DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/11/26 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
As is apparent from prosecution history, applicants and the Examiner are unable to agree on claim interpretation and the teachings in the prior art versus the claims. The Examiner is confident in the validity of the prior art rejections in the earlier office actions; however, in an effort to try to move this case forward instead of rehashing the same issues, the Examiner has opted to make the following new grounds of rejection that might better address applicants’ remarks.
As a reminder the Examiner notes that applicants define a reversible binder as
one that holds together sinterable particles as a green body and supports the green body while it is sintered. See the specification, paragraph 9. Also note that this para-graph indicates that the binder “may” decompose such that decomposing is not a clear requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
It is unclear what breadth to give the term “about” in this claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 10, 11, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. 2019/02.
Zhu et al. teach a ceramic foam filter which is formed from a mixture of a binder and a sinterable powder. One teaching of the powder can be found in paragraph 14 and it is a mixture of silicon carbide, zirconium oxide and silicon oxide. This meets the claimed requirement of one or more sinterable powders in claim 10. The binder is taught in paragraph 22, among other locations, and meets the claimed reversible binder. See for instance paragraphs 25 to 27 and 105 to 115, among other teachings, that confirm that the binder in Zhu et al. holds the particles together when forming a green body, prior to sintering.
In this manner claim 10 is anticipated by Zhu et al.
For claim 11, note that the powders are all different such that it follows that they will sinter differently. This is particular evident since the powders include a mixture of metal oxides and carbide.
For claim 17, note that the binder is removed during sintering at very high temp-eratures which meets this requirement.
For claim 18 note that silicon oxide is an alumino-silicate precursor.
Claims 10, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Natarajan et al. 2018/0071820.
Natarajan et al. teach a reversible binder for use in binder jetting. See the title.
As found in paragraph 4, this includes a metal powder layer that has been applied to a working surface, followed by applying a reversible binder into the metal powder. This process results in a composition of matter for use in a binder jet that includes both a reversible binder and a sinterable powder. In this manner claim 10 is anticipated by Natarajan et al.
For claim 17, note that a reversible binder sublimates during sintering. Also see paragraphs 18 to 20 which refer to the removal of the binder during sintering.
For claim 18, see paragraph 20 which refers to the formation of metal oxide dur-ing sintering. Also, with the knowledge that metal particles do not melt during sintering, the skilled artisan would recognize that the reversible binder decomposes at a tempera-ture less than, but about, the melting temperature of the metal.
Claims 10 to 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abels et al. 2006/0163774.
Abels et al. teach a composition for forming a green body and sintering that is comprised of metal and/or ceramic particles. See paragraphs 36 to 44. Paragraph 41 specifically refers to binding the sinterable particles together with the organic binder, confirming that this binder is “reversible”. See also paragraph 72. This meets the requirements of claim 10.
For claims 11 and 12, see paragraphs 36 and 37, teaching metal and ceramic particles, as well as paragraph 38 which specifically refers to metal and/or ceramic such that the skilled artisan would have immediately anticipated a combination of powders that sinter differently, particularly a mixture of metal and ceramic.
For claim 13, note paragraphs 143 and 151 specifically refers to heat treatment in an oxidizing atmosphere that forms an oxidized layer..
For claims 14 to 16, note that both aluminum and steel are disclosed as useful metallic particles such that the formation of alumina and steel carbide would have been expected to necessarily result from a composition that is the same a claimed and under-goes processing (sintering) as claimed.
Note also that paragraph 37 teaches various metal carbides and nitrides. While the Examiner acknowledges that they are present as particles, the resulting product of a metal silicide, boride or nitride meets the requirement of this claim after reaction with the binder.
As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.
When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that applicants’ product and the prior art are the same, applicants have the burden of showing that they are not. Note that the Patent Office does not have the ability to recreate compositions and determine the properties associated therewith.
For claim 17, see paragraph 143 which refers to the removal of the binder by evaporation or decomposing.
For claim 18 note that above regarding the formation of an oxide during sintering. Also see paragraph 105 which teaches melting/vaporizing the binder without melting the particles. This would correspond to a temperature that is less than but “about” the same as that of the powder.
For claim 19, see the ceramics in paragraph 37 that include aluminum oxide (an alumina or aluminum nitride precursor) and titanium oxide (a titanate precursor). See also paragraph 36 which teaches titanium and aluminum which are also precursors of the materials claimed.
Conclusion
Applicants remarks have been considered but, in view of the new grounds of rejection, they are not persuasive of novelty and unobviousness.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1090. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 10 am to 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Heidi Kelly, can be reached at 571-270-1831.
Mgm
6/22/26
/MARGARET G MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights