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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3/23/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 3/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Sugahara et al (US 2019/0040109 A1) fails to teach or suggest a molded body comprising the combination of a sinterable inorganic powder and an organic binder. This is not found persuasive because Sugahara et al teaches introducing powder to a mold and heating to form a molded article [0055], which reads in sintering.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2 and 6 are as originally filed, and Clams 3-5 and 7-9 are currently amended.
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, 5, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumazawa et al (US 2009/0275678 A1) as evidenced by ASTM 790 and ISO 178.
Kumazawa et al teaches a composition comprising a thermoplastic resin [0048], which reads on an organic binder, and an inorganic powder [0110] that is sinterable, which is a property of the inorganic material. The composition including an inorganic component, and the thermoplastic resin is represented by TABLE 6 [0206]. The bending properties were measured according to ASTM D790, which defines the testing condition up to 5% strain on page 2, and ISO 178, which defines the testing condition up to 5% on page 9. The bending modulus is 5.2 GPa, 5.4 GPa, or 5.6 GPa (TABLE 6). Kumazawa et al does not teach yield strength but teaches the tensile strength is greater than 10 MPa (TABLE 6), or 55 MPa, 57 MPa, 58 MPa, and 61 MPa. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the composition of Kumazawa et al reads on the claimed yield strength, since Kumazawa et al teaches determining tensile yield strength as part of tensile properties [0183].
Regarding Claim 2, the product of the bending modulus and the tensile strength ranges from 153,900 to 164,700.
Regarding Claim 3, Kumazawa et al does not teach voids but substantially teaches the same claimed properties and composition. Therefore, Kumazawa et al substantially teaches the claimed property of voids, included when they are 10 are less when a cross section is observed under a microscope.
Regarding Claim 5, polyacetal resin is used [0048].
Regarding Claim 6, melt flow rate is a property of the polyacetal. Kumazawa et al teaches achieving the claimed properties of tensile strength and yield strength but does not teach the melt flow rate but substantially teaches the same claimed properties and composition. Therefore, Kumazawa et al substantially teaches the claimed property of melt flow rate.
Regarding Claim 8, the inorganic powder is metal [0110].
Regarding Claim 9, Kumazawa et al does not teach the claimed property of a portion with a thickness of 1 mm or less is present at 100 mm2 or more. The thickness and area of the composition reads on intended use.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (US 2023/0040808 A1) as evidenced by World Materials and Ameralabs.
Ogawa teaches a composition comprising a resin component (A) and inorganic particles (B). The composition has a flexural (or bending) modulus between 5.2 and 11.8 GPa and flexural (bending) strength between 60 and 107.1 MPa (TABLE 1). The testing condition is JIS K6911-1995 [0078] but Ogawa does not recite 0.05-0.1% strain. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the composition in Ogawa would meet the testing condition of a bending modulus of 4000 to 15,000 MPa upon 0.05% to 0.1% strain, since Ogawa teaches a composition with substantially the same properties.
Regarding Claim 2, The product of the flexural modulus and flexural strength is greater than 10 MPa.
Regarding Claim 3, Ogawa does not teach voids but substantially teaches the same claimed properties and composition. Therefore, Ogawa substantially teaches the claimed property of voids, included when they are 10 are less when a cross section is observed under a microscope.
Regarding Claim 4, the average particle size of the particles ranges from 0.5 to 1.6 μm [0094-0097].
Regarding Claim 5, the resin can contain polyacetal [0063].
Regarding Claim 6, melt flow rate is a property of the polyacetal. Ogawa teaches achieving the claimed properties of tensile strength and yield strength but does not teach the melt flow rate but substantially teaches the same claimed properties and composition. Therefore, Ogawa substantially teaches the claimed property of melt flow rate.
Regarding Claim 7, the volume% of the inorganic particles is 20-65. The density of gold [0042] is 19.30 g/cm3 (Density of Metals, page 2) and resins are generally 1.-1.5 g/cm3 (Ameralabs), so one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the mass% of gold would at least overlap 75-95 mass% or more.
Regarding Claim 8, the inorganic particles comprise metal [0042] (“gold and so on”).
Regarding Claim 9, Ogawa does not teach the claimed property of a portion with a thickness of 1 mm or less is present at 100 mm2 or more. The thickness and area of the composition reads on intended use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2013/035059 A1 teaches metallic or ceramic molded bodies by powder injection molding [0001] that contains an organic binder [0005]. The binder is polyoxymethylene copolymers [0039], which are polyacetals. The powder can be all suitable inorganic sinterable powders [0072]. The particle size is 0.3 to 30 μm [0075]. The composition is prepared in a kneader or extruder at 150-220 °C. Shaping takes place at 170-200 °C with pressures of 3-20 MPa [0090]. The final molded produce has 50-95% of the binder removed [0098].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 pm.
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 D. 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/TIMA M. MCGUTHRY-BANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights