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
Claims 1 and 2 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/25/2025.
With regard to Applicant’s comment in the Remarks filed 03/10/2026 that “the election was made with traverse and the reasons filed with the reply to the Restriction Requirement filed on August 25, 2025”, Examiner points back to item 2 of the Non-Final mailed 12/10/2025 that expressly stated that “Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a))”. Even considering the 08/25/2025 response again, Applicant did not provide any distinct and specific supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Thus, the election remains treated without traverse.
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment, filed 03/10/2026, has been entered. Claims 3, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 20 are amended, no claims are cancelled, claims 1 and 2 remain withdrawn as described above, and no claims are newly added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2025 and 03/11/2026 was filed after the completion/posting date and/or mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 12/10/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The replacement drawings, filed 03/10/2026, are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes the language of claim 15 “…monitoring the movement…using one or more sensors configured to store data with respect to the movement of the powder material”. This language is not considered to invoke 112f because “sensor” is not considered to be a generic placeholder because it appears to be synonymous with the phrase “digital detector” which was found to be a structural term that does not invoke 112f (see MPEP 2181.I.A 3rd Paragraph). To be clear, the phrase “one or more sensors configured to store data” does not invoke 112f because the phrase fails at least the (A) element of the three-prong analysis described at MPEP 2181.I.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “dispensing mechanism” in claims 12 and 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The claim limitation “dispensing mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, claims 12 and 13 utilize the phrase “dispensing mechanism configured to deposit” and/or “dispensing mechanism configured to dispense” but there is no disclosure of the structure that performs the dispensing and/or ‘dispensing…to deposit’ function(s).
Therefore, claims 12 and 13 are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nevorct et al. (U.S. 7,875,091).
Regarding claim 3, Nevorct et al. (hereinafter “Nevorct”) teaches a rapid tooling system and methods for manufacturing abrasive articles (Title). Specifically, Nevorct teaches a rapid tooling method (meeting claimed ‘additive manufacturing process’; see Col. 3 line 39 to Col. 4 line 10 describing various rapid tooling methods that are “built, layer-by-layer” Col. 3 line 42, Col. 3 lines 57-61, and others within the broad citation provided above) where the abrasive article includes binder (Col. 5 lines 53-56 and/or Col. 7 lines 42-49; meeting claimed ‘precursor bond material’) and abrasive particles (Col. 5 lines 53-56) that have been sized (Col. 13 lines 44-51 and/or Col. 13 lines 57-59; meeting claimed ‘treating’).
To be clear, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed ‘treating’ embraces all manner of action upon the powder material (i.e., the binder and abrasive particle mixture). The sizing of the particles is a treatment that controls particle size. Notably, Applicant’s dependent claim 6 includes “mechanically treating”.
Regarding claim 4, Nevorct teaches the method as applied to claim 3 above and implicitly teaches the claimed feature requiring “controlling at least one flowability characteristic includes changing a flowability characteristic of the powder material” because the control of the particle sizes as taught by Nevorct would necessarily change the flowability characteristic(s) of the powder material. To be clear, the size of the particles impacts how the particles move and/or flow. Thus, the action taken to size the particles would meet the BRI of “changing a flowability characteristic of the powder material”.
Regarding claim 5, Nevorct teaches the method as applied to claim 4 above and implicitly teaches the claimed feature requiring “controlling at least one flowability characteristic includes measuring and adjusting a flowability characteristic of the powder material until it is within a predetermined value, and further dispensing the powder material after measuring and adjusting the flowability characteristic of the powder material” because the control of the particle sizes as taught by Nevorct would necessarily change the flowability characteristic(s) of the powder material. To be clear, the size of the particles impacts how the particles move and/or flow.
Further, the control of the particle size necessarily requires the measuring and adjusting of the particles so as to achieve the particles that are properly sized to the ‘predetermined’ (i.e., desired or “interested” as stated at Col. 13 lines 48-49) value. Thus, the action taken to size the particles would meet the BRI of “changing a flowability characteristic of the powder material including measuring and adjusting a flowability characteristic”.
With regard to the limitation requiring the ‘dispensing’ of the powder material after the measuring and adjusting the flowability characteristic of the powder material, the practice of Nevorct’s method would necessarily require the sized powder material to be ‘dispensed’ so as to build the abrasive article layer by layer.
Regarding claim 6, Nevorct teaches the method as applied to claim 3 above and further teaches that the powder material has been sized (Col. 13 lines 44-51 and/or Col. 13 lines 57-59; meeting claimed ‘treating’).
To be clear, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed ‘treating’ embraces all manner of action upon the powder material (i.e., the binder and abrasive particle mixture). The sizing of the particles is a treatment that controls particle size and meets the claimed element “mechanically treating”.
In the interest of compact prosecution, it is noted that only “irradiating the powder material” is required to achieve the claimed result of “chang[ing] the moisture content of the mixture”. Thus, the recited “mechanically treating” is not currently required to effectuate a change in the moisture content of the mixture.
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.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nevorct as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Fung et al. (WO 2019/245534).
Regarding claims 7-8, Nevorct teaches the method as applied to claim 5 above but fails to teach that ‘measuring the flowability characteristic includes capturing and storing electronic information related to the position and/or movement of the powder material” and/or using the electronic information to calculate a flowability characteristic selected from the group of a Flowability Factor Angle, a volume of powder material, a Surface Fractal Factor, a Linearity Factor, Avalanche Angle, Avalanche Angle Median, Avalanche Energy, Avalanche Energy Median, Median Avalanche Time, Avalanche Rest Angle, Dynamic Density, or any combination thereof.
Fung et al. (hereinafter “Fung”) teaches a three-dimensional printing method where the powdered material is measured in an instrument such as the Revolution Powder Analyzer (Paragraph 0025) to determine property characteristics such as Avalanche Angle, Avalanche Energy, and Dynamic density (Paragraph 0025). Table 1 also shows reported values for Avalanche Angle, Avalanche Energy, and Dynamic Density of build material composition.
It would be obvious to include the step of capturing and storing information related to the position and/or movement of the powder material based on the use of the Revolution Powder Analyzer as taught by Fung into the method as taught by Nevorct because the Revolution Powder Analyzer and control of particle features/characteristics is routine and well-known and would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nevorct as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Roman et al. (WO 2019/194823)
Regarding claim 9, Nevorct teaches the method as applied to claim 3 above but is silent to the step of treating the powder material to further comprise: a) measuring at least one flowability characteristic of the powder material at a first time; and b) selecting a set temperature for treating the dry particulate mixture to change a moisture content of the powder material; c) measuring the at least one flowability characteristic of the powder material at a second time different from the first time; and d) determining whether to further treat the powder material to change the moisture content of the powder material.
Roman et al. (hereinafter “Roman”) teaches a three-dimensional object printing based on a build material content level wherein the system can detect (i.e., measure) the moisture content level of a build material residing in at least one vessel, and then adjust a humidity level and/or temperature applied to the at least one vessel so as to control the moisture content level of the build material (Abstract and claim 1 and Figure 16). Notably, Figure 16 depicts a step in the flow chart, 1614, where it is determined if humidity level and temperature of gas and conditioning agent are to be modified (meeting claimed “determining whether to further treat the powder material to change the moisture content of the powder material”).
To make the record clear, the moisture content is a flowability characteristic. As Roman, detects various conditions, such as moisture control, of the powder residing in the vessel, and performs a check to determine if the humidity level and temperature of the vessel are to be modified, then claimed conditions a-d are met.
It would be obvious to combine the teachings of Nevorct and Roman so as to achieve a three-dimensional printed object that has controlled flowability characteristics such as moisture control. The control of such a feature would be routine and well-known to yield the predictable result of a precise 3D printed object.
Regarding claim 10, Nevorct teaches the method as applied to claim 3 above but is silent to a moisture content and/or a change in moisture content of the powder material after treating and before forming is not greater than 10%.
Roman teaches a three-dimensional object printing based on a build material content level wherein the system can detect (i.e., measure) the moisture content level of a build material residing in at least one vessel, and then adjust a humidity level and/or temperature applied to the at least one vessel so as to control the moisture content level of the build material (Abstract and claim 1 and Figure 16). Compellingly, Roman teaches that control of the moisture content can reduce any electrical charges or tribocharging within the build material and prevent or at least reduce a percentage of the build material from forming clumps during a build process (Paragraph 0028).
Thus, it would be obvious to control the moisture content of the build material as taught by Roman in the process of Nevorct such that the moisture content does not change more than 10% so that the build material does not clump during the build process.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nevorct as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Fung et al. (WO 2019/245534).
Regarding claim 11, Nevorct teaches the method as applied to claim 3 above but is silent to the treating step including a continuous and simultaneous process of treating and forming.
Fung teaches a three-dimensional printing method where the powdered material is measured in an instrument such as the Revolution Powder Analyzer (Paragraph 0025) to determine property characteristics such as Avalanche Angle, Avalanche Energy, and Dynamic density (Paragraph 0025). Table 1 also shows reported values for Avalanche Angle, Avalanche Energy, and Dynamic Density of build material composition. The build material composition was then used to print 3D objects (Paragraph 0257).
It would be obvious to use the Revolution Powder Analyzer to obtain particle information, screen the particles, dispense the particles onto the build surface and then proceed with the build to obtain a 3D printed object such as the abrasive article of Nevorct. The incorporation of the Revolution Powder Analyzer into the in-line configuration of the 3D print system would be prima facie obvious because the powder analyzer is a well-known commercially available instrument that could be readily incorporated into the additive manufacturing system such that precise control of the build material is achieved and the powder control followed by forming of the 3D printed object occurs in a continuous and simultaneous process. To be clear, the powder analyzer can operate simultaneously while the build proceeds layer by layer such that the powder analyzer continually operates on new powder feed that is then used in the forming/building step of the additive manufacturing process.
It has been held that making integral what had been separate is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04.V.B.). Additionally, it has been held that making a process continuous is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04.V.E).
Regarding claim 12, Nevorct teaches the method as applied to claim 3 above but is silent to the powder being treated in a treating vessel wherein the treating vessel is coupled to a dispensing mechanism configured to deposit a treated powder material into one or more layers of the build box.
Fung teaches a three-dimensional printing method where the powdered material is measured in an instrument such as the Revolution Powder Analyzer (Paragraph 0025) to determine property characteristics such as Avalanche Angle, Avalanche Energy, and Dynamic density (Paragraph 0025). Table 1 also shows reported values for Avalanche Angle, Avalanche Energy, and Dynamic Density of build material composition. The build material composition was then used to print 3D objects (Paragraph 0257).
It would be obvious to use the Revolution Powder Analyzer to obtain particle information, screen the particles, dispense the particles onto the build surface and then proceed with the build to obtain a 3D printed object such as the abrasive article of Nevorct. The incorporation of the Revolution Powder Analyzer into the in-line configuration of the 3D print system would be prima facie obvious because the powder analyzer is a well-known commercially available instrument that could be readily incorporated into the additive manufacturing system such that precise control of the build material is achieved and the powder control followed by forming of the 3D printed object occurs. The treating vessel, i.e. the powder analyzer, would be in fluid communication with the dispensing mechanism so that the analyzed powder is effectively moved to the build platform.
Regarding claim 13, Nevorct teaches the method as applied to claim 3 above but silent to the powder being treated in a treating vessel wherein the treating vessel is coupled to a dispensing mechanism configured to deposit a treated powder material into one or more layers of the build box.
Fung teaches a three-dimensional printing method where the powdered material is measured in an instrument such as the Revolution Powder Analyzer (Paragraph 0025) to determine property characteristics such as Avalanche Angle, Avalanche Energy, and Dynamic density (Paragraph 0025). Table 1 also shows reported values for Avalanche Angle, Avalanche Energy, and Dynamic Density of build material composition. The build material composition was then used to print 3D objects (Paragraph 0257).
It would be obvious to use the Revolution Powder Analyzer to obtain particle information, screen the particles, dispense the particles onto the build surface and then proceed with the build to obtain a 3D printed object such as the abrasive article of Nevorct. The incorporation of the Revolution Powder Analyzer into the in-line configuration of the 3D print system would be prima facie obvious because the powder analyzer is a well-known commercially available instrument that could be readily incorporated into the additive manufacturing system such that precise control of the build material is achieved and the powder control followed by forming of the 3D printed object occurs. The treating vessel, i.e. the powder analyzer, would be in fluid communication with the dispensing mechanism so that the analyzed powder is effectively moved to the build platform.
Both Nevorct and Fung teach binder jet printing as the additive manufacturing process (Nevorct Figures 1-5, particularly Figure 2 and Fung Figure 2 and 4A and 4B).
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nevorct as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Fung et al. (WO 2019/245534) and Martiska “A comparison of the spreadability and flowability of metal powders for AM applications” Non-Patent Literature attached herewith.
Regarding claim 14, Nevorct teaches the method as applied to claim 14 above but is silent to the step of ‘measuring includes measuring one or more of the flowability characteristics of the powder material…” as claimed.
Fung teaches a three-dimensional printing method where the powdered material is measured in an instrument such as the Revolution Powder Analyzer (Paragraph 0025) to determine property characteristics such as Avalanche Angle, Avalanche Energy, and Dynamic density (Paragraph 0025). Table 1 also shows reported values for Avalanche Angle, Avalanche Energy, and Dynamic Density of build material composition. The build material composition was then used to print 3D objects (Paragraph 0257).
However, Fung does not expressly teach that the powdered material has an Avalanche Energy of the powder material to at least 5 mJ/kg and not greater than 28 mJ/kg, an Avalanche Energy Median of the powder material to at least 5 mJ/kg and not greater than 28 mJ/kg, or a combination thereof.
Martiska’s “A comparison of the spreadability and flowability of metal powders for AM applications” (hereinafter “Martiska”) teaches that the ability of a powder to form a consistent layer in an additive manufacturing machine is critical to producing high quality parts and this ability is referred to a powder spreadability. Additionally, Martiska teaches that the powder flow properties are important and that powder flow measurements are used to predict and study spreadability (“Introduction”). Specifically, Martiska provides, at Table II, a summary of the flowability data for various samples such that all examples except for B Virgin possess an avalanche energy within Applicant’s claimed range.
It would be obvious to include the step of measuring and adjusting at least two of the flowability characteristics of the powder material based on the use of the Revolution Powder Analyzer as taught by Fung, specifically to select powders having properties conforming or otherwise equivalent to those of Martiska, into the method as taught by Nevorct because the Revolution Powder Analyzer and control of particle features/characteristics is routine and well-known and would yield nothing more than predictable results. Notably, the selection of powder with particular properties that are not demonstrated to be critical or otherwise produce unexpected results is obvious absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 15, Nevorct, Fung, and Martiska teach the method as applied to claim 14 above but Nevorct is silent to measuring one or more flowability characteristics includes moving the powder material and evaluating one or more flowability characteristics of the powder material based upon its movement.
Fung teaches a three-dimensional printing method where the powdered material is measured in an instrument such as the Revolution Powder Analyzer (Paragraph 0025) to determine property characteristics such as Avalanche Angle, Avalanche Energy, and Dynamic density (Paragraph 0025). Table 1 also shows reported values for Avalanche Angle, Avalanche Energy, and Dynamic Density of build material composition. The build material composition was then used to print 3D objects (Paragraph 0257).
Specifically, Fung teaches that the Revolution Powder Analyzer instrument includes a drum that rotates the powder and collects digital images of the powder during the rotation process (Paragraph 0025; meeting claimed ‘moving the powder material and evaluating one or more flowability characteristics of the powder material based upon its movement’).
It would be obvious to use the Revolution Powder Analyzer to obtain particle information, screen the particles, dispense the particles onto the build surface and then proceed with the build to obtain a 3D printed object such as the abrasive article of Nevorct. The incorporation of the Revolution Powder Analyzer into the in-line configuration of the 3D print system would be prima facie obvious because the powder analyzer is a well-known commercially available instrument that could be readily incorporated into the additive manufacturing system such that precise control of the build material is achieved and the powder control followed by forming of the 3D printed object occurs. The treating vessel, i.e. the powder analyzer, would be in fluid communication with the dispensing mechanism so that the analyzed powder is effectively moved to the build platform.
Regarding claim 16, Nevorct, Fung, and Martisak teach the method as applied to claim 15 above and Fung further teaches that the Revolution Powder Analyzer may also be capable of measuring the properties of powders (Paragraph 0025) which would obviously be effectuated by one or more sensors. The instrument’s collection of digital images and other property data of the powder would implicitly be configured to store data that is obtained during the drum’s rotation to measure and report the behavior of the powder from the digital images (Paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 17, Nevorct, Fung, and Martiska teachthe method as applied to claim 14 above but Nevorct is silent to the step of ‘measuring the flowability characteristic includes capturing and storing electronic information related to the position and/or movement of the powder material and using the electronic information to calculate a flowability characteristic selected from the group of a Flowability Factor Angle, a volume of powder material, a Surface Fractal Factor, a Linearity Factor, Avalanche Angle, Avalanche Angle Median, Avalanche Energy, Avalanche Energy Median, Median Avalanche Time, Avalanche Rest Angle, Dynamic Density, or any combination thereof.
Fung teaches a three-dimensional printing method where the powdered material is measured in an instrument such as the Revolution Powder Analyzer (Paragraph 0025) to determine property characteristics such as Avalanche Angle, Avalanche Energy, and Dynamic density (Paragraph 0025). Table 1 also shows reported values for Avalanche Angle, Avalanche Energy, and Dynamic Density of build material composition. The build material composition was then used to print 3D objects (Paragraph 0257).
It would be obvious to include the step of capturing and storing information related to the position and/or movement of the powder material based on the use of the Revolution Powder Analyzer as taught by Fung into the method as taught by Nevorct because the Revolution Powder Analyzer and control of particle features/characteristics is routine and well-known and would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, Nevorct, Fung, and Martiska teach the method as applied to claim 14 above and Martiska expressly teaches that the ability of a powder to form a consistent layer in an additive manufacturing machine is critical to producing high quality parts and this ability is referred to a powder spreadability. Additionally, Martiska teaches that the powder flow properties are important and that powder flow measurements are used to predict and study spreadability (“Introduction”).
It would be obvious to include the step of further adjusting one or more processes of the AM process based on the measuring of the one or more flowability characteristics of the powder material because the Revolution Powder Analyzer and the subsequenct control of particle features/characteristics is routine and well-known and would yield nothing more than predictable results. Martiska also expressly teaches that it is critical to form high quality parts. Notably, the selection of powder with particular properties that are not demonstrated to be critical or otherwise produce unexpected results is obvious absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 19, Nevorct, Fung, and Martiska teach the method as applied to claim 18 above and Martiska shows both virgin and recycled powder samples. Thus, it would be obvious during the build process to adjust the recycling and/or blending of the powder samples so as to ensure a high quality part is achieved.
Regarding claim 20, Nevorct, Fung, and Martiska teach the method as applied to claim 14 above and Martiska further teaches in Tables II and III flowability characteristics shared with that claimed; particularly, the fractal dim. (meeting claimed ‘surface fractal’; ranging from 2.67-3.16) and avalanche angle (ranging from 30.5-44.3). Notably, the dynamic density values are all reasonably close to the upper bound claimed.
Also, Martiska provides, at Table II, a summary of the flowability data for various samples such that all examples except for B Virgin possess an avalanche energy within Applicant’s claimed range (required by instant claim 14).
It would be obvious to include the step of measuring and adjusting at least two of the flowability characteristics of the powder material based on the use of the Revolution Powder Analyzer as taught by Fung, specifically to select powders having properties conforming or otherwise equivalent to those of Martiska, into the method as taught by Nevorct because the Revolution Powder Analyzer and control of particle features/characteristics is routine and well-known and would yield nothing more than predictable results. Notably, the selection of powder with particular properties that are not demonstrated to be critical or otherwise produce unexpected results is obvious absent evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Nevorct does not disclose sizing or treating abrasive particles but rather discloses using abrasive particles for polishing ophthalmic lens or jewelry. This is unpersuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. Notably, there are no sizes claimed or required by the method of claim 3. Furthermore, the Office Action explained for the record that the sizing of the particles is a treatment that controls particle size and so that was how the art met Applicant’s claimed features directed to ‘treating’.
Applicant argues that Nevorct fails to anticipate claim 1 but Examiner construes this as an argument regarding claim 3 because claim 1 is withdrawn. Examiner disagrees with the argument made by Applicant and maintains the anticipatory rejection of claim 3 over Nevorct for the reasons of record.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Fung are not persuasive because they are not commensurate in scope with the claim. An allegation that that POSTIA would not have been motivated to modify Nevorct because those properties are only needed when Fung’s fusing agent is used are not persuasive or commensurate with the claim scope.
Applicant argues the combination of Nevorct and Fung is improper because Fung is not construed by Applicant to ‘mention or even remotely suggest flowability of the powder material including abrasive particles and precursor bond material’ but this is an overly constrained reading of Fung and dismisses that prior art is good for all it teaches (see In re Heck citation at MPEP 2123)) and that POSITA is not an automaton (see KSR 2143).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Mercury Scientific Inc., Revolution Measurements for AM Flowability Application Bulletin 18.
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 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
Prosecution Insights