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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 drawn to a powder material, in the reply filed on March 12, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 7 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 March 12, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 5 claims powder material composed of granulated sintered particles. The transitional phrase "composed of" has been interpreted in the same manner as either "consisting of" or "consisting essentially of," depending on the facts of the particular case (MPEP 2111.03(IV)). As the present disclosure states “according to the technique disclosed herein, it is possible to manufacture an additive-manufactured product that is composed of a cemented carbide containing WC—Co as a constituent component and that has excellent mechanical properties” (paragraph [0008] of the specification as filed), the term “composed of’ in view of the specification, is intended as open to elements which are not recited; therefore, the powder material composed of granulated sintered particles of claim 5 will be interpreted as powder material consisting essentially of granulated sintered particles. The transitional phrase "consisting essentially of" limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps "and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)" of the claimed invention (MPEP 2111.03(III)). As the disclosure does not identify particulates which whose presence would materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the powder material, claim 5 will be interpreted as open to a powder material which includes both other material and the claimed granulated sintered particles as constituents of a common mixture.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sumitomo Electric (JP2019183201A). Sumitomo Electric is cited in the IDS filed September 29, 2023. References to Sumitomo Electric are directed to the applicant-supplied English language translation which accompanied the submission filed September 29, 2023.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Sumitomo Electric discloses a powder material (binder phase powder mixed with WC powder and a second hard phase powder [0052]). Sumitomo Electric discloses that the powder mixture comprises tungsten carbide (WC) ([0052], [0074], Table 1) cobalt (Co) [0050-52], [002], and carbon additive including carbon (C) as a main constituent element (second hard phase and additional carbon powder [0052], [0074], Table 1). Example 4 in Table 1 of Sumitomo Electric is a powder mixture comprising 85% by Mass of WC, 8.00% by mass Mo2C and 0.15% by mass added carbon (Table 1); therefore, for 100 parts by mass of the powder material of Example 4 of Sumitomo Electric, 85 parts are WC, 8.00 parts are Mo2C, and 0.15 parts are C. WC is 6.13% C; Mo2C is 5.89% by weight carbon. When the composition of example 4 of Sumitomo Electric (Table 1) is entered into the Formula in claim 1 for A, the calculation yields:
0.0613
×
85
+
0.0589
×
8
+
0.15
85
×
100
=
6.86
.
A value of A of 6.86 satisfies
6.4
≤
A
≤
7.2
of present claim 1 and
6.6
≤
A
≤
6.9
of present claim 2.
The statement “for additive manufacturing” in the preamble of claim 1, is a statement of intended use of the claimed powder material. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Further the structure of the powder material itself is completely set forth in the body of the claim. As the structure of the powder material of Example 4 of Sumitomo Electric (Table 1) would be capable of meeting some use which contributes in some way to an additive manufacturing process, Example 4 of Sumitomo Electric (Table 1) meets the structure encompassed by the statement of intended use recited in the preamble of claim 1. See MPEP 2111.02(II) for further discussion on claim interpretation of statements of intended use in the claim preamble.
Regarding claim 4, the powder material of example 4 of Sumitomo Electric comprises Mo2C as a carbon additive (Table 1). Mo2C is a carbide of molybdenum (Mo).
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hangzhou Polytechnic (CN111663067A). Hangzhou Polytechnic is cited in the IDS filed June 4, 2025. References are directed to the applicant-supplied English language translation filed June 4, 2025.
Regarding claim 1, Hangzhou Polytechnic discloses a powder material for additive manufacturing (claim 1, [0002], [0008], [0019-20], [0047-48]). Hangzhou Polytechnic discloses Example 3 which comprises tungsten carbide (WC), cobalt (Co) and carbon additives which include carbon (C) as a main constituent element (TiC and TaC) (Table 1, [0009]). Example 3 of Hangzhou Polytechnic contains 90.1% by mass WC, 1.0% by mass TiC, and 1.1% by mass TaC (Table 1) therefore, for 100 parts by mass of the powder material of Example 3 of Hangzhou Polytechnic, 90.1 parts are WC, 1.0 parts are TiC, and 1.1 parts are TaC. WC is 6.13% C; TiC is 20.06%C by weight carbon, and TaC is 6.22% by weight carbon; therefore, the 90.1 parts by weight WC, 1.0 parts by weight TiC, and 1.1 parts by weight TaC comprise 5.78 parts as the mass of C derived from WC + mass of C derived from carbon additive
5.78
=
5.52
=
0.0613
×
90.1
+
0.20
=
0.2006
×
1.0
+
0.068
=
0.0622
×
1.1
. When the composition of example 3 of Hangzhou Polytechnic (Table 1) is entered into the Formula in claim 1 for A, the calculation yields:
5.78
90.1
×
100
=
6.42
.
which satisfies the condition of 6.4≤A≤7.2.
Regarding claim 4, Hangzhou Polytechnic discloses that the powder material comprises a carbide of the metals Ti and Ta as the carbon additive (Table 3, [0009]). Ti is at least one metal selected from the group consisting of titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), chromium (Cr), niobium (Nb) and molybdenum (Mo).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumitomo Electric (JP2019183201A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maderud (US20170072469).
Regarding claim 3, Sumitomo Electric discloses that the carbon is added as carbon powder ([0052], [0074], Table 1), which is a solid carbon material. Sumitomo Electric does not disclose that the carbon powder is at least one selected from the group consisting of graphite, carbon black, activated carbon, carbon fiber and nanocarbon.
Maderud teaches a powder material for additive manufacturing (Title, [0001]). Maderud teaches that the powder material comprises comprising tungsten carbide (WC), cobalt (Co) [0036], [0073], [0084]. Maderud teaches adding graphite powder to the powder mixture [0051], [0084]. Maderud teaches that graphite can compensate for carbon which the powder material may lose in a sintering process and that graphite does not contaminate cemented carbide, of which carbon is a constituent [0051].
Both Sumitomo Electric and Maderud teach powder material comprising WC, Co, and carbon powder. The carbon powder of the powder material disclosed by Sumitomo Electric ([0052], [0074], Table 1) must necessarily have some morphology. Sumitomo Electric sinters the powder material [0076].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to provide the carbon powder disclosed by Sumitomo Electric ([0052], [0074], Table 1) as graphite powder because the carbon powder disclosed by Sumitomo Electric [0052], [0074] must have some morphology, and Maderud teaches graphite powder can compensate for carbon loss on sintering and that graphite powder does not contaminate materials wherein carbon is a constituent [0051].
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hangzhou Polytechnic (CN111663067A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ibe (US20190001556).
Regarding claim 5, Hangzhou Polytechnic discloses that the powder material is composed of granulated particles in which the tungsten carbide, the cobalt, and the carbon additive are mixed [0019-20], [0048-49]. Hangzhou Polytechnic does not disclose that the granules are sintered.
Ibe teaches a powder material for additive manufacturing [0001], [0010]. Ibe teaches that the material comprises a first powder of tungsten carbide (WC) ([0029], [0033], Table 1) and a second powder of cobalt (Co) ([0036-37], Table 1). Ibe teaches that the powder material is open to additional metal carbides [0033-34]. Ibe teaches that the powder material is composed of granulated particles [0041-42], [0047], in which first and second powders are mixed [0043-44], [0091]. Ibe teaches that the granulated particles are formed by spray drying and then sintering a mixture of first and second powder [0091-93]. Ibe teaches that as a result of sintering granules, scattering of powder may be suitably prevented and a reduction of manufacturing rate may be suppressed [0016], [0042].
Both Hangzhou Polytechnic and Ibe teach powder materials for additive manufacturing comprising granulated particles comprising tungsten carbide and cobalt.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to sinter the granules comprising tungsten carbide and cobalt disclosed by Hangzhou Polytechnic [0009], [0019-20], [0048-49] because Ibe teaches that as a result of sintering granules, scattering of powder may be suitably prevented and a reduction of manufacturing rate may be suppressed [0016], [0042].
Regarding claim 6, Hangzhou Polytechnic discloses that the granulated particles of Example 3 have an average particle size of 10 μm or more and 30 μm or less [0049]. Hangzhou Polytechnic discloses that mixture of example 3 comprises particles of the tungsten carbide have a particle size of 0.3-0.6 µm [0047], which is less than 1 μm. Hangzhou Polytechnic discloses that particles of cobalt have a particle size of 1.0-1.5 µm [0047], which approaches a range of 2 μm or more and 10 μm or less. Hangzhou Polytechnic discloses that particles of TiC are 1.5-3.5 µm and particles of TaC are 1.5-2.5 µm [0047]. Ranges of 1.5-3.5 µm and 1.5-2.5 µm lie entirely within a range of 1 μm or more and 5 μm or less. Ibe teaches that granulated particles have an average particle diameter of 1 μm or more and 100 μm or less, which Ibe teaches is a size suitable for manufacturing machines in general use [0013], [0050-51]. Ibe teaches that the particles of the first and second powders preferably have a size of 1 nm or more and 20 µm or less [0054] and that the size of the first powder particles, which may be tungsten carbide ([0029], [0033], Table 1) is preferably less than the size of second powder particles which may be cobalt ([0036-37], Table 1), which Ibe teaches is suitable for additive manufacturing [0055]. The particle size ranges disclosed by Hangzhou Polytechnic [0047] meet or approach the ranges recited in present claim 6, and the ranges taught by Ibe [0013], [0051-55] encompass ranges recited in present claim 6. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, and generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(I-II). Hangzhou Polytechnic discloses [0019-20], [0048-49], and Ibe teaches [0041-44], [0046-47] that the carbide and cobalt particles are included as particles constituting the granulated particles. Note that the consisting of language of claim 6 as worded applies to particle sizes of a given chemical species, and claim 6 is not worded to exclude materials which are not recited from the claimed powder material.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hangzhou Polytechnic (CN111663067A) in view of Ibe (US20190001556), as applied to claims 1 and 5 above and further in view of Maderud (US20170072469).
Regarding claim 3, Hangzhou Polytechnic in view of Ibe does not disclose that the powder material comprises at least one solid carbon material selected from the group consisting of graphite, carbon black, activated carbon, carbon fiber and nanocarbon.
Maderud teaches a powder material for additive manufacturing (Title, [0001]). Maderud teaches that the powder material comprises comprising tungsten carbide (WC), cobalt (Co) [0036], [0073], [0084]. Maderud teaches forming granules by spray drying a mixture comprising tungsten carbide and Co powders [0036], [0083] and sintering the formed granules [0039], [0086]. Maderud teaches adding graphite powder to the powder mixture [0051], [0084]. Maderud teaches that graphite can compensate for carbon which the powder material may lose in a sintering process and that graphite does not contaminate cemented carbide, of which carbon is a constituent [0051].
Both Maderud and Hangzhou Polytechnic in view of Ibe teach powder material for additive manufacturing of sintered granules wherein tungsten carbide and cobalt are constituents.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to include at least some amount of graphite powder in the powder material of sintered granules disclosed by Hangzhou Polytechnic in view of Ibe, as applied to claim 5 because Maderud teaches that graphite can compensate for carbon which the powder material may lose in a sintering process and that graphite does not contaminate cemented carbide, of which carbon is a constituent [0051].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20110293840 discloses consolidating layers in an additive manufacturing process with a friction stir welding tool; therefore, material which forms a friction stir weld tool is structurally suitable as a material ultimately intended for use in additive manufacturing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P O'KEEFE whose telephone number is (571)272-7647. The examiner can normally be reached MR 8:00-6:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/SEAN P. O'KEEFE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/ SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights