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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 16 March 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, and 5 were amended. Claims 1-7 remain pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 3, and 5 have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 16 December 2025.
Examiner’s Note
Previous claim 1 was addressed as being unclear under 35 USC 112b, as the instant application discloses “the film derived from the coupling agent” at paragraph [0133] and “the compound derived from the coupling agent” at paragraph [0100]. Currently amended claim 1 overcomes the rejection set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 16 December 2025, and support for the amendment can be found at least in paragraph [0100] of the instant specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20210387259 (A1) of Barnes.
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]. Claim 1 of the instant application also list a hydrophobic coating and an average particle diameter of 3.0 to 30 µm. 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 is substantially identical to the product disclosed in claim 1 of the instant application. They cannot have mutually exclusive properties such as water amount. Therefore, Barnes anticipates claim 1 of the instant application.
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, claim 2 is anticipated by Barnes.
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 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 anticipates claim 3 of the instant application.
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 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 anticipates claim 5 of the instant application.
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 anticipates claim 6 of the instant application.
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 anticipates claim 7 of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20210387259 (A1) of Barnes in view of WO2010073021 (A1) of Godfrey.
Claim 4 adds the limitation that the film is a monomolecular film. While Barnes anticipates 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, 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. Therefore, all limitations of claim 4 are either anticipated by Barnes or are obvious under Barnes in view of Godfrey.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that (remarks, page 13, 14) Barnes does not expressly or inherently describe the features of “a film provided on a particle surface of the metal powder and containing a compound, wherein the compound is derived from a coupling agent having a hydrophobic functional group”. Examiner asserts that Barnes discloses that numerous inventive aspects are disclosed herein including deposition of films onto particles to modify core metal, ceramic and other powders to create superior properties for additive manufacturing, Para[0011]. Barnes also teaches that this process is repeated as many times as is necessary to build up the desired film thickness. The ALD/MLD process may start with a “linker” agent that facilitates covalent bonding to the surface, or it may end with a terminating agent that may be hydrophobic or otherwise engineered for a specific purpose, Para[0039]. Barnes also discloses that core particles are adhered together through the coatings, Para[0013]. Therefore, the coatings are considered equivalent to coupling agents. Thus, examiner maintains that Barnes does teach “a film provided on a particle surface of the metal powder and containing a compound, wherein the compound is derived from a coupling agent having a hydrophobic functional group”.
Applicant argues that (remarks, page 15) claims 2, 3 and 5-7 are also not anticipated by Barnes at least on the dependence of independent claim 1. Examiner asserts, for reasons cited above, that Barnes does in fact cover independent claim 1. Therefore, the rejection of claims 2, 3 and 5-7 is maintained.
Applicant argues that (remarks, page 15) Godfrey does not remedy the above-noted deficiencies of Barnes and that dependent claim 4 is not taught, suggested, or rendered obvious over the combination of cited references based at least on the dependence on independent claim 1. Furthermore, dependent claim 4 recites subject matter not described or suggested by any of the cited references, whether taken individually or in combination. This is not found persuasive as Barnes does in fact cover independent claim 1, for reasons cited above, and Godfrey also teaches the additional subject matter described in claim 4. The additional subject matter of claim 4 is that the film is a monomolecular film. Godfrey teaches that it will generally be the case that the coating will be substantially monomolecular, 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]. Thus, all limitations of claim 4 are covered by Barnes in view of Godfrey. The rejection is maintained.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has attached a previously-cited foreign reference that was inadvertently omitted in the non-final action. Reference Included: WO2010073021.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 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