Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-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
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on 06/03/26 has been entered. Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 11, and 13 – 20 remain pending and under examination.
Claim Rejections
Claim 14 is rejected as being incomplete because it depends upon a canceled claim. For purposes of examination and compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as dependent upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §112
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 11, and 13 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claims 1 and 18, the chemical compound of “allyl ayano acrylate” does not appear to be described in the instant invention and as such fails to comply to with the written description requirement. The examiner notes it appears to be intended to be alkyl cyano acrylate(s) which are well-known family of adhesives (“ayano” does not appear to be a chemical group). Correction and/or a response pointing out specifically where support is provided is required.
Claims 2 – 3, 5 – 11, and 13 – 20 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 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 1 – 3 and 15 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorea (US 12,186,810) in view of Mueller (US2020/0030883) and Digital Alloys (“Metal Binder Jetting”, NPL), and in further view of Gibson (US2017/0297108)
Regarding claim 1, Sorea teaches a method of joining two components produced by powder metallurgy [Col 1, line 15 – 20]. Sorea teaches that the first and second components can be manufactured by additive manufacturing [Col 6, line 8 – 10], meeting the claimed limitation of the first and second components containing a plurality of layers of particulate material. Sorea teaches that the joining surface are brought into contact with a mixture between them and the mixture contains a powder and alloy composition [Abstract], meeting the claimed limitation of an interfacial joint with joint material which contains a powder. Sorea teaches that the components are sintered together [Abstract], meeting the claimed limitation of that components are green portions/green bodies.
Sorea does not explicitly teach the powder size of the material used for joining.
Mueller is directed to the same field of endeavor of sinter joining components which are produced through powder metallurgical processes [0015]. Mueller teaches that a joint paste can be provided to compensate for irregularities between the joint surfaces [0030] and that the joint paste can be the same material or similar [0030]. Wherein Mueller states that “similar” material can have a smaller grain size, implying that the same material would have the same grain size [0031].
To this, Digital Alloys teaches information regarding binder jet additive manufacturing [Page 1]. Digital Alloys teaches that binder jetting is a well-known method of additive manufacturing which involves forming components that ultimately require sintering [Page 1]. Digital Alloys states that binder jetting creates layered green parts [page 2 – 3] and that the powder size used should range from approximately 5 – 45 microns in size [page 4], which falls within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Sorea and used binder jetting as the additive manufacturing method with a powder size of ~5-45 µm, as taught by Digital Alloys, and used the same powder size for the joining powder/paste, as suggested by Mueller. Sorea teaches that the components can be produced by additive manufacturing and Digital Alloys teaches that binder jetting is a well-known process of additive manufacturing that produces green bodies. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to use the process to produce the bodies to be joined in Sorea and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to use the powder size disclosed by Digital Alloys (~5 – 45 microns) as this is a known powder size distribution used in the process (thereby also having a reasonable expectation of success). Lastly, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated by the teachings of Mueller to control the powder size (and material) of the bonding material to be the same as the components to be joined because Mueller suggests that having the same or similar material in the joint material and bonding components achieves a preferred joint. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that the material would already be available when producing the components to be joined.
Sorea as-modified does not explicitly teach the presence of one of the listed chemicals of claim 1 in the joint material binder.
Gibson teaches a method of additively manufacturing green bodies [0004], including the use of binder jetting [0018]. Gibson teaches that the binder system can include a first and second binder in which one is polymerizable [0132]. Gibson further discloses that the binder system includes other additives [0155] and expressly discloses that cyanoacrylate is an adhesive that can be used in the binder system [0211].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used cyanoacrylate(s) adhesive, as disclosed by Gibson, as part of the binder composition of Sorea as-modified to achieve predictable results. Sorea as-modified is directed to additive manufacturing green parts and bonding a composition, and Gibson is directed to binder systems and methods of additive manufacturing of green bodies. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered the teachings of Gibson to be pertinent to Sorea as-modified. Moreover, Muller teaches that the joint material should be the same or similar to the components being bonded and Sorea teaches using joint material containing binder and solvent. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply the teachings of Gibson because Gibson shows that cyanoacrylate(s) are used as part of binder compositions in additive manufacturing processes that form green bodies, including binder jetting.
The combination of prior art elements to yield predictable results is a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143 A). “The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art”. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976)
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is a prima facie case of obviousness (In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 2, Sorea in view of Mueller, Digital Alloys, and Gibson teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Sorea teaches that the alloy composition of the mixture can be FeCrAl [Col 10, line 20], meeting the claimed limitation of iron alloy.
Regarding claim 3, Sorea in view of Mueller, Digital Alloys, and Gibson teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Sorea teaches that the binding mixture can have ceramic powder [Col 6, line 49 – 52]. While not disclosed for the ceramic powder in the mixture, Sorea teaches that ceramic particles in the first and second components can include “AlO, SiO, ZiO, Alumina, Zirconia, Boron Nitride, Cordierite, and Silicon Nitride” [Col 6, line 33 – 35].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the one or more of ceramics disclosed by Sorea as the ceramic material/powder in the mixture for bonding to achieve predictable results. Given that Sorea already discloses their use in the method/product, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, Sorea in view of Mueller, Digital Alloys, and Gibson teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Sorea shows that that joint area can have a curved portion [Fig 2], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 16, Sorea in view of Mueller, Digital Alloys, and Gibson teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Sorea teaches that the first and second components can be metal or metal alloys including “iron, chromium, aluminum, cobalt, nickel, manganese, molybdenum, vanadium, silicon or an alloys thereof” [Col 6, line 12 – 14], meeting the claimed limitation of at least “nickel alloy”.
Regarding claim 17, Sorea in view of Mueller, Digital Alloys, and Gibson teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Sorea teaches that the first and second components can be ceramics including “AlO, SiO, ZiO, Alumina, Zirconia, Boron Nitride, Cordierite, and Silicon Nitride” [Col 6, line 33 – 35], meeting the claimed limitation of at least “alumina”.
Claims 5 – 8, 10 – 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorea (US 12,186,810) in view of Mueller (US2020/0030883), Digital Alloys (“Metal Binder Jetting”, NPL) and Gibson (US2017/0297108), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Goto (US2015/0239179)
Regarding claims 5 – 6, Sorea in view of Mueller, Digital Alloys, and Gibson teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Sorea does not expressly teach the composition of the binder.
Goto is directed to an additive manufacturing method including the deposition of material in a layer-by-layer manner to form a green body/pre-sintered part [Abstract] that then requires sintering [0084]. Goto teaches that the binder composition serves to bind particles of metal or ceramic [0136] and includes a water-soluble resin [0153] (of which polyvinylpyrrolidone can be particularly selected [0162]), a solvent which can be used to adjust the viscosity [0167, 0230], and a binding agent which is used to bind particles [0177]. Goto teaches that the resin can be polyvinylpyrrolidone [0162], meeting the claimed limitations of claim 5, and that the polymer can have a molecular weight of 10,000 – 1,700,000 g/mol [0163], which overlaps within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used binder jetting/additive manufacturing binder composition disclosed by Goto, as the binder composition of Sorea as-modified to achieve predictable results. Sorea as-modified is directed to additive manufacturing green parts and bonding a composition, and Goto is directed to additive manufacturing. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered the teachings of Goto to be pertinent to Sorea as-modified. Moreover, Muller teaches that the joint material should be the same or similar to the components being bonded and Sorea teaches using joint material containing binder and solvent. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply the teachings of Goto because Goto shows that the binder composition is useful for/capable of being used in an additive manufacturing process that forms green bodies.
With regards to the overlapping ranges taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected overlapping ranges as disclosed. Selection of overlapping ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05 I). “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”
Regarding claims 7 – 8, Sorea in view of Mueller, Digital Alloys, and Gibson teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Sorea does not expressly teach the amount of the binder relative the green body.
Goto is directed to an additive manufacturing method including the deposition of material in a layer-by-layer manner to form a green body/pre-sintered part [Abstract] that then requires sintering [0084]. Goto teaches that the binder composition serves to bind particles of metal or ceramic [0136] and includes a water-soluble resin [0153], a solvent which can be used to adjust the viscosity [0167, 0230], and a binding agent which is used to bind particles [0177]. Goto teaches that the rate of powder present in composition of binder and powder is 10 – 90 mass% (wherein the “binder” would be the inverse 90 – 10%), which both overlaps with the claimed range/ratio of claims 7 – 8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used binder jetting/additive manufacturing binder composition disclosed by Goto, as the binder composition of Sorea as-modified to achieve predictable results. Sorea as-modified is directed to additive manufacturing green parts and bonding a composition, and Goto is directed to additive manufacturing. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered the teachings of Goto to be pertinent to Sorea as-modified. Moreover, Muller teaches that the joint material should be the same or similar to the components being bonded and Sorea teaches using joint material containing binder and solvent. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply the teachings of Goto because Goto shows that the binder composition is useful for/capable of being used in an additive manufacturing process that forms green bodies.
With regards to the overlapping ranges taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected overlapping ranges as disclosed. Selection of overlapping ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05 I). “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”
Regarding claims 10 – 11, Sorea in view of Mueller, Digital Alloys, and Gibson teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Sorea as-modified does not explicitly teach the presence of a reactive monomer in the joint material/binder.
Goto is directed to an additive manufacturing method including the deposition of material in a layer-by-layer manner to form a green body/pre-sintered part [Abstract] that then requires sintering [0084]. Goto teaches that the binder composition serves to bind particles of metal or ceramic [0136] and includes a water-soluble resin [0153] (of which polyvinylpyrrolidone can be particularly selected [0162]), a solvent which can be used to adjust the viscosity [0167, 0230], and a binding agent which is used to bind particles [0177]. Goto teaches that the binding agent is a curable resin (i.e. reactive monomer) which is polymerizable [0179] and which is, in particular, an epoxy derivative monomer [0201], meeting the claimed limitation of “epoxy monomer” of claim 10 and in particular, 3,4-epoxycyclohexylmethyl-3,4-epoxycyclohexyl carboxylate [0205], meeting claim 11.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used binder jetting/additive manufacturing binder composition disclosed by Goto, as the binder composition of Sorea as-modified to achieve predictable results. Sorea as-modified is directed to additive manufacturing green parts and bonding a composition, and Goto is directed to additive manufacturing. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered the teachings of Goto to be pertinent to Sorea as-modified. Moreover, Muller teaches that the joint material should be the same or similar to the components being bonded and Sorea teaches using joint material containing binder and solvent. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply the teachings of Goto because Goto shows that the binder composition is useful for/capable of being used in an additive manufacturing process that forms green bodies.
Regarding claim 13, Sorea in view of Mueller, Digital Alloys, and Gibson teaches the invention as applied in claim 10. Goto teaches using an epoxy derivative monomer/polymerizable compound, meeting claim 10. The limitations of claim 13 do not specify/state that the vinyl ether monomer is used/selected, only that the vinyl ether monomer is further defined. As such, Sorea as-modified (in particular Goto) meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 13 by use of an epoxy derivative monomer.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorea (US 12,186,810) in view of Mueller (US2020/0030883), Digital Alloys (“Metal Binder Jetting”, NPL), and Gibson (US2017/0297108), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Gegel (US 6,551,551, cited with the IDS of 07/17/23).
Regarding claim 9, Sorea in view of Mueller, Digital Alloys, and Gibson teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Sorea as-modified does not explicitly describe what the viscosity of the joint material/paste should be.
Gegel describes a method in the same field of endeavor as Sorea of sinter bonding components produced via powder metallurgical methods (in this case, injection molded products) [Title]. Gegel further describes that the method also uses a bonding agent with particles dispersed between the two components [Fig 1]. Gegel describes that the bonding agent/fine particles promote local bonding where the two components do not contact each other due to surface roughness [Col 3, line 20 – 23]. Gegel teaches that to achieve this, the viscosity of the bonding agent should be between 1350 – 250,000 cp, which overlaps with the claimed range, while being high enough to remain in place [Col 3, line 25 – 28].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the bonding material of Sorea as-modified and controlled the viscosity to be 1350 – 250,000 cp, as disclosed by Gegel. Gegel is in the same field of endeavor of sinter bonding powder metallurgy components together and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered the teachings of Gegel to be pertinent to Sorea as-modified. Further still, given that Sorea as-modified and Gegel both described using bonding agent containing binder and inorganic particles, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in controlling the viscosity to the range described by Gegel. Lastly, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because, like Mueller, Gegel describes that the bonding agent is used to promote contact between the two components where they might not otherwise contact due to surface roughness. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to control the viscosity to this range such that the bonding agent could flow properly to achieve this feature.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorea (US 12,186,810) in view of Mueller (US2020/0030883), Digital Alloys (“Metal Binder Jetting”, NPL), and Gibson (US2017/0297108), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Lawton (US 5,980,812) and Schrief (WO2022/268546, using espacenet translation)
Regarding claim 14, Sorea in view of Mueller, Digital Alloys, and Gibson teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Sorea as-modified (in particular Gibson) teaches that the binder composition can include polymerization initiators [0218], but does not expressly teach the content or one of the initiators listed.
Lawton teaches a method directed to layer-by-layer manufacturing [Abstract] by binding metal or ceramic material [Col 3, line 5 – 9]. In particular, Lawton notes that the composition of the process can include free-radical photointiator cyclohexanecarbonitrile, 1,1'-azobis, available from DuPont which is used for acrylate free-radical polymerization of the pattern during firing [Col 15, line 65 – Col 6, line 5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used 1,1'-azobis (cyclohexanecarbonitrile) as disclosed by Lawton, as the polymerization initiator for the acrylate monomer of Sorea as-modified to achieve predictable results. Sorea as-modified and Lawton are directed to additive manufacturing/powder metallurgy and therefore, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered the teachings of Lawton to be pertinent. Moreover, Sorea as-modified teaches that the polymerizable compound can be acrylate (ester acrylic acid) and that a polymerization initiator can be included. Therefore, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to use 1,1'-azobis (cyclohexanecarbonitrile), which is disclosed as an initiator for acrylate polymerization, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results. Moreover, Lawton discloses that the compound is commercially available, providing further motivation to use it.
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)(MPEP 2144.07)
Sorea as-modified does not expressly teach the content range of the polymerization initiator.
Schrief teaches additive manufacturing and a composition for the process. Schrief teaches using acrylic polymer particles [0052] and these particles can have a free-radical initiator present for polymerization in a range 0.001 – 5 wt% [0051], which overlaps with the claimed range. Wherein the initiator can be azo initiator [0050].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have controlled the thermal initiator range of Sorea as-modified to be 0.001 – 5 wt%, as disclosed by Schrief, when polymerizing acrylate monomers with an azo initiator (such as in Sorea as-modified). Schrief teaches that the range is appropriate for acrylic polymerization using an azo initiator in an additive manufacturing method and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results.
Selection of overlapping ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05 I). “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”
Claims 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorea (US 12,186,810) in view of Mueller (US2020/0030883) and Digital Alloys (“Metal Binder Jetting”, NPL), and in further view of Gibson (US2017/0297108)
Regarding claim 18, Sorea teaches a method of joining two components produced by powder metallurgy [Col 1, line 15 – 20]. Sorea teaches that the first and second components can be manufactured by additive manufacturing [Col 6, line 8 – 10], meeting the claimed limitation of providing first and second components containing a plurality of layers of particulate material. Sorea teaches that the joining surfaces are brought into contact with a mixture between them and the mixture contains a powder and alloy composition [Abstract], meeting the claimed limitation of applying a joint material on the first component. Sorea teaches that components are sintered together [Abstract], meeting the claimed limitation of the first and second components being green portions/green bodies and bringing the components together at an interfacial joint.
Sorea does not explicitly teach the powder size of the material used for joining.
Mueller is directed to the same field of endeavor of sinter joining components which are produced through powder metallurgical processes [0015]. Mueller teaches that a joint paste can be provided to compensate for irregularities between the joint surfaces [0030] and that the joint paste can be same material or similar [0030]. Wherein Mueller states that similar material can have a smaller grain size, implying that the same material would have the same grain size [0031].
To this, Digital Alloys teaches information regarding binder jet additive manufacturing [Page 1]. Digital Alloys teaches that binder jetting is a well-known method of additive manufacturing which involves forming components that ultimately require sintering [Page 1]. Digital Alloys states that binder jetting creates layered green parts [page 2 – 3] and that the powder size used should range from approximately 5 – 45 microns in size [page 4], which falls within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Sorea and used binder jetting as the additive manufacturing method with a powder size of ~5-45 µm, as taught by Digital Alloys, and used the same powder size for the joining powder/paste, as suggested by Mueller. Sorea teaches that the components can be produced by additive manufacturing and Digital Alloys teaches that binder jetting is a well-known process of additive manufacturing that produces green bodies. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to use the process to produce the bodies to be joined in Sorea and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to use the powder size disclosed by Digital Alloys (~5 – 45 microns) as this is a known powder size distribution used in the process (thereby also having a reasonable expectation of success). Lastly, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated by the teachings of Mueller to control the powder size (and material) of the bonding material to be the same as the components to be joined because Mueller suggests that having the same or similar material in the joint material and bonding components achieves a preferred joint. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that the material would already be available when producing the components to be joined.
Sorea as-modified does not explicitly teach the presence of a reactive monomer in the joint material.
Gibson teaches a method of additively manufacturing green bodies [0004], including the use of binder jetting [0018]. Gibson teaches that the binder system can include a first and second binder in which one is polymerizable [0132]. Gibson further discloses that the binder system can includes other additives [0155] and expressly discloses that cyanoacrylate is an adhesive that can be used in the binder system [0211].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used cyanoacrylate(s) adhesive, as disclosed by Gibson, as part of the binder composition of Sorea as-modified to achieve predictable results. Sorea as-modified is directed to additive manufacturing green parts and bonding a composition, and Gibson is directed to binder systems and methods of additive manufacturing of green bodies. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered the teachings of Gibson to be pertinent to Sorea as-modified. Moreover, Muller teaches that the joint material should be the same or similar to the components being bonded and Sorea teaches using joint material containing binder and solvent. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply the teachings of Gibson because Gibson shows that cyanoacrylate(s) are used as part of binder compositions in additive manufacturing processes that form green bodies, including binder jetting.
The combination of prior art elements to yield predictable results is a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143 A). “The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art”. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976)
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is a prima facie case of obviousness (In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 19, Sorea in view of Mueller, Digital Alloys, and Gibson teaches the invention as applied in claim 18. Sorea teaches that the mixture can undergo drying [Col 5, line 35 – 40] and that the solvent can be water [Col 10, line 63], as such, the evaporation of water at 100°C (which falls within the claimed range), would precipitate the dissolved binder (thereby solidifying the mixture), meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of “curing” of the joint material.
Regarding claim 20, Sorea in view of Mueller, Digital Alloys, and Gibson teaches the invention as applied in claim 18. Sorea teaches that the joined bodies can be subjected to debinding and sintering [Col 7, line 30 – 40]. As such, the heat treatment method of Sorea would include a temperature range in which at least a portion of the binder is removed and the powder is partially sintered, and then fulling sintering is complete of joined component, meeting the claimed limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments thereto have overcome the previous rejections. However, upon further consideration, a new rejection is made of:
Claims 1 – 3 and 15 – 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorea (US 12,186,810) in view of Mueller (US2020/0030883) and Digital Alloys (“Metal Binder Jetting”, NPL), and in further view of Gibson (US2017/0297108)
Claims 5 – 8, 10 – 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorea (US 12,186,810) in view of Mueller (US2020/0030883), Digital Alloys (“Metal Binder Jetting”, NPL) and Gibson (US2017/0297108), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Goto (US2015/0239179)
Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorea (US 12,186,810) in view of Mueller (US2020/0030883), Digital Alloys (“Metal Binder Jetting”, NPL), and Gibson (US2017/0297108), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Gegel (US 6,551,551)
Claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorea (US 12,186,810) in view of Mueller (US2020/0030883), Digital Alloys (“Metal Binder Jetting”, NPL), and Gibson (US2017/0297108), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Lawton (US 5,980,812) and Schrief (WO2022/268546, using espacenet translation)
Claims 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorea (US 12,186,810) in view of Mueller (US2020/0030883) and Digital Alloys (“Metal Binder Jetting”, NPL), and in further view of Gibson (US2017/0297108)
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DE102021207771 – Method for joining 3D printed green bodies using sinter-bonding
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Austin M Pollock whose telephone number is (571)272-5602. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (11 - 8 ET).
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.
/AUSTIN POLLOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights