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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 13 July 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7 remain pending. Claim 1 was amended. No new claims were added.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 25 May 2026 was considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2021387259A1 of Barnes in view of US2017043395A1 of She.
In regard to Claim 1, Barnes discloses a method for the modification of particles in additive manufacturing, the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Barnes teaches the deposition of a film onto particles to modify core metal, and other powders to create superior properties for additive manufacturing. Para. [0010]. This reads on the additive manufacturing powder, metal powder, and film limitations in claim 1 of the instant application. Barnes teaches that the coating can be a hydrophobic organic coating. Para. [0085]. The particle diameter, including the coating, is preferably 10 to 100 µm. Para. [0070]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Barnes does not teach a trialkoxy group in the coupling agent.
She discloses a material and processes for additively manufacturing one or more parts in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. She teaches that the coating of at least one of the particles may be adapted to prevent the core from adsorbing moisture, Para[0013], and that the coating of at least one of the particles may be configured from or otherwise include at least one of the following materials: alkoxysilane, aminosilane, organic phospholic acid, nitride, fluoride, epoxy, thiol, disulphide, thoilate, triazol, alkylphosphonic acids, fluoropolymers, silicones, polypyrrol, polyanyline, and other polymeric assembled monolayers, Para[0016]. She teaches a Triethoxy Silane as the coating, Table[1]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the Trialkoxy coating of She in the metal powder of Barnes in order to prevent the core particle from adsorbing moisture.
While Barnes and She do not teach the specific numerical limitation related to the water amount in claim 1, Barnes and She disclose a metal powder and coating that meets the compositional limitations of claim 1. Where 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, see MPEP 2112.01. For the reasons listed above, the product disclosed in Barnes in view of She is substantially identical to the product disclosed in claim 1 of the instant application. They cannot have mutually exclusive properties such as water amount. Thus, Barnes in view of She covers all limitations of claim 1.
Claim 2 of the instant application further limits the hydrophobic functional group by stating that it is a cyclic structure containing group, a fluoroalkyl group, or a fluoroaryl group. Barnes discloses a coating which can include cyclic compounds, Para. [0056]. Barnes also teaches that the coating can be a fluorinated organic, Para. [0085]. This would encompass fluoroalkyl and fluoroaryl groups. Therefore, Barnes in view of She covers all limitations of claim 2.
Claim 3 adds a limitation involving the tap density of the powder. Where 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, see MPEP 2112.01. Since the product disclosed in Barnes in view of She is substantially identical to the product disclosed in claim 3 of the instant application, they cannot have mutually exclusive properties such as tap density. Therefore, Barnes in view of She covers all limitations of claim 3. .
Claim 5 adds a limitation involving the contact angle of water. Where 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, see MPEP 2112.01. Since the product disclosed in Barnes in view of She is substantially identical to the product disclosed in claim 5 of the instant application, they cannot have mutually exclusive properties such as contact angle of water. Therefore, Barnes in view of She covers all limitations of claim 5.
Claim 6 adds the limitation of a silane coupling agent. Barnes discloses improved properties, such as flowability, in powders coated with silane, Para. [0146] While Barnes does not specifically mention silane as a “coupling agent” it is disclosed that core particles are adhered together through the coatings, Para. [0013]. Thus, the disclosed coatings act as “coupling agents”. Claim 6 also lists a limitation involving the concentration of a hydroxy group. The relative value of the concentration of this hydroxy group must be 0.40 or less when compared to the Si concentration which is set to 1. When the concentration of the hydroxy group is zero, the relative value would also be zero, which falls within the acceptable range for the claim. Thus, this limitation is optional and no hydroxy group is required. Therefore, Barnes in view of She covers all limitations of claim 6.
Claim 7 adds the limitation of a binder that binds particles of the claimed powder together. Barnes discloses binders (aromatic containing, furfuryl alcohol, bisphenol A, or resorcinol) and coatings designed to chemically react with binders. Para. [104], [105]. Therefore, Barnes in view of She covers all limitations of claim 7.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20210387259 A1 of Barnes in view of US2017043395A1 of She, as cited above, further in view of WO2010073021 (A1) of Godfrey.
Claim 4 adds the limitation that the film is a monomolecular film. While Barnes teaches the powder disclosed in claim 1, Barnes does not teach a monomolecular film. Godfrey teaches a process for preparing fine particles comprising a core and coating, Para. [0001]. This is in the same field of endeavor as Barnes. Godfrey discloses that the coating will be substantially monomolecular, and that the use of monolayer coatings reduces the amount of coating material required, provides minimal addition to the size of the fine particle, and ensures that the coating is relatively easy to remove, Para. [0029]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the powder disclosed in Barnes in view of She with the monomolecular coating taught by Godfrey to minimize the amount of coating material required, reduce the size of the overall particles, and ensure that the coating can be removed. Thus, Barnes in view of She and Godfrey teaches all limitations of claim 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that (remarks, pages 5-7 of 8) Barnes does not expressly or inherently describe at least, for example, the feature of “the compound is derived from a coupling agent having a hydrophobic functional group and trialkoxy group”. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The new ground of rejection relies upon secondary reference She for the teaching of the trialkoxy group.
Applicant argues that (remarks, page 7 and 8 of 8) Godfrey does not remedy the deficiencies of Barnes. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The new ground of rejection relies upon secondary reference She for the teaching of the trialkoxy group.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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 Hendricks can be reached at (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 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights