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 the application
This is a final rejection in response to the Applicant's remarks and amendment filed on 10/17/2025. Claim(s) 1-15 is/are cancelled, claim(s) 16-21 and 25-30 is/are previously presented and claim(s) 22-24 are cancelled. Accordingly claims 16-21 and 25-30 is/are examined herein.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 16-21 and 25-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN DER (WO 2017/009190 – of record) in view of Mark (US 2018/0154580 – of record).
Regarding claim 16, Van der teaches a process for the production of a three-dimensional green body (GB) by a three- dimensional (3D) printing process employing at least one feedstock, a built chamber and a three-dimensional extrusion printer (3D printer) containing at least one nozzle (see Page 31, lines 13-25), the process comprising the following steps a) to e):
a) feeding the at least one feedstock into the 3D printer containing the at least one nozzle, wherein the at least one feedstock comprises at least one binder and at least one inorganic powder (see Page 3, lines 10-20), and wherein the at least one binder comprises at least one polyoxymethylene (POM) (see page 4, lines 20-26),
b) heating the at least one feedstock inside the 3D printer (see page 31, lines 15-20),
c) extruding the at least one heated feedstock obtained in step b) through the at least one nozzle in order to obtain at least one extruded strand (see page 31, lines 20-30),
d) forming the three-dimensional green body layer by layer from the at least one extruded strand obtained in step c) on .. located in the build chamber (see page 32, lines 10-20).
Van der does not explicitly teach forming the three-dimensional green body layer by layer from the at least one extruded strand obtained in step c) on a base plate comprises the at least one binder and optionally the at least one inorganic powder, and e) removing the three-dimensional green body and the base plate from the build chamber, wherein the three-dimensional green body is attached to the base plate, wherein the at least one feedstock is at least one filament or at least one granulate, wherein the at least one filament or the at least one granulate comprises from 30 to 70 % by volume of the at least one inorganic powder (IP) and from 30 to 70 % by volume of the at least one binder (B), based on the total volume of the at least one filament or the at least one granulate, and the base plate (BP) comprises from 0 to 70 % by volume of the at least one inorganic powder (IP) and from 30 to 100 % by volume of the at least one binder (B), based on a total volume of the base plate (BP).
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing processes, Mark teaches an additive manufacturing process for making a green body, comprises forming a green body part (14) from a polymer-based binder and a powdered sinter-able metal on a raft/ densification linking platform RA1 (base plate) (see Fig. 6; [0048], [0118] and [0121]); removing the three-dimensional green body and the platform (RA1) from the build chamber, wherein the three-dimensional green body is attached to the platform (RA1) (see Fig. 7;[0126-0129]). Mark discloses that the platform RA1(base plate) and the green body are made from the same material including a binder material such as Polyoxymethylene (POM) (see Fig. 6;[0114-0115], [0121],[0126] and [00178]). Furthermore, Mark discloses that forming the platform, and a desired part of the same material will reduce distortion in an additively manufactured part (see [0019]) and also promoting the same compaction/densification during sintering (see [0100] of Mark).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified process for the production of a three-dimensional green body as taught by Van der with forming the three-dimensional green body layer by layer on a base plate comprises the at least one binder and optionally the at least one inorganic powder; removing the three-dimensional green body and the platform (RA1) from the build chamber, wherein the three-dimensional green body is attached to the platform (RA1), wherein the at least one feedstock is at least one filament or at least one granulate, wherein the at least one filament or the at least one granulate comprises from 30 to 70 % by volume of the at least one inorganic powder (IP) and from 30 to 70 % by volume of the at least one binder (B), based on the total volume of the at least one filament or the at least one granulate, and the base plate (BP) comprises from 0 to 70 % by volume of the at least one inorganic powder (IP) and from 30 to 100 % by volume of the at least one binder (B), based on a total volume of the base plate (BP), as such is known in the art of 3d printing of green body given the discussion of Mark above, presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so will reduce distortion in an additively manufactured part and promoting the same compaction/densification during sintering.
Regarding claim 17, Van der in view of Mark teaches the process, wherein i) the at least one inorganic powder (IP) has a particle size of from 0.1 to 80 pm, and/or ii) the at least one inorganic powder (IP) is a powder of at least one inorganic material selected from the group consisting of a metal, a metal alloy and a ceramic material precursor, and/or iii) in step b), the at least one feedstock is heated to a temperature above a melting temperature of the at least one binder (B), and/or iv) the heating of the at least one feedstock according to step b) is carried out inside of the at least one nozzle (see Page 5, lines 25-30, Page 8, lines 9-11 and Page 31, lines 26-35 of Van der).
Regarding claim 18, Van der in view of Mark further teaches the process, wherein the at least one feedstock is at least one filament (see Page 3 lines 10-11 of Van der).
Regarding claim 19, Van der in view of Mark further teaches the process, wherein i) the at least one filament comprises from 30 to 70 % by volume of the at least one inorganic powder (IP) and from 30 to 70 % by volume of the at least one binder (B), based on the total volume of the at least one filament, and/or ii) the diameter of the at least one filament is 1.5 to 3.5 mm (see claim 1 and Example 1 of Van der).
Regarding claim 20, Van der in view of Mark further teaches the process, wherein the at least one filament comprises a core material coated with a layer of shell material (see Page 3, lines 10-11 of Van der), wherein the core material comprises from 30 to 70% by volume of the at least one inorganic powder and from 30 to 70% by volume of the at least one binder, based on the total volume of the core material (see Page 3, lines 15-20 of Van der), and the shell material comprises from 75 to 100% by volume of at least one thermoplastic polymer, from 0 to 20% by volume of the at least one inorganic powder and from 0 to 25% by volume of at least one additive, based on the total weight of the shell material (see Page 3, lines 25-33 and claim 1 of Van der).
Regarding claim 21, Van der in view of Mark further teaches the process, wherein i) the diameter of the at least one filament is 1.5 to 3.5 mm, and/or ii) the diameter of the core material is 1.3 to 3.0 mm, and/or iii) the thickness of the layer of shell material is 0.01 to 0.5 mm (see Page 5, lines 10-14 and Page 25, lines 26-36 and claim 5 of Van der), and/or iv) the at least one thermoplastic polymer of the shell material is selected from the group of polyoxymethylene, polyolefins, polyurethanes , polyamides , polyethers , polycarbonates , and/or polyesters , and/or v) the at least one additive of the shell material is selected from the group consisting of dispersants, stabilizers, pigments and tackifiers (see Page 27, lines 15-25 and claim 5 of Van der).
Regarding claim 25, Van der in view of Mark further teaches the process, wherein the at least one binder comprises b1) from 50 to 98 % by weight of the at least one polyoxymethylene based on the total weight of the at least one binder, b2) from 2 to 50 % by weight of at least one polyolefin based on the total weight of the at least one binder, b3) from 0 to 40 % by weight of at least one further polymer based on a total weight of the at least one binder (see pages 14-16 and claims 2-4 of Van der).
Regarding claim 26, Van der in view of Mark further teaches the process, wherein the further polymer is at least one further polymer 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 (see page 16, lies 15-20 of Van der).
Regarding claim 27, Van der in view of Mark further teaches the process, wherein the base plate (densification linking platform) has a thickness of from 0.5 to 20 mm, and/or is prepared by injection molding or by extrusion, preferably by injection molding (see [0062],[0100] and [0117] of Mark).
Regarding claim 28, Van der in view of Mark further teaches the process, wherein step e) is followed by steps f1) to h1)
f1) de-binding the base plate and the three-dimensional green body ached to the base plate, wherein a three-dimensional brown body is formed from the three-dimensional green body, g1) sintering the base plate (RA1) and the three-dimensional brown body(14) attached to the base plate, wherein a three-dimensional sintered body is formed from the three-dimensional brown body, and h1) separating the three-dimensional sintered body from the base plate (see Fig. 7 of Mark).
Regarding claim 29, Van der in view of Mark further teaches the process, wherein step e) is followed by steps f 2) to h2) f2) separating the three-dimensional green body from the base plate, g2) de-binding the three-dimensional green body, wherein a three- dimensional brown body is formed from the three-dimensional green body, and h2) sintering the three-dimensional brown body, wherein a three- dimensional sintered body is formed from the three-dimensional brown body (see Fig. 7; [0120] and [0127] of Mark).
Regarding claim 30, Van der in view of Mark further teaches the process, wherein the separating is carried out mechanically, preferably by breaking, sawing, milling, grinding and/or jiggering (see Page 8, lines 1-5 of Van der; [0108],[0115] and [0260] of Mark).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/2025 have been fully.
With respect to Applicant argument that Mark does not disclose a process wherein the green body is formed layer by layer on a base plate that is pre-existing and located in the build chamber. Rather, Mark discloses that the densification linking platform, e.g., raft or base plate, the part, and the supports are all printed together during the 3D printing process, rather than the base plate being a pre-existing component of the printer onto which the green body is formed, this argument is not found persuasive.
Examiner respectfully submits that the claim does not explicitly require the base plate to be a “pre-existing” or “permanent” part of the printer. The claim merely requires forming a three-dimensional green body on a base plate located in build chamber during printing process. Mark discloses printing green body on a linking platform/ base plate (RA1) located in a build chamber (see Figs. 6-7;[0126-0129]). Mark discloses removing the three dimensional green body and the platform (RA1) from the build chamber (see Fig. 7). This meet the claim limitation of “a base plate located in the build chamber”, regardless of whether it is pre-existing or printed as part of the process. Since Mark teaches a raft/base plate is formed in build chamber and function as a base plate for the 3D part, it satisfies the claim limitation. The applicant’s argument does not distinguish the claim over the combination of Van der in view of Mark and the obviousness rejection is maintained.
With respect to Applicant argument that the Office provides no sufficient rationale to the person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the disclosure of Mark in the process of Van Der, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner respectfully submits that Mark explicitly disclose the benefit of using a raffle/base plate printed in build chamber, including reducing distortion and promoting compaction and densification. These benefits are directly relevant to Van der’s process, which also aims to produce high-quality 3D parts. A POSITA would reasonably expect that incorporating Mark’s raft/base plate into Van der’s process would yield predictable improvement in parts quality, such as reduce distortion and better densification.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, both of Van der and Mark are directed to improve the quality and structure integrity of additively manufactured parts. Van der discloses a process for forming a 3D part, while mark teaches the use of a raft/base plate printed in the build chamber to reduce distortion and improve compaction and densification during sintering. These ae complimentary goals in additive manufacturing, and a POSITA would recognize that incorporating Mark’s raft/base plate into Van der’s process would achieve these shared objectives.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MOHAMED K AHMED ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-0347. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM-7:30 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/MOHAMED K AHMED ALI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743