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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 11/26/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/26/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/06/2023, 08/08/2023, 08/28/2023, 11/07/2023, 12/22/2023, 02/29/2024, 01/13/2025, 03/11/2025, and 02/11/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the unique invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (U.S. 2020/0346365; Cited in IDS of 03/06/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Wang et al. (hereinafter “Wang”) teaches cemented carbide powders for additive manufacturing (Title).
Specifically, Wang teaches that the powders are composed of 88 wt% tungsten carbide and 12% cobalt and produced by milling, spray drying, and sintering (Paragraphs 0034-0038). While the examples utilize 12 wt% Co (i.e. metallic binder), Wang teaches broadly that the metallic binder may be included in an amount of from 0.1 to 15% (Paragraph 0024) which overlaps the claimed range of 9 to 11 wt%. Alternatively, 12% Co would be considered to be reasonably close to the claimed upper bound of 11 wt%.
Table IV describes the chemistry, powder size distribution (D10, D50, and D90), porosity, and shape of the powders (Paragraph 0036 and Table IV). Wang teaches various powders including GU2 and CT3 (Table IV).
Powder GU2 (meeting claimed ‘first mode’) has a D50 of 37.5 micron (lies within the claimed range of D50 from 20 micron to 45 micron) while powder CT3 (meeting claimed ‘second mode’) has a D50 of 10.4 micron (lies within the claimed range of D50 from 5 to 20 micron).
These powders are combined into a bimodal powder mixture (Paragraph 0037 and Table V, Example/Batch 7) where 30% GU2 is combined with 70% CT3 which would provide a ratio of 30/70 = 0.42 which lies within the claimed range of 0.11-1.5 (i.e., 1/9 = 0.11 and 3/2 = 1.5).
Examiner notes the intended use language in the preamble of the claim “for binder jet printing”. This recitation is the intended use of the claimed powder composition and does not impart additional structure beyond that already recited by the body of the claim. See MPEP 2111.02.II.
Nevertheless, Wang teaches at Paragraph 0038 that cubes and transverse rupture bars were printed from the bimodal powder mixtures using a binder jetting machine; thus, the powder of Wang is for binder jet printing.
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches the composition as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches that the sintered cemented carbide particles comprise tungsten carbide and the metallic binder comprises cobalt (Paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches the composition as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches that the metallic binder may be included in an amount of from 0.1 to 15% (Paragraph 0024) which overlaps the claimed range of 9.5 to 10.5 wt%. Alternatively, 12% Co (from Paragraph 0034) would be considered to be reasonably close to the claimed upper bound of 10.5 wt% absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches the composition as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches that GU2 has a D10 of 8.1 micron (Table IV) which is outside of the claimed range requiring a D10 of from 10-25 micron. However, 8.1 microns is reasonably close to the claimed lower bound of 10. To be clear, it is a difference of 1.9 microns between the disclosed value of Wang’s GU2 powder and the lower bound of the claimed range.
It has been held that ‘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). In the instant case, the proportion are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches the composition as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches that GU2 has a D90 of 50 microns (Table IV) which lies within the claimed range of 25-55 micron.
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches the composition as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches that GU2 has a porosity of 0.9% (Table IV) which lies within the claimed range of ‘no more than 10 volume percent).
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches the composition as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches that the particles of GU2 are spherical (Table IV).
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches the composition as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches that CT3 has a D10 of 4.4 micron (Table IV) which lies within the claimed range of 1-10 micron.
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches the composition as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches that CT3 has a D90 of 16.8 micron (Table IV) which lies within the claimed range of 10-25 micron.
Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches the composition as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches that CT3 has a porosity of 5.5% (Table IV) which lies within the claimed range of ‘no more than 20 volume percent’.
Regarding claim 12, Wang teaches the composition as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches that the particles of CT3 are spherical (Table IV).
Regarding claim 13, Wang teaches the composition as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches that the ratio of GU2 to CT3 (i.e. Table IV Batch 7 30% GU2 and 70% CT3) is 0.42 which lies within the claimed range 0.2-0.55 (i.e., 1/5=0.2 and 11/20 = 0.55).
Regarding claim 14, Wang teaches the composition as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches that the ratio of GU2 to CT3 (i.e. Table IV Batch 7 30% GU2 and 70% CT3) is 0.42 which lies within the claimed range 0.33-1 (i.e., 1/3=0.33 and 1/1 = 1).
Regarding claim 15, Wang teaches the composition as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches that the powder composition has a tap density of 6.1 (Table V, Example/Batch 7) which lies within the claimed range of at least 4.0 g/cm3.
Regarding claim 16, Wang teaches the composition as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches that the powder composition has an apparent density of 4.6 (Table V, Example/Batch 7) which lies within the claimed range of at least 3.0 g/cm3.
Regarding claim 17, Wang teaches the composition as applied to claim 1 above and Table V, Example/Batch 7 is silent to a Hausner ratio but, the Hausner ratio is the ratio of tap density to apparent density. Thus, Batch 7 implicitly possesses a Hausner ratio of 1.32 which either meets the claimed upper bound of 1.3 (if rounded) or is reasonably close to the upper bound of 1.3 (in the event 1.32 is not rounded).
Regarding claim 18, Wang teaches the composition as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches that the powder composition has a theoretical density percentage of at least 99.0% (Paragraph 0031).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Ibe (U.S. 2017/0189960; Cited in IDS of 03/06/2023).
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches the composition as applied to claim 2 above but is silent to the sintered density of the powder composition.
Ibe teaches a powder material for powder additive manufacturing that is highly fluid (Paragraph 0017) and suitable for additive manufacturing like binder jetting (Paragraph 0004, 00013, and 0014) and specifically identifies that a WC/12%Co powdered material has a density of 14.31 (Paragraph 0119).
Thus, there is sufficient basis to presume that the sintered density of Wang’s WC-12Co powders is at least 14.3 and would be suitable for additive manufacturing due to its high fluidity, controlled particle dimensions, and desirable properties like strength, toughness, and workability of the powdered material.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 and 15-18 of copending Application No. 18/102,517 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim scope fully encompasses that of the reference application. Notably, the claim sets both utilize the open-ended transitional phrase ‘comprising’; thus, while the reference application includes a second mode of cemented carbide particles that are not spherical, the claims of the instant application permit an additional mode of cemented carbide particles that are not spherical. Put another way, the claims are not so limited such that the first and second modes of the applications are the same and exclusive of each other. Additionally, the ranges of the D50 value of the first mode are expressly overlapping.
The dependent claims (as included in the provisional rejection statement above) of both applications are substantially identical and do not patentably distinguish the scopes of the claimed inventions from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Liang et al. (U.S. 2003/0079565) directed to a hardfacing composition for rock bits that includes various disclosures regarding cemented carbide particles, particularly, having two or more different populations of different sizes that affords flexibility in the control of particle size distribution and better control/fine tuning of the desired properties (Paragraph 0044) where the proportions include populations that extend across various mesh sizes, Prichard et al. (U.S. 2018/0236687) directed to cemented carbide powders for additive manufacturing and wherein the Hausner ratio is tap density to apparent density (Paragraph 0011), and Maderud (WO 2017/178319) directed to a powder mixture for three dimensional printing of a cermet or cemented carbide having 65-85 wt% of a porous cemented carbide having a median particle size D50 of 10-35 micron and 15-35 wt% dense cemented carbide particles having a median particle size D50 of 3-10 microns such that, selecting 65 wt% of the porous particles and 35% of the dense particles would have the first particles and second particles provided in a ratio of 1.85 (i.e., 65/35 = 1.85) which is close to the upper bound of 1.5 (i.e. 3/2 = 1.5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA M MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-8502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm, 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, 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.
ALEXANDRA M MOORE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1738
/ALEXANDRA M MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738