DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 25, 2025 has been entered.
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 November 25, 2025.
Claims Filing Date
November 25, 2025
Amended
1
Cancelled
2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-18
Pending
1, 5, 9, 13, 19-20
Withdrawn
19, 20
Under Examination
1, 5, 9, 13
Response to Declaration filed November 25, 2025
The Declaration (Dec) filed November 25, 2025 has been fully considered but it is not persuasive.
The declarant argues Mizobe’s example 8 fails to have SE/ρb of less than 0.47 mJ∙ml/g2 and an avalanche angle of less than 40° (Dec para. 4) because the inventive powder is obtained without classification such that it includes nanoparticles with particle diameters from 1 nm to 100 nm (applicant’s specification [0033]) which reduce the attractive interaction between metal particles, making high flowability possible, whereas Mizobe’s example 8 is sieved, such that it does not include nanoparticles (Dec para. 5).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., nanoparticles) are not recited in rejected claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In assessing the probative value of an expert opinion, the examiner must consider the nature of the matter sought to be established, the strength of any opposing evidence, the interest of the expert in the outcome of the case and the presence or absence of factual support for the expert’s opinion. Expert opinion was inadequate to overcome the rejection based on prior art because there was no factual evidence supporting the statement. MPEP 716.01(c)(III).
Factual evidence to substantiate the allegation of the declarant, also an inventor, that Mizobe’s example 8 powder fails to have SE/ρb of less than 0.47 mJ∙ml/g2 and an avalanche angle of less than 40° has not been presented. The d10 and d90 of Mizobe’s example 8 powder are prima facie obvious for being so close to the claimed values, such that, absent evidence to the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the properties of the prior art to be the same as the claimed properties of the inventive powder. MPEP 2144.05(I). In support, the packing density of Mizobe’s example 8, 56.8%, renders the claimed packing density of 57% or more prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Dependent claim 5 recites the powder further comprises metal or metal oxide nanoparticles. The composition of the nanoparticles is not limited with respect to the metal particles. Therefore, it is within the scope of the claim for the metal particles and nanoparticles to have different compositions, such that the nanoparticles of claim 5 appear to be unrelated to the classification or lack thereof of the metal particles. This interpretation is supported by applicant’s specification at [0034], where “The nanoparticles may be nanoparticles derived and produced from a constituent component of the above-described metal particles or may be nanoparticles added separately from the metal particles.”
Claim 5 is rejected in view of Peng and, alternatively, Yoshida, who disclose the obviousness of including metal or metal oxide nanoparticles in the powder material to improve flow (fluidity) (Peng [0024]-[0026]; Yoshida [0071]-[0072]). “Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention…” MPEP 716.02(c)(II).
For the above cited reasons, the declarant’s arguments were not persuasive.
Response to Remarks filed November 25, 2025
Mizobe: 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2)
Applicant’s claim 1 amendments, see lines 3-5, filed November 25, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) rejections over Mizobe have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) rejections of Mizobe have been withdrawn.
Amended claim 1 lines 3-5 recite a d10 of 13.6 um to less than 15 um and a d90 of more than 40 um to 200 um, whereas Mizobe example 8 discloses a d10 of 15 um and a d90 of 37 um (Remarks para. spanning pp. 5-6).
Mizobe: 103
Applicant's arguments filed November 25, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Mizobe have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the claimed invention includes particles (fine powder) having small diameters that fill the gaps between large particles to enhance packing density of a powder bed (applicant’s specification [0030]) and exhibit high spreadability (applicant’s Tables 1 and 2) (Remarks para. spanning pp. 7-8).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., particles having small diameters) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The applicant argues Mizobe’s Example 8 sieves to adjust the particle size distribution (Remarks p. 8 para. 2), such that Mizobe’s powder obtained without sieving is expected to have D10 and D90 different from the claimed range (Remarks p. 8 para. 3).
The pending rejection is over Mizobe’s example 8. A d10 of 15 um and a d90 of 37 um is prima facie obvious for being so close to the claimed d10 of 13.6 to less than 15 um and d90 of more than 40 to 200 um such that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the prior art to have the same properties as the claimed inventive powder. MPEP 2144.05(I). In support, Mizobe’s example 8 renders obvious the claimed property of packing density of 57% (56.8%) (Mizobe [0070], Table 3 Example 8).
The applicant argues the February 25, 2025 Declaration shows that sieving powder influences packing density, including D90 and D10 (Remarks p. 8 para. 4, p. 9 paras. 1-2), where Mizobe’s sieved Example 8 removes fine particles, such that it fails to meet the claimed SE/ρb and avalanche angle properties (Remarks p. 8 para. 5).
As discussed in the response to the declaration, with respect to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., fine particles) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, factual evidence to substantiate the allegation of the expert opinion that Mizobe’s example 8 powder fails to have SE/ρb of less than 0.47 mJ∙ml/g2 and an avalanche angle of less than 40° even though the d10 and d90 are prima facie obvious has not been presented.
The applicant argues the claimed features, as evidenced by applicant’s specification at [0057]-[0062] and Table 1, provide unexpected, non-obvious improvements in powder bed uniformity and AM quality (Remarks p. 9 para. 4).
In applicant’s specification Table 1 Sample 1 has a d10 of 15.2 um and d90 of greater than 35 um ([0056]). Mizobe’s Example 8 has a d10 of 15 um and d90 of 37 um, such that it appears to be substantially similar to applicant’s Sample 1. Applicant’s inventive Sample 1 also has SE/ρb and avalanche angle within the scope of the claim, supporting that substantially similar properties are present in Mizobe’s Example 8.
While arguments directed due to the lack of sieving and presence of fine particles (nanoparticles) have been alleged, the cited evidence is silent to the presence and impact of these fine particles (nanoparticles) on the claimed properties.
The applicant argues Mizobe optimizes for response angle, which is static, and not the claimed dynamic avalanche angle (Remarks p. 9 para. 6).
In response to applicant's argument that the claimed avalanche angle is dynamic, 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 Mizobe provides no motivation of the claimed powder (Remarks p. 10 paras. 3-4) that minimizes agglomeration ([0017], [0025]) (Remarks p. 10 para. 1) by modifying the PSD such as by adjusting D10 to be less than 15 um or d90 to be more than 40 um and up to 200 um, which increase packing density and flowability, enabling uniform powder beds (applicant’s specification [0014], [0023], [0031]) (Remarks p. 9 paras. 6-7).
The pending rejection is over Mizobe’s non-adjusted example 8, which has a d10 of 15 um and d90 of 37 um. Mizobe’s example 8 is prima facie obvious for being close to the claimed ranges such that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the properties of the prior art to be the same as the claimed inventive powder. MPEP 2144.05(I). In support, the packing density of Mizobe’s example 8 reads on the claimed 57% (56.8%, Mizobe Table 3 Example 8). Further, applicant’s inventive Sample 1 ([0056], Table 1) with a substantially similar particle size distribution of d10 of 15.2 um and d90 of greater than 35 um has the claimed properties and alleged advantages.
The applicant argues the specification achieves the claimed powder material through gas atomization without classification (applicant’s specification [0015]-[0017], [0025], [0045], [0057]-[0062], Table 1) (Remarks p. 10 para. 5).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the claimed powder material being achieved through gas atomization without classification) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. MPEP 2113(I). Evidence regarding how the process of gas atomization without classification distinguishes the claimed powder material from that disclosed by Mizobe has not been presented.
The applicant argues Peng/Yoshida do not provide motivation to achieve the claimed dynamic properties of PSD ranges (Remarks p. 10 para. 7).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. According to applicant’s previous argument, the presence of nanoparticles/fine particles improves flowability (Dec para. 5). Peng and Yoshida disclose the obviousness of including metal or metal oxide nanoparticles in the powder material to improve flow (fluidity) (Peng [0024]-[0026]; Yoshida [0071]-[0072]). “Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention…” MPEP 716.02(c)(II).
For the above cited reasons the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Mizobe is maintained.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 9, and 13 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.
Claim 1 lines 8-9 “normalizing a specific energy with a bulk density of the powder material” renders the claim indefinite. What is “of the powder material”- the normalizing, the specific energy, and/or the bulk density? If the specific energy is not of the powder material, then what “specific energy” does the claim refer to? For the purpose of examination claim 1 will be interpreted as the claimed normalizing, specific energy, and bulk density being “of the powder material”.
Claims 5, 9, and 13 are rejected as depending from claim 1.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizobe (WO 2019/230806 with citations from continuation US 2021/0069781).
Regarding claim 1, Mizobe discloses a powder material ([0002]) comprising:
metal particles ([0010]-[0011], [0065], Table 1),
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 µm (15 µm) and a 90% particle diameter d90 of more than 40 µm and less than or equal to 200 um (37 µm) ([0065], Table 1 Example 8) (controlling the particle size distribution minimizes agglomeration and variation of flowability, minimizes different sizes of the metal particles, preventing a difference in melting conditions, and obtains a shaped article with high density; [0016]-[0023], Fig. 1),
wherein the powder material has a packing (relative) density of 57% or more (56.8%) ([0070], Table 3 Example 8) (a relative density of more preferably 30% or more and 80% or less results in metal powder for 3D printer that has a predetermined filling density without being subject to vibration, so that it is possible to stabilize the existing proportion of the metal powder in the 3D printing; [0036]).
D10 of 15 um is close to the claimed d10 of less than 15 um. A packing (relative) density of 56.8% is close to the claimed 57% or more. “The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.” A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are close. MPEP 2144.05(I).
The limitations of a resulting value of less than 0.47 mJ x ml/g2 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 and 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 powder material that reads on that claimed (Mizobe [0010]-[0011], [0016]-[0023], [0036], [0040]-[0042], [0065]-[0066], [0070], Tables 1 and 3 Example 8). Therefore, the claimed properties, including the resulting value and the avalanche angle as claimed, naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art.
Claims 5, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizobe (WO 2019/230806 with citations from continuation US 2021/069781) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peng (US 2016/0002471).
Regarding claim 5, Mizobe 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 Mizobe to further comprise nanoparticles comprising a metal or metal oxide to improve flowing and/or spreading performance of the powder (Peng [0024]).
Regarding claim 9, Mizobe discloses metal particles such as tungsten, molybdenum, rhenium, niobium, tantalum, chromium, vanadium ([0011], [0065]).
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 Mizobe to be an iron alloy or a nickel alloy because they are known metal particles (Peng [0022]) for 3D printing (Mizobe [0010], [0043], [0056]; 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 molybdenum, niobium, tantalum, or chromium metal particles (Mizobe [0011], [0065]). 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 molybdenum, niobium, tantalum, or chromium metal powder (Peng [0022]). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose. MPEP 2144.06(II).
Regarding claim 13, Mizobe discloses metal particles such as tungsten, molybdenum, rhenium, niobium, tantalum, chromium, vanadium ([0011], [0065]).
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 Mizobe to be an iron alloy or a nickel alloy because they are known metal particles (Peng [0022]) for 3D printing (Mizobe [0010], [0043], [0056]; 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 molybdenum, niobium, tantalum, or chromium metal particles (Mizobe [0011], [0065]). 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 molybdenum, niobium, tantalum, or chromium metal powder (Peng [0022]). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose. MPEP 2144.06(II).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizobe (WO 2019/230806 with citations from continuation US 2021/069781) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Yoshida (JP 2019-102782 machine translation).
Regarding claim 5, Mizobe 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]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges discloses by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the powder material of Mizobe 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]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizobe (WO 2019/230806 with citations from continuation US 2021/069781) in view of Yoshida (JP 2019-102782 machine translation) as applied to claim 5 above and further in view of Peng (US 2016/0002471).
Regarding claim 13, Mizobe discloses metal particles such as tungsten, molybdenum, rhenium, niobium, tantalum, chromium, vanadium ([0011], [0065]).
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 Mizobe to be an iron alloy or a nickel alloy because they are known metal particles (Peng [0022]) for 3D printing (Mizobe [0010], [0043], [0056]; 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 molybdenum, niobium, tantalum, or chromium metal particles (Mizobe [0011], [0065]). 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 molybdenum, niobium, tantalum, or chromium metal powder (Peng [0022]). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose. MPEP 2144.06(II).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 112792332 machine translation).
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).
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 57% 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]), such that the claimed properties naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art.
Claims 5, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 112792332 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peng (US 2016/0002471).
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 9, 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).
Regarding claim 13, 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).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 112792332 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Yoshida (JP 2019-102782 machine translation).
Regarding claim 5, Li 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]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges discloses by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
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 adjust fluidity (Yoshida [0071]), such that moldability becomes better, filing properties and uniformity improve, and good properties can be obtained (Yoshida [0072]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 112792332 machine translation) in view of Yoshida (JP 2019-102782 machine translation) as applied to claim 5 above and further in view of Peng (US 2016/0002471).
Regarding claim 13, 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).
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).
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-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