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
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-13 are examined in this office action as claim 6 was cancelled and claims 1 and 13 were amended in the reply dated 1/22/26.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Europe on July 5, 2019. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP 19184679.9 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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, 4-5 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107099720 A (as cited on IDS mailed 1/4/22 with reference to provided translation) of Ni in view of WO 2017/178084 A1 (as cited on IDS mailed 1/4/22) of De Flon.
As to claim 1, Ni discloses forming a sintered carbide tool which is made of a composition comprising Co, WC and ZrO (Ni, paragraphs [0011-0012]), meeting the claim limitation of cermet or cemented carbide body comprising a hard phase (the WC and ZrO) and a metallic binder phase (Co). Ni discloses providing ZrO, WC, and Co powder (Ni, paragraphs [0012-13] and claim 7), reading upon providing a ready-to print powder comprising cemented carbide particles. Ni discloses after mixing the particles together into the powder, molding the powder and forming a green compact (Ni, claim 7). Ni discloses then subjecting the green compact to solid phase stage sintering followed by liquid phase sintering at 1300-1500C for 1-2 hours where the solid phase sintering is carried out at 1200-1300 C for 1-1.5 hours (Ni, claim 9), meeting the claim limitation of a sintering process including a liquid phase sintering step at a temperature for liquid phase sintering and where there is a holding step prior to liquid phase sintering between 30-500 minutes and the temperature is between 1200 and (Tm-10)°C.
However, Ni does not explicitly disclose where 3D printing is used to form the green body. Nevertheless, it is well known in the art that 3D printing is used to create near-net-shape green bodies that can be processed by further sintering into finished parts. For example, De Flon relates to the same field of endeavor of cermet or a cemented carbide bodies that involves forming cermet or cemented carbide green body and subsequently sintering said green body and thereby form a cermet or cemented carbide body (De Flon, abstract). De Flon teaches that the cermet and/or cemented carbide particles comprise a metallic binder phase which comprises Co (De Flon, claim 6). De Flon teaches mixing a cermet or cemented carbide raw powder and organic binder spray drying said raw powder and thereby form a granulated raw powder, pre-sintering the spray dried raw powder to remove the organic binder and thereby form a pre-sintered granulated powder and after milling the powder 3D printing a body using the powder together with a printing binder to from a 3D printed cermet or cemented carbide green body (De Flon, claim 7). De Flon teaches where the average porosity in the larger particles is 10-40 vol% (De Flon, pg. 3, lines 5-7), overlapping the claimed range of 0-10% porosity. De Flon teaches that 3D printing makes it possible to produce complex structures and bodies that cannot be achieved using conventional manufacturing processes (De Flon, pg. 1, lines 12-14).
As Ni and De Flon both relate to methods of forming cemented carbide bodies with metallic binder phases, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add forming the pre-sintered granulated cemented carbide powder with an average porosity of 10 vol% and 3D printing as taught by De Flon into the method of forming a cemented carbide body disclosed in Ni, thereby producing complex structures and bodies that cannot be achieved using conventional manufacturing processes (De Flon, pg. 1, lines 12-14).
As to claim 2, while Ni discloses then subjecting the green compact to solid phase stage sintering followed by liquid phase sintering at 1300-1500C for 1-2 hours where the solid phase sintering is carried out at 1200-1300 C for 1-1.5 hours (Ni, claim 9), Ni does not teach a sintering step after liquid phase sintering at a temperature of 1300-1500°C and a pressure of 20-100 bar.
De Flon teaches after liquid phase sintering a step of performing a sinter-HIP treatment where the cermet or cemented carbide body is sintered at a temperature of 1300-1500°C and a pressure of 20-100 bar (De Flon, pg. 7, lines 6-10), meeting the claim limitation of a sintering step after liquid phase sintering and at above atmospheric pressure. De Flon teaches that this sinter-HIP step reduces any porosity left after the sintering by densifying the material (De Flon, pg. 7, lines 11-12).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a step of sinter-HIP at 1300-1500°C and a pressure of 20-100 bar as taught by De Flon into the method of forming a cemented carbide tool disclosed in Ni, thereby reducing any porosity left after printing and sintering processes by densifying the material (De Flon, pg. 7, lines 11-12).
As to claim 4, Ni discloses then subjecting the green compact to solid phase stage sintering carried out at 1200-1300°C for 1-1.5 hours (Ni, claim 9), falling within the claim ranges of 45-300 minutes and a temperature between 1200 and 1300°C.
As to claim 5, Ni discloses where liquid phase sintering is carried out at 1350-1400°C (Ni, claim 9), falling within the claim limitations of liquid phase sintering between 1350-1500°C.
As to claim 7, De Flon teaches where the pre-sintered granulated powder is milled until 30-70 vol% of the particles are < 10µm in diameter (De Flon, claim 7), falling within the claim limitation of 10 to 70 vol% are < 10µm in diameter.
As to claim 8, De Flon teaches where the powder is unimodal (De Flon, claim 4).
As to claim 9, Ni discloses providing ZrO, WC, and Co powder (Ni, paragraphs [0012-13]) and De Flon teaches that the cermet and/or cemented carbide particles comprise a metallic binder phase which comprises Co (De Flon, claim 6), meeting the claim limitation of where the binder phase includes Co as both references teach using Co as the binder phase.
As to claim 10, De Flon teaches mixing a cermet or cemented carbide raw powder and organic binder, spray drying the raw powder and thereby form a granulated raw powder, pre-sintering the spray dried raw powder thereby removing the organic binder and forming a pre-sintered granulated powder with an average porosity of the cermet and/or cemented carbide particles, milling the pre-sintered granulated powder until 30-70 vol% of the particles are < 10 μm in diameter and thereby form a powder (De Flon, claim 7).
As to claim 11, De Flon teaches subsequent to 3D printing and before sintering, the steps of: curing the 3D printed body in inert atmosphere at 150-230 °C, and depowdering the 3D printed body to remove loose particles from the surfaces of the body (De Flon, claim 8).
As to claim 12, Ni discloses a forming agent removal step where it is incubated at 550-600C at 1-2 hrs before the solid phase sintering and liquid phase sintering steps (Ni, claim 9) and De Flon teaches where the sintering comprises a debinding step where the printing binder is burned off (De Flon, claim 9), meeting the claim limitation a debinding step prior to the holding step where the printing binder is burned off.
As to claim 13, De Flon teaches where the three dimension printing process is binder jetting (De Flon, claim 12).
Response to Arguments
With respect to the claim objection of claim 13, applicant’s amendment to recite 3D printing cures the previous issue and the objection is withdrawn.
With respect to the 103 rejection, applicant argues that the instant amendments overcome the De Flon reference as De Flon does not teach a porosity of the powder being 0-10% and De Flon teaches away from lower porosities since it reduces sintering activity and leaves residual porosity (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 5, 5th paragraph).
However, as noted in the rejection above, De Flon discloses where the porosity of the powder is 10-40 vol%, overlapping the claimed range and it would be obvious to select within the disclosed range to reach the claimed invention. “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(I). Thus, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
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 Joshua S Carpenter whose telephone number is (571)272-2724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571) 272-1401. 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.
/JOSHUA S CARPENTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JOPHY S. KOSHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733