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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 2, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has been entered. Claims 1, 3-6, 11-12, 15-17, and 19-23 are pending. Claims 2, 7-10, 13-14 and 18 are cancelled. Cancelling claims 8-10 and 13-14 has rendered moot all rejections under 35 USC 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Independent claim 16 claims “wherein each of agglomerates between the metal particles has a particle diameter of less than 1 µm”. Claim 17 depends on claim 16. Claim 17 claims “wherein each agglomerate between the metal particles have a particle diameter of greater than zero and less than 1 µm”. Claim 16 claims that each agglomerate has a particle diameter, and a particle diameter must necessarily be greater than zero in order for that diameter to exist. As claim 17 claims that the same agglomerates of claim 16 have particle size diameters within the same particle size diameter range recited in claim 16, claim 17 does not limit the claim on which claim 17 depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1, 3-4, 6, 15-17, and 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (US20160002471) in view of Wypych (Wypych, George; Handbook of Fillers (4th Edition). ChemTec Publishing (2016)). Peng is cited in the IDS dated May 6, 2022. Wypych is cited in prior office action(s).
Regarding claim 1, Peng discloses a powder material (powder mixed with effective amount of a treating additive [0005]). Peng discloses that the powder material comprises metal particles (powder) comprising an iron alloy [0005], [0022] and having an average particle diameter of less than about 100 µm [0019-20], which overlaps a range of 10 µm or larger and 500 µm or smaller. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Peng discloses that the powder material comprises nanoparticles (treating additive having a primary particle size of nanoscale [0005], [0024-26]). Peng discloses that the nanoparticles comprise silica [0026], which the present disclosure considers a metal compound (see paragraph [0032] of the specification as filed). Peng discloses hydrophilic fumed silica nanoparticles as the nanoparticles (treating additive) (“The treating additive may be made of any material. In some embodiments, the treating additive is fumed silica. In some embodiments, the treating additive is nano hydrophobic silica. In some embodiments, the treating additive is nano hydrophilic silica” [emphasis added] [0026], claim 9; Peng discloses hydrophilic fumed silica as a treating additive constituent in paragraph [0033]). Hydrophilic fumed silica nanoparticles have the structure of nanoparticles which have undergone no surface treatment with an organic substance. See applicant’s arguments filed March 26, 2025 regarding hydrophobic fumed silica. Peng discloses that the nanoparticle aggregates present prior to mixing are distributed upon mixing [0029], and Peng discloses that the nanoparticles are distributed onto the surface of the micron powder [0031] as a layer ([0005-06], Figs. 1-4). Peng further discloses that the nanoparticles are adherent to the metal particles [0005], [0024], [0029]. Nanoparticles adherent to metal particle surfaces by dispersing (mixing and distributing) such as those disclosed by Peng ([0005-06], [0024], [0029], [0031], Figs. 1-4) are, to some extent, nanoparticles adherent to the surface of the metal particles in a dispersed state.
Peng discloses that the primary particles of the nanoparticles have a particle size from about 1 nanometer to about 100 nanometers [0025], but Peng discloses that the primary particle size is the size of a non-associated single treating additive particle, which is a constituent of the overall particle [0025]. Peng does not disclose the size of fused-bodies comprising the primary particles.
Wypych is a handbook in which Section 2.1.79.1, discusses fumed silica. Wypych states “[t]he primary particles of silica leaving the burner are in a molten state; therefore, on collision they are able to coalescence, forming bigger particles. When particles proceed through the reactor, they cool down, and around 1710°C they become solid [fused] and are no longer able to recombine. Before this happens, primary particles fuse with one another and form chain-like, branched aggregates [dendrites]” (page 200, Figs. 2106-2107). Wypych teaches that primary particles are spherical with a primary particles size of 5-40 nanometers (Table on page 199). Wypych teaches that the aggregates, which Wypych describes as “branched aggregates”, have a size of 200-15,000 nm (0.2-15 µm Table on page 199, page 200). Wypych teaches that the manufacturing process of the fumed silica can be easily regulated with respect to primary particle size and structure of the aggregate (page 201). Wypych teaches that hydrophilic fumed silica is not surface treated which Wypych contrasts with the treated surface of hydrophobic fumed silica (page 202). Wypych teaches that fumed silica is known to confer flow enhancement to powder (page 203).
Wypych teaches the structure and manner of making hydrophilic fumed silica such as that disclosed by Peng ([0026], [0033], claim 9).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, that the hydrophilic fumed silica disclosed by Peng ([0026], [0033], claim 9) has fused-bodies in each of which a plurality of nanoparticles (primary particles) is fusion-bonded to each other, wherein the fused bodies have a dendritic structure (chain-like, branched aggregates) because Wypych teaches that fumed silica has such a structure (When particles proceed through the reactor, they cool down, and around 1710°C they become solid [fused] and are no longer able to recombine. Before this happens, primary particles fuse with one another and form chain-like, branched aggregates page 200, Figs. 2106-2107). It would have been obvious that the size of the fused-body of the hydrophilic fumed silica disclosed by Peng have a size of 200-15,000 nm because Wypych teaches that such fused bodies have sizes within such a range (Table on page 199). A range of 200-15,000 nm overlaps the claimed fused-body size range of 25 nm or longer and 500 nm or smaller, and Wypych teaches that the manufacturing process of the fumed silica can be easily regulated with respect to primary particle size and structure of the aggregate (page 201). When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). In view of Wypych (page 202), the hydrophilic fumed silica disclosed by Peng ([0026], [0033], claim 9) is known to have the structure having not undergone surface treatment with an organic substance.
Regarding claim 16, Peng discloses a powder material (powder mixed with effective amount of a treating additive [0005]). Peng discloses that the powder material comprises metal particles (powder) comprising an iron alloy [0005], [0022]. Peng discloses that the powder material comprises nanoparticles (treating additive having a primary particle size of nanoscale [0005], [0024-25]).
Peng discloses that the powder material comprises nanoparticles (treating additive having a primary particle size of nanoscale [0005], [0024-25]). Peng discloses that the nanoparticles comprise silica [0026], which the present disclosure considers a metal compound (see paragraph [0032] of the specification as filed). Peng discloses hydrophilic fumed silica nanoparticles as the nanoparticles (treating additive) (“The treating additive may be made of any material. In some embodiments, the treating additive is fumed silica. In some embodiments, the treating additive is nano hydrophobic silica. In some embodiments, the treating additive is nano hydrophilic silica” [emphasis added] [0026], claim 9; Peng discloses hydrophilic fumed silica as a treating additive constituent in paragraph [0033]). Hydrophilic fumed silica nanoparticles have the structure of nanoparticles which have undergone no surface treatment with an organic substance. See applicant’s arguments filed March 26, 2025 regarding hydrophobic fumed silica. Peng discloses that the nanoparticle aggregates present prior to mixing are distributed upon mixing [0029], and Peng discloses that the nanoparticles are distributed onto the surface of the micron powder [0031] as a layer ([0005-06], Figs. 1-4). Peng further discloses that the nanoparticles are adherent to the metal particles [0005], [0024], [0029]. Nanoparticles adherent to metal particle surfaces by dispersing (mixing and distributing) such as those disclosed by Peng ([0005-06], [0024], [0029], [0031], Figs. 1-4) are, to some extent, nanoparticles adherent to the surface of the metal particles in a dispersed state.
Peng discloses that the primary particles of the nanoparticles have a particle size from about 1 nanometer to about 100 nanometers [0025], but Peng discloses that primary particle size is the size of a non-associated single treating additive particle, which is a constituent of the overall particle [0025]. Peng does not disclose the size of fused-bodies comprising the primary particles.
Wypych is a handbook in which Section 2.1.79.1, discusses fumed silica. Wypych states “[t]he primary particles of silica leaving the burner are in a molten state; therefore, on collision they are able to coalescence, forming bigger particles. When particles proceed through the reactor, they cool down, and around 1710°C they become solid [fused] and are no longer able to recombine. Before this happens, primary particles fuse with one another and form chain-like, branched aggregates [dendrites]” (page 200, Figs. 2106-2107). Wypych teaches that primary particles are spherical with a primary particles size of 5-40 nanometers (Table on page 199). Wypych teaches that the aggregates have a size of 200-15,000 nm (0.2-15 µm Table on page 199). Wypych teaches that the manufacturing process of the fumed silica can be easily regulated with respect to primary particle size and structure of the aggregate (page 201). Wypych teaches that hydrophilic fumed silica is has not been surface treated which Wypych contrasts with treated surface of hydrophobic fumed silica (page 202). Wypych teaches that fumed silica is known to confer flow enhancement to powder (page 203). Wypych teaches that agglomerates are disintegrated on mixing during the processing of material formulated with fumed silica (sentence extending from page 200 to page 201).
Wypych teaches the structure and manner of making the hydrophilic fumed silica disclosed by Peng ([0026], [0033], claim 9).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, that the hydrophilic fumed silica disclosed by Peng ([0026], [0033], claim 9) constitute fused-bodies in each of which a plurality of nanoparticles (primary particles) is fusion-bonded to each other, wherein the fused bodies have a dendritic structure (chain-like, branched aggregates) because Wypych teaches that fumed silica has such a structure (When particles proceed through the reactor, they cool down, and around 1710°C they become solid [fused] and are no longer able to recombine. Before this happens, primary particles fuse with one another and form chain-like, branched aggregates page 200, Figs. 2106-2107). It would have been obvious that the size of each of the fused-bodies of the hydrophilic fumed silica disclosed by Peng have a size within the range of 200-15,000 nm because Wypych teaches that such fused bodies (aggregates) have sizes within such a range (Table on page 199). A range of 200-15,000 nm overlaps the claimed fused-body size range of 25 nm or longer and 500 nm or smaller, and Wypych teaches that the manufacturing process of the fumed silica can be easily regulated with respect to primary particle size and structure of the aggregate (page 201). When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). In view of Wypych, the hydrophilic fumed silica disclosed by Peng ([0026], [0033], claim 9) is known to have the structure having not undergone surface treatment with an organic substance. Considering Peng teaches that aggregated nanoparticles are distributed upon mixing [0029] and Wypych teaches that agglomerates are disintegrated on mixing during the processing of material formulated with fumed silica (sentence extending from page 200 to page 201), one of ordinary skill in the art would expect agglomerates distributed between powder particles to have a smaller size than the particles provided to the mixture.
As a range of 0.200-15 µm taught by Wypych (Table on page 199) overlaps a range of less than 1 µm, the range of agglomerates between particles disclosed by Peng in view of Wypych applied above, would overlap the range of particle sizes encompassed by claim 16 wherein agglomerates between the metal particles have a particle diameter of less than 1 µm, particularly in view of Peng’s suggestion that steps of mixing particles distribute aggregates [0029]. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 3-4, 15, and 17, Peng discloses that the nanoparticle aggregates present prior to mixing are distributed upon mixing [0029], and Peng discloses that the nanoparticles are distributed onto the surface of the micron powder [0031] as a layer ([0005-06], Figs. 1-4). Wypych teaches that agglomerates are disintegrated on mixing during the processing of material formulated with fumed silica (sentence extending from page 200 to page 201).Considering Peng discloses distributing the aggregates upon mixing [0029], and considering Wypych teaches that agglomerates are disintegrated on mixing during the processing of material formulated with fumed silica (sentence extending from page 200 to page 201), one of ordinary skill in the art would expect agglomerates distributed between powder particles to have a smaller size than the particles provided to the mixture. As a range of 0.200-15 µm taught by Wypych (Table on page 199) overlaps a range of less than 1 µm, the range of agglomerates between particles disclosed by Peng in view of Wypych applied above, would overlap the range of particle sizes encompassed by claims 3-4, 8-9, 15, and 17 wherein all agglomerates between the metal particles have a particle diameter of less than 1 µm. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 6, Peng discloses the nanoparticles are silica particles [0026].
Regarding claims 20 and 21, the limitation “the powder material is produced by performing a dispersing and classifying on a material powder obtained by mixing the metal particles and the fused-bodies having the dendritic structure” is a product-by-process limitation which limits the patentability of the claimed powder material by the structure implied by dispersing and classifying and not by manipulation of the dispersing and classifying. See MEPP 2113. Paragraph [0042] of the present disclosure indicates that the structure imparted by performing the classifying and dispersing of the present disclosure is a loosening of agglomerates. Considering Peng discloses distributing the aggregates upon mixing [0029], and considering Wypych teaches that agglomerates are disintegrated on mixing during the processing of material formulated with fumed silica (sentence extending from page 200 to page 201), the powder mixture disclosed by Peng in view of Wypych, applied above, would meet the structure implied by the recited product-by-process limitations.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Peng discloses distributing the nanoparticles on the metal powder particle surface [0024], [0029], and Peng contrasts the nanoparticles distributed following mixing with the nanoparticles in the aggregate state [0029], thereby disclosing that the nanoparticles are dispersed on the metal powder particles. Peng discloses a particle size distribution of the powder such that d10 is 10 µm and d90 is 45 µm [0021], thereby disclosing that only 10% of the powder has a particle size less than or equal to 10 µm and only 10% of the powder has a particle size greater than 45 µm (90% of the powder has a particle size less than or equal to 45 µm). In order to achieve powder distribution with a d10 of 10 µm and a d90 of 45 µm, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to sort the powder particles disclosed by Peng in view of Wypych, applied above into a +10 µm/-45 µm fraction. The act of sorting a powder into a +10 µm/-45 µm fraction meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of classification.
Peng in view of Wypych is silent on the bulk density normalized shear adhesion of the powder mixture. The bulk density normalized shear adhesion is a material property of a powder blend that is inseparable from the chemical composition and process of manufacturing of the material. See MPEP2112.01(II). When the claimed and prior art products are substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP.2112.01(I). The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer See MPEP2112(I). The present disclosure states “[f]or example, by the adhesion of the nanoparticles P2, the shear adhesive force of the powder including the metal particles P1 can be reduced to 55% or less, especially 50% or less, of the shear adhesive force of the powder containing no nanoparticles P2. Furthermore, the powder material can have a bulk-density-normalized shear adhesive force (τs/ρ), which is a value obtained by normalizing the shear adhesive force (τs) with the bulk density (ρ) of the powder material, of 0.07 (m/s)2 or less, especially 0.05 (m/s)2 or less” (paragraph [0036] of the specification as filed). The present specification states “[i]t was ascertained that in powder-material properties, such as the shear adhesive force, whose evaluation results are shown next, any changes which have occurred upon the addition of nanoparticles were not due to a change in particle shape or particle size but were results of the addition of the nanoparticles itself” (paragraph [0069] of the disclosure as filed). The present specification states “shows that sample #2, to which nanoparticles had been added, had a value reduced to about 40% of a value of sample #1, to which no nanoparticles had been added. These results are thought to be because in sample #2, nanoparticles were present between the metal particles and reduced the attractive forces between the metal particles to improve the flowability. Although nanoparticles which had undergone no surface treatment were used, these nanoparticles nevertheless were highly effective in improving the flowability of the powder material. The measurement results of sample #3 will be explained later” (paragraph [0071] of the specification). The present specification states “The reason why the bulk-density-normalized shear adhesive force came to increase gently in the region where the nanoparticle addition amount was still larger is considered to be that an adhesive force was exerting between nanoparticles being adherent to a metal particle and nanoparticles being adherent to an adjacent metal particle to reduce the flowability of the metal particles having the nanoparticles being adherent thereto. The difference in classification conditions affects the magnitude of bulk-density-normalized shear adhesive force but exerts no considerable influence on the tendency of behavior with addition amount” (paragraph [0073] of the specification as filed), thereby indicating that bulk-density normalized shear adhesive force depends on degree of classification. The present specification states “Sample #3, in which nanoparticles had been added and the mixture had only undergone mixing by a powder mixer, had a value reduced to about 90% of a value of sample #1, to which nanoparticles had not been added. This is thought to be because at least some of the nanoparticles were present between the metal particles to lower the attractive forces exerting between the metal particles and improve the flowability” (paragraph [0081] of the specification as filed). The specification states “[i]t can be seen from these results that although the effect of improving the flowability of metal particles is obtained by merely adding nanoparticles to the metal particles and mixing the mixture, the nanoparticles can be made to exhibit a higher effect in lowering attractive forces exerting between the metal particles to improve the flowability, by performing the dispersing and classifying steps” (paragraph [0082] of the specification as filed). Within the present disclosure, “sample #1” refers to metal powder without admixed nanoparticles; “sample #2” refers to the metal powder of sample #1 mixed with SiO2 nanoparticles, which had undergone no surface treatment, dispersed and classified with an air disperser (ring-nozzle jet type disperser “DN-155”, manufactured by Nisshin Engineering Co., Ltd.) and an air classifier (turbo-classifier “TC-15”, manufactured by Nisshin Engineering Co., Ltd.) connected thereto; and “sample #3” refers to a powder obtained by mixing the metal powder of sample #1 with the SiO2 nanoparticles using a shaking powder mixer (paragraphs [0058-59] of the specification as filed). The one example in Fig. 8 of the present disclosure which meets the claimed density-normalized shear is a classification to +15 µm/-45 µm (Fig. 8). Considering the surface nanoparticle dispersion disclosed by Peng [0024], [0029] and the +10 µm/-45 µm classification fraction rendered obvious by Peng [0021], one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, would expect the powder mixture disclosed by Peng in view of Wypych comprising metal powder particles wherein hydrophilic (not surface treated), fumed silica is distributed and a +10 µm/-45 µm classification fraction, to exhibit properties of a powder mixture comprising metal powder particles wherein hydrophilic (not surface treated), fumed silica is distributed and a +10 µm/-45 µm classification. Considering the present disclosure shows that a powder mixture comprising iron powder particles wherein hydrophilic dendritic silica is dispersed, and the mixture is classified to a +15 µm/-45 µm fraction, the disclosure of Peng in view of Wypych establishes a sound basis for believing that the bulk-density normalized shear adhesion would meet or approach a value of 0.07 (m/s)2.
Claim(s) 5, 11-12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (US20160002471) in view of Wypych (Wypych, George; Handbook of Fillers (4th Edition). ChemTec Publishing (2016)) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 8-9, and 16 above, and further in view of Ikeda (US20160333450). Ikeda is cited in prior office action(s).
Regarding claims 5, 11-12, and 19, Peng discloses an iron alloy ([0022], claim 3) as the metal particles (powder) [0019-22], but Peng does not specify that the iron alloy is a precipitation-hardening stainless steel.
Ikeda teaches a powder feed material for a sintered compact [0001]. The material taught by Ikeda is a precipitation hardening stainless steel powder (Title, [0001]). Ikeda teaches that precipitation hardening stainless steel is known in the art for producing sintered powder compacts [0002-03]. Ikeda teaches a powder which is optimal for imparting high-strength age-hardenability and toughness to the sintered compact [0025], [0052]. Ikeda teaches a precipitation hardening stainless steel powder which can yield a sintered compact having sufficient age-hardenability, a high strength (hard to crack), and a high flexural strength [0062]. Ikeda teaches particularly optimal results for laser or electron beam sintering [0024-25], [0052].
Both Ikeda and Peng in view of Wypych teach powder material comprising iron alloy particles. Peng discloses investigating powder materials in additive manufacturing processes as the motivation for the disclosed powder mixture [0002-04], and Peng identifies selective laser sintering as such an additive manufacturing process [0002]. Peng therefore suggests that the disclosed powder material is intended for a selective laser sintering process [0002-04].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to select a precipitation hardening stainless steel as the powder disclosed by Peng [0019-22] because Ikeda teaches that precipitation hardening stainless steel is a known feed material in the art of sintered powder metallurgical materials [0002-03], and it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to supply the precipitation hardening steel taught by Ikeda (Title, [0001]) as the powder disclosed by Peng [0019-22], because of the advantageous properties which Ikeda teaches for a sintered compact formed with such material [0025], [0062], particularly with laser beam sintering [0024-25], [0052]. In view of Peng’s disclosure of iron alloys ([0022], claim 3), one of ordinary skill in the art could have supplied a precipitation hardened a precipitation hardening stainless steel as the powder disclosed by Peng [0019-22] which Peng suggests applying to laser sintering [0002-04]. In view of Ikeda generally supplying a precipitation hardening stainless steel would predictably result in providing powder material known as appropriate feed material for sintered contact [0002-03] and providing the specific precipitation hardening stainless steel taught by Ikeda would predictably result the favorable properties taught by Ikeda for a laser beam sintering process [0024-25], [0052], [0062].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Prior to discussing prior art as applied to claims, applicant establishes basis for arguments with references to KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), and In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (CA Fed. 2006). References presented in this introduction section are acknowledged and will be considered in weighing applicant’s specific arguments directed to the claims and applied prior art.
Regarding rejections of independent claims 1 and 16 over Peng (US20160002471) in view of Wypych (Wypych, George; Handbook of Fillers (4th Edition). ChemTec Publishing (2016)), Applicant notes that broader claims have been allowed for family members of the present application in the European Patent Office and the China National Intellectual Property Administration have allowed broader claims in the present patent family over the prior art are not persuasive because Europe and China have different standards for determining obviousness from those of the United States. The present set office action applies US obviousness standards to evaluate claims over prior art to claims in an application for patent in the United States. Applicant is also reminded that in addition to the United States, other offices (Korea, Canada) have not yet allowed claims pending in family members over the prior art.
Regarding claim 1 over Peng in view of Wypych, applicant argues that the claimed average particle diameter of 10 µm or larger and 500 µm or smaller is critical over the average particle diameter of less than about 100 µm disclosed by Peng [0019-20]. This limitation is not recited in independent claim 16. Applicant supports this argument of criticality by quoting portions of the specification: "A problem to be solved by the present invention is to provide a powder material which has high flowability and is reduced in the influences of the presence of an organic substance. Solution to the Problems [0011] In order to solve the above-mentioned problems, the powder material according to the present invention is a powder material including metal particles including an iron alloy and having an average particle diameter of 10 um or larger and 500 um or smaller, and nanoparticles including a metal or a metal compound and having undergone no surface treatment with an organic substance." This argument is not sufficient to show that the claimed range is critical to some unexpected result as described in MPEP 2144.05(III)(A) for showing criticality of ranges. The portion of MPEP 2144.05(III)(A) which discusses rebutting obviousness of overlapping ranges by showing criticality references MPEP 716.02 which provides details on evidence of unexpected results over the prior art. MPEP 716.02 describes that results should show that the argued result is nonobvious to a statistical and practical significance commensurate in scope with the claim. To extend this analysis to applicant’s argument of criticality, as instructed by MPEP 2144.05(III)(A), applicant’s arguments that the claimed range of an average diameter of 10 µm or larger and 500 µm or smaller is critical to the properties of high flowability and reduced influence of organics is not supported by evidence that the particle size is critical to such properties over the range disclosed by Peng, applied above. In fact, all examples, either inventive or comparative, rely on the same metal powder particles either with a size distribution of +15 µm/-45 µm or -45 µm (paragraphs [0058-59] of the disclosure as filed) which is not sufficient to show that a size range of 10-500 µm is critical over a range of 100 µm or less, particularly because both distributions of +15 µm/-45 µm or -45 µm lie entirely within the range of 100 µm or less.
Arguments Peng does not disclose that nanoparticles disclosed by Peng have undergone no surface treatment are not persuasive because Peng discloses hydrophilic fumed silica nanoparticles ([0026], [0033], claim 9), and Wypych teaches that hydrophilic fumed silica are particles which have undergone not undergone a surface treatment, which Wypych contrasts with treated surface of hydrophobic fumed silica (page 202); therefore, the hydrophilic fumed silica nanoparticles disclosed by Peng ([0026], [0033], claim 9) are particles which have undergone no surface treatment.
Applicant further argues that there is no teaching or suggestion wherein each of the fused-bodies has a particle diameter, which is length of a longest straight line crossing the fused-body, of 25 nm or longer and 500 nm or smaller. This argument is not persuasive because Wypych states “[t]he primary particles of silica leaving the burner are in a molten state; therefore, on collision they are able to coalescence, forming bigger particles. When particles proceed through the reactor, they cool down, and around 1710°C they become solid and are no longer able to recombine. Before this happens, primary particles fuse with one another and form chain-like, branched aggregates” (page 200, Figs. 2106-2107), and Wypych teaches that the aggregates, which Wypych describes as “branched aggregates”, have a size of 200-15,000 nm (0.2-15 µm Table on page 199, page 200); therefore, Wypych teaches that the size of these aggregate particles 200-15,000 nm (Table on page 199 with the entry that states “Aggregate size, μm: 0.2-15”). The claimed 25-500 nm is the size of the fused body as a whole, as indicated by the literal claim limitation which states “a particle diameter, which is length of a longest straight line crossing the fused-body, of 25 nm or longer and 500 nm or smaller”. 200-15,000 nm overlaps 25-500 nm.
Applicant argues that the claimed range of 25 nm or longer and 500 nm or smaller is critical to the application notes that the improvement of the flowability with the claimed range and other benefits. Applicant supports the argument of criticality with reference to paragraph [0031] of the original specification and to the portion of paragraph [0040] which states "However, even when agglomerates having a particle diameter as small as about 500 nm or less have been formed, these agglomerates do not exert a considerable influence on the flowability of the powder material, and a labor required for completely loosening agglomerates can be saved." See [0040] of the original specification. This argument is not persuasive over the combination of Peng in view of Wypych. Particularly, Peng discloses that “particles of the treating additive may aggregate before mixing, but as can be seen from the following examples, after the powder is mixed with a trace amount of treating additive, the treating additive is distributed to surfaces of particles of the powder, the spreading and/or flowing properties of the powder are improved, and the element formulation of the powder does not obviously change” [0029] and Wypych teaches that mixing breaks up agglomerates and that the size of the particle affects the extent to which particles agglomerate (page 203). Peng therefore suggests that mixing prevents aggregation and that the aggregation is undesired [0029] and Wypych teaches that fumed silica particle size determines the degree of aggregation (page 203). Some dependence of nanoparticle aggregate formation on nanoparticle size would have been expected over Peng in view of Wypych. Absent a showing that the degree to which the claimed size range impacts agglomeration is nonobvious over that resulting from the size range disclosed by Peng in view of Wypych to a statistical and practical significance, the evidence of record is insufficient to show that claimed particle size range are critical to unexpected results over results suggested by Peng in view of Wypych applied above.
Arguments that the art does not teach of suggest "wherein the fused-bodies have a dendritic structure” are not persuasive because Wypych explicitly teaches ““[t]he primary particles of silica leaving the burner are in a molten state; therefore, on collision they are able to coalescence, forming bigger particles. When particles proceed through the reactor, they cool down, and around 1710°C they become solid and are no longer able to recombine. Before this happens, primary particles fuse with one another and form chain-like, branched aggregates” (page 200, Figs. 2106-2107). The definition of dendritic is “having a branched form resembling a tree”. A “chain-like, branched aggregates” is by definition of “dendritic” a dendritic structure. Considering every rejection that relied on Wypych directly quoted this one passage from Wypych, it is not clear why applicant has misconstrued Wypych’s explicit teaching of “chain-like, branched aggregates” as “grain-like structure”, when the passage explicitly states “chain-like branched aggregates” (see the below portion of Wypych with “chain-like branched aggregates” highlighted), but such misconstruing is not persuasive in showing that Wypych does not teach a dendritic structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is not clear why the fact that family members of the present application in EPO and CNIPA patents amounts to evidence that claiming a dendric structure defines over the prior art in the United States. As EPO and CNIPA patent family members have the same priority document as the present application, the present application would be expected to disclose the same structure as foreign counterparts. Again, different intellectual property offices have different standards for determining patentability.
The fact that the textbook of Wypych contains entries for structures other than fumed silica, are not persuasive because the nanoparticles relied upon are fumed silica as directly disclosed by Peng ([0026], [0033], claim 9). The fumed silica entry taught by Wypych is not merely one of a million possibilities, as argued, by applicant, but rather the fumed silica entry of Wypych is the exact entry which would inform one of ordinary skill in the art of the properties of the nanoparticle material disclosed by Peng ([0026], [0033], claim 9). Even when the entire reference text of Wypych is taken as a whole, not only would have it been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to rely on the fumed silica entry for teaching about on silica, but it would have been expected for one of ordinary skill in the art to rely on the fumed silica entry for teaching on fumed silica, which is the additive disclosed by Peng ([0026], [0033], claim 9). The presence of other entries does not amount to a teaching away. Even when considering the Wypych references as a whole, it is the fumed silica entry, and not some other entry which informs one of skill in the art of the properties of fumed silica which Peng discloses a powder mixture constituent ([0026], [0033], claim 9). One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145(IV).
Arguments that there is no teaching or suggestion of the nanoparticles are adherent to a surface of the metal particles in a dispersed state are not persuasive because Peng discloses “distributed to surfaces of particles of the powder” [0029], and Peng discloses that the nanoparticles are distributed as a layer on the surface of the powder particles ([0005-06], claim 1). Peng further contrast the nanoparticles with the nanoparticles in an agglomerated state prior to mixing [0029]. Nanoparticles distributed onto the surface of powder particles as a layer structurally are nanoparticles which are to some extent adherent to a surface of the particles in a state wherein the particles are dispersed to some extent. If the structure resulting from dispersing the nanoparticles according to the steps of the present disclosure is different from any degree of adhering in a dispersed state, applicant should claim that specific structure.
Arguments that Wypych and Ikeda (US20160333450) do not disclose, teach or suggest nanoparticles adherent to the surface of particles in a dispersed state is not persuasive because the present action relies on Peng to meet the limitation of nanoparticles adherent to the surface of particles in a dispersed state. Again, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145(IV).
Arguments that the art fails to teach that the powder material does not comprise agglomerates between the metal particles, each agglomerate composed of the nanoparticles and each agglomerate having a particle diameter of µm or larger because or that each agglomerate between the metal particles have a particle diameter of greater than zero and less than 1µm because 0.200-15 µm is a significantly broader range than 1 µm or less is not persuasive because in addition to the numerical size values taught by Wypych (Table on pages 199-200), the combination of Peng in view of Wypych leads one of skill in the art to reduced agglomerate size. Peng suggests distributes nanoparticles from agglomerates to a smaller size [0029]; Wypych teaches that aggregates are disintegrated on mixing during the processing of material formulated with fumed silica (sentence extending from page 200 to 201), and Wypych teaches that the manufacturing process of the fumed silica can be easily regulated with respect to primary particle size and structure of the aggregate (page 201). In view of Peng, and Wypych, one of skill in the art would expect a reduced degree of agglomeration upon mixing (Peng [0029], Wypych 2000-201, 204), and in view of Wypych (page 201), one of skill in the art would be able to adjust conditions to achieve an intended particle size; therefore, one of skill in the art would know that sizes can be reduced and that the selection of size can determine the agglomeration which Peng teaches avoiding [0029]. Further, as Peng investigates material specifically for additive manufacturing [0002-04], one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the material disclosed by Peng in view of Wypych to be suitable for additive manufacturing. Absent a showing, commensurate in scope with the claimed range that the claimed agglomerate size is critical to some unexpected nonobvious property, the additional limitations recited in claims 3-4, 15, and 17 would have been expected in view of both Peng and Wypych’s disclosures of distributing/disintegrating agglomerates upon mixing, wherein nanoparticle additives are known to affect size, in material suitable for additive manufacturing (Peng [0002-04], [00029]; Wypych pages 200-201, 204).
Applicant generally argues that the art does not teach the features of new claim 22. This argument is not persuasive because the combination of Peng in view of Wypych, as applied to claims 22 and 23, including the disclosure of a d10 of 10 µm and a d90 of 45 µm [0021], establishes a sound basis for believing that the powder mixture disclosed by Peng in view of Wypych would meet the claimed bulk density normalized shear adhesion. Please review more detailed rationale in the body of the rejection(s) above.
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
Prosecution Insights