Claim Interpretation
Please note that the language found in claim 13, as well as others, limits the composition to what occurs during sintering. Even in view of the amendment to claim 10 dated 1/27/26, sintering does not occur. The claims are directed to a composition and not a method of sintering or a sintered product. This language reflects a future concept that has not yet occurred.
The Examiner also notes that the language “configured to… during sintering”
also does not require that sintering occur. This is a limitation that only further limits the reversible binder. For instance, the composition itself need not be a green body.
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 10 to 13 and 15 to 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rajan et al. 5,130,206.
This rejection is maintained from the previous office action.
Rajan et al. teach a coating composition comprising a particulate alloy of steel
and a glass ceramic suspended in a binder. See for instance column 1, lines 45 to 55. Note that the binder burns off, which meets the limitation of a reversible binder as well as the term sublimates in claim 17. See column 3, line 54.
Particularly see column 2, line 65, through the top of column 3 which teaches a stainless steel powder. This meets the sinterable or metal powder in claims 10 to 13 and 15.
See column 3, lines 18 to 27, which teaches a ceramic powder that meets the sinterable or ceramic powder in claims 10 to 12 and 19. Alumina in the ceramic powder is a ceramic precursor to aluminum oxide and, combined with silica, the precursor in Rajan et al. is a ceramic precursor of alumino-silicate.
The composition is subsequently sintered. This anticipates the limitations in each of claims 10 to 12 and 15 to 19.
Note that reactions that inherently occur in the future of the claimed composition (such as in claim 13) would be expected to occur in the composition since the reactants and/or components and the sintering in the claims are the same as those disclosed in Rajan et al.
In this manner each of these claims are anticipated.
For the new language “configured to hold… ” which defines the reversible binder, the Examiner notes that this language must be read in light of the specification. To determine what a polymer that is “configured to hold…” embraces, the Examiner looked to applicants’ specification. Paragraph 44 teaches that the binder can be polymethyl methacrylate or a polyvinyl alcohol. These polymers are used in an unmodified form and it follows that polymethyl methacrylate and polyvinyl alcohol meet the “configured to hold… ” requirement. The polymeric binder in Rajan et al. can be polymethyl methacryl-ate or a polyvinyl alcohol. See column 3, lines 55 and 56.
In this manner, at the least, this limitation is met by Rajan et al.
Claims 10 to 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Behi et al. 6,262,150.
Behi et al. teach a molding binder composition that contains at least one metal
powder, at least one ceramic powder or a combination thereof and a polysaccharide binder. See the top of column 2. The specific teaching of a combination of ceramic and metal powder anticipates the powder in claims 10 to 12. The binder burns away during sintering (column 3, line 8) which meets the requirement of reversible and sublimate.
Behi et al. teach various ceramics and metals, including steel and aluminum, in column 3, line 40 to the top of column 4. This meets the powders in claims 13 to 15.
Note too that the ceramics such as the titanates, nitrides, silicides and borides (column 3, lines 45 to 63) are precursors to silicates, nitrides, titanates and boron which meet claim 19.
In view of this the limitations of claims 10 to 17 are anticipated.
Any interaction that occurs between the reversible binder and the metal powder, such as in claims 13 to 16, will be expected to inherently occur in view of the fact that the compositions are identical and products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.
Regarding the newly added language “configured to hold… during sintering” note that the bottom of column 2 through line 10 of column 3 teaches that the binder and sin-terable particles are mixed to form a green body that is subsequently sintered, with the binder decomposing. This meets the newly added language.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive
Regarding the Rajan et al. rejection, applicants appear to be of the position that the coating in Rajan et al. is not a green body.
On one hand, as noted supra, it is not the claimed composition that is a green body but the binder which is configured to function in such a manner. As noted supra, the binders in Rajan et al. are the same as those embraced by the claimed binder. This property will be met by the binder in Rajan et al.
Furthermore, see column 4, lien 48, which refers to the coating as a green coat-ing, indicating that the binder holds the particles together.
On the other hand, applicants appear to believe that ”green body” distinguishes the claims from the green coating in Rajan et al. The instant specification does not provide a specific, intentional definition for green body so the Examiner must rely on that which is conventional.
For instance, below are two definitions of green body:
A green body is an unfired ceramic object, typically composed of clay or powdered ceramic material, formed into a desired shape before it undergoes sintering or firing.
A green body is an object whose main constituent is weakly bound clay material, usually in the form of bonded powder or plates before it has been sintered or fired.
While an object is defined as
Anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.
Considering this, there is nothing that requires a green body to be the structural bulk
of a self-supporting article. There is nothing that suggests that a green coating cannot be a green body. As such these arguments are not persuasive.
Applicants rely on the limitations in claim 10 for the patentability of the dependent claims and as such these claims remain rejected for reasons of record.
For the rejection of Behi, applicants state that the manner of producing the green body in Behi is different from applicants’. This is not persuasive because it is not the manner of producing a green body that is under examination.
Behi may not use the specific language found in the claims but the actual compo-sitions are the same. 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. If applicants are of the position that the prior art does not, in fact, possess the same properties as the claimed composition, the claimed composition should be amended to distinguish itself from the prior art.
Finally, arguments regarding the formation of a self-supporting green body, followed
by controlled binder decomposition during sintering, are not limitations or factors in determining the novelty of the claimed composition. The Examiner notes that these arguments highlight the reason for the previous restriction requirement.
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 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.
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 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.
Mgm
3/7/26
/MARGARET G MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765