DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/12/23 and 4/3/24 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract is too short.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mark et al. (US 20200114422 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mark teaches “an improved method for printing three-dimensional parts” (which reads upon “a method of forming by additive manufacturing, the method comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0006]). Mark teaches that “the internal structure of the solid bodies herein may be 3D printed with porous, cellular, or hollow infill patterns (e.g., honeycombs)” (which reads upon “porous sintered body”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0090]). Mark teaches that “the monolithic shell SH3 has small open cell holes throughout to lower weight, save material, and improve penetration or diffusion of gases or liquids for debinding” (which reads upon “porous”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0105]). Mark teaches that “a sintered body (e.g., as a sintered body assembly) can be removed from the sintering oven, and that the supporting shell structure and the sintering supports can be separated or broken up along parting lines, and/or along separation layers, and or by snapping or flexing or applying an impact to protrusion connections, tacks or other specifically mechanically weak structures” (which reads upon “a porous sintered body”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0100]). Mark teaches that “the 3D printing process adds material layer by layer to construct products” (which reads upon “forming a solidified feedstock composite comprising layers of solidified feedstock by”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0003]). Mark teaches that “the extruded part material fuses to previously deposited part material and is then solidified” (which reads upon “layers of solidified feedstock”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0004]). Mark teaches that “after the matrix material or polymer of the fiber reinforced filament is substantially melted, the continuous core reinforced filament is applied onto a build platen 16 to build successive layers of a part 14 to form a three-dimensional structure” (which reads upon “extruding feedstock that comprises inorganic particles and binder composition, forming a feedstock layer by applying the extruded feedstock to a surface, causing the feedstock of the feedstock layer to solidify to form solidified feedstock; and forming an additional solidified feedstock layer to an upper surface of the solidified feedstock by extruding the feedstock and applying the feedstock to the upper surface”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0075]). Mark teaches that “metal powder composite feedstocks such as MIM (Metal Injection Molding) feedstocks, are a composite material, as discussed herein, including sinterable metal powder and a binder, may be designed to facilitate MIM-specific processes, and that as discovered by various authors in the last twenty years, certain feedstocks can be adapted for extrusion-type 3D printing, e.g., Fused Deposition Modeling or Fused Filament Fabrication (“FDM” or “FFF”, terms for generic extrusion-type 3D printing)” (which reads upon “extruding feedstock that comprises inorganic particles and binder composition”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0217]). Mark teaches that “in a two-stage debinding material, in a first stage a first material is removed, leaving interconnected voids for gas passage during debinding, and that the first material may be melted out (e.g., wax), catalytically removed (e.g., converted directly into gas in a catalytic surface reaction)” (which reads upon “removing binder composition from the solidified feedstock composite”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0087]). Mark teaches that “radiant energy (e.g., radiant heat from passive or active susceptor rods or other resistive elements, and/or microwave energy) is applied from outside the sealed fused tube 113-5 to the brown part, sintering the brown part” (which reads upon “heating the solidified feedstock composite to a temperature that causes inorganic particles of the solidified feedstock composite to become fused together to form a porous sintered body”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0169]).
Regarding claim 5, Mark teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Mark teaches that “the average particle size may be 3-6 microns diameter, and the substantial maximum (e.g., more than the span of +/−3 standard deviations or 99.7 percent) of 6-10 microns diameter” (paragraph [0234]).
Regarding claims 6-8, Mark teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Mark teaches that “a feedstock material for forming the part and/or the sintering supports may include approximately 50-70% (preferably approx. 60-65%) volume fraction secondary matrix material, e.g., (ceramic or metal) substantially spherical beads or powder in 10-50 micron diameter size, approximately 20-30% (preferably approx. 25% volume fraction of soluble or catalysable binder, (preferably solid at room temperature), approximately 5-10% (preferably approx. 7-9%) volume fraction of pyrolysable binder or primary matrix material, (preferably solid at room temperature), as well as approximately 0.1-15% (preferably approx. 5-10%) volume fraction of carbon fiber strands, each fiber strand coated with a metal that does not react with carbon at sintering temperatures or below (e.g., nickel, titanium boride)” (paragraph [0120]).
Regarding claim 10, Mark teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Mark teaches that “binder, which may be a thermoplastic polymer selected from various grades of polyethylene (PE), such as LDPE, HDPE, LLMWPE, etc., polypropylene, poly(methyl pentene) or other nonpolar hydrocarbon polymer” (paragraph [0143]). Mark teaches that “petroleum wax (PW), microcrystalline wax (MW), crystalline wax (CW), bee's wax, C15-C65 paraffins and the like, and that the first stage binder component may serve as a pore former” (paragraph [0143]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark et al. (US 20200114422 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Mark teaches “an improved method for printing three-dimensional parts” (which reads upon “a method of forming a body by additive manufacturing, the method comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0006]). Mark teaches that “the 3D printing process adds material layer by layer to construct products” (which reads upon “applying the extruded feedstock to a surface to form a feedstock layer having an upper surface”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0003]). Mark teaches that “the extruded part material fuses to previously deposited part material and is then solidified” (which reads upon “causing the feedstock of the feedstock layer to solidify to form a solidified feedstock layer; and extruding the feedstock and applying the feedstock to the upper surface of the solidified feedstock layer to form an additional feedstock layer on the upper surface”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0004]). Mark teaches that “after the matrix material or polymer of the fiber reinforced filament is substantially melted, the continuous core reinforced filament is applied onto a build platen 16 to build successive layers of a part 14 to form a three-dimensional structure” (which reads upon “extruding feedstock that comprises binder composition and inorganic particles”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0075]). Mark teaches that “metal powder composite feedstocks such as MIM (Metal Injection Molding) feedstocks, are a composite material, as discussed herein, including sinterable metal powder and a binder, may be designed to facilitate MIM-specific processes, and that as discovered by various authors in the last twenty years, certain feedstocks can be adapted for extrusion-type 3D printing, e.g., Fused Deposition Modeling or Fused Filament Fabrication (“FDM” or “FFF”, terms for generic extrusion-type 3D printing)” (which reads upon “extruding feedstock that comprises inorganic particles and binder composition”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0217]). Mark teaches that “a feedstock material for forming the part and/or the sintering supports may include approximately 50-70% (preferably approx. 60-65%) volume fraction secondary matrix material, e.g., (ceramic or metal) substantially spherical beads or powder in 10-50 micron diameter size, approximately 20-30% (preferably approx. 25% volume fraction of soluble or catalysable binder, (preferably solid at room temperature), approximately 5-10% (preferably approx. 7-9%) volume fraction of pyrolysable binder or primary matrix material, (preferably solid at room temperature), as well as approximately 0.1-15% (preferably approx. 5-10%) volume fraction of carbon fiber strands, each fiber strand coated with a metal that does not react with carbon at sintering temperatures or below (e.g., nickel, titanium boride)” (which reads upon “the inorganic particles being present in an amount in a range from 15 to 50 percent by volume of the feedstock”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0120]). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Here the claimed range is from 15 to 50 volume percent, while the range taught by the prior art is approximately 50.1 to 75 % volume fraction (minimum binder % is 20 + 5 = 25%). 50 and approximately 50.1 do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
Claims 3 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark et al. (US 20200114422 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above.
Regarding claim 3, Mark teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Mark teaches that “a feedstock material for forming the part and/or the sintering supports may include approximately 50-70% (preferably approx. 60-65%) volume fraction secondary matrix material, e.g., (ceramic or metal) substantially spherical beads or powder in 10-50 micron diameter size, approximately 20-30% (preferably approx. 25% volume fraction of soluble or catalysable binder, (preferably solid at room temperature), approximately 5-10% (preferably approx. 7-9%) volume fraction of pyrolysable binder or primary matrix material, (preferably solid at room temperature), as well as approximately 0.1-15% (preferably approx. 5-10%) volume fraction of carbon fiber strands, each fiber strand coated with a metal that does not react with carbon at sintering temperatures or below (e.g., nickel, titanium boride)” (paragraph [0120]). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Here the claimed range is from 15 to 50 volume percent, while the range taught by the prior art is approximately 50.1 to 75 % volume fraction (minimum binder % is 20 + 5 = 25%). 50 and approximately 50.1 do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
Regarding claim 13, Mark teaches the method of claim 11 as stated above. Mark teaches that “the average particle size may be 3-6 microns diameter, and the substantial maximum (e.g., more than the span of +/−3 standard deviations or 99.7 percent) of 6-10 microns diameter” (paragraph [0234]).
Regarding claims 14-16, Mark teaches the method of claim 11 as stated above. Mark teaches that “a feedstock material for forming the part and/or the sintering supports may include approximately 50-70% (preferably approx. 60-65%) volume fraction secondary matrix material, e.g., (ceramic or metal) substantially spherical beads or powder in 10-50 micron diameter size, approximately 20-30% (preferably approx. 25% volume fraction of soluble or catalysable binder, (preferably solid at room temperature), approximately 5-10% (preferably approx. 7-9%) volume fraction of pyrolysable binder or primary matrix material, (preferably solid at room temperature), as well as approximately 0.1-15% (preferably approx. 5-10%) volume fraction of carbon fiber strands, each fiber strand coated with a metal that does not react with carbon at sintering temperatures or below (e.g., nickel, titanium boride)” (paragraph [0120]).
Claim 2, 4, 9, 12, and 17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark et al. (US 20200114422 A1), as applied to claims 1, 11, and 15 above, and further in view of Warke et al. (US 20210221051 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 4, and 12, Mark teaches the methods of claim 1 and 11 as stated above. Mark teaches that “with respect to the binder jetting example shown in FIG. 1B, in all of the preceding examples in which an extruder using filament is not required, the binder jetting example printer 1000J and associated processes may be used” (paragraph [0224]). Mark teaches that “the first stage binder component may serve as a pore former” (paragraph [0143]).
Mark is silent regarding wherein the porous sintered body has a porosity of at least 40 percent.
Warke is similarly concerned with forming a layer on a surface, the layer comprising feedstock that contains metal particles (paragraph [0007]). Warke teaches “feedstock that contains: solid pore-forming polymer particles” (paragraph [0009]). Warke teaches “a porous sintered metal body formed by an additive manufacturing method, the body containing sintered metal particles and having a porosity in a range from 50 to 80 percent” (which reads upon “wherein the porous sintered body has a porosity of at least 40 percent”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0010]). Warke teaches that “currently, common methods of preparing porous sintered metal bodies commercially include forming and sintering steps that involve manually moving and handling intermediate (in-process) forms of a porous body” (paragraph [0004]). Warke teaches that “these steps are labor intensive” (paragraph [0004]). Warke teaches that “moreover, the bodies are fragile and the forming steps can be imprecise, and that these features cause the methods to be prone to substantial waste, undesirably low efficiencies, and undesirably high costs” (paragraph [0004]). Warke teaches that “the inventive methods do not suffer comparable inefficiencies and cost disadvantages of current techniques, but replace labor-intensive, less precise, potentially variable manual steps with a more precise, less labor-intensive additive manufacturing techniques that also have the advantage of being able to form parts of highly complex shapes” (paragraph [0005]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feedstock of Mark to increase the amount of pore former, to form a sintered body with a higher porosity, such as at least 40%, as taught by Warke in applications where a higher porosity is required in the sintered body, in order to replace labor-intensive, less precise, potentially variable manual steps with a more precise, less labor-intensive additive manufacturing techniques that also have the advantage of being able to form parts of highly complex shapes and higher porosity.
Mark only gives the composition of the feedstock in volume percent. Mark is silent regarding wherein the feedstock comprises from 80 to 95 weight percent inorganic particles based on total weight feedstock.
Regarding the subject limitation, in order to carry out the invention of Mark, it would have been necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for exemplary amounts of weight percent used in additive manufacturing of porous sintered bodies. Warke provides this teaching. Warke teaches that “feedstock used for a binder jet printing method may optionally and preferably contain solid polymer along with the metal particles” (paragraph [0042]). Warke teaches that “the solid polymer may be a thermoplastic (in solid form at room temperature) pore-forming polymer, and may be present in the feedstock in any amount, such as in an amount of from 0.5 to 15 weight percent based on total weight feedstock, e.g., from 1 to 12 or from 2 to 10 weight percent based on total weight feedstock, with the balance of the feedstock (by weight) being metal particle” (paragraph [0042]; leaving 85 – 99.5 weight percent metal particles (inorganic particles)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the feedstock of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the weight percent of the metal particles (inorganic particles), such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by Warke, motivated to form a conventional feedstock using known and tested amounts of weight percent of the metal particles (inorganic particles), predictably suitable for additive manufacturing of porous sintered body applications.
Regarding claims 9 and 17, modified Mark teaches the methods of claim 7 and 15, as stated above. Mark teaches that “some candidate secondary matrix-filler combinations that may be deposited by a 3D printer within a binder or polymer primary matrix include cobalt or bronze beads with tungsten carbide coated graphite (carbon) fibers; aluminum beads with graphite (carbon) fibers; steel beads with boron nitride fibers; aluminum beads with boron carbide fibers; aluminum beads with nickel coated carbon fibers; alumina beads with carbon fibers; titanium beads with silicon carbide fibers; copper beads with aluminum oxide particles (and carbon fibers); copper-silver alloy beads with diamond particles” (paragraph [0123]). Mark is silent regarding wherein the metal particles have an aspect ratio (length:diameter) of at least 100:1. Regarding the subject limitation, in order to carry out the invention of Mark, it would have been necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for exemplary aspect ratios of metal fibers used in additive manufacturing of porous sintered bodies. Warke provides this teaching. Warke teaches that “fibrous particles are elongated (e.g., “noodle-like”), optionally curved or bent, with a high aspect ratio, such as an aspect ratio (ratio of length to diameter) of at least 10:1 (length:diameter), at least 30:1, at least 50:1, or at least 75:1 or at least 100:1” (paragraph [0089]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the feedstock of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the aspect ratios of metal fibers such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by Warke, motivated to form a conventional feedstock using known and tested aspect ratios of metal fibers predictably suitable for additive manufacturing of porous sintered body applications.
Claims 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark et al. (US 20200114422 A1), in view of Warke et al. (US 20210221051 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Mark teaches “an improved method for printing three-dimensional parts” (paragraph [0006]). Mark teaches “a sintered assembly of the 3D printing system” (which reads upon “a sintered body”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0040]). Mark teaches that “the internal structure of the solid bodies herein may be 3D printed with porous, cellular, or hollow infill patterns (e.g., honeycombs)” (which reads upon “a porous sintered body”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0090]). Mark teaches that “the monolithic shell SH3 has small open cell holes throughout to lower weight, save material, and improve penetration or diffusion of gases or liquids for debinding” (which reads upon “porous”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0105]). Mark teaches that “a sintered body (e.g., as a sintered body assembly) can be removed from the sintering oven, and that the supporting shell structure and the sintering supports can be separated or broken up along parting lines, and/or along separation layers, and or by snapping or flexing or applying an impact to protrusion connections, tacks or other specifically mechanically weak structures” (which reads upon “a porous sintered body”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0100]). Mark teaches that “the 3D printing process adds material layer by layer to construct products” (which reads upon “comprising multiple layers”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0003]). Mark teaches that “the extruded part material fuses to previously deposited part material and is then solidified” (which reads upon “extruded”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0004]). Mark teaches that “after the matrix material or polymer of the fiber reinforced filament is substantially melted, the continuous core reinforced filament is applied onto a build platen 16 to build successive layers of a part 14 to form a three-dimensional structure” (which reads upon “of extruded inorganic particles, staircase structures on surfaces of the sintered porous bodies”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0075]; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Fused Deposition Modeling or Fused Filament Fabrication (“FDM” or “FFF”, terms for generic extrusion-type 3D printing) forms individual layers leaving an uneven side profile or staircase structure). Mark teaches that “metal powder composite feedstocks such as MIM (Metal Injection Molding) feedstocks, are a composite material, as discussed herein, including sinterable metal powder and a binder, may be designed to facilitate MIM-specific processes, and that as discovered by various authors in the last twenty years, certain feedstocks can be adapted for extrusion-type 3D printing, e.g., Fused Deposition Modeling or Fused Filament Fabrication (“FDM” or “FFF”, terms for generic extrusion-type 3D printing)” (paragraph [0217]). Mark teaches that “radiant energy (e.g., radiant heat from passive or active susceptor rods or other resistive elements, and/or microwave energy) is applied from outside the sealed fused tube 113-5 to the brown part, sintering the brown part” (which reads upon “fused together to form a porous matrix of interconnected inorganic particles”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0169]). Mark teaches that “the nozzle may be arranged to deposit material at a layer height substantially ⅔ or more of the nozzle width (e.g., more than substantially 200 microns for a 300 micron nozzle, or 100 microns for a 150 micron nozzle)” (which reads upon “the porous sintered body having: layers having a thickness of from 30 to 200 microns”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0169]). Mark teaches that “with respect to the binder jetting example shown in FIG. 1B, in all of the preceding examples in which an extruder using filament is not required, the binder jetting example printer 1000J and associated processes may be used” (paragraph [0224]). Mark teaches that “the first stage binder component may serve as a pore former” (paragraph [0143]).
Mark is silent regarding wherein the porous sintered body has a porosity of at least 40 percent.
Warke is similarly concerned with forming a layer on a surface, the layer comprising feedstock that contains metal particles (paragraph [0007]). Warke teaches “feedstock that contains: solid pore-forming polymer particles” (paragraph [0009]). Warke teaches “a porous sintered metal body formed by an additive manufacturing method, the body containing sintered metal particles and having a porosity in a range from 50 to 80 percent” (which reads upon “wherein the porous sintered body has a porosity of at least 40 percent”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0010]). Warke teaches that “currently, common methods of preparing porous sintered metal bodies commercially include forming and sintering steps that involve manually moving and handling intermediate (in-process) forms of a porous body” (paragraph [0004]). Warke teaches that “these steps are labor intensive” (paragraph [0004]). Warke teaches that “moreover, the bodies are fragile and the forming steps can be imprecise, and that these features cause the methods to be prone to substantial waste, undesirably low efficiencies, and undesirably high costs” (paragraph [0004]). Warke teaches that “the inventive methods do not suffer comparable inefficiencies and cost disadvantages of current techniques, but replace labor-intensive, less precise, potentially variable manual steps with a more precise, less labor-intensive additive manufacturing techniques that also have the advantage of being able to form parts of highly complex shapes” (paragraph [0005]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feedstock of Mark to increase the amount of pore former, to form a sintered body with a higher porosity, such as at least 40%, as taught by Warke in applications where a higher porosity is required in the sintered body, in order to replace labor-intensive, less precise, potentially variable manual steps with a more precise, less labor-intensive additive manufacturing techniques that also have the advantage of being able to form parts of highly complex shapes and higher porosity.
Regarding claims 19 and 21-22, modified Mark teaches the body of claim 18 as stated above. Mark teaches that “a feedstock material for forming the part and/or the sintering supports may include approximately 50-70% (preferably approx. 60-65%) volume fraction secondary matrix material, e.g., (ceramic or metal) substantially spherical beads or powder in 10-50 micron diameter size, approximately 20-30% (preferably approx. 25% volume fraction of soluble or catalysable binder, (preferably solid at room temperature), approximately 5-10% (preferably approx. 7-9%) volume fraction of pyrolysable binder or primary matrix material, (preferably solid at room temperature), as well as approximately 0.1-15% (preferably approx. 5-10%) volume fraction of carbon fiber strands, each fiber strand coated with a metal that does not react with carbon at sintering temperatures or below (e.g., nickel, titanium boride)” (paragraph [0120]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Mark teaches the body of claim 18 as stated above. Mark teaches that “the average particle size may be 3-6 microns diameter, and the substantial maximum (e.g., more than the span of +/−3 standard deviations or 99.7 percent) of 6-10 microns diameter” (paragraph [0234]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sutens et al. (US 20260008029 A1). Sutens is considered pertinent to claim 11.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q2: 3/30-4/3/26; Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733