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 .
Status of Claims and Application
This non-final action on the merits is in response to the election of invention received by the office on 05 November 2025. Claims 1-18, 20, and 21 are pending. Claims 1, 10 and 18 are withdrawn as non-elected. Claims 2-9 and 11-17, and 20 are amended. Claim 21 is newly added.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1 and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05 November 2025.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0071820 to Natarajan et al (‘820 hereafter).
Regarding claim 21, ‘820 teaches a method of manufacturing a fabrication object, comprising: forming a layer of powder containing an inorganic particle (Fig. 1); applying a liquid fabrication to the layer (Fig. 1); and sequentially repeating the forming and the applying to form a laminate (Fig 1), wherein the liquid fabrication comprises: an organic solvent (paragraph 0033): a surfactant (paragraph 0031); and a resin having a structural unit represented by the following Chemical Formula1 (paragraph 0047), wherein the liquid fabrication is applied to a layer of powder containing inorganic particles (Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 12, ‘820 teaches the method of manufacturing wherein a proportion of the surfactant is from 0.001 to 1 percent by mass (paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 13, ‘820 teaches the method of manufacturing wherein the resin comprises at least one of a polyvinyl acetate resin, partially saponified acetate resin, or polyvinyl butyral resin (paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 14, ‘820 teaches the method of manufacturing wherein the proportion of the resin is from 5 to 20 percent by mass of the entire liquid fabrication (paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 15, ‘820 teaches the method of manufacturing wherein the organic solvent has at least one structure selected from the group consisting of an alkoxy group, and ether bond or an ester bond (paragraph 0033).
Regarding claim 16, ‘820 teaches the method of manufacturing wherein the organic solvent comprises an alkylene glycol dialkyl ether compound (paragraph 0033).
Regarding claim 17, ‘820 teaches the method of manufacturing wherein the liquid fabrication is substantially free of water (paragraph 0033).
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 20, 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0071820 to Natarajan et al (‘820 hereafter) in view of “The Dynamics of Capillary Flow” by EW Washburn (WASHBURN hereafter), “Absorption and Spreading of a Liquid Droplet Over a Thick Porous Substrate” by Rachid Chebbi (CHEBBI hereafter), and “Binder Development for Binder Jetting of Aluminum Powder” by Solgang Im (IM hereafter) and in view of case law rationale.
Regarding claim 20, ‘820 teaches a method of manufacturing a fabrication object, comprising: forming a layer of powder containing an inorganic particle (Fig. 1); applying a liquid fabrication to the layer (Fig. 1); and sequentially repeating the forming and the applying to form a laminate (Fig. 1). ‘820 is silent with respect to the contact angle of the liquid with the powder layer and with respect to the claimed infiltration relationship.
Regarding the stated relationship 1 γcosθ/η≤1.5 m/s, where θ represents the powder contact angle, γ represents a surface tension in mN/m of the liquid fabrication at 23 degrees C., and η represents a viscosity in mPa·s of the liquid fabrication at 25 degrees C, WASHBURN teaches this expression of the infiltration rate of a liquid into a capillary pore. CHEBBI teaches that the relationship has very good predictive power at estimation powder bed infiltration of a liquid (CHEBBI, section 2.1 “Penetration in a Capillary Tube”). The ordinary artisan at the time of effective filing would be motivated to tune these variables to obtain the claimed result since it has been held that discovering workable or optimal values of art recognized result effective variables involves only routine skill in the art. The ordinary artisan at the time would have been motivated to select the claimed variables for the benefit of ensuring satisfactory liquid infiltration into the powder.
Concerning the claimed contact angle of 50 degrees, IM teaches us that contact angle is an important proxy for wettability and that contact angles of about 50 degrees imply “good wettability” (Pg. 18, see attached Fig. 12 below). One possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have been motivated to select the claimed contact angle since it has been held that discovering workable or optimal values of art recognized result effective variables involves only routine skill in the art. The ordinary artisan at the time would have been motivated to select the claimed variables for the benefit of ensuring satisfactory liquid infiltration into the powder.
PNG
media_image1.png
272
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, ‘820 teaches the method of manufacturing wherein the inorganic particle is an aluminum particle (paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 3, ‘820 is silent with respect to the contact angle. Concerning the claimed contact angle of 50 to 80 degrees, IM teaches us that contact angle is an important proxy for wettability and that contact angles of about 50 degrees imply “good wettability” (Pg. 18, see attached Fig. 12 below). One possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have been motivated to select the claimed contact angle since it has been held that discovering workable or optimal values of art recognized result effective variables involves only routine skill in the art. The ordinary artisan at the time would have been motivated to select the claimed variables for the benefit of ensuring satisfactory liquid infiltration into the powder.
Regarding claim 4, ‘820 is silent with respect to the claimed relationship. Regarding the stated relationship 1 γcosθ/η≤1 m/s, where θ represents the powder contact angle, γ represents a surface tension in mN/m of the liquid fabrication at 23 degrees C., and η represents a viscosity in mPa·s of the liquid fabrication at 25 degrees C, WASHBURN teaches this expression of the infiltration rate of a liquid into a capillary pore. CHEBBI teaches that the relationship has very good predictive power at estimation powder bed infiltration of a liquid (CHEBBI, section 2.1 “Penetration in a Capillary Tube”). The ordinary artisan at the time of effective filing would be motivated to tune these variables to obtain the claimed result since it has been held that discovering workable or optimal values of art recognized result effective variables involves only routine skill in the art. The ordinary artisan at the time would have been motivated to select the claimed variables for the benefit of ensuring satisfactory liquid infiltration into the powder.
Regarding claim 5, ‘820 teaches the method of manufacturing wherein the viscosity is 6 mPa-s or greater at 25 degree C (paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 6, ‘820 does not teach the quantity of liquid fabrication applied on a powder volume basis. ‘820 does teach that the quantity of liquid fabrication applied should be sufficient to impart form to the green body (paragraph 0027). One possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have been motivated to select the claimed specific application volume since it has been held that the finding of optimum or workable values of art recognized result effective values involves only routine skill in the art. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to select the claimed volume for the benefit of ensuring the green body is sufficiently self-supporting.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘820 in view of WASHBURN in view of CHEBBI in view of IM in view of case law rationale as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0225007 to Lai et al. (‘007 hereafter).
Regarding claim 7, ‘820 is silent with respect to resolution. In the same field of endeavor, binder jet additive manufacturing, ‘007 teaches the method of manufacturing wherein the liquid fabrication is discharged at a resolution of 600 dpi or greater (paragraph 0012) for the benefit of forming high resolution green bodies. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘820 in view of WASHBURN in view of CHEBBI in view of IM with those of ‘007 for the benefit of forming green bodies with a high resolution.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘820 in view of WASHBURN in view of CHEBBI in view of IM in view of case law rationale as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0061618 to Hernandez et al. (‘618 hereafter).
Regarding claim 8, ‘820 in view of WASHBURN in view of CHEBBI in view of IM does not teach a cleaning step.
In the same field of endeavor, binder jet additive manufacturing, ‘618 teaches the method of manufacturing wherein a pressure is applied to a nozzle for discharging the liquid fabrication is adjusted while a cleaning fluid is applied to a surface of the nozzle (paragraph 0027) for the benefit of ejecting any stray contaminant from the nozzle interior. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘820 in view of WASHBURN in view of CHEBBI in view of IM with those of ‘618 for the benefit of cleaning the nozzles to ensure functionality.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘820 as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0010580 to Shimada et al. (‘580 hereafter).
Regarding claim 11, ‘820 does not teach the surfactants claimed. In the same field of endeavor, binder jet additive manufacturing, ‘580 teaches the method of manufacturing wherein the surfactant comprises at least one of a fluorochemical surfactant or a silicone surfactant (paragraph 0056) for the benefit of reducing volatile organic compounds. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘820 with those of ‘580 for the benefit of reducing volatile organics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John P Robitaille whose telephone number is (571)270-7006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JPR/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743