D structure (green body) is 0-60%, preferably 0-20% (column 18 lines 27-32). Considering Kollenberg discloses increasing density in the green body, as an objective, and in view of the processes and material disclosed by Kollenberg relied on above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to minimize the porosity/maximize the density in the green body disclosed by Knollenberg prior to subsequent processing. In minimizing the porosity, one of ordinary it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to target the range of 0-60% porosity which Kollenberg discloses for the formed product (column 18 lines 27-32). A range of 0-60% encompasses the claimed porosity range. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, and generally differences in a parameter will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such parameter is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(I-II).
Kollenberg discloses the ceramic powder of the powder bed has a particle size in a range of 0.1 to 500 µm (column 15 lines 41-45); however, Kollenberg does not teach metallic or ceramic nanoparticles, or metallic or ceramic microparticles as a component of a binder composition.
Hirata teaches an inkjet method for forming a three-dimensional shaped article by selectively applying a liquid binding agent to a thin layer of shaping material [0008], [0041-0042]. Hirata teaches the shaping material can be a powder of ceramic particles of an average particle size 0.1 to 30 µm [0046-0049]. Hirata teaches that the liquid binding agent includes second ceramic particles with an average particle size 0.001 µm (1 nm) to 10 µm (10,000 nm) [0086-89]. Hirata teaches that the combination of shaping material powder and liquid binding agent ceramic particles of different particle sizes allows the binding agent particles to easily enter voids between the shaping material powder particles and increase a density of the shaping material in a uniform manner [0089]. Hirata teaches that an amount of the binding agent ceramic particles (inorganic particles 8a which are included in the liquid binding agent 8) is adjusted in such a manner that a ratio between the weight of the shaping material (inorganic particles 2a which are included in the shaping cross-sectional layer 6 that is formed) and the weight of the inorganic particles applied with the binder is in a range of 400:1 to 3:1 [0015-16], [0103]. Hirata teaches that with a ratio between base material and added inorganic particles within a range of 400:1 to 3:1, “it is possible to perform shaping in a state in which the first inorganic particles are set as a main material” [0016]; that “it is possible to obtain a three-dimensional shaped article in which a density of the inorganic particles is relatively high due to the second inorganic particles which are applied to the main material” [0016], and as a result, “the dimensional variation (shrinkage) of the three-dimensional shaped article in the case of performing the sintering treatment is further suppressed, and thus it is possible to shape a three-dimensional shaped article with relatively high dimensional accuracy” [0016].
Both Kollenberg and Hirata teach inkjet processes for forming a three-dimensional shaped article from ceramic powders of overlapping particle sizes. Kollenberg discloses sintering of the printed green body after removing the body from the powder bed (column 14 lines 44-46, column 15 lines 4-6, column 18 lines 15-22), and Kollenberg teaches accounting for dimensional changes caused by shrinkage during production (column 14 lines 53-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the green body production method of Kollenberg, as applied above, by including secondary ceramic particles with an average particle size of 0.001-10 µm in the solidifying binder composition disclosed by Kollenberg, as applied above, at a ratio between base material and added inorganic particles within a range of 400:1 to 3:1 as taught by Hirata in order to improve infiltration of the solidifying composition between voids of the ceramic powder bed as taught by Hirata [0086-89], thereby predictably increasing a density of the formed structure, preventing shrinkage during sintering and shaping a product with high dimensional accuracy as taught by Hirata [0016], [0089]. A binder constituent which fills voids, as taught by Hirata [0086-89], would also meet a binder which to some extent infiltrates into pores.
Kollenberg discloses that the bound 3D structure (green body) formed by introducing the binder to the build material comprises 85-100% by weight of build material and 1-15% by weight of binder on a basis of the bound structure (green body) (column 15 lines 49-65). Combining Kollenberg in view of Hirata, as applied above would therefore necessarily encompass a range of bound structures comprising 85-100% by weight of build material disclosed by Kollenberg (column 15 lines 49-65) and a ratio between base material and added inorganic particles within a range of 400:1 to 3:1 taught by Hirata [0015-16], [0103], which yields a range of 0.21%
0.21
%
=
85
%
/
400
to 33.3%
33.3
%
=
100
%
/
3
by weight of the inorganic particles added with the binder component based on the weight of the bound structure. As Kollenberg discloses 1-15% of binder based on the total of the bound structure (green body) (column 15 lines 49-65), the combination of Kollenberg in view of Hirata, as applied above would yield a concentration of at least 0.61%
0.21
%
/
35
%
×
100
%
based on the total weight of the binder with the upper limit determined by the presence of other binder constituents disclosed by Kollenberg (column 3 lines 3-11; claim 1) because
33.3
%
/
1
%
×
100
%
>
100
%.The method disclosed by Kollenberg in view of Hirata, as applied above, wherein bound 3D structure (green body) formed by introducing the binder to the build material comprises 85-100% by weight of build material and 1-15% by weight of binder on a basis of the bound structure (green body) as disclosed by Kollenberg (column 15 lines 49-65) and the weight of additional ceramic micro/nanoparticles applied with the binder is in a range of 400:1 to 3:1 as taught by Hirata [0015-16], [0103] defines a range of compositions encompassing a binder with 10-60% w/w of ceramic microparticles or ceramic nanoparticles. 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 average particle size range taught by Hirata of 0.001 µm (1 nm) to 10 µm (10,000 nm) [0020], [0025], [0089] encompasses both nanoparticles and microparticles. Hirata does not specify providing both nanoparticles and microparticles within a common binder, but Hirata’s identification of the particle size range as an average particle size [0020], [0025], [0089] indicates that individual, provided particles have different sizers. Hirata teaches that because of size discrepancy between build material particles and particles added as binder constituents, it is possible to allow the added binder particles (inorganic particles 8a) to easily enter a void between the build material particles (inorganic particles 2a) [0018], [0020], [0026], [0089]. Hirata also teaches that when build material particles are provided such that individual particles have different sizes, the volume filling ratio is improved [0051-52]. Hirata teaches that an improved void filling ratio reduces the dimensional variation (shrinkage) of the manufactured three-dimensional shaped article [0018], [0020], [0130] and improves the mechanical strength of a sintered article [0052].
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Kollenberg discloses that the binder must ensure that the powder particles “glue” to each other, and the green body acquires sufficient solidity and must exactly form the given contour (column 14 lines 35-40). Kollenberg further identifies density as an important material property of the green body itself (prior to sintering) and discloses infiltrating the green body with material for the purpose of increasing density and reducing porosity (column 14 lines 57-61). Kollenberg discloses that the porosity of the finished product formed from processing the resultant bound 3D structure (green body) is 0-60%, preferably 0-20% (column 18 lines 27-32). Considering Kollenberg discloses increasing density in the green body, as an objective, and in view of the processes and material disclosed by Kollenberg relied on above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to minimize the porosity/maximize the density in the green body disclosed by Knollenberg prior to subsequent processing. In minimizing the porosity, one of ordinary it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to target the range of 0-60% porosity which Kollenberg discloses for the formed product (column 18 lines 27-32). A range of 0-60% encompasses the claimed porosity ranges recited in both claims 20 and 21. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, and generally differences in a parameter will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such parameter is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(I-II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejections over Kollenberg, Wolfgang (WO 2014/067990 A1, of record, hereinafter referred to as "Kollenberg") in view of Hirata et al. (US 2016/0325356, hereinafter referred to as "Hirata") under 35 USC 103, applicant argues that Kollenberg’s disclosure of 0.01-99.98% organometallic is “a genus so broad that it cannot reasonably be said to teach or suggest Applicant's narrower and purposeful range” of 5-50%. This argument is not persuasive because the claimed 5-50% organometallic recited in claims 1 and 19 substantially overlaps the 0.01-99.9% organometallic disclosed by Kollenberg (column 3 lines 3-11; claim 1) with an overlap of 5-50%, which encompasses a range from 5% to half the binder. Applicant refers to MPEP 2144.05(III)(D), which discusses rebutting a showing on obviousness of overlapping range by showing the prior art range is very broad. The discussion in MPEP 2144.05(III)(D) is founded entirely on Genetics Inst., LLC v. Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc., 655 F.3d 1291, 1306, 99 USPQ2d 1713, 1725 (Fed. Cir. 2011) which found that a disclosure of 68,000 protein variants including 2,332 amino acids did not render obvious a protein structure which claimed a size of the permitted amino acid deletions, the location of those deletions, and the degree of allowable amino acid substitutions. The broad disclosure did not appear to specify size of amino acid deletions or the locations of the deletions of the challenged claims. In contrast the claimed 5-50% overlaps the claimed 0.01-99.98% disclosed by Kollenberg (column 3 lines 3-11; claim 1) to the same extent that range of “about 1–3%” rhenium lies within the range of “0–7%” at issue for In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) which MPEP 2144.05 quotes to establish "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness” and against which the findings in Genetics Inst., LLC v. Novartis…, which form the basis of applicant’s argument, are compared. The comparison of Kollenberg’s range to the broadly claimed range of 5-50% is closer to the situation of In re Peterson which MPEP 2144.05 indicates establishes prima facia obviousness of overlapping ranges, than the comparison of Kollenberg to the claimed range is to a case of millions of compounds compared to three compounds as argued by applicant’s arguments quoting In re Baird.
Further, applicant’s arguments that Kollenberg lacks a sub range are inaccurate because Kollenberg exemplifies a binder comprising 10% organometallic (“10% by mass iron citrate (F6129-250G, Sigma-Aldrich Chemie, Taufkirchen, Germany) was added to the water-based binding agent solution (ZB54, Z Corporation, USA). The components were mixed in a beaker using a magnetic stirrer for 5 minutes” column 19 lines 5-9). Iron citrate is an organometallic. 10% lies within the claimed range of 5-50%. Considering the one species within the 0.01-99.98% exemplified by Kollenberg lies within the claimed range of 5-50%, even if the comparison of the claimed range to the range disclosed by Kollenberg should be considered as a species/genus relationship as described in MPEP 2144.08, the structure of the disclosed prior art genus and that of any expressly described species exemplified by Kollenberg (column 19 lines 5-9), absent some showing of criticality, would still render obvious a binder comprising some amount of organometallic within a range of 5-50%.
Applicant’s remarks state “Applicant's evidence demonstrates that values outside this range can either fail to fuse particles directly (<5%) or introduce inhomogeneities and cracking (>50%).” Applicant’s remarks filed October 10, 2025 appear to be the only statement of record which appears to link the claimed 5-50% organometallic with the results of sufficient fusion or reduced cracking. Support for the 5-50% in the disclosure as filed appears to be the statement “inks may incorporate certain concentrations of the ROM component (e.g. about 5-50%, e.g. 10-40%, e.g. 20-30%, w/w) combined with certain loadings of metal micro- and nano-particles (e.g. about 10-60%, e.g. 20-50%, e.g. 30-40%, w/w).” (page 13 lines 1-3). This portion of the specification does not amount to evidence that extent of particle fusion or part cracking is related to the organometallic composition in the binder. Applicant is reminded that to “establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range” (MPEP 716.02(d)(II)). The only instance of some form of the word “cracking” in the present specification is “Without wishing to be bound by theory, the present invention ameliorates the flaws in the product due to cracks and porosity thereby improving the mechanical properties” (page 14 lines 7-10). Note that MPEP 2144.05(III)(A) indicates that rebutting a rejection under 35 USC 103 over overlapping ranges involves a with evidence claimed range is critical over the prior art by showing that the claimed range yields unexpected results. MPEP 716.02 and subsections provides a discussion on guidelines for evaluating evidence of unexpected results. MPEP 716.02 indicates that evidence must show that results are nonobvious to a statistical and practical significance commensurate in scope with the claimed range. Applicant’s remarks do not even show the degree of cracking or fusion at a specific concentration of organometallic, either inside or outside the claimed range. Applicant’s qualitative assertion is insufficient as evidence commensurate in scope with the claimed range. Applicant is reminded that arguments by applicant cannot take the place of evidence where evidence is required (MPEP 716.01(c) and 2145(I)).
Arguments that Kollenberg’s teaching of a high ceramic content teach away from the claimed 5-50% organometallic in the binder are not persuasive because Kollenberg exemplifies 10% organometallic in the binder (column 19 lines 5-9). 10% does not teach away from a range of 5-50% because 10% lies within the range of 5-50%. The 85-100% ceramic disclosed by Kollenberg is the fraction of overall feed material, including the powder bed to which the binder is applied. This is evident from Kollenberg’s statement “The ceramic powder is preferably used in an amount of 85 to 100% by weight. In this way, the content of ceramic material is nevertheless sufficiently high to provide enough play for, by way of example, the optionally present binding agent” (column 15 lines 49-53). The 0.01-99.98% organometallic disclosed by Kollenberg is the proportion of the binding agent that is applied to the ceramic material, as is evident by Kollenberg’s statement “(3) b) at least one solidifying composition is applied to the abovementioned layer, on at least a part thereof, which (4) contains at least 0.01 to 99.98% by weight of a dissolved or liquid organoelement compound” (column 3 lines 3-5). Kollenberg’s disclosure show that the organoelement is an organometallic. The claimed 5-50% is the proportion of the organometallic in the binder which is applied the layer of the powder bed, as indicated by the claimed limitation “the binder: comprises 5-50% w/w organometallic material” (present claims 1 and 19). Present claims do not appear to be limited by the proportion of the powder bed.
Applicant is further cautioned that new assertions of the criticality of ranges which the disclosure as filed did not consider inventive could potentially raise new matter issues. See MPEP 2163 and particularly 2163.05.
Applicant’s arguments characterizing the entirety of the application of Hirata to the rejections over Kollenberg in view of Hirata as an obviousness of optimization are not persuasive because present and prior rejections relied on Hirata’s teachings of favorable results to incorporate nanoparticles into the binder regardless of optimizing within a range. Specifically present and prior rejections state/d “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the green body production method of Kollenberg, as applied above, by including secondary ceramic particles with an average particle size of 0.001-10 µm in the solidifying binder composition disclosed by Kollenberg, as applied above, at a ratio between base material and added inorganic particles within a range of 400:1 to 3:1 as taught by Hirata in order to improve infiltration of the solidifying composition between voids of the ceramic powder bed as taught by Hirata [0086-89], thereby predictably increasing a density of the formed structure, preventing shrinkage during sintering and shaping a product with high dimensional accuracy as taught by Hirata [0016], [0089]” and “[i]t would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to supply the secondary ceramic particles in the process disclosed by Kollenberg in view of Hirata as applied above in two, disparate particle sizes because Hirata teaches that providing particles of different particle sizes improves volume filling ratio in manufacturing an article [0018], [0020], [0026], [0089], even when difference in particle size is within a single particle feed [0051-52]” (see above and pages 6 and 8 of the office action mailed April 10, 2025). Even without an optimizing rationale, Hirata sufficiently motivates one of skill in the art, at the time of filing, to include secondary ceramic particles with an average particle size of 0.001-10 µm in the solidifying binder composition at a ratio between base material and added inorganic particles within a range of 400:1 to 3:1, and providing particles in disparate particle sizes.
Arguments that Hirata teaches sacrificial binders largely are not persuasive because the binders of the present disclosure are sacrificial. Applicant is reminded that an attempt to claim that the claimed binder is not sacrificial resulted in a rejection under 35 USC 112(b) in the office action mailed March 5, 2024. Within the specification, the disclosure states “Metallic functional binder inks may contain reactive metal compounds, for example metal halides or metal salts, and amongst the most useful of reactive metal compounds are organometallics. Reactive organometallic (ROM) material undergoes reaction to lose ligands [emphasis added] and change to elemental metal and bind to the particles of the powder bed” (page 9 lines 29-34), and “Elevated bed temperature may be achieved by the use of a heater system under the bed or by radiant heaters above the bed, the objective in both cases being to activate the reactive binder (e.g., in the case of ROMs, to drive off the ligands from the ROM active part of the ink [emphasis added])” (page 16 lines 27-30, note the expression within parentheses is present in the specification). Driving off ligands from the binder sacrifices binder constituents. Arguments that Hirata teaches sacrificial binders further are not persuasive because the organic components Hirata teaches that the inorganic particles of binder form part of the component ([0019], [0089], Figs. 1, 4); therefore, portions of the binder taught by Hirata are not sacrificial. Sacrificing only a portion of the binder is exactly what occurs in the manufacturing method of the present disclosure, and the fact that Hirata teaches removing a portion of the binder does not teach away from the disclosed invention.
Arguments that Hirata does not disclose, teach, or suggest that two discrete populations, nanoparticles and microparticles, are both co-present within the same binder formulation are not persuasive because Hirata’s identification of the particle size range as an average particle size [0020], [0025], [0089] indicates that individual, provided particles have different sizers. Hirata teaches that when build material particles are provided such that individual particles have different sizes, the volume filling ratio is improved [0051-52]. This combination of disclosures is sufficient to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to provide particles of different sizes to improve volume filling ratio [0051-52] in provided inorganic particles which do have different sizes [0020], [0025], [0089]. These provided particles would lie within the 0.001-10 µm size range taught by Hirata [0086-89], and Hirata’s teachings of effects of particle size [0051-52] are sufficient to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize within the particle size range. Further, a value of 0.1 µm which equals 100 nm meets both the definition of microparticles and nanoparticles of the present disclosure (claims 9-10, page 10 lines 33-35 , page 11 lines 1-2); therefore, even if Hirata’s teaching of an average particle size limited to a single modal distribution, Hirata’s teaching of 0.001-10 µm [0086-89] encompasses the 0.1 µm/100nm size which is both microparticle and nanoparticle in view of the present specification. Applying applicant’s own disclosed ranges does in construing how the prior art applies to the claimed ranges does not amount to an improper conflation of statistical range with structural composition.
Applicant argues for the patentability of dependent claims over Kollenberg in view of Hirata by reference to their dependence on independent claims. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons given above with respect to independent claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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