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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 28, 41-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 44 recite “nanoscale porosity of the microparticles being characterized by void space between the nanograin features” which appears to be new matter not in the written description as originally filed.
All claims not specifically addressed are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 28, 41-43, and 45-47 are 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.
The term “about” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The instant specification at [0040] of the PGPub defines “about” as “plus and minus 10% of the reference value”. However, claim 1 contains no reference value for the term “about” in regard to the uniform size relative to one another. As such, it is not clear what values are, and are not, “about a uniform size relative to one another.”
All claims not specifically addressed are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 11-12, 28, 41, 44-45, and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogel et al. (US20220274322, hereinafter referred to as Vogel).
Regarding claim 1, Vogel discloses a composition comprising: a plurality of non-hollow microparticles (see Vogel at Fig. 3, showing a plurality of non-hollow microparticles), wherein the non-hollow microparticles comprise agglomerates of nanopowder (see Vogel at the Abstract, disclosing supraparticles comprising at least a first population of first primary particles, wherein the first primary particles are thermo-plastic polymeric particles, wherein the first primary particles have a volume-averaged median particle diameter of from 10 to 2000 nm), wherein the nanopowder includes a material selected from the group consisting of: a ceramic material, a metal, an alloy, a polymer, and a combination thereof (See Vogel at the Abstract, disclosing first primary particles are thermoplastic polymeric particles), wherein the non-hollow microparticles are characterized by having: a spherical shape (see Vogel at [0034], disclosing a spherical or at least approximately spherical shape), nanograin features substantially identical to nanograin features of the nanopowder prior to formation into the microparticles (See Vogel at Fig. 4, showing nanograin features substantially identical to nanograin features of the nanopowder prior to formation into the microparticles), and nanoscale porosity of the microparticles being characterized by void space between the nanograin features (see Vogel at Fg. 3(b), showing a microparticle with porosity which is characterized by void space between the nanograin features, for example, the space between the nanoparticles of Fig. 3(b).),
While Vogel does not explicitly disclose the nanoscale porosity of the microparticles being substantially identical to the nanoscale porosity of the nanopowder prior to agglomeration, this is a property inherent to microparticles made of nanopowder. Examiner notes the instant limitation does not actually limit the porosity to a defined porosity, or even a positive porosity, and that there is no evidence in Vogel that agglomeration changes the nanoporosity of the nanopowders. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
wherein the plurality of non-hollow microparticles have about a uniform size relative to one another (see Vogel at [0099], disclosing the particle size distribution of the supraparticles is … most preferably of from 1.0-1.6, which overlaps with the claimed range.) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05), wherein the composition is a powder (See Vogel at the Abstract, disclosing a powder).
Regarding claim 2, Vogel discloses an average diameter of the nanograin features is in a range of greater than 0 nanometer and less than 1000 nanometers (see Vogel at the Abstract, disclosing the first primary particles have a volume-averaged median particle diameter of from 10 to 2000 nm, which overlaps with the claimed range).
Regarding claim 3, Vogel discloses the average diameter of the nanograin features is in a range of greater than 0 nanometers and less than about 100 nanometers (see Vogel at the Abstract, disclosing the first primary particles have a volume-averaged median particle diameter of from 10 to 2000 nm, which overlaps with the claimed range).
Regarding claim 4, Vogel discloses the nanopowder is a non-oxide material (see Vogel at [0060], disclosing primary particles of the at least one thermoplastic polymer comprise … polystyrene).
Regarding claim 5, Vogel discloses the nanopowder is substantially free of oxygen (see Vogel at [0060], disclosing primary particles of the at least one thermoplastic polymer comprise … polystyrene).
Regarding claim 7, Vogel discloses the non-hollow microparticles are particles having a largest diameter in a range of greater than about 5 microns to less than about 500 microns (See Vogel at the Abstract, disclosing a volume-averaged median particle diameter of from 2.5 to 100 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range).
Regarding claim 8, while Vogel does not explicitly disclose the plurality of non-hollow microparticles have uniform densities relative to one another, this is a function of the material comprising the non-hollow microparticles as well as the size of the non-hollow microparticles. As detailed in the rejections above, the supramolecules of Vogel are comprised of the same materials with essentially uniform sizes, and therefore would inherently possess the claimed uniform densities. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Regarding claim 9, Vogel discloses the composition has flowability having an Angle of Repose less than 40 degrees (See Vogel at [0096], disclosing an angle of repose of … preferably 40° or less, which overlaps with the claimed range).
Regarding claim 11, Vogel discloses a three-dimensional structure using an additive manufacturing technique, the powder comprising the composition (see Vogel at [0094], disclosing the preparation of three-dimensional objects is an additive manufacturing powder).
Regarding claim 12, Vogel discloses the additive manufacturing technique is selected from the group consisting of: binder jet printing, selective laser melting, and hot pressing (see Vogel at [0054], disclosing preferred additive manufacturing processes are selective laser sintering or selective laser melting).
Regarding claim 28, Vogel discloses a majority of the microparticles are in a range of size that is less than about 2x the average size of the microparticles (see Vogel at [0099] disclosing the span of the particle size distribution of the supraparticles is ...d most preferably of from 1.0-1.6, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 41, Vogel discloses a majority of the microparticles have an average diameter in a range within ± 0.75x the mode of the plurality of microparticles (see Vogel at [0099] disclosing the span of the particle size distribution of the supraparticles is ...d most preferably of from 1.0-1.6, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 44, Vogel discloses a composition comprising: a plurality of non-hollow microparticles (see Vogel at Fig. 3, showing a plurality of non-hollow microparticles), wherein the non-hollow microparticles comprise agglomerates of nanopowder (see Vogel at the Abstract, disclosing supraparticles comprising at least a first population of first primary particles, wherein the first primary particles are thermo-plastic polymeric particles, wherein the first primary particles have a volume-averaged median particle diameter of from 10 to 2000 nm), wherein the nanopowder includes a material selected from the group consisting of: a ceramic material, a metal, an alloy, a polymer, and a combination thereof (See Vogel at the Abstract, disclosing first primary particles are thermoplastic polymeric particles), wherein the non-hollow microparticles are characterized by having: a spherical shape (see Vogel at [0034], disclosing a spherical or at least approximately spherical shape), nanograin features substantially identical to nanograin features of the nanopowder prior to formation into the non-hollow microparticles (See Vogel at Fig. 4, showing nanograin features substantially identical to nanograin features of the nanopowder prior to formation into the microparticles), and nanoscale porosity of the microparticles being characterized by void space between the nanograin features (see Vogel at Fg. 3(b), showing a microparticle with porosity which is defined by the nanograin features),
While Vogel does not explicitly disclose the nanoscale porosity of the microparticles being substantially identical to the nanoscale porosity of the nanopowder prior to agglomeration, this is a property inherent to microparticles made of nanopowder. Examiner notes the instant limitation does not actually limit the porosity to a defined porosity, or even a positive porosity, and that there is no evidence in Vogel that agglomeration changes the nanoporosity of the nanopowders. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
wherein the plurality of non-hollow microparticles have a uniform size relative to one another (see Vogel at [0099], disclosing the particle size distribution of the supraparticles is … most preferably of from 1.0-1.6, which overlaps with the claimed range.) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05), wherein the non-hollow microparticles are particles having a largest diameter in a range of greater than about 5 microns to less than about 500 microns (See Vogel at the Abstract, disclosing a volume-averaged median particle diameter of from 2.5 to 100 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range).
Regarding claim 45, Vogel makes obvious the non-hollow microparticles further comprise a material selected from the group consisting of: nano-glass powder, nano-fibers, nano-capsules, nano-platelets, nano-tubes, and quantum dots (See Vogel at [0076]-[0077], disclosing the second primary particles are selected from the group of … glass particles… sheet-like structures are for example graphene and mica. The second primary particles have a volume-averaged median particle diameter of from 10 to 2000 nm. Examiner notes sheet like graphene and mica correspond to nano-platelets, and glass particles correspond to nano-glass powder).
Regarding claim 47, Vogel discloses the nanograin features comprise nano-size crystallites (see Vogel at [0076], disclosing the second primary particles are ... ceramic particles, silicate particles ... zeolites. Examiner notes ceramic particles, silicate particles, and zeolites are crystalline. See also Vogel at [0077], disclosing the second primary particles have a ... particle diameter ... from 10 to 2000nm. Examiner notes this corresponds to nano-size crystallites.).
Claim(s) 10, 42-43, and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogel in view of Iocab (US20190194481, hereinafter referred to as Iocab).
Regarding claim 10, while Vogel discloses powder for additive manufacturing (see Vogel at [0001]), Vogel does not disclose a product comprising a ceramic coating formed of the composition.
Iocab is directed towards multimaterial powder including support particles having a median particle size distribution between 1 μm and 100 μm (see Iocab at the Abstract). Iocab is further directed towards applications in the techniques of additive synthesis and surface treatments by spraying (see Iocab at [0002]). Iocab teaches these powders today form most of the offering for applications in additive manufacturing (see Iocab at [0005]). Iocab discloses coatings produced by spraying (see Iocab at [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Vogel to perform an additive manufacturing as disclosed by Vogel and Iocab such as producing a coating by spraying as disclosed by Iocab with a reasonable expectation of success.
While Vogel in view of Iocab does not explicitly disclose the ceramic coating comprising the nanograin features and the nanoscale porosity of the microparticles, this is a property which depends upon the composition of the particles and the process of applying the particles. The particle composition and the process of applying the particles of Vogel in view of Iocab is substantially identical to those instantly disclosed as detailed in the instant rejection, as well as the rejections above and below. Therefore, the coating of Vogel in view of Iocab would inherently possess the claimed property.
Iocab discloses coatings produced by spraying (see Iocab at [0013]), which Examiner notes would have the physical features characteristic of spraying.
While Vogel discloses the second primary particles are … ceramic particles (see Vogel at [0076]). However, Vogel does not explicitly disclose the composition has a crystalline structure that does not include an oxygen component.
Iocab is directed towards multimaterial powder including support particles having a median particle size distribution between 1 μm and 100 μm (see Iocab at the Abstract). Iocab is further directed towards applications in the techniques of additive synthesis and surface treatments by spraying (see Iocab at [0002]). Iocab teaches these powders today form most of the offering for applications in additive manufacturing (see Iocab at [0005]). Iocab discloses grains functionalized by a ceramic … such as … Ti/ZrB2, Ti/TiC, Ti/SiC, Ti/ZrB2/SiC Al/SiC, Fe/SiC (see Iocab at [0034]). Examiner notes all of Ti/ZrB2, Ti/TiC, Ti/SiC, Ti/ZrB2/SiC Al/SiC, Fe/SiC have a crystalline structure that does not include an oxygen component.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Vogel to select the ceramic material of Vogel as any of the crystalline structure that does not include an oxygen component disclosed by Iocab with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a particle suitable for use in additive manufacturing as taught by Iocab.
Regarding claim 42, while Vogel discloses the second primary particles are … ceramic particles (see Vogel at [0076]). However, Vogel does not explicitly disclose the composition is a non-oxide ceramic material.
Iocab is directed towards multimaterial powder including support particles having a median particle size distribution between 1 μm and 100 μm (see Iocab at the Abstract). Iocab is further directed towards applications in the techniques of additive synthesis and surface treatments by spraying (see Iocab at [0002]). Iocab teaches these powders today form most of the offering for applications in additive manufacturing (see Iocab at [0005]). Iocab discloses grains functionalized by a ceramic … such as … Ti/ZrB2, Ti/TiC, Ti/SiC, Ti/ZrB2/SiC Al/SiC, Fe/SiC (see Iocab at [0034]). Examiner notes all of Ti/ZrB2, Ti/TiC, Ti/SiC, Ti/ZrB2/SiC Al/SiC, Fe/SiC are non-oxide ceramic materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Vogel to select the ceramic material of Vogel as any of the non-oxide ceramics disclosed by Iocab with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a particle suitable for use in additive manufacturing as taught by Iocab.
Regarding claim 43, while Vogel discloses the second primary particles are … ceramic particles (see Vogel at [0076]). However, Vogel does not explicitly disclose the composition has a crystalline structure that does not include an oxygen component.
Iocab is directed towards multimaterial powder including support particles having a median particle size distribution between 1 μm and 100 μm (see Iocab at the Abstract). Iocab is further directed towards applications in the techniques of additive synthesis and surface treatments by spraying (see Iocab at [0002]). Iocab teaches these powders today form most of the offering for applications in additive manufacturing (see Iocab at [0005]). Iocab discloses grains functionalized by a ceramic … such as … Ti/ZrB2, Ti/TiC, Ti/SiC, Ti/ZrB2/SiC Al/SiC, Fe/SiC (see Iocab at [0034]). Examiner notes all of Ti/ZrB2, Ti/TiC, Ti/SiC, Ti/ZrB2/SiC Al/SiC, Fe/SiC have a crystalline structure that does not include an oxygen component.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Vogel to select the ceramic material of Vogel as any of the crystalline structure that does not include an oxygen component disclosed by Iocab with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a particle suitable for use in additive manufacturing as taught by Iocab.
Regarding claim 46, Vogel in view of Iocab does not disclose the ceramic coating is on a surface of the product, wherein the coating is configured to prevent direct contact between oxygen-containing gases and the surface of the product, this property is a function of the composition of the nanoparticles as evidenced by the instant specification at [0153]. The instant specification at [0153] states the TBC needs to prevent direct contact with oxygen-containing hot gasses as well as minimize diffusion of oxygen through the material itself. YSZ as a compound is extremely oxygen-transparent. This means that even a fully dense YSZ coating will still allow the diffusion of oxygen toward the underlying metal substrate. Additionally, [0155] of the instant specification states a non-oxide ceramic TBC made with the right compound may form a very thin layer of surface oxide that prevents further oxidation of the bulk. Vogel at [0079] discloses the inorganic particles of the second primary particles are selected from ... metal nitrides... metal carbides. Examiner notes metal nitrides and metal halides are non-oxide ceramics and would inherently possess the claimed oxygen preventative property. As such, it would be obvious to a person practicing the invention of Vogel in view of Iocab to select metal nitrides and metal carbides, which would inherently possess the claimed property.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 of the Remarks, filed 12/09/2025, with respect to 112(b) rejection of claim 46 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claim 46 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. At page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that claim 1 have been amended to require nanoscale porosity of the microparticles being characterized by void space between the nanograin features, the nanoscale porosity of the microparticles being substantially identical to the nanoscale porosity of the nanopowder prior to agglomeration. Applicant argues that there is no basis in Vogel that a nanoscale porosity is present prior to agglomeration which is substantially identical after agglomeration. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes the limitation does not actually require any positive porosity, merely that the porosity before and after agglomeration is substantially identical. Nothing in Vogel states that the porosity of the nanoparticles are different before and after agglomeration, and thus Vogel would meet this limitation.
At pages 9-10, Applicant argues that Fig. 2 of Vogel shows the relative positioning of the primary particles prior to formation of the supraparticle as being distinctly different from the relative positioning after formation of the supraparticle, and thus Vogel does not teach or suggest the above limitation of claim1. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes Fig. 2 of Vogel merely shows the assembly of the supramolecule. It does not show that the porosity of the nanoparticles has changed before and after agglomeration, and thus this is not convincing.
Applicant’s arguments concerning claim 44 are substantially identical to the arguments for claim 1 above, and are unconvincing for the same reasons mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731