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 .
Withdrawn Rejection
The 35 U.S.C. §112, 2nd paragraph, rejection(s) of claims 1-5, made of record in the office action mailed on 03/19/2026, page 2 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed on 06/19/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (JP 2018-123381) in view of Clare et al. (US 2016/0279703) and Chiba et al. (JP 2004-021127).
Regarding claims 1-5, Nakamura discloses mixed powder containing a first powder and a second powder which are formed from the same material and have different particle size distributions, is used for sintering lamination molding (abstract). Nakamura discloses FIG. 9A is a graph showing an example of a particle size distribution of a powder obtained by mixing two types of particles. In the graph of FIG. 9A, the horizontal axis indicates the particle diameter of the mixed powder on the logarithmic axis, and the vertical axis indicates the volume ratio. The curve L shown in the graph of FIG. 9A has a total of two local peaks at the first particle size D1 and the second particle size D2. The volume ratio indicated by the local peak in the first particle diameter D1 is I1, and the volume ratio indicated by the local peak in the second particle diameter D2 is I2 (page 10). Based on the figure 9A-9C, it would be obvious that it would meet the limitation of height of the second peak and height of the first peak in the claimed range.
Although Nakamura does not disclose particle size distribution is drawn by measuring…..vertical axis in a relative particle amount, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Nakamura meets the requirements of the claimed product, Nakamura clearly meet the requirements of present claims of sintering metal powder.
However, Nakamura fails to disclose the particle diameter D2 is 30 micros or less and particle diameter is 1 and average degree of circularity is 0.70-1.0 and the mixed powder is metal powder, a ratio of a tap density to a true density of the sintering metal powder is 0.65 or more and a constituent material of the sintering metal powder includes Fe-Ni-Co based alloys.
Whereas, Clare discloses method of additive manufacturing is disclosed, comprising using a powder comprising a first particulate component (1) with a first mean particle diameter, and a second particulate component (2) with a second mean particle diameter (abstract). The ratio of the first mean particle diameter and second mean particle diameter may be selected from: at least 3, at least 5, at least 10, at least 20, at least 50, at least 100, and at least 500 (para 0027). The first mean particle diameter may be in the range of 5 μm to 1000 μm and the second mean particle diameter may be in the range of 0.5 μm to 100 μm, or 5 μm and above (para 0028-0029). The first powder may comprise a metal (para 0021) and the first component may comprise aluminium, and the second component may comprise at least one material selected from the group of: copper, silicon, magnesium, zinc and tin (para 0023).
Whereas, Chiba discloses magnetic toner is used for an image forming method having a developing and cleaning process and includes toner particles containing at least a binding resin and a magnetic body and conductive particulates; and the maximum intensity (V/μm) of an alternating electric field (abstract). The average circularity of the magnetic toner of the present invention is preferably 0.955 or more, more preferably 0.970 or more. When the average circularity of the toner is 0.955 or more (page 20). The magnetic powder used in the magnetic toner of the present invention may contain elements such as phosphorus, cobalt, nickel, copper, magnesium, manganese, aluminum, and silicon. It is mainly composed of iron, and these are used alone or in combination of two or more, thus it would be obvious based on teaching of Chiba to form magnetic powder containing Fe-Co-Ni alloys (para 0157).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form mixed powder containing first powder and second powder of Nakamura comprising aluminum and copper or silicon or magnesium having 0.5-100 microns and 5-1000 microns respectively as taught by Clare motivated by the desire to maintain sufficient sphericity, exhibit acceptable levels of flowability, packing density and homogeneity and to produce mixed powder with high degree of flexibility and control and to form mixed powder of Nakamura comprising Fe-Co-Ni alloys and having an average circularity of 0.955 or more as taught by Chiba motivated by the desire to have improved processability and excellent magnetic properties.
As Nakamura in view of Clare and Chiba discloses sintering metal powder as presently claimed, it therefore would be obvious that a ratio of a tap density to a true density of the sintering metal powder would intrinsically be 0.65 or more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/19/2026 have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejections as stated above.
Applicant argues that the combination of Nakamura, Clare, and Chiba does not teach, suggest, or render obvious the feature of "a constituent material of the sintering metal powder includes at least one of Fe-Ni-Co-based alloys, Ni-Cr-Mo-based alloys, or Co- Al-W-based alloys," as recited in amended independent claim 1.
However, Chiba discloses magnetic toner is used for an image forming method having a developing and cleaning process and includes toner particles containing at least a binding resin and a magnetic body and conductive particulates; and the maximum intensity (V/μm) of an alternating electric field (abstract). The magnetic powder used in the magnetic toner of the present invention may contain elements such as phosphorus, cobalt, nickel, copper, magnesium, manganese, aluminum, and silicon. It is mainly composed of iron, and these are used alone or in combination of two or more, thus it would be obvious based on teaching of Chiba to form magnetic powder containing Fe-Co-Ni alloys (para 0157).
Conclusion
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 RONAK C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-6:30PM (FLEX).
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, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/RONAK C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights