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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/17/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1 which recites, true density and tap density, however, the claim does not recite the units of true and tap density, so it is not clear what unit is true and tap density measured in. Clarification is requested.
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.
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).
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 having an average circularity of 0.955 or more as taught by Chiba motivated by the desire to have improved processability.
As Nakamura in view of Clare and Chiba discloses sintering metal powder as presently claimed, it therefore would be obvious that metal mixed powder would intrinsically have the claimed tap density of 0.65 or more and true density of 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/17/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Nakamura describes that the mixed powder contains the first powder and the second powder of the same material. Nakamura further describes that the first powder and the second powder have different particle size distributions. Nakamura further describes that the mixed powder is used for sintering lamination molding. However, Nakamura does not describe a tap density of the mixed powder is 0.65 or more, where a true density of the mixed powder is 1.
However, it should be noted that as Nakamura in view of Clare and Chiba discloses sintering metal powder as presently claimed, it therefore would be obvious, absent evidence to the contrary that metal mixed powder would intrinsically have the claimed tap density of 0.65 or more and true density of 1.
Applicant's disclosure describes "[w]hen a true density of the sintering metal powder is 1, a tap density of the sintering metal powder is preferably 0.65 or more [w]hen a ratio of the tap density to the true density is within the above range, a sintering metal powder having a sufficiently high filling property and fluidity can be obtained. When the ratio of the tap density to the true density is less than the above lower limit value, the filling property or the fluidity of the sintering metal powder may be insufficient. On the other hand, the ratio of the tap density to the true density may exceed the above upper limit value, but a production variation may increase, and thus the ratio is preferably equal to or less than the above upper limit value." See the Specification at 111 [0049] and [0050] as originally filed (emphasis added). Nakamura does not describe the above-mentioned criticality of the claimed feature. Therefore, the Nakamura cannot not possibly describe when a true density of the sintering metal powder is 1, a tap density of the sintering metal powder is 0.65 or more.
However, it is agreed that Nakamura does not explicitly disclose the critical feature of the metal powder, however, the true and tap density are intrinsically be present in the sintering metal powder, it therefore would be obvious that metal powder of Nakamura would have the claimed critical feature.
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.Cir. 2006); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662,1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991).
Conclusion
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