Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-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
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on 10/29/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 – 5, 7, 9 – 27 remain pending. Claims 14 – 27 remain withdrawn. Claims 1 – 5, 7, 9 – 13 are under examination.
The amendments have overcome the previous rejections under 112(d). The rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1 – 5, 7, and 9 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfe (“Coarse Cemented Carbide produced via Binder Jetting 3D Printing”, NPL, 2022) as evidenced by GTP (“Additive Manufacturing”, NPL, 2023), and in further view of Prichard (US2020/0307018) and Global Tungsten Powders (“Tungsten Carbide – Cobalt Powder for Binder Jetting Printers”, NPL, 2022)
Regarding claims 1 – 3, 9, and 11, Wolfe teaches a coarse cemented carbide powder composition for binder jetting [title] and teaches a specific example wherein cobalt is 10 wt% as a metallic binder (meeting the claimed limitation of claim 1 and claim 2 and the claimed ranges of claim 1 and claim 3) with a tungsten carbide powder [Table 2, WC780A10]. Wolfe teaches that the powder is spherical [page 2, left col, bottom], meeting the claimed limitation of substantially spherical of claim 11.
Wolfe does not explicitly state the apparent density of the powder however, evidentiary reference GTP shows that the powder composition WC780A10 has an apparent density of 4 – 8 g/cm3, which overlaps with claimed range.
Wolfe teaches the powder contains a D50 of 20.3 µm which lies outside the stated claimed range of claim 1, and a D90 of 30.2 µm, which lies outside the stated claim range of claim 1 and claim 9 [Table 2, WC780A10]. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."(MPEP 2144.05 I).
Furthermore, as defined in [0041] of the specification, all numbers quantities of ingredients are modified by the term “about”.
Furthermore, both Wolfe (as evidenced by GTP) and the claimed invention possess an overlapping apparent/bulk density of about 4 to about 8 g/cm3 [0084], therefore, prima facie one skilled in the art would expect them (the claimed powder and the powder of Wolfe to possess the same properties).
Wolfe does not explicitly teach that the cemented carbide particles are sintered. Wolfe teaches a D10 of 13.4 µm which is outside the claimed range of claim 1 and does not teach a range of the D10.
Prichard teaches techniques for additive manufacturing [Title], including binder jetting [0004, 0007]. Prichard teaches using cemented carbide particles [0018], wherein the cemented carbide particle uses a metallic binder [0025] and possess an apparent density of at least 4 g/cm3 [0018]. The cemented carbide particles can have an average size range of 5 – 50 µm [Table IV] and the metallic binder can be cobalt [0025] in a range of 0.5 – 15% [Table V]. Prichard teaches that the cemented carbide particles are produced by at least a sintering step and milling of a sintering compact, followed by further heat treatment to control particle morphology [0021] including make the powder substantially spherical [0023]. Additionally, Prichard teaches that the individual particle density is 90 – 98% theoretical density (porosity 2 – 10%) [0020], which falls within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the cemented carbide powder for binder jetting of Wolfe and produced them by at least a sintering and milling step to produce a substantially spherical powder, as taught by Prichard. Given that both Wolfe and Prichard are directed to cemented carbide powders with metallic binder for binder jetting (i.e. same field of endeavor) with similar apparent densities, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Wolfe and Prichard to produce the powder of Wolfe via sintering-based method.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the cemented carbide powder for binder jetting of Wolfe and controlled the theoretical density to 90 – 98%, as taught by Prichard. Given that both Wolfe and Prichard are directed to cemented carbide powders with cobalt metallic binder for use in binder jetting additive manufacturing (i.e. same field of endeavor) with similar apparent densities, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Wolfe and Prichard to achieve predictable results (i.e. the powder of Wolfe with a porosity of 90 – 98%)
Wolfe teaches a D10 of 13.4 µm which is outside the claimed range of claim 1 and does not teach a range of the D10.
Global Tungsten Powders teaches a tungsten carbide – cobalt powder for binder jetting [page 5]. Global Tungsten Powders teaches a powder size distribution for a particular powder that includes a D90 of greater than 20 µm, and wherein the powder also possesses a D50 of 15 – 30 µm, and a D10 of 5 – 15 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range [AM WC702, Page 5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the powder composition of Wolfe as-modified by Prichard and controlled the D10 to 5 – 15 µm, as taught by Global Tungsten Powders. Given that both Wolfe and Global Tungsten Powders are directed tungsten carbide powders with cobalt metallic binder for binder jetting with an overlapping D50 and D90 size, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Wolfe and Global Tungsten Powders to achieve predictable results with no change in their respective functions.
In regards to the overlapping ranges taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed. Selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 4, Wolfe in view of Prichard and Global Tungsten Powders teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Wolfe teaches a D50 of 20.3 µm, which falls within the claimed range [Table 2, WC780A10].
Regarding claim 5, Wolfe in view of Prichard and Global Tungsten Powders teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Wolfe teaches a D50 of 20.3 µm which is outside the claimed range of claim 5 (12 – 16 µm) and does not teach a range of the D50.
Global Tungsten Powders teaches a tungsten carbide – cobalt powder for binder jetting [page 5]. Global Tungsten Powders teaches a powder size distribution for a particular powder that includes a D90 of greater than 20 µm, and wherein the powder also possesses a D50 of 15 – 30 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range, and a D10 of 5 – 15 µm [AM WC702, Page 5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the powder composition of Wolfe as-modified by Prichard and controlled the D50 to 15 – 30 µm, as taught by Global Tungsten Powders. Given that both Wolfe and Global Tungsten Powders are directed tungsten carbide powders with cobalt metallic binder for binder jetting with an overlapping D10 and D90 size, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Wolfe and Global Tungsten Powders to achieve predictable results with no change in their respective functions.
In regards to the overlapping ranges taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed. Selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 7, Wolfe in view of Prichard and Global Tungsten Powders teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Wolfe in view of Prichard and Global Tungsten Powders teaches D10 ranging from 5 – 15 µm, which overlap with the claimed range. Selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 10, Wolfe in view of Prichard and Global Tungsten Powders teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Prichard teaches that the individual particle density is 90 – 98% theoretical density (porosity 2 – 10%) [0020], which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claims 12 – 13, Wolfe in view of Prichard and Global Tungsten Powders teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Wolfe teaches an apparent density of 4 to 8 g/cm3 [0084]. However, Wolfe does not explicitly teach the tap density or Hausner ratio (the ratio of tap density to apparent/bulk density).
Prichard teaches that the tap density of sintered cemented carbide particles can be at least 5 g/cm3, which overlaps with the claimed range, and the Hausner ratio can be controlled to a range of 1.1 – 1.5 [0019], which overlaps with the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the cemented carbide powder of Wolfe and controlled the tap density and Hausner ratio to at least 5 g/cm3 and 1.1 – 1.5, respectively, as taught by Prichard. Given that both Wolfe and Prichard are directed to cemented carbide powders with metallic binder for binder jetting (i.e. same field of endeavor), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Wolfe and Prichard to achieve predictable results.
In regards to the overlapping ranges taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed. Selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Claims 1 – 5, 7, 9 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enneti (WO2021/072173, cited in the IDS of 03/06/23) in view of Wang (US2020/0346365, cited in IDS 03/06/23)
Regarding claim 1 – 3, 9 and 11, Enneti teaches densified spheroidized cemented carbide powders for binder jetting [Title, 0092]. Enneti teaches that the spheroidized cemented carbide particles are produced by sintering and then subjected plasma densification/spheroidization [00107 – 00109], meeting the claimed limitation of sintered cemented carbide particles and the claimed limitation of claim 11 that the particles are substantially spherical.
Enneti teaches that the densified spheroidized particles have tungsten carbide [0078] and a metallic binder phase [0079], of which the metallic binder phase can be cobalt [0082], meeting the claimed limitation of claim 2 of comprising tungsten carbide and the metallic binder comprising cobalt.
Enneti teaches that the densified spheroidized particles have a D90 from about 20 µm to about 40 µm microns, which overlaps with the claimed range of claim 1 and claim 9 [0083]. Enneti teaches an example with a D50 of 18.7 µm, which falls within the claimed range of claim 1 [Table 1].
Enneti teaches that the particles comprise about 10 wt% to about 15 wt% of metallic binder phase [Claim 6, 0079], which overlaps with the claimed range of claim 1 and claim 3.
Enneti teaches that the powder composition has a bulk density (i.e. apparent density) of about 4 to about 8 g/cm3, which overlaps with the claimed range [0084].
Enneti teaches an example in which the D10 is 10.8 µm [Table 1], which lies outside the stated upper bound of 10 µm of the claimed range of claim 1.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."(MPEP 2144.05 I)
Additionally, [0041] of the specification states that all numbers quantities of ingredients are modified by the term “about” and Enneti as well explicitly defines that each term is modified by the term “about” [0021].
Lastly, both Enneti and the claimed invention possess an overlapping apparent/bulk density of about 4 to about 8 g/cm3 [0084] and Enneti explicitly teaches that the powder used can achieve a final sintered body with a porosity classification of A00B00C00 [00102]. Therefore, prima facie one skilled in the art would expect them (the claimed powder and powder of Enneti) to possess the same properties.
Enneti discloses that the cemented carbide powder is subjected to sintering and then plasma densification/spheroidization [00107 – 00109], that during plasma densification/spheroidization the powders are densified by collapsing pores [0086], and that by controlling the power input to the plasma torch, the degree of spheroidization/densification of the granules was controlled [00109]. However, Enneti does not explicitly teach the particle porosity of the densified/spheroidized sintered cemented carbide particles.
Wang teaches cemented carbide powders for additive manufacturing [Title]. Wang teaches that the additive manufacturing can be binder jetting [0008] and cemented carbide particles comprise tungsten carbide [0022] and a metallic binder [0023]. Said cemented carbide particles are produced by sintering the particles [0019] and can be further heat treated by plasma densification/spheroidization treatment [0019]. Furthermore, Wang teaches that the average individual particle porosity is less than 5 vol% [0027], which overlaps with the claimed range, and that densification treatments can be administered any desired number of times to provide sintered cemented carbide particles with desired apparent densities, tap densities and/or individual particle densities [0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the cemented carbide powder of Enneti and controlled the average individual particle porosity to less than 5 vol%, as taught by Wang. Enneti and Wang are directed to the same field of endeavor of cemented carbide powders with metallic binder for binder jetting, wherein both powders of Enneti and Wang can be subjected to sintering and plasma densification/spheroidization. Furthermore, both of Enneti and Wang disclose attaining a final sintered body with a porosity classification of A00B00C00 [Enneti, 00102 and Wang, 0031] with said powders. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Enneti and Wang to achieve predictable results.
In regards to the overlapping ranges taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed. Selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 4, Enneti in view of Wang teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Enneti teaches an example with a D50 of 18.7 µm, which falls within the claimed range [Table 1].
Regarding claim 5, Enneti in view of Wang teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Enneti teaches examples in which the D50 is 18.7 µm [Table 1], which falls outside of the stated range of 12 – 16 µm. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."(MPEP 2144.05 I).
Additionally, as defined in [0041] of the specification, all numbers/quantities of ingredients are modified by the term “about” and Enneti as well explicitly defines that each term is modified by the term “about” [0021].
Lastly, both Enneti and the claimed invention of claim 5 possess an overlapping apparent/bulk density of about 4 to about 8 g/cm3 [0084] and Enneti explicitly teaches that the powder used can achieve a final sintered body with a porosity classification of A00B00C00 [00102]. Therefore, prima facie one skilled in the art would expect them (the claimed powder and powder of Enneti) to possess the same properties.
Regarding claim 7, Enneti in view of Wang teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Enneti teaches an example in which the D10 is 10.8 µm [Table 1], , which falls outside of the stated range of 7 – 9 µm. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."(MPEP 2144.05 I).
Moreover, as defined in [0041] of the specification, all numbers quantities of ingredients are modified by the term “about”. Additionally, Enneti also explicitly defines that each term is modified by the term “about” [0021].
Further still, both Enneti and the claimed invention of claim 5 possess an overlapping apparent/bulk density of about 4 to about 8 g/cm3 [0084] and Enneti explicitly teaches that the powder used can achieve a final sintered body with a porosity classification of A00B00C00 [00102]. Therefore, prima facie one skilled in the art would expect them (the claimed powder and powder of Enneti) to possess the same properties.
Regarding claim 10, Enneti in view of Wang teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Wang teaches that the average individual particle porosity is less than 5 vol% [0027], which overlaps with the claimed range. Selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enneti (WO2021/072173, cited in the IDS of 03/06/23) in view of Wang (US2020/0346365, cited in IDS 03/06/23), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Global Tungsten Powders (“Tungsten Carbide – Cobalt Powder for Binder Jetting Printers”, NPL, 2022)
Regarding claim 5, Enneti in view of Wang teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Enneti teaches a range for the D90 [0083]. Enneti teaches an example with a D50 of 18.7 µm [Table 1], which lies outside the claimed range, but does not disclose ranges for D50.
Global Tungsten Powders teaches a tungsten carbide – cobalt powder for binder jetting [page 5]. Global Tungsten Powders teaches a powder with a D90 of greater than 20 µm [AM WC702], and wherein the powder also possesses a D50 of 15 – 30 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range, and a D10 of 5 – 15 µm [AM WC702, Page 5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the powder composition of Enneti as-modified by Wang and controlled the D50 to 15 – 30 µm, respectively, as taught by Global Tungsten Powders. Given that both Enneti and Global Tungsten Powders are directed tungsten carbide powders for binder jetting with an overlapping D10, D50, and D90 size, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Enneti and Global Tungsten Powders to achieve predictable results.
In regards to the overlapping ranges taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed. Selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Claims 12 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enneti (WO2021/072173, cited in the IDS of 03/06/23) in view of Wang (US2020/0346365, cited in IDS 03/06/23), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Prichard (US2020/0307018)
Regarding claims 12 – 13, Enneti in view of Wang teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Enneti teaches an apparent density of about 4 to about 8 g/cm3 [0084]. Enneti does not explicitly teach the tap density or Hausner ratio (the ratio of tap density to apparent/bulk density).
Prichard teaches techniques for additive manufacturing [Title], including binder jetting [0004, 0007]. Prichard teaches an embodiment of using sintered cemented carbide particles [0018]. Prichard teaches that the sintered cemented carbide particle contains a metallic binder [0025] and an apparent density of at least 4 g/cm3 [0018]. Prichard teaches that the tap density of sintered cemented carbide particles can be at least 5 g/cm3, which overlaps with the claimed range, and the Hausner ratio can be controlled to a range of 1.1 – 1.5 [0019], which overlaps with the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the cemented carbide powder of Enneti as-modified by Wang and controlled the tap density and Hausner ratio to at least 5 g/cm3 and 1.1 – 1.5, respectively, as taught by Prichard. Given that both Enneti and Prichard are directed to sintered cemented carbide powders with metallic binder and similar apparent densities, that are used for binder jetting (i.e. same field of endeavor), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Enneti as-modified by Wang and Prichard to achieve predictable results.
In regards to the overlapping ranges taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed. Selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered.
In regards to the rejection under § 103 in view of Wolfe, Prichard, and Global Tungsten Powder, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art references do not render claim 1 obvious because an ordinarily skilled artisan would reasonably understand that Wolfe (and Global Tungsten Powder) would be produced by plasma spheroidization (applicant cites Enneti as evidence, see page 2, bottom of remarks). Applicant argues that the instant invention and Prichard are produced by double sintering and the properties of such cannot be inputted into the properties of the plasma spheroidization. Applicant argues that plasma spheroidization would necessarily result in the particles being fully dense. These arguments are not found persuasive. [Page 1 – 4, top].
First, Applicant provides no evidence to support the assertion that plasma spheroidization would necessarily result in fully dense particles. Moreover, applicant’s own specification (which has a powder of porosity ranging from 2 – 20 percent [0021]) states in [0026] that “The densities and individual particle porosities of the powder compositions disclosed herein can be achieved through one or several sintering processes administered to the particles.”, “Further heat treatment can include plasma densification, such as plasma spheroidization using an RF plasma torch or DC plasma torch.”, and “Further densification treatments can be administered any desired number of times to provide sintered cemented carbide particles desired apparent densities, tap densities and/or individual particle densities” (emphasis added). As such, applicant’s own specification acknowledges that plasma spheroidization can be used in producing powders of the instant invention.
Further still, Prichard also states [0021] “Further heat treatment can include plasma densification, such as plasma spheroidization using an RF plasma torch or DC plasma torch.” and “Further densification treatments can be administered any desired number of times to provide sintered cemented carbide particles desired apparent densities, tap densities and/or individual particle densities” and teaches that the individual particle density is 90 – 98% theoretical density (porosity 2 – 10%) [0020], which falls within the claimed range.
As such, applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that Wolfe provides no teaching or suggestion of a D10, D50, or D90 range, that Wolfe’s disclosed examples are outside the claimed ranges, and that Wolfe teaches away from smaller particles because they would affect good flowability [Page 4, bottom – Page 6]. This is not found persuasive. As further evidence that the application of the D10 and D50 range of AM WC702 powder disclosed in Global Tungsten Powders to Wolfe would achieve predictable results, Wolfe states that the flowability of the powders is <20 s/200 g [Section 4, Summary] and Global Tungsten Powders states that the AM WC702 powder has a Carney flowability of <20 s/200g. As such, applicant’s assertion that Wolfe teaches away from smaller particles for flowability purposes is not persuasive.
In regards to the rejection under § 103 in view of Enneti and Wang, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have a reasonable expectation of success in applying the teachings of Wang to those of Enneti because Enneti teaches producing powder by plasma spheroidization which forms fully dense particles.
This is not found persuasive. Applicant provides no evidence to support the allegation that the application of plasma spheroidization necessarily results in fully dense particles.
Moreover, Enneti states “By controlling the power input to the plasma torch, the degree of spherodization/densification of the granules was controlled” [00109] and Wang states “Depending on particle morphology and density, the sintered cemented carbide particles can be further heat treated for further densification. Further heat treatment can include plasma densification, such as plasma spheroidization using an RF plasma torch or DC plasma torch.” and “Further densification treatments can be administered any desired number of times to provide sintered cemented carbide particles desired apparent densities, tap densities and/or individual particle densities.” [0019]. As such, the prior art reasonable suggests that densification of cemented carbide can be controlled in plasma spheroidization and applicant’s assertion that particles subjected to the process are necessarily fully dense and cannot have porosity is not found persuasive.
Moreover, as noted above, applicant’s own specification (which has a powder of porosity ranging from 2 – 20 percent [0021]) states in [0026] that “The densities and individual particle porosities of the powder compositions disclosed herein can be achieved through one or several sintering processes administered to the particles.”, “Further heat treatment can include plasma densification, such as plasma spheroidization using an RF plasma torch or DC plasma torch.”, and “Further densification treatments can be administered any desired number of times to provide sintered cemented carbide particles desired apparent densities, tap densities and/or individual particle densities”. As such, applicant’s own specification acknowledges that plasma spheroidization can be used producing powders of the instant invention.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 Austin M Pollock whose telephone number is (571)272-5602. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (11 - 8 ET).
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.
/AUSTIN POLLOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738