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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/20/26 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1, 17, 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/16/24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 9-10, 12-16, 21-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1638758 to Ederer.
Claims 9, 13, 24:
Ederer teaches a method for binder jetting [0001] in particular to form foundry molds [0018]. The particulate build material includes foundry sand (Id.), an activation agent in liquid form [0024] dissolved in a diluent [0033] and a humectant [0031]. It is noted that the express purpose of a humectant is to regulate a moisture content of a mixture. The particulate build material is conveyed to a binder jetting apparatus [0036], loaded onto a work surface via a coater [0036] and spread into a layer [0039]. The binder fluid contains at least 50% furfuryl alcohol [0052], an adhesive resin [0020], and a crosslinking agent (at least the citric acid is a known crosslinker) [0023]. The binder jetting process is carried out in the normal fashion whereby the particulate build material is selectively contacted with the binder via an inkjet printhead to form a layer thickness of the object [0041-0042], the work surface is translated down [0038], and the process is repeated until the object is formed.
Ederer does not teach the preceding steps in a single embodiment. However, each is taught throughout the prior art reference.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Ederer making selections from those listed in the prior art reference.
Claims 10, 22:
The diluent in the particulate build material can be water [0033].
Claim 12, 23:
The particulate build can be stored in a temporary holding container [0036].
Claim 14, 25-26:
The activator is an acid such as sulfuric or toluenesulfonic [0025].
Claim 15, 27:
The particles are 30-450 µm in size [0017].
Claim 16:
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as the individual claims.
Claim 21:
Polyethylene glycol is specifically disclosed as an additive in the particulate build material [0032].
Claim(s) 11, 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1638758 to Ederer in view of US 2005/0080191 to Kramer in view of US 5204055 to Sachs.
Ederer is discussed above, and does teach the inclusion of adhesive and cross-linking agent in the binder, but does not teach inclusion of a wetting agent or TEOS. However, Kramer teaches a binder jetting method wherein the binder includes a surfactant [0028-0029]. A surfactant reduces surface tension and improves wetting. Additionally, Sachs teaches a binder jetting process where the binder includes organic binders (7:34-44) or alternatively inorganic binders such as TEOS (7:45-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Ederer and include a surfactant in the binder formulation because Kramer sets forth that it is a desirable inclusion and include a TEOS adhesive binder because Sachs teaches it is suitable especially in the casting industry.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues [0001] does not include the term “binder jetting”. However, the examiner maintains that the process described in [0001], and throughout the reference, is known as binder jetting. The burden is on applicant to explain how a process that includes a binder selectively supplied by ink-jet printing technique [0008] is not binder jetting.
Applicant argues Ederer does not teach the activation agent in a liquid form dissolved in a diluent. However, Ederer does teach the particles are mixed in intimate contact with the activation agent [0034]. The activation agent is in the form of a solid, liquid, gel, or combination thereof [0024] and the liquid ingredients include diluents/solvents [0033]. It is the position of the examiner that it would have been obvious to combine the particles with a liquid activation agent based on these teachings. Further, Ederer is not considered to be limited to a solid activation agent. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments.
Applicant argues Ederer does not teach a dissolved activator. Given that Ederer does teach a liquid activation agent, dissolving in a diluent or organic solvent [0033] is a necessary step to form the liquid. As a concrete example, phosphoric acid [0025] is commercially available as a powder and would be dissolved in water to form a liquid. The examiner disagrees that the teachings of [0033] are in any way limited given it states that any of the liquid ingredients may contain the diluents or solvents.
Applicant argues Ederer does not teach the admixture including a humectant. The examiner disagrees. Ederer [0031] is understood to teach the addition of a humectant to any of the particles, the binder, and/or the activation agent. In this way, Ederer is considered to teach adding a humectant to the admixture of particles and activating agent.
Applicant’s argument presented on pg. 9 rely on the assumption that Ederer does not teach a liquid activation agent and does not teach the binder jetting process. However, the examiner disagrees with the underlying assumption for the reasons already stated above. It is again noted that disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments with respect to solid vs liquid activation agent.
Applicant argues Ederer does not teach a binder including furfuryl alcohol and an adhesive. However, Ederer does teach a binder including furfuryl alcohol [0052] and a resin [0052, 0020], which is considered analogous to the claimed adhesive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759