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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 7/28/23 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 2-12, 16, and 17 in the reply filed on 1/31/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is only one group of claims (after cancellation of the non-elected claims). This is not found persuasive because applicant is free to add new claims at any time during prosecution.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 5, 8-10, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12138685 B2, reference patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference patent teaches method of controlling green body object deformation comprising (a method of controlling green body object deformation, the method comprising) forming the green body object by iteratively applying individual build material layers of a particulate build material comprising from about 80 wt % to 100 wt % metal build particles (wherein the green body object includes copper-containing build particles; reference patent teaches using copper metal build particles as an example, thus it would be obvious to choose copper as the metal build particles) having a D50 particle size distribution value ranging from about 50 μm to about 150 μm; and based on a 3D object model, selectively applying a binding agent, including a build binder, to individual build material layers to define individually patterned layers that are built up and bound together with the build binder to form the green body object (bound together with a build binder), the binding agent being contained separately from the particulate build material applying a coating of a shaping composition to a surface of the green body object (applying a coating of a shaping composition to a surface of a green body object) at a surface location to ameliorate deformation within an intermediate temperature range where the build binder is not effective at retaining the green body object shape prior to the metal build particles becoming heat-fused, wherein the shaping composition includes a water-based liquid vehicle present at from 20 wt % to about 30 wt % based on a total weight of the shape composition from about 65 wt % to about 75 wt %, based on the total weight of the shaping composition, of a metal particulate mixture including aluminum-containing particulates (the shaping composition includes metal shaping particles) and secondary metal-containing particulates independently having a D50 particle size ranging from about 5 μm to about 100 μm (having a D50 particle size distribution value of from about 100 nm to about 100 μm), wherein the secondary metal-containing particulates are iron-containing particulates; and from about 5 wt % to about 15 wt % of a shaping binder wherein a viscosity of the shaping composition ranges from about 50 cps to about 5000 cps ramping-up temperature applied to the green body object though an intermediate temperature range where: multiple types of metal particulates of the shaping composition interact with one another (heating the green body object with the coating applied to the surface thereof through though an intermediate temperature range, whereby the metal shaping particles of the coating interact with the copper- containing build particles of the green body object), metal particulates of the shaping composition interact with metal build particles of the green body object, or both, wherein the shaping composition counteracts temperature induced deformation of the green body object while the green body object is within the intermediate temperature range (counteract temperature induced deformation of the green body object during the heating through the intermediate temperature range); and fusing the green body object at a fusing temperature to form a fused metal object (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 having a metal coating on the copper-containing metal body, the metal coating formed from the metal shaping particles).
Specification
The amendment to the specification dated 1/31/26 has been entered.
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 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.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 5-6, 9-11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gibson et al. (US 20180305266 A1).
Regarding claim 9, 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 “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” (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 “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”, 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).
Regarding claim 5, 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, 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, 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, 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 16, Gibson teaches the method of claim 9 as stated above. Gibson teaches that “metal injection molding compositions may be usefully adapted for fused filament fabrication systems and other additive fabrication processes” (paragraph [0071]). Gibson teaches that “metal injection molding is a mature technology that has produced a variety of highly engineered materials with high metal loading (e.g., >50% by volume, and preferably >60% by volume or more (where greater metal loading can improve and accelerates sintering)) and good flow properties at elevated temperatures” (paragraph [0071]; good flow properties at elevated temperatures reads on a liquid vehicle). Gibson teaches that “this type of material—that combines a powdered material for sintering and a binder for retaining shape net shape and providing a rheology suitable for FFF extrusion—may be further engineered in a number of ways to facilitate rapid prototyping of sinterable green bodies as contemplated herein” (paragraph [0073]).
Regarding claim 17, 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2-4, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson et al. (US 20180305266 A1), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Connor et al. (US 20190016904 A1).
Regarding claims 2-4, 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, 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, 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson et al. (US 20180305266 A1), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Gibbon et al. (US 3839026 A).
Regarding claim 8, 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” (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 binder may be formed of polymers with a lower glass transition temperature or less viscosity for higher-resolution printing” (paragraph [0075]). Gibson is silent regarding the viscosity of the second material. 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 viscosities of materials used in forming layers of material including metal powder and binder. Gibbon provides this teaching. Gibbon teaches depositing a coating on a moving support surface, said coating comprising a suspension of powdered ferrous metal in an aqueous film-forming binder material (column 1, lines 32-45). Gibbon teaches that generally speaking the viscosity of the slurry should be between 1,000 and 10,000 centipoises (column 2, lines 35-40). Gibbon teaches that in high speed deposition relatively low viscosity slurries are preferred e.g. between 3,000 and 5,000 centipoises (column 2, lines 35-40). Gibbon teaches that the viscosity of the slurry can be varied by employing a higher or lower proportion of binder material (column 2, lines 35-43). 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 second material of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the viscosity, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by Gibbon, motivated to form a conventional material using known and tested values of viscosity predictably suitable for forming layers of material including metal powder and binder.
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. Q2: 3/30-4/3/26; Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
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