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 Acknowledged
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 01/07/2023 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
Eight (8) information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) were submitted on 03/05/2023, 08/08/2023, 08/28/2023, 11/07/2023, 12/22/2023, 02/29/2024, 01/16/2025, and 03/04/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS are being considered by the examiner.
Objection to the Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
With respect to claim 14, the limitation reciting that the first mode is greater than 25 percent by weight to less than 40 percent by weight of the sintered cemented carbide body is not found in the specification as originally filed. At para. [0028], the specification states that the first mode particles may be present in the powder composition in an amount of greater than 60 weight percent. This range exceeds the upper limit of the claimed range. At para. [0035], the specification states that second mode particles may be greater than 25 percent by weight of the powder composition. Note that this range is associated with the second mode particles, not first mode particles. It should further be noted that the aforementioned powder particle proportions are associated with the powder composition, not a sintered cemented carbide body. Thus, the specification fails to provide antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13 and 14 are 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.
Regarding claim 13, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the sintered cemented carbide body” in the claim. Parent claim 1 is directed to a powder composition, not a sintered body, and claim 1 does not mention a sintered body.
Further regarding claim 13, the claim is indefinite because it recites numerically mutually exclusive ranges. The claim recites that the first mode is “greater than 60 to less than 40” percent by weight of the sintered cemented carbide body. However, the first mode particles cannot be simultaneously greater than 60% and less than 40% because these ranges are opposite one another.
For examination purposes, the first mode particles will be interpreted to be present in amounts of (i) less than 40%; (ii) greater than 60%; or (iii) between 40% and 60% inclusive of endpoints. However, appropriate correction is still required.
Regarding claim 14, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the sintered cemented carbide body” in the claim. Parent claim 1 is directed to a powder composition, not a sintered body, and claim 1 does not mention a sintered body.
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 US 2020/0346365 (A1) to Wang et al. (“Wang”).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 12, Wang discloses a cemented carbide powder composition comprising sintered cemented carbide particles having at least a bimodal particle size distribution (powder composition comprising sintered cemented carbide particles comprising a first mode and a second mode). Abstract; para. [0001], [0003].
One mode is a first mode (corresponds to claimed first mode) of sintered cemented carbide particles having a D50 particle size of 25 µm to 50 µm (para. [0016]), which overlaps the claimed range. The first mode particles are spherical. Para. [0020].
The other mode is a second mode (corresponds to claimed second mode) of sintered cemented carbide particles having a D50 of less than 10 µm (para. [0017]), which overlaps the claimed range. The second mode particles have a non-spherical or irregular-shaped particle morphology. Para. [0021].
The metallic binder is present in the sintered cemented carbide particles in an amount of 0.1-15 weight percent (para. [0024]), which encompasses the claimed range.
The overlap between the ranges taught in the prior art and recited in the claims creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select from among the prior art ranges because there is utility over an entire range disclosed in the prior art.
With respect to the limitation “for binding jet printing,” this limitation will not be accorded patentable weight because it is merely an intended use of the powder composition and does not structurally or chemically limit the powder. See MPEP § 2111.02(II). In any case, Wang discloses that the powder may be used in binder jetting build processes. Para. [0008], [0028].
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses that the carbide may be tungsten carbide. Para. [0022]. The metallic binder can be cobalt. Para. [0024].
Regarding claim 4, Wang discloses that the metallic binder is present in the sintered cemented carbide particles in an amount of 0.1-15 weight percent (para. [0024]), which encompasses the claimed range. A specific sub-range is 5-12 wt.% (Table IV), which encompasses the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Wang discloses example D10 values of 29.1 µm and 8.1 µm for GU1 and GU2 spherical powders (first mode) in Table IV. Since both are powders used in embodiments of Wang’s invention (Table V – Batch numbers 1-4), these D10 values reasonably imply a D10 range of 8.1 µm to 29.1 µm, which encompasses the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses example D90 values of 49.5 µm and 50.0 µm for powders GU1 and GU2, respectively, of spherical powders (first mode) (Table IV), which fall within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, Wang discloses the first mode as having an average individual particle porosity of less than 5 vol. % (para. [0004], [0006], [0016], [0018]), which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, Wang discloses example D10 values of 1.8 µm and 0.9 µm for powders CT1 and CT2, respectively, of non-spherical powders (second mode) (Table IV), which fall within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, Wang discloses example D90 values of 14.0 µm and 13.5 µm for powders CT1 and CT2, respectively, of non-spherical powders (second mode) (Table IV), which fall within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 11, Wang discloses the second mode as having an average individual particle porosity of less than 5 vol. % (para. [0004], [0006], [0016], [0018]), which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 13, Wang discloses that the first mode is present in the powder composition (and therefore in the sintered body made from the powder composition) in an amount of 60-80 weight percent (para. [0017], [0031]; claims 9 and 14), which overlaps the claimed range (“greater than 60 weight percent”).
Regarding claim 14, Wang discloses an example where first mode particles (GU1 or GU2) is 35% of the powder composition (and therefore in the sintered body made from the powder composition) (Table V – Batch number 4; para. [0031]), which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 15, Wang discloses example tap densities that meet or exceed 6.5 g/cm3. Table V – Batch numbers 2, 3, and 4.
Regarding claim 16, Wang discloses that the powder composition has an apparent density ranging from 3.5 g/cm3 to 8 g/cm3 (abstract; para. [0026]), which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 17, Wang discloses example tap densities of 6.1 g/cm3, 8.4 g/cm3, 6.5 g/cm3, and 7.2 g/cm3 in Table V (Batch numbers 2, 3, and 4). The apparent density ranges from 3.5 g/cm3 to 8 g/cm3 (abstract; para. [0026]), with some embodiments being 5 g/cm3 to 6 g/cm3 (para. [0015]). It follows that an example calculated Hausner ratio (ratio of tap density to apparent density) is 1.22, which falls within the claimed range, when the tap density is 6.1 g/cm3 and the apparent density is 5 g/cm3.
Regarding claim 18, Wang discloses that the powder, when sintered, exhibits densities greater than 98% theoretical full density (para. [0031]; claims 25 and 32), which encompasses the claimed range.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, as applied to claim 1 above, alone, with evidence from US 2017/0189960 (A1) to Ibe (“Ibe”).
Regarding claim 3, Wang does not explicitly disclose the claimed density range. However, Wang discloses that the powder, when sintered, exhibits densities greater than 98% theoretical full density. Para. [0031]; claims 25 and 32. The density of WC/12% by mass Co is 14.31 g/mL (14.31 g/cm3). Ibe at para. [0119]. Example powders in Wang are WC-12Co. Thus, Wang discloses that the sintered density of at least the WC-12Co powders is at least 14.02 g/cm3, which overlaps the claimed range.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0161837 (A1) to Maderud et al. (“Maderud”).
Regarding claim 5, Wang does not explicitly disclose the claimed D10 range.
Maderud is drawn to cemented carbide particles comprising particles with different median (D50) sizes (multi-modal). Abstract; para. [0011], [0012]. The powder mixture is suited for making a three-dimensional printed cermet or cemented carbide with a homogeneous composition with a minimum of pores. Para. [0008]. For the spherical-shaped particles, example D10 values are 22.7 µm and 10.9 µm for PP1 and PP2 (Table 1), respectively, which fall within the claimed range.
Wang discloses that the milling step for producing the cemented carbide particles can be conducted until a desired particle size distribution is reached. Para. [0020]. This suggests that particle size distribution can be selected or modified as needed. Given that theoretical full density and uniform microstructure of sintered articles are concerns (Wang at para. [0031]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have looked to documents within the field of cemented carbide particles, such as Maderud, and incorporated the D10 particle size distribution therein for the spherical particles (first mode) of Wang because it would satisfy Wang’s objectives of homogeneous and dense articles.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0236687 (A1) to Prichard et al. (“Prichard”).
Regarding claim 17, Wang does not explicitly disclose the claimed Hausner ratio range (ratio of tap density to apparent density).
Prichard is directed to powder particle compositions for additive manufacturing processes. Abstract; para. [0001]. The powders are cemented carbide powders that can be used in binder jetting processes. Para. [0004], [0019]. The tap density is at least 7 g/cm3. Para. [0011]. The apparent density is at least 6 g/cm3. Para. [0010]. The Hausner ratio of the sintered cemented carbide particles is 1.05 to 1.25. Para. [0011].
Wang discloses that the densification treatments for making sintered cemented carbide particles can be administered any number of times to reach desired tap and apparent densities. Para. [0019]. This suggests that tap and apparent densities, and therefore Hausner ratio, can be selected or modified as needed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have looked to documents within the field of cemented carbide particles, such as Prichard, and incorporated the Hausner ratio for the powder composition of Wang because it would satisfy Wang’s objectives of making powders useable in an additive manufacturing process.
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 1-11 and 15-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 and 15-18 of copending Application No. 18/102,484 in view of Wang.
The limitations, including ranges, of instant claim 1 are disclosed in at least overlapping amounts in copending claim 1. The claims differ in that copending claim 1 does not specify the shape of the first mode and second mode particles.
Wang is directed to bimodal sintered cemented carbide powder particles. Abstract; para. [0001], [0003]. The first mode particles are spherical. Para. [0020]. The second mode particles have a non-spherical or irregular-shaped particle morphology. Para. [0021]. The bimodal size and shape distribution appears to produce low-porosity printed articles. Table VI – Samples 1-6. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the first and second mode particle morphologies according to Wang in order to improve the densities and properties of the finished article.
With respect to instant claims 2-11 and 15-18, each limitation is recited verbatim or in overlapping amounts in copending claims 2-11 and 15-18.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANESSA T. LUK whose telephone number is (571)270-3587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Keith D. Hendricks, can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
/VANESSA T. LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
February 05, 2026