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 .
After Final Response, Amendments and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to the claims in the after final response, filed August 24, 2026, are acknowledged. Claim 1 is amended and Claims 6-8 are cancelled. No new matter has been added. In response to the arguments presented in the after final response and the filed amendments, a new ground(s) of rejection has been applied, as detailed below.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 9-27 are pending and currently considered in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9 recites a porosity of the sintered interior of 2vol% or less; however, Claim 1 from which Claim 9 depends, recites a sintered density of 99% or greater which necessarily already requires a porosity of 1vol% or less. Therefore, Claim 9 fails to further limit the subject matter of Claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (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 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 12, 14-16 and 18-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrysson (previously cited, US 20170312824 A1) in view of Zandinejad (US 20170056138 A1), De Flon (previously cited, US 20190211424 A1) and Stoyanov (US 20160375493 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 and Claim 16, 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]).
Harryson teaches constructing cubic structures and exterior shell thicknesses less than 1mm, such as 0.5mm or less (para. [0021]; para. [0094]; para. [0109]).
Harryson depicts wherein the interior is substantially larger than the exterior shell but does not expressly disclose a size range (para. [0087]; Fig. 8).
Zandinejad teaches binder jetting using an ExOne M-Lab system, which is suitable for metal powder, to additively manufacture a 10x10x10mm cube (para. [0119]-[0120]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed a 10x10x10mm cube, as taught by Zandinejad, for the invention disclosed by Harryson, because this size object is able to be used by a commercial set-up such as the ExOne M-lab apparatus. Further, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent any showing of unexpected results (See MPEP 2144.04.IV.B).
A 10x10x10mm cube with a 0.5mm shell would comprise a 27vol% sintered exterior, which reads on the claimed 60vol% or less. 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.
Harrysson discloses metal powder (para. [0018]-[0019]), but does not disclose (Claim 16) sintered cemented carbide particles. 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.
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]). De Flon teaches an appropriate powder size is a D50 of 5-20um (para. [0019]).
Stoyanov also teaches manufacturing cemented carbide powder green parts by binding jetting with an ExOne machine, followed by vacuum sintering wherein the sintering temperature is appropriately 1300-1560C and the duration is 10minutes to 10 hours, such as vacuum sintering WC-Co (12, 17, and 20% Co) at 1480C for 45 minutes (para. [0020]; para. [0022]; para. [0029]-[0031]). Stoyanov teaches an appropriate average powder size of, for example, 5-45um (Table II).
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 sintered cemented carbide powder with a size of 5-20um and composition of WC-Co (12-20% Co) for the printing material, and therefore also to have applied vacuum sintering at 1300-1560C for 10min-10hours, such as at 1480C for 45 minutes, as taught by De Flon and Stoyanov, for the invention disclosed by Harrysson and Zandinejad, in order to successfully sinter and 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).
Harryson discloses wherein the relative density of the object reaches 99.7%, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate this to be the average density of the sintered article (para. [0096]).
Harryson fails to disclose the specific densities of the interior and the exterior shell after sintering, and is silent towards a density gradient.
Harryson, Zandinejad, De Flon and Stoyanov, however, disclose a substantially identical process, including the same powder material, as the claimed and instant invention.
Specifically, Harryson, Zandinejad, De Flon and Stoyanov disclose binder jetting a 0.5mm shell for a 10x10x10mm cube (27vol% exterior) using an ExOne M-lab binder jetting apparatus and 5-20um cemented tungsten carbide powder comprising 12-20% metallic cobalt binder, curing and vacuum sintering at 1480C for 45 minutes (see teachings above), which is substantially the same as the instant invention (instant specification, Pg. 7, line 26, 1-100um particle size; Pg. 8, lines 10-24, tungsten carbide and cobalt binder, metallic binder of 0.1-35%; Table VIII and Pg. 14, lines 7-19, ExOne printing system; cube which is 10x10x10mm3 (see Fig. 3(a) size bar), 0.5mm shell, and curing followed by vacuum sintering at 1480-1500C for 0.5-1 hour).
Therefore, it would be expected that the processing of Harryson, Zandinejad, De Flon and Stoyanov result in an article with the claimed sintered interior density, the claimed sintered exterior density and the claimed density gradient, because the method and powder composition are substantially the same as the instant and claimed invention (see also instant specification, Pg. 15, lines 12-14, wherein the above process results in the claimed density gradient). When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 3, Harrysson and Zandinejad disclose wherein the exterior shell comprises 27vol%, which reads on the claimed range of 5-30vol% (see Claim 1 above; Harrysson, para. [0021], 0.5mm shell thickness; Zandinejad, para. [0120], 10x10x10mm3 cube). 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 4 and Claim 5, Harrysson discloses wherein the average density of the sintered article is up to 99.7%, which reads on the claimed range of (Claim 4) at least 97% of the theoretical density and (Claim 5) at least 98% of the theoretical density (para. [0096]-[0097], density of 99.7%).
Further, the processing and powder composition of Harryson, Zandinejad, De Flon and Stoyanov are the same as the instant and claimed invention, and it would be expected that the resulting sintered article comprise the claimed relative density (see Claim 1 above). When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 9, Harryson, Zandinejad, De Flon and Stoyanov disclose the claimed processing steps and powder composition, and it would be expected that the resulting sintered article comprise the claimed sintered interior porosity because the method steps and material are the same as the instant invention (see Claim 1 above). When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
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 same material).
Regarding Claim 14, Harrysson discloses wherein the construction material, and therefore the powder composition of the porous exterior and the loose powder, are each (i.e., independently) selected from a powder metal and a powder alloy (para. [0018]-[0019]), and De Flon and Stoyanov teach using a cemented carbide (see Abstracts and Claim 1 above), which also reads on a powder metal and powder metal alloy because cemented carbide comprises a metal matrix. It is noted that the claims do not require different powder composition selections for the porous exterior and the loose powder, and that the selection of both the interior and exterior to be a particular composition reads on independent selection.
Regarding Claim 15, Harrysson discloses wherein the powder alloy comprises a nickel-based alloy, iron-based alloy, or combinations thereof (para. [0018]-[0019]), and De Flon and Stoyanov teach using a cemented carbide with cobalt metallic binder (see Abstracts and Claim 1 above), which also reads on a cobalt-based alloy.
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.
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]).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrysson (previously cited, US 20170312824 A1) in view of Zandinejad (US 20170056138 A1), De Flon (previously cited, US 20190211424 A1) and Stoyanov (US 20160375493 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Wimpenny (previously cited, 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). An 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 (previously cited, US 20170312824 A1) in view of Zandinejad (US 20170056138 A1), De Flon (previously cited, US 20190211424 A1) and Stoyanov (US 20160375493 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Wimpenny (previously cited, WO 2016189312 A2) and Wu (previously cited and 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 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrysson (previously cited, US 20170312824 A1) in view of Zandinejad (US 20170056138 A1), De Flon (previously cited, US 20190211424 A1) and Stoyanov (US 20160375493 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Wu (previously cited and cited by Applicant in ID filed October 10, 2023, US 20150283614 A1) and Farr (previously cited, 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 (para. [0077]).
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 25, 2026, in the after final response, directed to Claim 1 and dependent claims thereof, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Harrysson, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn, and upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection made over Harrysson in view of Zandinejad, De Flon and Stoyanov, as detailed above.
Applicant’s arguments are deemed moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 outermost layer of shell material is porous.
Araie (US 20180207723 A1): demonstrates wherein it is known to additively manufacturing a cubed object with the dimensions such as 20mmx20mmx20mm for example (para. [0064]). A 20x20x20mm3 cube with a 1mm thick shell (see para. [0021] of Harrysson where shell thickness is 1mm), would comprise a shell ratio of 14vol% to that of the interior, which overlaps the claimed ranges.
Mark (previously cited, US 20180154580 A1): 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]).
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 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
Prosecution Insights