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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 24, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has been entered. As of entry, claims 1 and 6-21 are pending of which claims 9-15 remain withdrawn from consideration. Changing the dependency of claim 16 has overcome the rejection of claim 17 under 35 USC 112(d). Claiming a “marking agent consisting of marking component nanoparticles dispersed in a non-aqueous liquid carrier, wherein the marking component nanoparticles are selected from the group consisting of: pure metal nanoparticles selected from the group consisting of magnesium nanoparticles, aluminum nanoparticles, titanium nanoparticles, niobium nanoparticles, tantalum nanoparticles, vanadium nanoparticles, palladium nanoparticles, platinum nanoparticles, copper nanoparticles, silver nanoparticles, gold nanoparticles, cadmium nanoparticles, zinc nanoparticles, lead nanoparticles, and combinations thereof; metal oxide nanoparticles selected from the group consisting of Al2O3,TiO2, Y2O3, ZnO, and a combination thereof; and ceramic nanoparticles, wherein the marking component nanoparticles are i) different from the build material particles and ii) combinable with the build material particles to form an alloy or composite material during 3D printing” claims the liquid carrier is non-aqueous and excludes components other than the marking nanoparticles and liquid carrier from the marking agent, while limiting the choice of marking nanoparticles to from the recited nanoparticles. This change has overcome rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) over Zhao (WO2018022034A1) and under 35 USC 103 over Zhao in view of Hirata (US20160325356).
Election/Restrictions
Claim 1 is directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(B), claims 9-15, directed to the process of making or using an allowable product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on September 9, 2024 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kollenberg (US9908819) in view of Hirata (US20160325356). Kollenberg and Hirata are cited in prior office action(s).
Regarding claim 18, Kollenberg discloses 3D printing (Title, column 14 lines 35-38). Kollenberg discloses that the feed material for the 3D printing comprises a jettable binding agent (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 binding agent (solidifying composition) comprises a metal salt dispersed in a liquid medium (column 3 lines 3-11, column 3 line 51 to column 4 line 7, column 4 lines 21-31). Kollenberg discloses that the binder consists of 0.01 to 99.98% by weight of the metal salt (organoelement compound), 0.01 to 20% by weight of an organic binder, and 0.01 to 99.98% by weight of liquid medium (solvent or dispersing agent) (column 3 lines 3-11, claim 1). Kollenberg discloses water alone or a mixture of water and cosolvent as a potential liquid medium (column 3 line 56 to column 4 line 7, column 15 lines 14-21). The binding agent composition disclosed by Kollenberg (column 3 lines 3-11 differs from that of claim 18 in that Kollenberg discloses 0.01 to 20% by weight of an organic binder (column 3 lines 3-11, claim 1), whereas claim 18 excludes an organic binder from the claimed binding agent through “consisting of language” (see MPEP 2111.03(II)). Considering the extent to which 0.01% approaches 0, the present disclosure is explicitly open to polymeric binders (paragraphs [0075], [0081] of the present disclosure) and the present disclosure does not present results comparing the presence and absence of an organic binder in the binding agent, the claimed binding agent which excludes an organic binder is sufficiently close to the binding agent disclosed by Kollenberg with as low as 0.01% organic binder, that absent a showing that excluding binder results in some noticeable difference from a binding agent with 0.01% organic binder, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have regarded the binding agent recited in claim 18 as sufficiently close to a binding agent with amounts approaching 0.01% organic binder that the binding agent of the kit recited in claim 18 would have been obvious at the time of filing over the binding agent disclosed by Kollenberg (column 3 lines 3-11, claim 1). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP2144.05(I) second paragraph).
Kollenberg discloses build material ceramic powder has a particle size in a range of 0.1 to 500 µm, and Kollenberg discloses aluminum oxide (Al2O3) and aluminum nitride (AlN) among ceramic powder, identifying aluminum oxide as preferred (column 15 lines 41-51). The Kollenberg disclosure, therefore discloses particles of Al2O3 and AlN approaching nanometer scales as feed material. Kollenberg discloses that feed material may comprise jettable agent comprising a metal salt dissolved therein (abstract, column 3 lines 5-8, column 4 lines 21-31, column 16 lines 18-23 claim 1) however, Kollenberg does not disclose structure of AlN, Al2O3 or BaCO3 ceramic nanoparticles in a liquid medium.
Hirata teaches binder jetting 3D printing [0008-10], [0042]. Hirata teaches a binding agent comprising nanoparticles (second inorganic particles) in a liquid carrier [0008-10], [0020], [0024], [0054-56], [0059], [0086-89], [0091]. Hirata teaches that the nanoparticles in the liquid medium are ceramics [0020-22], [0027-28], [0049], which include metal salts including Al2O3 (alumina, zirconia, and the like) [0088]. Hirata teaches that when the inorganic particles in the liquid medium (second inorganic particles) are chemically the same as the inorganic particles of the build material (first inorganic particles), it is possible to suppress dimensional variation and shrinkage of the part upon binder removal and sintering and possible to sinter at lower temperatures [0020], [0135] and possible to obtain relatively strong three-dimensional shaped article [0028], [0139]. 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 the shaping material can be a powder of ceramic particles of an average particle size 0.1 to 30 µm [0046-0049].
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 at the time of filing to provide nanoparticles in a liquid medium as feed material for the 3D printing process disclosed by Kollenberg, wherein the nanoparticles are chemically the same as the build material disclosed by Kollenberg applied above because Hirata teaches that the additional nanoparticles suppress dimensional variation and shrinkage of the part upon binder removal and sintering and allow sintering at lower temperatures [0020], [0135]. The additional nanoparticles in the liquid would predictably result in the relatively strong three-dimensional shaped article taught by Hirata [0028], [0139]. As Kollenberg teaches AlN and AlO3 build material (column 15 lines 41-51), in providing nanoparticles of the build material in a liquid medium, one of ordinary skill in the art would provide AlN or Al2O3 nanoparticles, which are metal salts, in a liquid medium. Kollenberg discloses that materials are dissolved in liquid medium (abstract, column 3 lines 5-8, column 4 lines 21-31, column 16 lines 18-23 claim 1). As present claim 18 is directed to a kit, present claim 18 does not set forth proportions, and the present disclosure indicates that Al2O3, AlN or BaCO3 nanoparticles dissolved in a liquid medium is structurally capable of functioning as a marking agent (paragraph [0048] of the specification as filed), the AlN or Al2O3 nanoparticles in a liquid medium disclosed by Kollenberg in view of Hirata, applied above meets the structure of a marking agent in view of the present disclosure. As the combination of Kollenberg in view of Hirata applied above provides both the nanoparticle containing liquid and a metal-salt containing binding agent for a common three dimensional process, the nanoparticle containing liquid and metal-salt containing binding agent are constituents of a single kit for 3D printing.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kollenberg (US9908819) in view of Hirata (US20160325356) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Martin (US 20180214949).
Build material in the process disclosed by Kollenberg in view of Hirata applied to claim 18 above is AlN or Al2O3 build material particles (column 15 lines 41-51). Hirata teaches that build material may be ceramic or metal [0021-22], [0049]. The combination of Kollenberg in view of Hirata does not disclose that the kit further comprising metal build material particles in combination with some structure of a marking component which is a salt selected from the group consisting of AIN, Al2O3, BaCO3, and a combination thereof.
Martin teaches additively manufacturing build material particles [0002], [0014-16]. Martin teaches that build material comprises metal build material particles and nanoparticles [0014], [0019], [0028], [0041], [0043]. Martin teaches Al2O3 as material for nanoparticles [0156], [0182], [0186]. Martin teaches that Al2O3 in feed material which comprises both Al2O3 and aluminum alloy particles can minimize unwanted cracking in the production of aluminum alloy articles [0171], [0182]. Martin teaches that
Both Martin and Kollenberg in view of Hirata teach additively manufacturing build material particles comprising Al2O3.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to assemble some kit comprising the binding agent, Al2O3 nanoparticles in medium, and Al2O3 build material of Kollenberg in view of Hirata, as applied to claim 18 and further comprising metal build material particles because Martin teaches that build material comprising both Al2O3 and aluminum (a metal) particles are effective build material to avoid cracking in additively manufacturing aluminum alloy parts [0171], [0182]. Note that claim 21 does not recite a proportion of metal particles in the build material, and claim 21 does not exclude additional ceramic materials from the build material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the section titled “Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102”, filed December 24, 2025, with respect to claim 1 and clams depending thereon have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) over Zhao (WO2018022034A1) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejection of claim 18 under 35 USC 103 over Kollenberg (US9908819) in view of Hirata (US20160325356), applicant argues that that claim 18 defines over Kollenberg in view of Hirata because Kollenberg requires an organic binder, whereas claim 18 recites the binding agent with “consisting of” language which excludes claim limitations other than those claimed. This argument is not persuasive because Kollenberg discloses that the binding agent may contain as low as 0.01% organic binder (column 3 lines 3-11, claim 1). There is insufficient evidence of record to show that excluding binder would yield a noticeable difference from 0.01% binder. Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results, 0.01% is sufficiently close to 0, that the structure resulting from such exclusion would have been obvious over the binding agent structures disclosed by Kollenberg with a little as 0.01% organic binder. See MPEP 2144.05(I), particularly the second paragraph for further discussions on how approaching ranges support a conclusion of obviousness absent evidence of nonobvious results.
Arguments that Hirata does not disclose features of the claimed binding agent are not persuasive because both the current ant prior office actions rely/relied on Hirata to meet the structure of the marking agent, not the structure of the binding agent. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145(IV).
Applicant argues for new claim 21 by dependence on claim 18. This argument is not persuasive for the reasons given above with respect to claim 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1,6-17, and 19-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claim 1 claims a kit for 3D printing. Claim 1 claims the kit comprising: build material particles comprising metal-containing particles and/or ceramic particles. Claim 1 claims the kit comprising a jettable marking agent consisting of marking component nanoparticles dispersed in a non-aqueous liquid carrier. The “consisting of” language excludes constituents other than marking component nanoparticles dispersed in a non-aqueous liquid carrier, such as a surfactant or other such dispersing additive, from the marking agent of the claimed kit. Claiming “non-aqueous liquid carrier” excludes a liquid carrier for which water is the primary constituent. Claim 1 claims the marking component nanoparticles are selected from the group consisting of: pure metal nanoparticles selected from the group consisting of magnesium nanoparticles, aluminum nanoparticles, titanium nanoparticles, niobium nanoparticles, tantalum nanoparticles, vanadium nanoparticles, palladium nanoparticles, platinum nanoparticles, copper nanoparticles, silver nanoparticles, gold nanoparticles, cadmium nanoparticles, zinc nanoparticles, lead nanoparticles, and combinations thereof; metal oxide nanoparticles selected from the group consisting of Al2O3,TiO2, Y2O3, ZnO, and a combination thereof; and ceramic nanoparticles. Claim 1 claims the marking component nanoparticles are i) different from the build material particles and ii) combinable with the build material particles to form an alloy or composite material during 3D printing. Claim 1 claims the kit comprises a binding agent comprising a metal-containing binder dispersed in a liquid carrier. Claim 1 claims that when the marking component nanoparticles comprise the pure metal nanoparticles or the metal oxide nanoparticles, the metal-containing binder is different from the pure metal nanoparticles or the metal oxide nanoparticles of the marking agent.
Prior office actions relied on Zhao (WO2018022034A1) to anticipate claim 1 as previously presented. Zhao is the individual prior art reference closest to claim 1 as presently entered. Zhao consistently discloses that the marking component is dispersed in an aqueous medium [0045-46]. Claim 1 defines over Zhao at least in claiming a marking agent consisting of marking component nanoparticles dispersed in a non-aqueous liquid carrier.
Prior office actions relied on the combination of Barbati (US 20190111480) in view of Hirata (US20160325356) to render obvious claim 1 as originally presented. Claim 1 defines over Barbati in view of Hirata at least in claiming a marking agent consisting of marking component nanoparticles dispersed in a liquid carrier, wherein the marking component nanoparticles are selected from the group consisting of: pure metal nanoparticles selected from the group consisting of magnesium nanoparticles, aluminum nanoparticles, titanium nanoparticles, niobium nanoparticles, tantalum nanoparticles, vanadium nanoparticles, palladium nanoparticles, platinum nanoparticles, copper nanoparticles, silver nanoparticles, gold nanoparticles, cadmium nanoparticles, zinc nanoparticles, lead nanoparticles, and combinations thereof; metal oxide nanoparticles selected from the group consisting of Al2O3,TiO2, Y2O3. ZnO, and a combination thereof; and ceramic nanoparticles has because Barbati does not specify or suggest metal nanoparticles which are pure metals, and the oxide particles disclosed by Barbati have oxide surface chemistry but may not necessarily meet particles which are “metal oxide nanoparticles selected from the group consisting of Al2O3,TiO2, Y2O3. ZnO, and a combination thereof; or ceramic nanoparticles in a common embodiment with a metal-containing binder.
Present office action rejects claim 18 under 35 USC 103 over Kollenberg (US9908819) in view of Hirata. As the combination of Kollenberg in view of Hirata relies on supplying a marking agent constituent which is the same as at least one build material, claim 1 defines over Kollenberg in view of Hirata at least in claiming that the marking component nanoparticles are i) different from the build material particles and ii) combinable with the build material particles to form an alloy or composite material during 3D printing. While the binding agent disclosed by Kollenberg (column 3 lines 3-11, claim 1) could meet the structure of binding agent of the kit recited in claim 1, the binding agent structure disclosed by Kollenberg comprises a metal salt which is not one of the recited marking component metal salts (column 3 lines 3-11); therefore, if the binding agent structure taught by Kollenberg were instead mapped to the claimed marking agent, claim 1 would still define over Kollenberg in view of Hirata.
US20190259517, cited in prior office action(s), discloses ferromagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles as marking components in additive manufacturing. US20190259517 disperses marking particles in aqueous carrier and the carrier includes additional surfactant Claim 1 defines over US20190259517 at least in claiming a marking agent consisting of marking component nanoparticles dispersed in a non-aqueous liquid carrier.
Claims 6-8, 16-17, and 19-20 depend on claim 1. Claims 9-15 are directed to a method which requires all the structural features of claim 1. Claims 6-17, and 19-20 define over the prior art at least for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
Conclusion
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