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 .
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.
Priority
This application has PRO 63/203,668 07/27/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), filed on 07/27/22, 01/10/23, and 05/08/24 have been considered. Please refer to Applicant's copy of the 1449 submitted herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of 1. One polymeric binder: a cellulose based polymer 2. One specific thixotropic additive: an amide 3. One dispersant: an organic polymer 4. One anti-cracking additive: an ethoxylated fatty alcohol 5. One first metal powder: an iron based alloy 6. One second metal powder: an iron powder 7. One third metal powder: a high alloy steel 8. One shape: a spheroidal shape 9. One ceramic powder: a metal oxide in the reply filed on 07/03/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-22 are pending as amended on 07/03/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (US 2015/0249167).
Regarding claims 1-7, Zhang discloses a paste composition for additive manufacturing (para [0054], [0059]) comprising organic vehicle, solvent such as ethanol (boiling point 78 0C), a polymeric binder such as ethyl cellulose, a thixotropic agent such as silica, oxidized polyethylene wax, or amide functional organic oil or wax, and dispersant such as organopolysiloxane, wherein one or more metal powder is dispersed in the organic vehicle (para [0024], [0045], [0047], [0049], [0052]), meeting the requirements of claims 1-7.
Regarding claims 9-10, applicants in specification (para [0153]-[0154]) discloses the Zhang discloses “the thixotropic additive, or thixotrope, allows for control of the rheology of the paste. A relatively low viscosity can be beneficial for flow through a 3D print nozzle and reflow upon deposition of the paste on the substrate, thereby allowing for a printed layer with uniform thickness, smooth surface and reduced defects. A relatively high viscosity can avoid settling of particles in the paste during storage and can be useful for printing 3D features with vertical or negative slope walls. For example, the paste can be stable for 1 week, 1 month, 6 months or more than 6 months, with no discernible settling of particles. The use of the thixotropic additive provides both a reduced viscosity at high shear due to shear thinning during printing and an increased viscosity at low shear before and after deposition of the paste, thereby allowing for reduced or no settling of the particles in the paste and the formation of a 3-dimensional object.” Thus, the role of thixotropic additive is important in maintaining the stability. Since, Zhang discloses same paste composition containing same organic vehicle and thixotropic additive as instantly claimed, the properties such as stability and/or viscosity would inherently be same as instantly claimed. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I) , In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985), In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934).
Regarding claims 11, 19, Zhang discloses one or more metal powder comprising a first, second, and third metal powder such as aluminum, silver, copper, nickel, platinum, gold, or allows of any of forgoing, or mixtures thereof (para [0049]).
Regarding claim 20, Zhang discloses one or more metal powder comprising spherical shape (para [0049]).
Regarding claim 21, Zhang discloses SiO.sub.2, B.sub.2O.sub.3, Al.sub.2O.sub.3, Bi.sub.2O.sub.3, MgO, Sb.sub.2O.sub.3, PbO, CaO, BaO, ZnO, Na.sub.2O, Li.sub.2O, K.sub.2O, ZrO.sub.2, TiO.sub.2, IrO.sub.2, SnO.sub.2 and combinations thereof (para [0050]).
Claims 1-3, 9-12, 14, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi (US 2013/0139873).
Regarding claims 1-3, Choi discloses a paste composition for solar cell (para [0006]) comprising organic vehicle, solvent having boiling point 120 0C, a polymeric binder such as ethyl cellulose, a thixotropic agent, and dispersant, wherein one or more metal powder is dispersed in the organic vehicle (para [0007], [0034], [0037], [0070]-[0075]), meeting the requirements of claims 1-3.
Regarding claims 9-10, since, the composition requirement is met, the properties such as stability and/or viscosity would inherently be same as instantly claimed. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I) , In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985), In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934).
Regarding claims 11-12, 14, 19, Choi discloses one or more metal powder comprising a first, second, and third metal powder such as silver (Ag), gold (Au), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), cobalt (Co), aluminum (Al), tin (Sn), lead (Pb), zinc (Zn), iron (Fe), iridium (Ir), osmium (Os), rhodium (Rh), tungsten (W), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni), and magnesium (Mg) powder, wherein the conductive powder may be used alone or as a mixture or alloy of two or more kinds thereof. (para [0007]-[0023], [0034]).
Regarding claim 20, Choi discloses one or more metal powder comprising spherical shape (para [0007]-[0023]).
Regarding claim 21, Choi discloses PbO, ZnO, SiO.sub.2, Al.sub.2O.sub.3, Ta.sub.2O.sub.5, P.sub.2O.sub.5, ZrO.sub.2, Bi.sub.2O.sub.3, B.sub.2O.sub.3, Fe.sub.2O.sub.3, Cr.sub.2O.sub.3, Co.sub.2O.sub.3, and MnO.sub.2. (para [0064]).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang or Choi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Patton (US 2008/0261321).
Zhang or Choi includes the features of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang or Choi does not disclose anti-cracking additive such as ethoxylated fatty alcohol.
However, Patton discloses a composition for solar cell comprising polyoxyethylene 10-oleyl ether, polyoxyethylene-10-dodecyl ether, to reduce any cracking (para [0063], [0067]). Patton and Zhang or choi are pertinent to solar cell.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of invention, to modify Zhang or Choi with polyoxyethylene 10-oleyl ether, polyoxyethylene-10-dodecyl ether, as taught by Patton. The rationale to do so would have been motivation provided by of Patton that to do so reduce any cracking.
Claims 13, 15-16, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi as applied to claim 1 above.
Choi includes the features of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 13, Choi discloses metal powder has average particle diameter (D50) of greater than 1.5 µm (para [0052]), encompassing claimed range of between 10 and 20 µm. It is well-settled that where 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, 267 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 15, Choi discloses metal powder has average particle diameter (D50) of about 2 µm to about 3.5 µm (para [0047]), overlapping claimed range of from 3 µm to 8 µm. It is well-settled that where 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, 267 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 16, Choi discloses metal powder (B) in amount of about 3 wt% to about 8 wt% (para [0049]), fall into claimed range of about 1 to 50 % by volume (wt. approx. vol.).
Regarding claim 22, Choi discloses the metals particles in an amount of 60 to 90 wt% (para [0035]), close enough to claimed about 30% to 60 % by volume. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Choi is sufficient to form a prime facie case of obviousness that reads on claim 22.
(CCPA 1976).
14. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang or Choi as applied to claims 1, 20 above, and further in view of Hardin (US 2017/ 0145224).
Zhang or Choi includes the features of claims 1, 20 above.
Regarding claim 20, Zhang or Choi discloses spherical shape but does not disclose the spheroidal shape (elected species).
However, Hardin discloses a paste composition for solar cell, wherein the composition comprises organic vehicle comprising solvent, binder, and thixotropic agent, wherein one or more metal powder is dispersed in the organic vehicle, wherein the shape of the metal powder is spherical and functionally equivalent spheroidal (para [0003], [0053], [0112], [0116]). Hardin and Zhang or choi are pertinent to paste composition for solar cell, wherein the composition comprises organic vehicle comprising solvent, binder, and thixotropic agent, wherein one or more metal powder is dispersed in the organic vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used the spheroidal shape of metal powder of the claims in the composition of Zhang or Choi because Hardin teaches that the claimed the spheroidal shape and the spherical shape of Zhang or Choi are functionally equivalent and it is prima facie obvious to substitute art-recognized functional equivalents known for the same purpose, see MPEP § 2144.06; In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 1 above.
Zhang includes the features of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 22, Zhang discloses the metals particles in an amount of 60 to 90 wt% (para [0049]), close enough to claimed about 30% to 60 % by volume. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Zhang is sufficient to form a prime facie case of obviousness that reads on claim 22.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Closest prior arts are Zhang (US 2015/0249167), Choi (US 2013/0139873), Patton (US 2008/0261321), and Hardin (US 2017/ 0145224).
Claim 17 require the one or more powders further comprises a third metal powder, wherein the first metal powder comprises a low alloy steel comprising less than 8% alloying elements by weight based on the total weight of the low alloy steel, and wherein the third metal powder comprise a high alloy steel comprising from 8% to 50% alloying elements by weight based on the total weight of the high alloy steel; and claim 18 depends from claim 17.
The closest prior arts do not suggest or discloses claimed one or more powders further comprises a third metal powder, wherein the first metal powder comprises a low alloy steel comprising less than 8% alloying elements by weight based on the total weight of the low alloy steel, and wherein the third metal powder comprise a high alloy steel comprising from 8% to 50% alloying elements by weight based on the total weight of the high alloy steel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUMAR R BHUSHAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4807. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00 AM to 5.50 PM (EST).
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, RANDY P GULAKOWSKI can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/KUMAR R BHUSHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766