DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-34 are pending. Of the pending claims, claims 1-18 and 34 are presented for examination on the merits, and claims 19-33 are withdrawn from examination.
Claims 1, 13, and 14 are currently amended. Claims 20, 21, 29, 30, and 32 are withdrawn-currently amended. Claim 34 is new.
Information Disclosure Statement
One (1) information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was submitted on 02/11/2026. The IDS submitted on 05/01/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final Office action on 02/17/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS are being considered by the examiner.
Status of Previous Objection to the Specification
The previous objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 14.
Status of Previous Claim Rejections Under 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
Status of Previous Double Patenting Rejection
The previous obviousness-type double patenting rejection over co-pending Application No. 18/102,484 is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims in the co-pending application (see claim set filed 06/03/2026) and the amendments to the claims of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 34, the limitation reciting that the second mode average individual particle porosity is no less than 13% is new matter because the specification does not disclose this range. A porosity of “no less than 13%” is equivalent to a range of 13% or more. A range of 13% or more includes values such as 23%, 30%, 47%, etc. However, the specification does not disclose such values. In Table 1, F1, which corresponds to second mode particles, is a specific example powder having a porosity of 13%. At para. [0034] of the specification, second mode particles may have an average individual particle porosity of no more than 20 volume percent. But neither of these disclosures suggest or imply an average individual particle porosity covering the entire range of 13% or more, which encompasses values that exceed 20%. Thus, the claim is not supported by the specification as originally filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
In an embodiment, the first and second modes have an average individual particle porosity of less than 5 vol. %. Para. [0004], [0006], [0016], [0018], [0027]; claims 1, 3, 11, and 22.
Wang does not explicitly disclose the first mode having an individual particle porosity that is less than that of the second mode. However, a range of 5 vol.% or less for each particle mode suggests that any value within the range can be independently selected for each mode. Therefore, if individual particle porosity values of 1 vol.% and 1.5 vol.% are selected for the first mode and second mode, respectively, then the second mode individual particle porosity would exceed that of the first mode, thereby meeting the claim limitation.
In addition, Wang discloses a powder mixture containing GU2 (corresponds to first mode particles) and CT3 (corresponds to second mode particles). Table V – Batch numbers 5, 6, and 7. The porosity of the GU2 powder is less than the porosity of the CT3 powder. Table IV. Although these powder mixtures are comparative samples, it is noted that CT3 is comparative due to the powder not meeting the D50 size or the weight fraction, not due to relative porosity between powder types. Para. [0041]. Thus, Wang suggests an embodiment where the first mode particles can have a smaller individual particle porosity compared to that of second mode particles.
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 in an amount of 60-80 weight percent (para. [0017], [0031]; claims 9 and 14), which encompasses the claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, Wang discloses that the second mode is present in the powder composition in an amount of 20-40 weight percent (para. [0017]; claims 9 and 14), which encompasses 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/15/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Wang teaches that the first mode and second mode may have the same individual particle porosity.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with this limited interpretation of Wang. Although the ranges in Wang encompass the selection of the same particle porosity, the range does not limit one to that particular selection. A range of 5 vol.% or less for each particle mode reasonably suggests that any value within the range can be independently selected for each mode. For example, individual particle porosity values of 1 vol.% and 1.5 vol.% can be selected from within Wang’s ranges for the first mode and second mode, respectively. This selection would lead to the second mode individual particle porosity exceeding that of the first mode, thereby meeting the claim limitation.
Applicant argues that the examples are directed to powder compositions wherein the first mode has a larger individual particle porosity than the second mode.
In response, the Examiner acknowledges the examples in Table IV and Table V where the porosity of the fine powders (CT1 and CT2, corresponding to the second mode) are less than the porosity of the coarse powders (GU1 and GU2, corresponding to the first mode). However, specific examples are not evidence to support a teaching away-type argument when valid broader ranges are disclosed. See MPEP § 2123(II). Wang notes that the first and second modes have an average individual particle porosity of less than 5 vol. % in some embodiments (para. [0004], [0006], [0016], [0018], [0027]; claims 1, 3, 11, and 22), with no particular limitation as to the independent selection of porosity for each mode in this embodiment.
Additionally, Wang discloses a powder mixture containing GU2 (corresponds to first mode particles) and CT3 (corresponds to second mode particles) (Table V – Batch numbers 5, 6, and 7). The porosity of the GU2 powder is less than the porosity of the CT3 powder (Table IV). Although these mixtures are comparative samples, CT3 is comparative due to the D50 size or the weight fraction falling outside ranges defined in Wang’s specification, not due to the relative individual particle porosity between powder types (para. [0041]). Thus, Wang suggests an embodiment where the first mode particles can have a smaller individual particle porosity compared to that of second mode particles.
Applicant is notified that claim 34 is free from prior art rejections, but is subject to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 noted above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
July 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights