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 17-29 are examined in this office action of which claims 17-20, 23, and 25 are amended, and claim 29 is new in the reply dated 2/13/26.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a) providing at least one granulate having a particle size in the range of 0.2 to 1 mm” While “granulate” is a verb meaning to form something into granules, grains or particles, this word also has a secondary meaning in the UK of “a substance consisting of granules”. As applicant also defines “particle size in the range of 0.2 to 1 mm” to mean that the “respective granulate has a d10-value of at least 0.2 mm and a d90-value of not more than 1mm” on pg. 5, lines 25-30 of the specification, it is clear applicant is using “granulate” as a substance consisting of granules having a d10-value of at least 0.2 mm and a d90-value of not more than 1mm and this definition will be used to interpret the claims in the office action below. Likewise, the range in claim 23 will be interpreted as being a d10-value of at least 0.4 mm and a d90-value of not more than 0.9 mm.
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 17-20 and 23-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0070778 A1 of Haid in view of US 2016/0347000 A1 of Kerrigan and US 2016/0297103 A1 of Lee.
As to claim 17, Haid discloses an additive manufacturing system and method (Haid, paragraph [0002]) meeting the limitation of process for producing a three-dimensional (3D) object by employing a three- dimensional (3D) printing process. Haid discloses where a feedstock comprising polymers, metal, graphite, ceramic and combinations and composites thereof are used (Haid, paragraph [0031]), meeting the limitation wherein the at least one granulate is selected from a granulate comprising at least one inorganic powder and at least one polymer as metals, ceramics and graphite all meet the limitation of an inorganic powder.
Haid discloses where pellet sizes, independent of material type, may generally fall in the range of 10 micrometers to 10 millimeters in length, width, thickness or diameter (Haid, paragraph [0032]) overlapping the claimed range of providing at least one granulate having a particle size in the range of 0.2 to 1 mm as by the pellet sizes being within this range, the d10 and d90 would also necessarily be overlapped. As the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness is established as it 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 to select the claimed granule size over the prior art disclosure since the prior art teaches this allows for greater amounts of bound material than with filaments (Haid, paragraph [0005]) throughout the disclosed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
Haid discloses where feedstock is fed into the helical drive from the hopper where the force from the helical drive causes the feedstock to traverse the helical drive into a heat zone (Haid, paragraph [0032]; see also Fig 3 where feedstock 34 is fed from a hopper 32 into a helical drive 38) reading upon feeding the at least one granulate with at least one screw as helical drive reads upon screw located at least partially inside the housing of a three-dimensional (3D) extrusion printer as this system must exist inside a housing as hopper is attached to the outlet nozzle which dispenses the granulate. Haid discloses that once the feedstock enters the heat zone, the feedstock is wholly or partially liquefied from the heat (Haid, paragraph [0032]), meeting the claim limitation heating the at least one granulate inside the housing of the 3D extrusion printer. Haid discloses where the wholly or partially liquefied feedstock 34′ material passes through the outlet nozzle 42, the material is deposited by the 3D printer or additive manufacturing system 30 based upon the desired toolpath (Haid, paragraph [0032] and Fig. 9), meeting the limitation of extruding the at least one heated granulate obtained in step c) through the at least one nozzle in order to obtain at least one extruded strand. Haid discloses forming the object in a layer-by-layer manner from the extruded strand (Haid, Fig. 9).
However, while Haid discloses where pellet sizes, independent of material type, may generally fall in the range of 10 micrometers to 10 millimeters in length, width, thickness or diameter (Haid, paragraph [0032]), Haid does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one granulate comprises at least one core material (CM) coated with a layer of at least one shell material (SM), or wherein the at least one granulate comprises at least one fibrous filler (FF) and at least one polymer, and wherein the granulate employed in step a) has a round shape, wherein the term "round shape" means that more than 50% of the respective particles have a sphericity of> 0.7.
Kerrigan relates to the same field of endeavor of manufacturing objects using fused deposition form of additive manufacturing (Kerrigan, abstract). Kerrigan teaches where the device for fused deposition includes a hopper for containing the solid thermoplastic pellets, a heating element for producing thermoplastic liquid by melting the pellets, and a nozzle for extruding the thermoplastic liquid (Kerrigan, claim 1). Kerrigan teaches that the physical properties of the extruded liquid can be altered by adding carbon fiber filaments (Kerrigan, paragraph [0038]), meeting the limitation of where the granulate comprises at least one fibrous filler (FF) and at least one polymer . Kerrigan teaches that this inclusion of carbon fiber filaments increases the structural strength of the produced part (Kerrigan, paragraph [0038]).
Lee relates to the same field of endeavor of pellets for a three-dimensional printer (Lee, paragraph [0008]). Lee teaches forming pellets having a diameter of 0.5 mm to 3.0 mm (Lee, paragraph [0040]). Lee teaches that pellets are preferably spherical in shape (Lee, paragraph [0040]), where spherical would mean a spheroidicity of 1.0, meeting the claim limitation. Lee teaches that pellets are melted with reduced power consumption and are easy to extrude (Lee, paragraph [0039]).
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 carbon fiber filaments as disclosed by Kerrigan and for having spherical pellets as taught by Lee into the method of fused deposition modeling additive manufacturing disclosed by Haid, thereby the carbon fiber filaments increasing the structural strength of the finished part (Kerrigan, paragraph [0038]) and the spherical pellets being easy to extrude (Lee, paragraph [0039]) as spherical shapes will have improved flow in a hopper as opposed to irregular shapes which can catch on one another and not flow properly.
As to claim 18, Haid discloses where the printer comprises at least one screw and at least one nozzle where the screw feeds the at least one granulate in vertical direction (Haid, FIG. 3 and 8-9).
As to claim 19, Haid discloses where feedstock is contained in a hopper (Haid, paragraph [0032]). While this is all that is required by limitation i) as the location of the storage container is preceded by “may” which means that the location is not required, Haid also discloses where the hopper is directly attached to the nozzle assembly (Haid, FIG. 3) and therefore would necessarily be completely inside the extrusion printer otherwise the nozzle could not move to dispense layers of material. Also, Haid discloses where the additive manufacturing system includes a heat source in the printing head along with a helical drive (reading upon screw) and a nozzle (Haid, paragraph [0032] and FIG 3), meeting the limitation of heating of the at least one granulate according to step c) is carried out within at least one printing head of the 3D extrusion printer and the at least one printing head contains at least a part of the at least one screw employed within step b) and at least one nozzle. Further, as the screw in Haid is in the heat zone (Haid, FIG. 3), it is a heated screw, meeting the iv) limitation.
As to claim 20, Haid discloses where a feedstock comprising polymers, metal, graphite, ceramic and combinations and composites thereof are used (Haid, paragraph [0031]), meeting the i) and ii) limitations.
As to claim 23, Haid discloses where pellet sizes, independent of material type, may generally fall in the range of 10 micrometers to 10 millimeters in length, width, thickness or diameter (Haid, paragraph [0032]) overlapping the claimed range of providing at least one granulate having a particle size in the range of 0.4 to 0.9 mm as by the pellet sizes being within this range, the d10 and d90 would also necessarily be overlapped. As the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness is established as it 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 to select the claimed granule size over the prior art disclosure since the prior art teaches this allows for greater amounts of bound material than with filaments (Haid, paragraph [0005]) throughout the disclosed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
As to claim 24, Haid discloses where the relative length of the helical drive to the diameter of the helical drive may range from 1:1 to 40:1 (Haid, paragraph [0033]) overlapping the claimed range of below 12. As the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness is established as it 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 to select the claimed length to diameter ratio of the at least one screw over the prior art disclosure since the prior art teaches this allows for greater amounts of bound material than with filaments (Haid, paragraph [0005]) throughout the disclosed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
As to claim 25, Haid discloses where the at least one granulate is transferred from a storage container to the at least one screw by gravity (Haid, FIG 3 and 4).
As to claims 26-28, Haid discloses where after the part is produced, it is moved to a debinding station followed by sintering (Haid, paragraph [0044]) and FIG 14) meeting the claim limitations as if there is later sintering, there is necessarily a green body followed by a brown body which is the result of debinding, finally followed by a finished sintered body.
As to claim 29, Haid discloses feedstock 34 is fed into the helical drive (reading upon screw) from the hopper 32 (reading upon storage container) and where the storage container is positioned on the upper end of the screw and the storage container has an opening on its lower part to transfer the granulate from the storage container to the screw (Haid, paragraph 32 and FIGs 3, 3a, and 4).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0070778 A1 of Haid, US 2016/0347000 A1 of Kerrigan and US 2016/0297103 A1 of Lee as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of US 2016/0024293 A1 of Nestle.
As to claim 21, Haid in combination with Kerrigan and Lee discloses the process according to claim 17, see claim 17 rejection above and Haid discloses where a feedstock comprising polymers, metal, graphite, ceramic and combinations and composites thereof are used (Haid, paragraph [0031]). However, Haid does not disclose wherein the at least one granulate is a mixture (M) comprising (a) from 40 to 75% by volume of an inorganic powder (IP) based on the total volume of the mixture (M), (b) from 25 to 60% by volume based on the total volume of the mixture (M) of a binder (B) comprising (bl) from 50 to 98% by weight of at least one polyoxymethylene (POM) based on the total weight of the binder (B), (b2) from 2 to 35% by weight of at least one polyolefin (PO) based on the total weight of the binder (B), (b3) from 0 to 40% by weight of at least one further polymer (FP) based on the total weight of the binder (B).
Nestle relates to a mixture comprising an inorganic powder and a binder in a fused filament fabrication process (Nestle, paragraph [0001]). Nestle teaches a mixture (M) comprising (a) from 40 to 70% by volume of an inorganic powder (IP) based on the total volume of the mixture (M), (b) from 30 to 60% by volume based on the total volume of the mixture (M) of a binder (B) comprising (b1) from 50 to 96% by weight of at least one polyoxymethylene (POM) based on the total weight of the binder (B), (b2) from 2 to 35% by weight of at least one polyolefin (PO) based on the total weight of the binder (B), (b3) from 2 to 40% by weight of at least one further polymer (FP) based on the total weight of the binder (B) (Nestle, paragraph [0011]) where these amounts fall within the claimed ranges. Nestle teaches where the mixture can be provided in granulate form (Nestle, paragraph [0256]). Nestle teaches that this mixture allows for lower temperatures in debinding, preventing blistering on the surface of the object internal cracking, and delamination of the article (Nestle, paragraphs [0009]-[0010]).
As Haid already teaches the use of polymer and inorganic powder composites, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a mixture (M) comprising (a) from 40 to 70% by volume of an inorganic powder (IP) based on the total volume of the mixture (M), (b) from 30 to 60% by volume based on the total volume of the mixture (M) of a binder (B) comprising (b1) from 50 to 96% by weight of at least one polyoxymethylene (POM) based on the total weight of the binder (B), (b2) from 2 to 35% by weight of at least one polyolefin (PO) based on the total weight of the binder (B), (b3) from 2 to 40% by weight of at least one further polymer (FP) based on the total weight of the binder (B) as taught by Nestle into the method of additive manufacturing disclosed in Haid, thereby allowing for lower temperatures in debinding, preventing blistering on the surface of the object internal cracking, and delamination of the article (Nestle, paragraphs [0009]-[0010]).
As to claim 22, Haid discloses where a feedstock comprising polymers, metal, graphite, ceramic and combinations and composites thereof are used (Haid, paragraph [0031]), meeting limitation ii).
Also, Nestle discloses wherein the mixture (M) further comprises as a component (c) from 0.1 to 5% by volume of at least one dispersant based on the total volume of the mixture (M) (Nestle, claim 2) meeting limitation i). Nestle also discloses the method of forming polyoxymethylene (POM) copolymer as in limitation iii) (Nestle, claim 4). Finally, Nestle also discloses wherein the further polymer (FP) is at least one further polymer (FP) selected from the group consisting of a polyether, a polyurethane, a polyepoxide, a polyamide, a vinyl aromatic polymer, a poly(vinyl ester), a poly(vinyl ether), a poly(alkyl(meth)acrylate) and copolymers thereof (Nestle, claim 5), meeting claim limitation iv).
Response to Arguments
With respect to the objections to the drawings and specification, applicant’s new drawing and amendments to the specification submitted 2/13/26 cures the previous issues and the objections are withdrawn.
With respect to the 112(b) rejections concerning the “preferable” language and antecedent basis issue in claim 25, applicant’s amendments to delete this language and make claim 25 depend from claim 19 cures the previous issues and the rejections are withdrawn.
With respect to the 112(b) rejections concerning “different to the vertical direction towards the nozzle” and “in an angle of not more than 60°”, applicant’s amendments and remarks (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 10 last paragraph – pg. 11 1st paragraph) clarify the claims and the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant's remarks pg. 11, last paragraph - pg. 12, first paragraph, filed 2/13/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 17-28 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Haid, Kerrigan and Lee.
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 at (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
Prosecution Insights