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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim to priority in parent application no. 15/831,779, filed December 5, 2017, is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-6, 10-11, 17, 22-23 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“wherein average density” should be “wherein an average density” in Claim 4.
“wherein average density” should be “wherein an average density” in Claim 5.
“claim 1 comprising a density” should be “claim 1, further comprising a density” in Claim 6.
“at least 50 percent tap density” should be “at least 50 percent of a tap density” in Claim 10.
“at least 55 percent tap density” should be “at least 50 percent of a tap density” in Claim 11.
“have apparent density” should be “have an apparent density” in Claim 17.
“claim 1 further comprising” should be “claim 1, further comprising” in Claim 22.
“claim 1 further comprising” should be “claim 1, further comprising” in Claim 23.
“claim 1 further comprising” should be “claim 1, further comprising” in Claim 27.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 7, 9, 12, 14-15 and 18-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harrysson (US 20170312824 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Harrysson discloses making a sintered article (para. [0083]; [0094]; [0104]),
providing a composite article (para. [0079], composite structure; para. [0102]; different types of binder, reads on composite; para. [0018]-[0020]; alloy construction material and curable binder material read on composite),
wherein the composite article includes a porous exterior defining an interior volume (para. [0008], one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a curable binder bound exterior shell of powder (green body) produced by binder jetting would be porous and would not be a fully (100%) dense structure),
providing a loose powder component in the interior volume (para. [0008]), and
simultaneously sintering the porous exterior and loose powder component to provide the sintered article comprising a sintered interior and sintered exterior (para. [para. [0013]; [0015]).
Regarding Claim 2, Harrysson discloses wherein the unbound interior forms up to 95%, and one of ordinary skill in the art would therefore appreciate that the exterior forms as low as 5%, which reads on the claimed less than 60vol% of the composite article (para. [0009]; see also Fig. 8 wherein interior 7b is substantially larger than exterior 7d; one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate percentages to be volume percent).
Regarding Claim 3, Harrysson discloses wherein the unbound interior forms up to 95%, and one of ordinary skill in the art would therefore appreciate that the exterior forms as low as 5vol%, which reads on the claimed 5-30vol% of the composite article (para. [0009]; see also Fig. 8 wherein interior 7b is substantially larger than exterior 7d; one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate percentages to be volume percent).
Regarding Claim 4, Harrysson discloses wherein the average density of the sintered article is at least 97% of the theoretical density (para. [0096]-[0097], density of 99.7%).
Regarding Claim 5, Harrysson discloses wherein the average density of the sintered article is at least 98% of the theoretical density (para. [0096]-[0097], density of 99.7%).
Regarding Claim 7, Harrysson discloses wherein the density of the sintered article, which would include the sintered interior, is at least 99% of the theoretical density (para. [0096]-[0097], density of 99.7%; Fig. 10A).
Regarding Claim 9, Harrysson discloses wherein the density of the sintered article, which would include the sintered interior, is 99.7%, and therefore would comprise 0.3% porosity, which reads on the claimed 2% or less porosity (para. [0096]-[0097], density of 99.7%; Fig. 10A).
Regarding Claim 12, Harrysson discloses wherein the powder composition of the porous exterior and the loose powder component have the same composition (para. [0008], shell and unbound interior made from the same depositions of construction material; para. [0097], entire object made from Ti6Al4V).
Regarding Claim 14, Harrysson discloses wherein the construction material, and therefore the powder composition of the porous exterior and the loose powder, are selected from a powder metal and a powder alloy, which reads on the claims of wherein the porous exterior and the loose powder are independently selected from a powder metal and a powder alloy (para. [0018]-[0019]). It is noted that the claims do not require different powder composition selections for the porous exterior and the loose powder.
Regarding Claim 15, Harrysson discloses wherein the powder alloy comprises a nickel-based alloy, iron-based alloy, or combinations thereof (para. [0018]-[0019]).
Regarding Claim 18, Harrysson discloses wherein the porous exterior has a thickness less than or equal to 0.5mm (para. [0021]).
Regarding Claim 19, Harrysson discloses wherein the porous exterior is formed around the loose powder component (Fig. 8; para. [0009], shell surrounds and encloses interior unbound/loose powder).
Regarding Claim 20, Harrysson discloses wherein the loose powder component is added to the interior volume (para. [0008], interior volume comprises unbound powder; para. [0074], wherein powder is deposited (added) to form the interior volume).
Regarding Claim 21, Harrysson discloses wherein the sintered interior and the sintered exterior are continuous with one another (Fig. 9, interior contacts and is continuous with the exterior; Fig. 1-6, wherein layers of powder to be jetted with binder or left unbound are continuous with each other; para. [0090], wherein powder is packed within and against the shell such that one would understand there to be no gaps). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the sintered interior to be continuous with the sintered exterior because each are formed from the same layer of deposited powder (see Fig. 1-6).
Regarding Claim 22, Harrysson discloses vibrating the loose powder component (para. [0081], vibrating the object, which comprises the loose powder component, reads on vibrating the loose powder component).
Regarding Claim 23, Harrysson discloses printing one or more lattice structures in the interior volume (Fig. 11; para. [0099]-[0101]).
Regarding Claim 24, Harrysson discloses wherein the lattice structures span the interior volume, contacting sections of the porous exterior (Fig. 11; para. [0026]).
Regarding Claim 25, Harrysson discloses wherein the loose powder component surrounds the lattice structures (Fig. 11, loose powder 30b surrounds lattice structure (struts) 30e; para. [0099]).
Regarding Claim 26, Harrysson discloses wherein the additive manufacturing technique is binder jetting (para. [0001]; [0069]).
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 2 and Claim 3 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrysson (US 20170312824 A1), as applied to Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Harrysson discloses wherein the unbound interior forms up to 95%, and one of ordinary skill in the art would therefore appreciate that the exterior forms as low as 5vol%, which reads on the claimed less than 60vol% of the composite article (para. [0009]; see also Fig. 8 wherein interior 7b is substantially larger than exterior 7d).
Further, Harrysson teaches wherein the exterior shell may be a thickness of 0.125mm or less, wherein the composite article may be a sphere, and demonstrates wherein the interior is substantially larger than the exterior (para. [0087] and Fig. 8). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent any showing of unexpected results, and it would be obvious to produce a sized composite object, such as a 5mm diameter sphere, with a shell (exterior) thickness of 0.125mm shell or less, such that the exterior therefore comprises 14vol% or less (calculated based on sphere diameter and shell thickness), which reads on the claimed range 60vol% or less, of the total sphere and composite article (See MPEP 2144.04.IV.B).
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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 3, Harrysson discloses wherein the unbound interior forms up to 95%, and one of ordinary skill in the art would therefore appreciate that the exterior forms as low as 5vol%, which reads on the claimed 5-30vol% of the composite article (para. [0009]; see also Fig. 8 wherein interior 7b is substantially larger than exterior 7d).
Further, Harrysson teaches wherein the exterior shell may be a thickness of 0.125mm or less, wherein the composite article may be a sphere, and demonstrates wherein the interior is substantially larger than the exterior (para. [0087] and Fig. 8). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent any showing of unexpected results, and it would be obvious to produce a sized composite object, such as a 5mm diameter sphere, with a shell (exterior) thickness of 0.125mm shell or less, such that the exterior therefore comprises 14vol% or less (calculated based on sphere diameter and shell thickness), which reads on the claimed range 5-30vol% or less, of the total sphere and composite article (See MPEP 2144.04.IV.B).
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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrysson (US 20170312824 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Mark (US 20180154580 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Harrysson fails to disclose a gradient density between the sintered exterior and the sintered interior. However, Harrysson teaches wherein the binder type may vary per unit layer between the shell and the support structure in order to modify decomposition rate, and wherein alternatively the binder quantity is varied from shell to support (para. [0103]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the support structure would become the sintered interior after debinding and sintering.
Mark teaches wherein different amounts of binder may be jetted according to whether a portion of the object is an external wall, internal wall (strut structure), or internal bulk material, and may form continuous or stepwise gradients of binder proportions, such as a higher volume fraction of binder located in an outer shell which progressively reduces inwardly (para. [0255]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised a higher volume fraction of binder located in the exterior portion which decreases in a gradient manner towards the interior portion, as taught by Harrysson and Mark, for the invention disclosed by Harrysson, in order to modify the decomposition rate while maintaining structural support (see teachings above by Harrysson).
While Harrysson and Mark do not disclose wherein the gradient in binder amount produces a gradient in density from the sintered exterior to the sintered interior, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the binder gradient result in the claimed sintered density gradient because the method steps are the same as the instant invention (see Pg. 10, lines 13-14 and Pg. 11, lines 1-2 of instant specification wherein gradient in binder amount produces gradient in sintered density between exterior and interior volumes), and because Harrysson does not apply external pressure during sintering (para. [0082]).
Claim 6 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrysson (US 20170312824 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Wimpenny (WO 2016189312 A2).
Regarding Claim 6, Harrysson fails to disclose a gradient density between the sintered exterior and the sintered interior. Wimpenny teaches a similar invention wherein two different powders of different compositions may be used to form the object (Pg. 10, lines 13-26; Pg. 18, line 18-31). Wimpenny teaches varying physical properties in certain portions of the object, from a first area to a second area, including physical properties such as young’s modulus, thermal conductivity and density (Pg. 18, lines 4-9). Wimpenny teaches wherein the density of the shell comprises a different density from the interior (Pg. 10, lines 13-26). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that varying the density from one portion to another reads on a gradient in density. Thus, the invention of Wimpenny includes varying the density from the shell to the interior, and using two different powders to vary physical properties, including density, from one area to another, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Wimpenny includes varying the density from the shell to the interior by varying the type of powder used (and therefore composition used). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that gradients in composition would remain through sintering.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have varied the density of the shell compared to the interior, such as by varying the composition, and thereby producing a density gradient between the sintered exterior and the sintered interior, as taught by Wimpenny, for the invention disclosed by Harrysson, in order to vary the physical properties of the object between the exterior (shell) and the interior.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrysson (US 20170312824 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Wu (cited by Applicant in ID filed October 10, 2023, US 20150283614 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Harrysson discloses wherein the object comprises a density up to 99.7%, but does not expressly disclose a density range specifically for the sintered exterior.
Wu teaches wherein an outer surface region after sintering comprises a density of at least 95% such that pores are substantially eliminated (para. [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised a sintered exterior density of 95%, which reads on the claimed 92-95%, as taught by Wu, for the invention disclosed by Harrysson, in order to comprise a surface wherein pores are substantially eliminated (para. [0068]).
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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrysson (US 20170312824 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Wimpenny (WO 2016189312 A2).
Regarding Claim 10 and Claim 11, Harrysson is silent towards the tap density.
Wimpenny teaches a similar invention wherein a composite article is 5-25% higher than the tap density of the powder in order to allow adequate handling of the object (Pg. 10, lines 13-26; Pg. 14, line 31-Pg. 15, line 11). A object density that is 5-25% higher than the tap density of the loose powder would be 105-125% of the tap density of the loose powder, which reads on the claimed at least 50% (Claim 10) and at least 55% (Claim 11) of the tap density of the loose powder component).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised a composite article density which is 5-25% higher than the tap density of the loose powder component, which reads on the claimed (Claim 10) at least 50%, and the claimed (Claim 11) at least 55%, of the tap density of the loose powder component, as taught by Wimpenny, for the invention disclosed by Harrysson, in order to provide adequate handling of the object (see teaching above).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrysson (US 20170312824 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Wimpenny (WO 2016189312 A2) and Wu (cited by Applicant in ID filed October 10, 2023, US 20150283614 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Harrysson fails to disclose wherein the porous exterior comprises a different composition than the loose powder component.
Wimpenny teaches a similar invention wherein two different powders of different compositions may be used to form the object (Pg. 10, lines 13-26; Pg. 18, line 18-31). Wimpenny teaches varying physical properties in certain portions of the object, from a first area to a second area, including physical properties such as young’s modulus, thermal conductivity and density (Pg. 18, lines 4-9). Wimpenny teaches wherein the density of the shell comprises a different density of the interior (Pg. 10, lines 13-26).
Further, Wu teaches another similar invention of consolidating loose powder within a three-dimensionally printed shell, wherein the shell may be made from specifically a different material than the internal portion (para. [0077]; Fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used two different powder material compositions, as taught by Wimpenny and Wu, and to have constructed the porous exterior from a different composition from that of the loose powder component, as taught by Wu, for the invention disclosed by Harrysson. One would be motivated to do this in order to vary the material properties, such as young’s modulus, thermal conductivity or density, from the shell to the interior (see teaching by Wimpenny above). Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim 16 and Claim 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrysson (US 20170312824 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Wimpenny (WO 2016189312 A2) and De Flon (cited by Applicant in ID filed October 10, 2023, US 20190211424 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Harrysson discloses using metal powder, but fails to disclose using sintered cemented carbide particles (para. [0018]-[0019]). It is noted that Harrysson does not teach away from using other materials than metal powder, and that metal powder or metal alloy powder is merely an exemplary embodiment.
Wimpenny teaches a substantially similar process to Harrysson, wherein viable materials include not only metal powder, but also ceramic and composite (metal and ceramic matrixes) material powder (Pg. 18, lines 18-31). Wimpenny does not expressly disclose a cemented carbide particle.
De Flon teaches wherein sintered cemented carbide materials (i.e., metal matrix material) are used in a binder jetting type three-dimensional printing in order to produce articles of high hardness, high wear resistance and high toughness, such as cutting tools and drill bits for rock drilling and wear parts (Abstract; para. [0001]-[0004]; para. [0028]-[0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used metal matrix powder, such as a sintered cemented carbide powder, for the printing material of Harrysson, as taught by Wimpenny and De Flon, in order to form articles of high hardness, high wear resistance and high toughness, such as cutting tools and drill bits for rock drilling and wear parts (see teaching by De Flon above).
Regarding Claim 17, De Flon is silent towards the apparent density of the cemented carbide powder; however, De Flon discloses the composition of the sintered cemented carbide powder and the porosity of the particles (Table 1). The powders of De Flon comprise a true density of about 14.2 g/cm3 (powders A1-A4) and 14.5 g/cm3 (powders B1-B4), as calculated from the compositions, and therefore comprise apparent densities ranging from 11.3-12.0 g/cm3, as calculated per the porosities, which reads on the claimed range of at least 6.0 g/cm3.
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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrysson (US 20170312824 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Wu (US 20150283614 A1) and Farr (US 20050087903 A1).
Regarding Claim 27, Harrysson fails to disclose removing a portion of the sintered exterior.
Wu teaches wherein the shell (porous exterior) may be kept in the final object or be removed by machining or etching ().
Additionally, Farr teaches wherein finishing operations, which include grinding, ultrasonic machining, chemical machining (etching) and electrical discharge machining, in order to remove surface flaws, improve surface finish or improve tolerances of a three dimensionally binder jetting printed object (para. [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have removed at least a portion of the sintered exterior, as taught by Wu and Farr, for the invention disclosed by Harrysson, in order to remove the shell and in order to remove surface flaws, improve surface finish and improve tolerances (see teachings above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gibson (US 20180162048 A): teaches wherein applying a binder gradient from an outside perimeter to an interior advantageously balances structural support with rapid overall debinding rate (para. [0116]; Fig. 13).
Wu (cited above, additional teachings, US 20150283614 A1): teaches a shell comprising a density gradient from an outside shell which reduces gradually inwards towards an inner region of loose powder (para. [0058]; para. [0068]). Wu teaches wherein density gradient facilitates the consolidation process (para. [0063]). Wu does not teach wherein the outer most layer of shell material is porous.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)-272-3458. 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.
CATHERINE P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735