DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 6/8/26 has been entered. Claims 2-7, 9-12, and 17 remain pending in the application. Claim(s) 1, 8, and 13-16 have been canceled. New claim(s) 18-20 have been added. New claim 19 has been withdrawn. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 3/6/26
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 19 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: New claims 18 and 19 are mutually exclusive species. New claims 18 and 19 depend from claim 9. Claim 9 requires that either the shaping composition is the shaping composition (i) including the metal shaping particles, the shaping binder, and the water-based liquid vehicle, with from about 65 wt% to about 75 wt% of a water-based liquid vehicle, or wherein the shaping composition is the shaping composition (ii) consisting of the metal shaping particles and the water, with from 90 wt% to 99 wt% of water. Previously examined claim 16 requires from about 10 wt% to about 80 wt% of a liquid vehicle. New claim 18 reads on examined claim 16. New claim 19 does not.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 19 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 2-7, 9-12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 9 contains the limitation “or ii) the shaping composition consists of … from 90 wt% to 99 wt% of water.” The instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “the shaping composition consists of … from 90 wt% to 99 wt% of water.” Applicant states that support for the amendments to independent claim 9 can be found at least in paragraphs [0009], [0017], [0022], [0024], in Examples 2 and 3 (paragraphs [0056] and [0057]), and in original claim 8 of the subject application as filed (Remarks, page 7). The instant specification states that “the shaping composition can include from about 10 wt% to about 80 wt% liquid vehicle” (paragraph [0009]). The instant specification states that “with more specific details regarding the shaping composition 100, this composition, in some examples, can include a liquid vehicle, eg., from about 10 wt% to about 80 wt% liquid vehicle” (paragraph [0017]). The instant specification states that “the term "shaping binder" is used to distinguish the binder used in the shaping composition from the binder that may be used in the binding agent used to form the green body object during a three-dimensional object build; thus, the latter binder mentioned can be referred to as a "build binder," as it is used to build the green body object” (paragraph [0022]). The instant specification states that “the liquid vehicle can be present in the shaping composition at from about 10 wt% to about 80 wt%, from about 15 wt% to about 60 wt%, from about 20 wt% to about 50 wt%, or from about 25 wt% to about 50 wt%” (paragraph [0024]). The instant specification states that “liquid vehicle in the shaping composition can be included at from about 10 wt% to about 80 wt%, from about 15 wt% to about 60 wt%, from about 20 wt% to about 50 wt%, or from about 25 wt% to about 50 wt%, for example” (paragraph [0043]). Paragraphs [0056]-[0057] of the application as filed are silent regarding the shaping composition consists of … from 90 wt% to 99 wt% of water. The instant specification states that “the aqueous vehicle can be present in the binding agent at from about 20 wt % to about 98 wt %” (paragraph [0044]). However, the binding agent is used to build the green body object (see paragraph [0022], cited above) and is not the shaping composition. Claims 2-7, 10-12, and 17 depend from claim 9 and do not resolve the above identified issue and are thus rejected.
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.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parenthesis. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
Claims 5-6, 9-11, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson et al. (US 20180305266 A1), previously cited, in view of Klett et al. (US 20200308062 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Gibson teaches “fabricating an object, the build material including a sinterable powder for forming the object and a void space between particles of the sinterable powder, the build material further including a binder system that at least partially fills the void space and resists deformation of a net shape of the object during processing of the object into a final part” (which reads upon “a method of controlling green body object deformation, the method comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0009]). Gibson teaches that “fabricating the layer of the object may also or instead include fabricating a surface of the object from a second material” (which reads upon “applying a coating of a shaping composition to a surface of a green body object”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0201]; second material reads on the shaping composition). Gibson teaches that “the sinterable powdered material may also or instead include an alloy of at least one of aluminum, steel, and copper, where the selective embrittlement material includes at least one of antimony, arsenic, bismuth, lead, sulfur, phosphorous, tellurium, iodine, bromine, chlorine, and fluorine” (which reads upon “wherein the green body object includes copper-containing build particles”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0170]). Gibson teaches that “the sinterable powder of the build material may include a metallic powder containing any metal(s), metal alloy(s), or combination of the foregoing suitable for sintering” (paragraph [0169]). Gibson teaches that “the one or more binders of the build material may include any of a wide range of materials selected to retain the net shape of the object 702 during processing of the object 702 into the final part” (which reads upon “bound together with a build binder”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0168]). Gibson teaches that “the second material may include a powdered metallurgy material” (which reads upon “and wherein either (i) the shaping composition includes metal shaping particles”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0202]). Gibson teaches that “the powdered material may contain any of a variety of metals or metal alloys” (paragraph [0202]). Gibson teaches that “the powdered material may, for example, have any suitable dimensions for sintering, and that while this may vary according to the type of material, many useful sinterable powdered materials have a distribution of particle sizes with a mean diameter of between two and fifty microns” (paragraph [0202]). Gibson teaches that “the binder system may include a first binder that is removed from the second material during a debind prior to sintering, where the binder system includes a second binder that remains in the net shape at an onset of a thermal sintering cycle” (which reads upon “a shaping binder; and a liquid vehicle”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0204]; second material reads on the shaping composition, as stated above). Gibson teaches that “the binder system may also or instead include a first binder that is removed from the second material during a debind prior to sintering, where the binder system includes a second binder that remains in the net shape through sintering into the final part, and that in this latter case, the second binder may usefully include submicron particles that facilitate sintering of the powdered material” (paragraph [0204]). Gibson teaches that “a wide range of metallic powders may usefully be employed, and that powders using stainless steel, titanium, titanium alloys, high-nickel alloys, nickel copper alloys, magnetic alloys, and the like are commercially available in MIM materials and suitable for sintering” (paragraph [0074]). Gibson teaches that “the submicron particles may include an element or combination of elements selected for alloying with the powdered material” (paragraph [0204]; submicron particles including alloying elements read on metal shaping particles). Gibson teaches that “the submicron particles may have a composition substantially identical to the powdered material and a size distribution with a mean at least one order of magnitude smaller than the powdered material” (which reads upon “having a D50 particle size distribution value of from about 100 nm to about 100 µm”, as recited in the instant claim; which reads upon “wherein the D50 particle size distribution value of the metal shaping particles is smaller than a D50 particle size distribution value of the copper-containing build particles and wherein the metal shaping particles are selected from the group consisting of iron particles, nickel particles, stainless steel particles, Ti-Al-V particles, copper particles, aluminum particles, Al-Si particles, and Al-Si-Mg particles”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0204]; one order of magnitude smaller than between two and fifty microns lies within the claimed range). Gibson teaches that “the debinding may also or instead include heating the object to remove the second binder” (which reads upon “heating the green body object with the coating applied to the surface thereof through an intermediate temperature range, whereby the metal shaping particles of the coating interact with the copper-containing build particles of the green body object, and counteract temperature induced deformation of the green body object during the heating through the intermediate temperature range”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0207]). Gibson teaches that “the one or more binders may resist deformation of a net shape of the object during processing of the object into the final part, in particular where this processing includes debinding the net shape to remove at least a portion of the one or more binders and sintering the net shape to join and densify the powdered material” (which reads upon “whereby the metal shaping particles of the coating interact with the copper-containing build particles of the green body object, and counteract temperature induced deformation of the green body object during the heating through the intermediate temperature range”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0201]; binder includes the submicron metal materials). Gibson teaches that “during these processes, the object may go through substantial shrinkage and mechanical stresses, and the binder(s) can usefully retain the net shape under these varying conditions” (which reads upon “whereby the metal shaping particles of the coating interact with the copper-containing build particles of the green body object, and counteract temperature induced deformation of the green body object during the heating through the intermediate temperature range”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0201]). Gibson teaches that “subsequent sintering aims to yield a densified final part formed of the powdered material in the second material, e.g., the build material for the object, where the sintering causes necking between particles of the powdered material and subsequent fusion of the powdered material into a solid mass without melting to the point of liquefaction” (which reads upon “and then heat-fusing the green body object and the metal shaping particles at the surface thereof by continuing the heating to a heat-fusing temperature that is above the intermediate temperature range to form a fused metal object that includes a copper-containing metal body formed from the copper-containing build-particles and a metal coating on the copper-containing metal body, the metal coating formed from the metal shaping particles”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0201] a densified final part formed of the powdered material in the second material reads on a fused metal object that includes a copper-containing metal body formed from the copper-containing build-particles and a metal coating on the copper-containing metal body, the metal coating formed from the metal shaping particles).
Gibson teaches that “the binder system may include a first binder [and] a second binder” (paragraph [0204]). Gibson teaches that “the printer 301 may also include a second nozzle for extruding a second material, where the second material has a supplemental function (e.g., as a support material or structure) or provides a second build material with different mechanical, functional, or aesthetic properties useful for fabricating a multi-material object” (paragraph [0063]). Gibson teaches that “the first binder can include paraffin wax and the second binder can include a waxy or hydrophobic diacrylate oligomer” (paragraph [0161]). Gibson is silent regarding from about 65 wt% to about 75 wt% of a water-based liquid vehicle, wherein the shaping composition has a viscosity ranging from about 50 cps to about 5000 cps.
Klett is similarly concerned with additive manufacturing (paragraph [0003]) and shrinkage during firing (paragraph [0005]). Klett teaches that “powdered materials have been unable to be shaped efficiently with many forms of additive manufacturing (aka “3D Printing”), such as extrusion, due to the lack of flowability of the powdered materials, such as metal and ceramic powders” (paragraph [0004]). Klett teaches that “after formation of the green part, the wax is burned out leaving a low-density article that suffers from shrinkage during firing due to the loss of the wax” (paragraph [0005]). Klett teaches that “there remains a need for an improved slurry composition for additive manufacturing that exhibits sufficient flowability while including a reduced amount of non-powdered material relative to conventional slurries” (paragraph [0005]). Klett teaches that “the slurry composition comprises a carrier and a material with the carrier having a viscosity of at least 0.001 cP at normal temperature and pressure” (paragraph [0012]). Klett teaches that “the slurry composition comprises as a carrier, and that the carrier may have a viscosity of at least 0.001 cP, alternatively at least 1 cP, alternatively at least 100 cP, or alternative at least 200cP, at normal temperature and pressure” (which reads upon “a viscosity ranging from about 50 cps”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0013]). Klett teaches that “the carrier may have a viscosity of no greater than 15,000 cP, alternatively no greater than 7,500 cP, or alternatively no greater than 5,000 cP, at normal temperature and pressure” (which reads upon “to about 5000 cps”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0013]). Klett teaches that “the carrier may comprise a solvent” (paragraph [0014]). Klett teaches that “suitable solvents include, but are not limited to, water, an inorganic solvent, an organic solvent, or combinations thereof, and that in certain embodiments, the carrier comprises water” (which reads upon “a water-based liquid vehicle”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0014]). Klett teaches that “the carrier may comprise a binder, a thickener, or a combination thereof” (which reads upon “a shaping binder”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0015]). Klett teaches that “the water may be present in an amount of from about 50 to about 99.9 wt. %” (which reads upon “from about 65 wt% to about 75 wt% of a water-based liquid vehicle”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0016]). Klett teaches that “the material may be present in the slurry composition in an amount of from about 5 to about 55 wt. %, alternatively from about 20 to about 50 wt. %, or alternatively from about 35 to about 45 wt. %, based on a total weight of the slurry composition” (which reads upon “from about 65 wt% to about 75 wt% of a water-based liquid vehicle”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0029]; 100 wt % - from about 20 to about 50 wt. % material (metal powder) = from about 50 to about 80 wt % carrier (water based liquid vehicle)). Klett teaches that “the slurry composition allows for forming articles comprising the material, also referred to herein as “green parts,” having complex cross-sections or configurations that would not be possible using conventional methods of forming articles comprising the materials” (paragraph [0012]). Klett teaches that “in various embodiments, the thickener provides a rheological advantage to thicken the slurry composition such that it flows similar to a liquid rather than similar to wet sand” (paragraph [0015]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the waxy binder system of the second material of Gibson with the carrier of the slurry composition, as taught by Klett to improve flowability, reduce shrinkage and allow for forming articles comprising the material, also referred to herein as “green parts,” having complex cross-sections or configurations that would not be possible using conventional methods of forming articles comprising the materials.
It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Here, the claimed range of from about 65 wt% to about 75 wt% of a water-based liquid vehicle lies inside the range disclosed by the prior art of from about 50 to about 99.9 wt. %, or from about 50 to about 80 wt %. Accordingly, the prior art renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 5, modified Gibson teaches the method of claim 9 as stated above. Gibson teaches that “the submicron particles may have a composition substantially identical to the powdered material and a size distribution with a mean at least one order of magnitude smaller than the powdered material” (which reads upon “copper particles [which] have a D50 particle size distribution value of from about 100 nm to about 20 µm”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0204]; one order of magnitude smaller than between two and fifty microns lies within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 6, modified Gibson teaches the method of claim 9 as stated above. Gibson teaches that “the sinterable powdered material may also or instead include an alloy of at least one of aluminum, steel, and copper” (which reads upon “wherein the copper-containing build particles include copper alloy particles comprising from about 50 wt% to about 99 wt% of elemental copper”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0170]; a copper alloy is at least 50% copper).
Regarding claim 10, modified Gibson teaches the method of claim 9 as stated above. Gibson teaches that “binder jetting techniques can be used to deposit and bind metallic particles or the like in a net shape for debinding and sintering into a final part” (paragraph [0125]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Gibson teaches the method of claim 9 as stated above. Gibson teaches that “the one or more binders may resist deformation of a net shape of the object during processing of the object into the final part, in particular where this processing includes debinding the net shape to remove at least a portion of the one or more binders and sintering the net shape to join and densify the powdered material” (paragraph [0201]; binder includes the submicron metal materials which read on the metal shaping particles). Gibson teaches that “the binder system may include a first binder that is removed from the second material during a debind prior to sintering, where the binder system includes a second binder that remains in the net shape at an onset of a thermal sintering cycle” (paragraph [0204]; submicron metal materials are present at the onset of sintering which reads on heat-fusing, but do not remain into the final part, thus they are removed after sintering). Gibson teaches that “the binder system may also or instead include a first binder that is removed from the second material during a debind prior to sintering, where the binder system includes a second binder that remains in the net shape through sintering into the final part” (paragraph [0204]; in contrast to the sentence above).
Regarding claim 17, modified Gibson teaches the method of claim 9 as stated above. Gibson teaches that “fabricating the layer of the object may also or instead include fabricating a surface of the object from a second material” (paragraph [0201]). Gibson teaches that “the second material may include a powdered metallurgy material, and that more generally, the powdered material of the second material may include a metal powder, a ceramic powder, or any other sinterable material or combination of materials” (paragraph [0202]). Gibson teaches that “the powdered material may include an alloy of at least one of aluminum, steel, and copper, where the composition of the suspension includes at least one of antimony, arsenic, bismuth, lead, sulfur, phosphorous, tellurium, iodine, bromine, chlorine, and fluorine” (paragraph [0202]; list includes non-reactive metals).
Regarding claim 20, modified Gibson teaches the method of claim 9 as stated above. Klett teaches that “the carrier comprises the gel-based binder, and the gel-based binder comprises a hydroxyethyl cellulose, and that it is to be appreciated that the sol-gel of the hydroxyethyl cellulose may also function as the thickener” (paragraph [0023]). Klett teaches that “the hydroxyethyl cellulose may be present in the carrier in an amount of from about 0.1 to about 50 wt. %, alternatively from about 0.1 to about 10 wt. %” (paragraph [0023]; overlapping ranges).
Claims 2-4, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson et al. (US 20180305266 A1), previously cited, and Klett et al. (US 20200308062 A1), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Connor et al. (US 20190016904 A1), previously cited.
Regarding claims 2-4, modified Gibson teaches the method of claim 9 as stated above. Gibson teaches that “a wide range of metallic powders may usefully be employed, and that powders using stainless steel, titanium, titanium alloys, high-nickel alloys, nickel copper alloys, magnetic alloys, and the like are commercially available in MIM materials and suitable for sintering” (paragraph [0074]). Gibson teaches that “fabricating the layer of the object may also or instead include fabricating a surface of the object from a second material” (paragraph [0201]). Gibson teaches that “the second material may include an infiltratable powder with at least one of a metallic infiltrant and a ceramic infiltrant” (paragraph [0202]). Gibson teaches that “the second material may include an infiltratable powder with at least one of a metallic infiltrant and a ceramic infiltrant” (paragraph [0202]). Gibson teaches that “the method 1900 may include fabricating one or more infiltration structures contacting the object and containing the amount of the infiltrant” (paragraph [0320]).
Gibson is silent regarding the specific metal shaping particles and the specific D50 particle size distribution values claimed.
Connor is similarly concerned with an additive manufacturing method for depositing a metal paste to produce a metal part (paragraph [0051]). Connor teaches that the composition includes “metal infiltrant particles” (paragraph [0052]). Connor teaches that “the metal infiltrant particles comprise a material selected from the group containing aluminum, boron, carbon, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, phosphorus, silicon, tin, titanium, tungsten, vanadium and zinc, and mixtures, alloys or composites thereof” (which reads upon the metals of claims 2-4; paragraph [0036]). Connor teaches that “the metal infiltrant particles have a D50 ranging from 0.05 μm to 10 μm” (which reads upon “the D50 particle size distribution value of from about 1 µm to about 75 µm, the D50 particle size distribution value of from about 100 nm to about 20 μm”, as recited in the instant claims; paragraph [0093]). Connor teaches “metal infiltration, wherein a molten metal (infiltrant) infiltrates a porous body of metal powder (a scaffold), increasing the density and improving mechanical properties” (paragraph [0009]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metallic infiltrant of Gibson to include any of the compositions and sizes claimed, as taught by Connor to increase the density and improve the mechanical properties of the porous body. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07. Here, Connor teaches that iron, nickel, steel, and Ti-Al-V alloys, particles in the sizes claimed are known to be suitable for infiltration during heating of additively manufactured green bodies.
It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Here, the claimed range of from about 1 μm to about 75 μm overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art of from 0.05 μm to 10 μm. The claimed range of from about 100 nm to about 20 μm overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art of from 0.05 μm to 10 μm. Accordingly, the prior art renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 7, modified Gibson teaches the method of claim 9 as stated above. Gibson teaches that “a wide range of metallic powders may usefully be employed, and that powders using stainless steel, titanium, titanium alloys, high-nickel alloys, nickel copper alloys, magnetic alloys, and the like are commercially available in MIM materials and suitable for sintering” (paragraph [0074]). Gibson teaches that “the sinterable powdered material may also or instead include an alloy of at least one of aluminum, steel, and copper” (paragraph [0170]).
Gibson is silent regarding wherein the copper-containing build particles include elemental copper particles having a purity of from about 99 wt% to 100 wt%.
Connor is similarly concerned with an additive manufacturing method for depositing a metal paste to produce a metal part (paragraph [0051]). Connor teaches that “the paste compositions of the present disclosure can include metals powders comprising iron, nickel and copper particles” (paragraph [0205]). Connor teaches that “copper particles can have a copper concentration ranging from about 90% by weight copper or more, such as about 95% by weight, 98%, 99%, 99.5%, or about 99.7% by weight copper” (which reads upon “wherein the copper-containing build particles include elemental copper particles having a purity of from about 99 wt% to 100 wt%” as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0204]). Connor teaches that “the present disclosure is directed to an improved version of additive manufacturing that uses sintering of metal pastes combined with simultaneous metal infiltration” (paragraph [0131]). Connor teaches that “the method makes use of a metal source that can be used in a layerwise deposition technique that avoids long processing times, high temperatures (>1000 C) and inhomogeneity in mechanical properties, and that the materials and processes of the present disclosure can provide for use of a lower power energy source and yet still produce high strength metals parts” (paragraph [0131]). Connor teaches that “this improvement can be realized with a metal source that can produce strong metal parts by sintering instead of melting, and that the source can take the form of a powder with smaller diameters than conventional “coarse” powders” (paragraph [0131]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the copper alloy particles of Gibson with higher purity copper, as taught by Connor in applications where a mostly pure copper final part is desired, such as where electrical conductivity is a key consideration. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07. Here, Connor teaches that relatively pure copper particles (greater than 99% purity) are known to be suitable as build materials for additively manufactured green bodies.
Regarding claim 12, modified Gibson teaches the method of claim 9 as stated above. Gibson teaches that “fabricating the layer of the object may also or instead include fabricating a surface of the object from a second material” (paragraph [0201]; second material reads on the shaping composition). Gibson teaches that “the second material may include an infiltratable powder with at least one of a metallic infiltrant and a ceramic infiltrant” (paragraph [0202]). Gibson teaches that “the second material may include an infiltratable powder with at least one of a metallic infiltrant and a ceramic infiltrant” (paragraph [0202]). Gibson teaches that “the method 1900 may include fabricating one or more infiltration structures contacting the object and containing the amount of the infiltrant” (paragraph [0320]). Gibson teaches “a fabrication process such as fused filament fabrication” (paragraph [0109]). Gibson is silent regarding the layer thickness and specifically, Gibson is silent regarding wherein the metal coating has an average thickness of from about 100 μm to about 2 mm and includes an alloyed-interface having a thickness of from about 1 μm to about 200 μm. Regarding the subject limitation, in order to carry out the invention of Gibson, it would have been necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for exemplary thicknesses of layers used in fused filament fabrication additive manufacturing of metal green bodies. Connor provides this teaching. Connor teaches that the metal mixture is formulated into a filamentary form (paragraph [0197]). Connor teaches a layer thicknesses of between 20-200 μm (paragraph [0160]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the surface layer of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the layer thickness, as taught by Connor, motivated to form a conventional part using known and tested thicknesses of layers predictably suitable for fused filament fabrication additive manufacturing of metal green bodies.
Gibson teaches that a part shrinks during sintering (which may be 20% or more depending on the composition of the green body) (paragraph [0109]). 20-200 μm times 0.8 (to account for 20% shrinkage) give a metal coating thickness of 16-160 μm. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Here, the claimed range of about 100 μm to about 2 mm overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art of from 16 -160 μm. Gibson teaches that “the infiltrant may be selected to alloy with a metal of the first material during the infiltration process” (which reads upon “and includes an alloyed-interface”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0309]). The thickness of the alloyed-interface cannot be greater than the thickness of the metal layer. Here, the claimed range of about 1 μm to about 200 μm overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art of less than or equal to 16-160 μm. Accordingly, the prior art renders the claim obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Gibson does not anticipate the shaping composition (i) and, thus, does not anticipate the method recited in amended independent claim 9 utilizing the shaping composition (i) (remarks, pages 7-8). Applicant argues that Gibson does not anticipate the method of amended independent claim 9 utilizing the shaping composition (ii), because Gibson does not teach each and every element of the method of amended independent claim 9 utilizing the shaping composition (ii) (remarks, page 8). This is not found convincing because Klett is cited to teach the instant limitation.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q4: 9/21-9/30/26; Q1: 1/4-1/8/27.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights