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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of JP 2021-039104 filed March 11, 2021 and JP 2022-011117 filed January 27, 2022 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Claim Amendments and Remarks filed May 13, 2026.
Claims Filing Date
May 13, 2026
Amended
1
Cancelled
2-4, 6-12
Pending
1, 5, 13, 19, 20
Withdrawn
19, 20
Under Examination
1, 5, 13
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following 112(b) rejection is withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 1 lines 8-9 “normalizing a specific energy with a bulk density of the powder material”.
Response to Remarks filed May 13, 2026
Mizobe
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 6 para. 1, filed May 13, 2026, with respect to Mizobe have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Mizobe has been withdrawn.
The applicant argues Mizobe does not teach the amended claims (p. 6 para. 1).
Amened claim 1 lines 3-5 recite “d10 of greater than or equal to 13.6 um and less than 15 um and…d90 of more than 40 um and less than or equal to 200 um” and line 11 recites “a packing density of 59% or more”. Mizobe discloses d10 of 15 um, d90 of 37 um, and packing density of 56.8% ([0065], [0070], Tables 1 and 3 Example 8).
Li
Applicant's arguments filed May 13, 2026 with respect to Li have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues Li discloses d10 of 14-20 um (p. 6 paras. 5-6, p. 8 para. 5) with no reason to select a range of d10 less than 15 um (p. 6 para. 7, p. 7 para. 2, p. 8 para. 6), where the specification demonstrates d10 < 15 um is critical to enable the gap-filling effect to enhance packing density, maintain high flowability, and yield claimed SE/pb and avalanche angle (p. 8 para. 7).
In Li d10 is 14 um to 20 um ([0011], [0020], [0032], [0036]), which overlaps from 14 um to less than 15 um with the claimed range such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
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).
Applicant’s specification includes one example, Sample 1, that satisfies the claimed packing density of “59% or more”. Sample 1 has a d10 of 15.2 um, which is outside the claim scope of d10 being “less than 15 um”. Samples 2, 3, and 5-8, which have d10 values within the range of “greater than or equal to 13.6 um and less than 15um” have packing densities that are 55-58%, which are all less than the claimed 59% or more. Applicant’s specification does not include examples that satisfy both the claimed d10 and packing density. Therefore, unexpected results have not been established.
The applicant argues Li’s d90 of 50-60 um overlaps with the claimed d90 of more than 40 to 200 um, but alone does not establish obviousness (p. 7 paras. 3, 6) because the claim also requires d10, SE/pb, packing density, and avalanche angle (p. 7 paras. 4-5), where SE/pb, packing density, and avalanche angle not measured or reported by Li (p. 7 paras. 8-9).
Li discloses metal particles ([n0001], [n0005]) with an overlapping d10 (14 um to 20 um) and d90 (50 um to 60 um) ([0011], [0020], [0032], [0036]), such that the claimed material type (metal) and particle size distribution are rendered obvious. MPEP 2144.05(I).
In response to applicant's argument that Li does not report SE/pb, packing density, or avalanche angle, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
The applicant argues Li discloses titanium metal particles, whereas the claims are directed to an iron alloy or nickel alloy, which have different densities and surface chemistry that affect bulk density, flowability, and packing behavior (p. 8 para. 2, p. 9 paras. 3-4), such that the claimed functional properties cannot be assumed to carry over from Li’s titanium powder (p. 8 para. 3) because Li’s d10 and D90 were selected and optimized for titanium powder (p. 9 para. 3) and substituting iron and nickel alloys using the same atomization process parameters would not produce the same PSD (p. 9 para. 4, p. 11 para. 4).
The rejection of Li in view of Peng discloses the obviousness of a powder material of metal particles comprising an iron alloy or a nickel alloy (Peng [0022]) having a d10 greater than or equal to 13.6 um and less than 15 um (14 um to 20 um) and d90 of more than 40 um and less than or equal to 100 um (50 um to 60 um) (Li [0011], [0020], [0032], [0036]). Iron alloy or nickel alloy particles are an art recognized equivalent metal powder to titanium (Peng [0022]) for 3D printing (Peng [0001]-[0004]; Li [n0005]). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to manufacture the particle size distribution of Li using the iron alloy or nickel alloy of Peng based on the alleged material differences. Further, in support of obviousness, applicant’s specification, similar to Peng, discloses the powder material is an iron alloy, a nickel alloy, or a titanium alloy ([0032]).
The applicant argues Li sieves and removes fine particles smaller than 15 um to improve flowability in titanium powder, which is contrary to applicant’s d10 of 13.6 um to less than 15 um for gap-filling (p. 10 para. 1).
Li discloses a d10 of 14 um to 20 um ([0011], [0020], [0032], [0036]), which overlaps from 14 um to less than 15 um with the claimed range such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
The claims are directed to a powder material product. Patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a produce does not depend on its method of production. MPEP 2113(I). Therefore, the alleged sieving in Li does not detract from the disclosure of Li of 10 being 14 um to 20 um ([0011], [0020], [0032], [0036]).
The applicant argues Peng has nickel and iron working examples (p. 10 para. 2) and lists base materials including titanium, iron, and nickel ([0022]) within the context of Peng’s process (p. 12 para. 2) without specific examples achieving the claimed d10 and d90 or functional properties for iron or nickel (p. 10 para. 3).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The pending rejection combines an overlapping particle size distribution (d10 14 um to 20 um; d90 50 um to 60 um) (Li [0011], [0020], [0032], [0036]) using an art recognized equivalent nickel alloy or iron alloy (Peng [0022]) for 3D printing (Li [n0005]; Peng [0001]-[0004]).
The applicant argues Peng’s surface treating additives depend on adhesion to the base metal particle surface, which depends on the native surface oxides, which have different surface energies and affinities (p. 10 para. 4).
Peng discloses a nano scale treating additive to improve flowing and/or spreading performance of the powder and it may be made of any material, with fumed silica as an example ([0024]-[0026]). This disclosure in Peng is contrary to applicant’s allegations. It is also within the scope of Peng for the treating additive ([0024]-[0026]) to be applied to nickel alloy, iron alloy, or titanium alloy powder ([0022]).
The applicant argues the specification supports the material-dependence because [0038] states SE/pb for iron alloy (p. 12 para. 4).
The pending claims recite an iron alloy or a nickel alloy. According to applicant’s argument, if the SE/pb property is material-dependent, then it appears that there is not support for two different materials (i.e. nickel and iron) with alleged material differences, also achieving the same SE/pb range. Further, applicant’s [0038] states that “The lower limit of SE/pb value need not be specified but, in the metal powder such as iron alloy, may be about 0.3 mJ∙ml/g2 or more.” This statement is with respect to a lower limit for SE/pb. In contrast, the pending claim recites a SE/pb of “less than 0.47 mJxml/g2”, but does not have a lower limit.
For the above cited reasons, the rejection of Li in view of Peng is maintained.
New Grounds
In light of claim amendment and upon further search and consideration a new grounds of rejection is made over Kasashima.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 lines 7-12 “a resulting value” is interpreted as referring to the “SE/ρb” value disclosed in applicant’s specification, such as in [0052] and Table 1.
Claim Objection
Claim 13 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 5.
Claim 13 lines 1-2 recite “the metal particles comprise an iron alloy or a nickel alloy.” Claim 13 depends from claim 5, which depends from claim 1. Claim 1 line 2 already recites “metal particles comprising an iron alloy or a nickel alloy”.
When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 112792332 machine translation) in view of Peng (US 2016/0002471).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a powder material ([n0001]) comprising:
metal particles ([n0001], [n0005]),
wherein, in a mass basis cumulative particle size distribution, the metal particles have a 10% particle diameter d10 of greater than or equal to 13.6 um and less than 15 um (14 um to 20 um) and a 90% particle diameter d90 of more than 40 um and less than or equal to 200 um (50 um to 60 um) ([0011], [0020], [0032], [0036]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Li discloses titanium metal particles ([n0001], [n0005]).
Peng discloses a powder material ([0005]-[0006]) comprising metal particles comprising an iron alloy or a nickel alloy ([0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the metal particles of Li to be an iron alloy or a nickel alloy because they are known metal particles (Peng [0022]) for 3D printing (Li [n0005]; Peng [0001]-[0004]). Further, Peng discloses metal powder (particles) of a metal or an alloy of iron, nickel, chromium, niobium, tantalum, or molybdenum (Peng [0022]), such that iron alloy or nickel alloy are art recognized equivalents of the titanium metal particles (Li [n0005]). Therefore, because of the art recognized equivalency one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute iron alloy or nickel alloy metal powder for titanium metal powder (Peng [0022]). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose. MPEP 2144.06(II).
The limitations of the powder material having a resulting value of less than 0.47 mJ x ml/g2, the resulting value being obtained as a value yielded by normalizing a specific energy with a bulk density of the powder material, and the specific energy being obtained as a value yielded by dividing a flow energy measured as an energy acting on a blade spiraling upward in the powder material by a mass of the powder material, the powder material having a packing density of 59% or more, and the powder material having an avalanche angle of less than 40°, the avalanche angle being an angle at which an avalanche occurs when a rotary drum containing the powder material is rotated at 0.6 rpm have been considered and determined to recite properties of the claimed powder material. The prior art discloses a powder material comprising metal particles that read on that claimed (Li [n0001], [n0005], [0011], [0020], [0032], [0036]; Peng [0022]), such that the claimed properties naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 5, Li is silent to the powder material further comprising nanoparticles comprising a metal or a metal oxide.
Peng discloses a powder material comprising metal particles ([0001], [0022]) and nanoparticles comprising a metal or a metal oxide (treating additive such as silica, [0024]-[0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the powder material of Li to further comprise nanoparticles comprising a metal or metal oxide to improve flowing and/or spreading performance of the powder (Peng [0024]).
Regarding claim 13, Li in view of Peng discloses the metal particles comprise an iron alloy or a nickel alloy (Peng [0022]).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasashima (US 6,322,926).
Regarding claim 1, Kasashima discloses a powder material (1:8-11, 2:38-48, 60-67) comprising:
metal particles comprising an iron alloy or a nickel alloy (nickel alloy) (3:44-57, 6:56-59),
wherein, in a mass basis cumulative particle size distribution, the metal particles have a 10% particle diameter d10 of greater than or equal to 13.6 um and less than 15 um (4 um to 14 um) and a 90% particle diameter d90 of more than 40 um and less than or equal to 200 um (40 um to 70 um) (2:48-59, 4:43 to 5:33). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
The limitations of the powder material having a resulting value of less than 0.47 mJ x ml/g2, the resulting value being obtained as a value yielded by normalizing a specific energy with a bulk density of the powder material, and the specific energy being obtained as a value yielded by dividing a flow energy measured as an energy acting on a blade spiraling upward in the powder material by a mass of the powder material, the powder material having a packing density of 59% or more, and the powder material having an avalanche angle of less than 40°, the avalanche angle being an angle at which an avalanche occurs when a rotary drum containing the powder material is rotated at 0.6 rpm have been considered and determined to recite properties of the claimed powder material. The prior art discloses a powder material comprising metal particles that read on that claimed (Kasashima 1:8-11, 2:38-59, 60-67, 3:44-57, 4:43 to 5:33, 6:56-59), such that the claimed properties naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasashima (US 6,322,926) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshida (JP 2019-102782 machine translation).
Regarding claim 5, Kasashima is silent to the powder material further comprising nanoparticles comprising a metal or a metal oxide.
Yoshida discloses a powder material comprising metal particles ([0034]) and nanoparticles comprising a metal or a metal oxide (nonmagnetic particles, [0071], [0072] of ceramic or glass, [0074], such as silica, alumina, or titania, [0075], typically 3 um (3000 nm) or less, [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the powder material of Kasashima to further comprise nanoparticles comprising a metal or metal oxide to adjust fluidity (Yoshida [0071]), such that moldability becomes better, filing properties and uniformity improve, and good properties can be obtained (Yoshida [0072]).
Regarding claim 13, Kasashima discloses the metal particles comprise an iron alloy or a nickel alloy (nickel alloy) (3:44-57, 6:56-59).
Related Art
Nath 2019 (Nath et al. Microstructure-property relationships of 420 stainless steel fabricated by laser0powder bed fusion. Powder Technology 343 (2019) 738-746.)
Nath 2019 discloses 420 stainless steel powder (2.1. Materials) with D10 of 17 um and D90 of 47 um (Table 1).
Nath 2020 (Nath et al. Effects of layer thickness in laser-powder bed fusion of 420 stainless steel. Rapid Prototyping Journal 26/7 (2020) 1197-1208.)
Nath 2020 discloses 420 stainless steel powder with D10 of 17 um and D90 47 um(2.1 Materials).
Akimine (WO 2023/204032 machine translation)
Akimine, published April 5, 2023, discloses water-atomized powder for additive manufacturing ([0001], [0007]), where example No. 4 has D10 of 15.0 um, D90 of 40.2 um, and angle of repose of 69.3°C ([0033]-[0038], Tables 1-2).
Colon (US 2021/0260650)
Colon, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/670,454 filed May 11, 2018, discloses a metal-based powder for additive manufacturing ([0001]) including up to 10 wt% of ceramic particles ([0095]). Colon discloses Powder C with D10 of 12 um and D90 of 51 um and properties related to flowability and density ([0155]-[0180], Tables 1-11)
Gao (Gao et al. Impact of atomization gas on characteristics of austenitic stainless steel powder feedstocks for additive manufacturing. Powder Technology. 383 (2021) 30-42.)
Gao discloses 316L stainless steel (Table 1) gas atomized powder (2. Experimental methods, Fig. 2) particle size distribution (Table 2, Fig. 1) and characteristics (Tables 4-5). While the powder characteristics of Gao are within the scope of the claimed properties, the particle size distribution has d10 values that are outside of the claimed range.
Farzadfar (Farzadfar et al. Impact of IN718 bimodal powder size distribution on the performance and productivity of laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing process. Powder Technology 375 (2020) 60-80.)
Farzadfar discloses bimodal IN718 (nickel Table 1) powder by combining fine powder (D10-D90: 6.2-16.9 um) with coarse powder (D10-D90: 26.5-50.5 um) (Abstract, 2. Material and methods, Figs. 1, 13, 15, 16, 22, Table 5) with a relative density within the scope of the claim (Tables 6-8, Fig. 17) an evaluated specific flow energy (SFE) (Tables 10-12, Fig. 19).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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 WALKER can be reached on 571-272-3458. 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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights