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 and Status of Claims
Applicant’s election of Invention II, claims 3-20 in the reply filed on June 4, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-2 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/4/26.
As such, claims 3-20 are examined in this office action of which claim 3 was amended in the reply dated 6/4/26.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/15/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. However, citations 1, 59, and 115 in the US Patent Application Publications section are struck through as they are duplicates of other publications in that section. Further, the information disclosure statement filed 1/15/25 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. Specifically NPL citations 1 and 5 have not been considered as they are not in the English language and they neither contain an abstract nor an explanation as to their relevance. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 8, 15 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 uses “h” as an abbreviation for hour. The correct US abbreviation for hour is “hr”.
Claim 5 recites “N / cm2” with respect to strength. As the area is square centimeters, the number 2 should be in superscript and this should recite “N / cm2”.
The 8th claim is missing its number. The claim after 7 and before 9 merely says “Claim (Previously Presented)”. This should be corrected to recite “Claim 8”. For the purposes of applying prior art, this will be treated as claim 8 in the rejection below.
Claim 15 recites “the printing liquid comprises a surfactant, or a defoamer”. It is not grammatically correct to have a comma between “surfactant” and “or” and should be deleted.
Claim 20 recites “using microwave radiation, for 2 minutes - 30 minutes”. The inclusion of a comma between radiation and for is not grammatically correct and should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3-20 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the printing liquid comprises or consists of” in line 4. As comprising is an open transitional phrase that is inclusive and does not exclude additional unrecited elements while consists is a closed transitional phrase that excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim (See MPEP § 2111.03(I) and (II)), it is not clear whether the composition of the printing liquid is open to additional unrecited elements or not. Claims 4-20 are also rejected as they depend from claim 3 and do not solve the above issue.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a liquid selected from the group consisting of water or a aqueous solution and a water glass-containing component or derivatives thereof for at least partial selective solidification, optionally wherein the printing liquid is an aqueous solution,”. It is not clear what “derivatives thereof” applies to. It is not clear if the claim is allowing for the selection of derivatives of water, the aqueous solution, water glass-containing component, or some other meaning. Further, as this is a Markush grouping, it is not clear how there can be an optional limitation as a part of the grouping, see MPEP §2111.03(II). Claims 4-20 are also rejected as they depend from claim 3 and do not solve the above issue.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “optionally wherein the liquid is metered” in lines 8-9. As there is both “a liquid” as well as “a printing liquid” recited previously in the claim, it is not clear which of these liquids must be measured to be 2 to 20% by volume. Thus, it is not clear whether the printing liquid must be 2 to 20 % or whether the liquid as a part of the printing liquid must be 2 to 20%. Claims 4-20 are also rejected as they depend from claim 3 and do not solve the above issue.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “optionally wherein the liquid is metered into the particulate material with an addition of 2 to 20% by volume;” in lines 8-9. It is not clear what 2 to 20% by volume is measured in relation to. It is not clear whether this means that 2 to 20 % by volume of the layer is the liquid, it is not clear whether this means that “the liquid” is 2 to 20% by volume of “the printing liquid”, whether 2 to 20% by volume of the liquid is consumed by the selective applying step, or some other meaning. Claims 4-20 are also rejected as they depend from claim 3 and do not solve the above issue.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the desired molding part" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While there is a previous recitation of “a molding body” in the preamble, there is no previous recitation of a “part” much less “a desired molding part” Claims 4-20 are also rejected as they depend from claim 3 and do not solve the above issue.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the particulate material" in line 9. Identical recitations are made in claims 4, 11-12, 15, and 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While claim 1, from which these claims do not depend, recites “a particulate material” and claim 3 recites “a particulate material mixture” there is no previous recitation of merely “a particulate material”. Thus, it is unclear whether this intends to refer back to the particulate material mixture, some portion of that mixture, or some other meaning. Claims 5-10, 13-14, 16, and 19--20 are also rejected as they depend from claim 3 and do not solve the above issue.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “an ester activator” in the last line of the claim. This is also recited in claims 7, 11, 13, and 15. It is not clear what is meant by this phrase. It is not clear whether this refers to a chemical that “activates” an ester, whether this refers to an ester which “activates” some other material or some other meaning. Claims 4-6, 8-10, 12, 14, and 16-20 are also rejected as they depend from claim 3 and do not solve the above issue.
Claim 4 recites the limitations “the obtained molding part” and “the molding part” in lines 1-2 and the next to last line of the claim. The limitation “the molding part” is also recited in claims 5-9 and 18-20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While there is a previous recitation of “a molding body” in the preamble of claim 3, there is no previous recitation of “a part” or “a molded part” much less “an obtained molding part”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “and the molding part is preferably subjected to a further heat treatment step and/or a treatment using microwave radiation”. The use of “preferably” makes it unclear as to whether the recited steps are required to be performed or not.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “preferably subjected to a further heat treatment step and/or a treatment using microwave radiation and/or wherein the particulate material is applied using a coater (recoater) and/or wherein the printing liquid is selectively applied using a print head and/or wherein the molding part is left in a powder bed at ambient conditions for 1 hour - 24 hours after completion of the printing method.” Given that there is no punctuation in-between these limitations, it is not clear whether these limitations connected by “and/or” are part of the “preferably” limitation, whether they are separate limitations that are required or some other meaning.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “coater (recoater)” in line 5. It is not clear what is meant by having “recoater” in parenthesis after coater. It is not clear if this is intended to be a limitation of the claim or merely to be indicative of what a coater is or is capable of.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the molding part is dried and/or hardened by suctioning a gas or gas mixture, preferably ambient air, through the entirety of non-printed and printed areas after the printing method has been completed”. A similar recitation exists in claim 19. It is not clear if the suctioning of a gas or gas mixture applies merely to the hardening process, both the hardening and drying process, or some other meaning.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 5 and 19 recites the broad recitation “hardened by suctioning a gas or gas mixture”, and the claim also recites "preferably ambient air," which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “this suctioning through takes place 0 h - 24 h”, and the claim also recites "preferably 0 h - 12 h, particularly preferably directly after the end of printing, preferably suctioning through takes place for 0.5 to 5 hours" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 5 recites a series of limitations preceded by “preferably”. The use of “preferably” makes it unclear as to whether the recited steps are required to be performed or not.
Claim 6 recites that the molding part is subjected to a microwave radiation treatment “wherein preferably the treatment takes place over a time of 2 minutes – 30 minutes”. The use of “preferably” makes it unclear as to whether the recited steps are required to be performed for the recited time or not.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation "the treatment takes place over a period of time of 2 minutes - 30 minutes", and the claim also recites "preferably 2 minutes - 15 minutes, particularly preferably 2 minutes - 10 minutes" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “and/or wherein the surface of the molding part is furthermore coated or sealed” in the last two lines of the claim. It is not clear if this “and/or” limitation is in addition or optional to the microwave radiation treatment, whether this is in addition or optional to the time for this microwave treatment, or some other meaning.
Claim 7 is a method claim which depends from claim 3 and recites the limitation “a material system”. As there is no previous antecedent basis for a material system in claim 3 and there is no recited method step applied to the claimed “material system”, it is not clear what method step is required by the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a material system comprising or consisting of”. As comprising is an open transitional phrase that is inclusive and does not exclude additional unrecited elements while consists is a closed transitional phrase that excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim (See MPEP § 2111.03(I) and (II)), it is not clear whether the material system open to additional unrecited elements or not.
Claim 8, see objection above, recites the residual moisture and/or strength of the printed molding part but precedes these limitations with “preferably”. The use of “preferably” makes it unclear as to whether the recited steps are required to be performed or not.
Claim 8, see objection above, recites “the molding part has strengths of 80 N/cm2 - 150 N/cm2, preferably 200 N/cm2”. It is not clear how a part can have a strength in a range of 80-150 while also having a strength of 200 which does not fall within this range. Further, broad ranges or limitations followed by narrow ranges or limitations are indefinite, see MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Claim 8, see objection above, recites “in the printing direction” at the end of the claim. It is not clear what is meant by “in the printing direction”. It is not clear whether this recitation applies to the residual moisture, the strength, both, or some other meaning. Further, there is nothing that is claimed for either of these properties which relates to a printing direction.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation "wherein the molding part is left for 4 hours - 24 hours", and the claim also recites "preferably 8 hours - 15 hours, particularly preferably 10 hours - 11 hours" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 10 recites “The method of claim 3, wherein the metal casting mold , a cold casting mold, or laminating mold.” This claim is a non-sequitur as it neither a further method step nor further defines a feature recited in claim 3 from which it depends. Thus, the scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “where and the organic particulate material is preferably a wood powder, a starch powder,” in i). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation of “the organic particulate material” in the claim.
Further, it is not clear whether the organic particulate material is an option for the particulate material, whether it is a separate required element, or some other meaning. Also, the use of “preferably” makes it unclear as to whether the wood and starch powder are required to be included or not. Claims 12-20 are also rejected as they depend from claim 11 and do not solve the above issue.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the ester activator comprises one or more condensates of monovalent or polyvalent alcohols and monovalent or polyvalent organic carboxylic acids, such as formic and/or acetic acid, or dimethyl adipate, diethyl glutarate, triacetin, dimethyl succinate, or mixtures of various esters”. Given the lack of punctuation, it is not clear what the scope of this limitation is. It is not clear whether the “one or more” applies to the entire list of components meaning that merely one or more of these components is comprised in the ester activator, whether this “one or more” merely applies to the condensates of monovalent or polyvalent alcohols, or some other meaning. Claims 14-16 are also rejected as they depend from claim 13 and do not solve the above issue.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "such as" with respect to “formic and/or acetic acid” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 14-16 are also rejected as they depend from claim 13 and do not solve the above issue.
Claim 15 recites three separate limitations that are not connected by either an “and” or an “or”. Thus it is not clear whether all three limitations must be met to satisfy the claim, whether merely one of the three limitations must be met to satisfy the claim, or some other meaning.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a ratio of printing liquid to ester activator is between 8 and 12” in line 3. It is not clear what kind of ratio this encompasses. It is not clear if this is a ratio of mass, volume, moles, or some other measure of the printing liquid to the ester activator.
Claim 17 recites the limitation where “the method includes controlling the temperature of the construction field to 20°C to 60°C, and the printing liquid, wherein the printing liquid is metered into the particulate material with an addition of 2 - 10% by volume.” It is not clear what is meant by “and the printing liquid” in the middle of the claim. It is not clear if this is intended to mean that the temperature of the printing liquid is also controlled to 20°C to 60°C, whether a limitation is omitted, or some other meaning.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the printing liquid is metered into the particulate material with an addition of 2 - 10% by volume.” It is not clear what 2 to 10% by volume is measured in relation to. It is not clear whether this means that 2 to 10 % by volume of the layer is the printing liquid, it is not clear whether 2 to 10% by volume of the printing liquid is consumed by the metering step, or some other meaning.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the obtained molding part" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While there is a previous recitation of “a molding body” in the preamble, there is no previous recitation of a “part” much less “a desired molding part”
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the molding part is preferably subjected to a further heat treatment step and/or a treatment using microwave radiation” in lines 2-4. The use of “preferably” makes it unclear as to whether the recited steps are required to be performed or not.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein, the molding part, after drying and/or hardening, the method includes subjecting the molded part to a treatment using microwave radiation, for 2 minutes - 30 minutes”. It is not clear what is meant by the first recitation of “the molding part”. As there is no statement of a method step using or applied to “the molding part” it is not clear how this limitation further limits the claim.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 depends from claim 3 and merely recites a material system without reciting any method steps nor does this further limit a previously recited material system and therefore it does not further limit the method of claim 3.
Further, claim 10 depends from claim 3 which is a method claim. However, claim 10 does not recite a further method step, nor does it further limit a feature that is recited in the method of claim 3 and therefore claim 10 does not further limit claim 3. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 3-5, 7-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 110395995 A with reference to its English translation of ‘CN995.
As to claim 3, it is not clear whether the printing liquid is open or closed, what the Markush grouping includes, what the % by volume is measured in relation to, nor what an ester activator encompasses, see 112(b) rejections above. For the purposes of applying prior art, this will be interpreted as being an open composition, where the printing liquid comprises a water or aqueous solution and a water glass-containing component, where the volume percentage is measured with respect to the powder bed, and where the ester activator is one of the chemicals listed in paragraph [046] of the specification. ‘CN995 discloses a method for preparing ceramics based on modified sodium silicate binder by 3D printing and wherein the 3D printing method is adhesive jetting 3D printing technology which is based on the principles of discrete-stacking and micro-droplet jetting using a nozzle to selectively jet liquid binder to directly form solid ceramic powder materials into three-dimensional solid parts (‘CN995, paragraphs [0004] and [0008]), meeting the limitation of applying a particulate material mixture to a construction level; selectively applying a printing liquid, wherein the printing liquid comprises or consists of a liquid selected from the group consisting of water or a aqueous solution and a water glass-containing component and repeating these steps until the desired molding part was obtained as adhesive jetting involves forming a layer of a powder bed and then jetting the adhesive liquid onto the bed and repeating this process layer-by-layer till a part is obtained. ‘CN995 discloses where a curing agent is mixed with the oxide ceramic powder and where this curing agent includes one or more combinations of glycerol monoacetate, glycerol diacetate, and glycerol triacetate and where the liquid curing agent may include one or more combinations of ethylene glycol diacetate, diethylene glycol diacetate, oxalate propionate, propylene carbonate, and fluorosilicic acid (‘CN995, paragraphs [0011], [0016], and [0017]), meeting the claim limitations of an ester activator as these are ester compounds and glycerol triacetate is also known as triacetin. Finally, the other limitations in claim 3 all use “optionally” and language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation, see MPEP § 2143.03.
As to claim 4, it is not clear whether the “preferably” limitations are required or not and given the use of “and/or” whether the limitations are preferable or not, see 112(b) rejections above. For the purposes of applying prior art, the preferably limitations will be treated as optional and the limitations connected by “and/or” will be treated as part of the preferable, optional limitations. Thus, as ‘CN995 discloses removing the sand from around the 3D printed ceramic green body (‘CN995, paragraph [0012]), ‘CN995 meets the claim limitations of where the obtained molding part is separated from the unsolidified particulate material. However, ‘CN995 also teaches sintering (‘CN995, paragraph [0012]), which would meet a further heat treatment and as ‘CN995 discloses adhesive jetting 3D printing technology (‘CN995, paragraph [0005]), there would necessarily be a coater to apply particulate material and printing liquid selectively applied using a print head.
As to claim 5, it is not clear what is meant by the use of “preferably”, the recitation of broad and narrow limitations, and whether the suctioning of a gas or gas mixture applies merely to the hardening process or both the hardening and drying process, see 112(b) rejections above. For the purposes of applying prior art, the preferable limitations will be treated as optional, the broadest iteration of the ranges and limitations will be used to interpret the claim, and the suctioning will be interpreted as only being a part of the hardening process as it is directly linked to the hardening limitation. ‘CN995 discloses where the 3D printed ceramic green body from step S2 is sintered at a temperature above 1580℃ and then cooled to obtain the finished product (‘CN995, paragraph [0013]), meeting the limitation of where the molding part is dried as sintering would necessarily dry the part.
As to claim 7, it is not clear how this claim further limits the method of claim 3, see 112(b) and (d) rejections above. Thus, as ‘CN995 discloses the method of claim 3 as shown in the rejection above, ‘CN995 meets the claim 7 limitations. Also, as ‘CN995 discloses a sodium silicate binder (meeting a printing liquid) an oxide ceramic powder (meeting a particulate material) and a liquid curing agent where this curing agent includes one or more combinations of glycerol monoacetate, glycerol diacetate, and glycerol triacetate and where the liquid curing agent may include one or more combinations of ethylene glycol diacetate, diethylene glycol diacetate, oxalate propionate, propylene carbonate, and fluorosilicic acid (‘CN995, paragraphs [0011]-[0012], [0016], and [0017]), ‘CN995 discloses a material system comprising a particulate material, a printing liquid, and an ester activator.
As to claim 8, the claim uses “preferably”, making it unclear if the limitations are required or not, see 112(b) rejection above. For the purposes of applying prior art, this will be interpreted as these limitations being optional and the claim only requiring the formation of a molding part. As ‘CN995 discloses 3D printed ceramic products (‘CN995, paragraph [0012]), this meets the claim limitation as this is a part produced by the method of claim 3 and as 3D printing is a form of molding material into a shape, it is a molded part.
As to claim 10, it is not clear how the limitations further limit the method of claim 3, see 112(b) and (d) rejections above. As such, as ‘CN995 discloses the method of claim 3 as shown in the rejection above, ‘CN995 meets the claim 7 limitations.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110395995 A with reference to its English translation of ‘CN995 in view of US 2004/0045698 A1 of Grassi.
As to claim 6, ‘CN995 discloses the method according to claim 3, see claim 3 rejection above. However, ‘CN995 does not disclose where the molding part is subjected to a treatment using microwave radiation.
Grassi relates to the same field of endeavor of forming molds of aggregate refractory particulate material (Grassi, abstract). Grassi teaches where the binder used is sodium silicate (Grassi, paragraph [0035]). Grassi teaches where drying is conducted using a microwave oven for a three minute cycle (Grassi, paragraph [0060]). Grassi teaches that the sand absorbs energy in the drying process and remains hot in the surrounding pumice, thereby facilitating moisture evaporation (Grassi, paragraph [0029]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a step of drying using a 3 minute microwave treatment as taught by Grassi into the method of forming a part using a sodium silicate binder disclosed in ‘CN995, thereby facilitating moisture evaporation from the part (Grassi, paragraph [0029]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110395995 A with reference to its English translation of ‘CN995 in view of US 2020/0338629 A1 of Herzog.
As to claim 9, ‘CN995 discloses the method of claim 3, see claim 3 rejection above. However, ‘CN995 does not disclose where the molding part is left for 4 to 24 hours at ambient conditions in the powder bed.
Herzog relates to the same field of endeavor of manufacturing molds by 3D printing (Herzog, abstract). Herzog teaches using sodium waterglasses as a binder (Herzog, paragraph [0060]). Herzog teaches where the binder can be self-curing where an ester curing agent such as, for example, diacetin or triacetin is present as stationary binder component in the layer of the mold base material (Herzog, paragraph [0092]). Herzog teaches that with this method, there is no need to cure by microwave (Herzog, paragraph [0093]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a step of self-curing the binder as taught by Herzog to the method disclosed in ‘CN995, thereby not needing to cure by microwave (Herzog, paragraph [0093]) and therefore reducing the energy cost of producing the part. Further, as Herzog instructs to self-cure the binder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an appropriate time for the binder to set including 4 to 24 hours. Discovery of optimum ranges of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of art and selection of the optimum ranges within the general condition is obvious see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable CN 110395995 A with reference to its English translation of ‘CN995 with evidentiary reference to “Alumina” by US National Library of Medicine and “Triacetin” by Sigma Aldrich.
As to claim 11, it is not clear whether the “preferably” limitations are required, nor whether organic particulate material is an option, see 112(b) rejections above. For the purpose of applying prior art, this will be interpreted as being optional limitations and the organic particulate material will be treated as an option for the particulate material.
‘CN995 discloses where the oxide ceramic powder is used as the build material and this powder can be silicon dioxide ceramic, alumina ceramic, and any one or more of other oxide ceramics (‘CN995, paragraph [0014]), meeting the limitation where the particulate material comprises a ceramic. ‘CN995 discloses a liquid curing agent where this curing agent includes one or more combinations of glycerol monoacetate, glycerol diacetate, and glycerol triacetate and where the liquid curing agent may include one or more combinations of ethylene glycol diacetate, diethylene glycol diacetate, oxalate propionate, propylene carbonate, and fluorosilicic acid and where the amount of curing agent added is 0.16% to 0.75% of the weight of the oxide ceramic powder (‘CN995, paragraphs [0011]-[0012] and [0016]- [0018]). As the density of alumina is 3.97 g/cm3 as evidenced by US National Library of Medicine (US National Library of Medicine, section 3.2.7) and the density of triacetin is 1.16 g/ cm3 as evidenced by Sigma Aldrich (Sigma Aldrich, properties section) and assuming there is 100g of build material ‘CN995 discloses where 0.16 – 0.75 g of triacetin to 99.25-99.84g of alumina which means there is 25cm3 – 25.148 cm3 of alumina and 0.13cm3 to 0.646cm3 of triacetin meaning there 0.5 vol% to 2.5 vol% of triacetin, overlapping the claimed range of 0.2 to 1% by volume of an ester activator. “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(I).
As to claim 12, ‘CN995 discloses where the curing agent includes a solid curing agent (‘CN995, paragraph [0015]), meeting the limitation of a solid promoter as this is a solid material that promotes the curing of the part.
As to claim 13, it is not clear what is included in the “one or more” nor what is meant by the use of “such as”, see 112(b) rejections above. For the purposes of applying prior art, this will be interpreted as being a selection among all of the recited chemicals. CN995 discloses a liquid curing agent where this curing agent includes one or more combinations of glycerol monoacetate, glycerol diacetate, and glycerol triacetate and where the liquid curing agent may include one or more combinations of ethylene glycol diacetate, diethylene glycol diacetate, oxalate propionate, propylene carbonate, and fluorosilicic acid (‘CN995, paragraphs [0011]-[0012] and [0016]- [0018]) meeting the claim limitations as these are ester compounds and glycerol triacetate is also known as triacetin.
As to claim 14, ‘CN995 discloses a method for preparing ceramics based on modified sodium silicate binder by 3D printing (‘CN995, paragraphs [0004] and [0008]), meeting the limitation as sodium silicate is also known as water glass.
As to claim 15, it is not clear what limitations are required nor what kind of ratio of printing liquid to ester activator is required, see 112(b) rejections above. For the purposes of applying prior art, this will be interpreted as requiring one of the limitations to be met as this is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim and the ratio is interpreted as this would be consistent even after absorption by the build material.
‘CN995 discloses where the amount of curing agent added is 0.16% to 0.75% of the weight of the oxide ceramic powder (‘CN995, paragraphs [0011]-[0012] and [0016]- [0018]) and ‘CN995 discloses where the amount of sodium silicate inorganic binder added is 2-5% of the weight of oxide ceramic mixed powder (‘CN995, paragraph [0037]), this would result in a mass ratio of 2.667 – 31.25 overlapping the claimed range of 8-12. 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(I).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable CN 110395995 A with reference to its English translation of ‘CN995 in view of US 2020/0338629 A1 of Herzog with evidentiary reference to “Alumina” by US National Library of Medicine and “Triacetin” by Sigma Aldrich.
As to claim 16, ‘CN995 discloses the method of claim 14, see claim 14 rejection above. However, ‘CN995 does not disclose where the printing liquid comprises alkali metal hydroxide.
Herzog relates to the same field of endeavor of manufacturing molds by 3D printing (Herzog, abstract). Herzog teaches using sodium waterglasses as a binder (Herzog, paragraph [0060]). Herzog teaches where sodium or potassium hydroxide is included in the binder (Herzog, paragraph [0082]). Herzog teaches that this a multicomponent binder produces binders that remain directly at the position of its application and do not sink due to gravity into lower layers (Herzog, paragraph [0011]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add sodium or potassium hydroxide to the binder fluid as taught by Herzog into the sodium silicate binder fluid disclosed in ‘CN995, thereby produces binders that remain directly at the position of its application and do not sink due to gravity into lower layers (Herzog, paragraph [0011]).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110395995 A with reference to its English translation of ‘CN995 with evidentiary reference to “Alumina” by US National Library of Medicine, “Triacetin” by Sigma Aldrich, and “Sodium silicate solution” of Univar.
As to claim 17, it is not clear what is meant by “and the printing liquid”, nor what the volume is measured in relation to, see 112(b) rejections above. For the purposes of applying prior art, this will be interpreted as merely requiring a printing liquid and for the volume of printing liquid be in relation to the volume of particulate material. ‘CN995 discloses a method for preparing ceramics based on modified sodium silicate binder by 3D printing and wherein the 3D printing method is adhesive jetting 3D printing technology which is based on the principles of discrete-stacking and micro-droplet jetting using a nozzle to selectively jet liquid binder to directly form solid ceramic powder materials into three-dimensional solid parts (‘CN995, paragraphs [0004] and [0008]). As ‘CN995 does not disclose a temperature for carrying out this AM process, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to carry out this adhesive jetting process at standard room temperature of 25°C, thereby meeting the claim limitations of 20 to 60°C and reducing energy costs by avoiding use of heating equipment.
‘CN995 discloses where the amount of sodium silicate inorganic binder added is 2-5% of the weight of oxide ceramic mixed powder (‘CN995, paragraph [0037]). Thus as US National Library of Medicine discloses that the density of the aluminum oxide is 3.97g/cm3 Medicine (US National Library of Medicine, section 3.2.7) and Univar discloses the density of sodium silicate solution is 1.41 g/cm3 (Univar, Product details section), assuming there is 100g of aluminum oxide material, there would be 2-5g of sodium silicate binder which would mean there would be 1.42 – 3.54 cm3 of binder fluid to a total volume of 26.6 – 28.7349 cm3. This means that ‘CN995 is disclosing a binder volume percentage of 5.33 to 12.34%, overlapping the claimed range of 2-10 vol%. “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(I).
As to claim 19, it is not clear what is meant by the use of “preferably”, the recitation of broad and narrow limitations, and whether the suctioning of a gas or gas mixture applies merely to the hardening process or both the hardening and drying process, see 112(b) rejections above. For the purposes of applying prior art, the preferable limitations will be treated as optional, the broadest iteration of the ranges and limitations will be used to interpret the claim, and the suctioning will be interpreted as only being a part of the hardening process as it is directly linked to the hardening limitation. ‘CN995 discloses where the 3D printed ceramic green body from step S2 is sintered at a temperature above 1580℃ and then cooled to obtain the finished product (‘CN995, paragraph [0013]), meeting the limitation of where the molding part is dried.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110395995 A with reference to its English translation of ‘CN995 in view of US 2020/0338629 A1 of Herzog with evidentiary reference to “Alumina” by US National Library of Medicine, “Triacetin” by Sigma Aldrich, and “Sodium silicate solution” of Univar.
As to claim 18, ‘CN995 discloses removing the sand from around the 3D printed ceramic green body (‘CN995, paragraph [0012]), meeting the claim limitations of where the obtained molding part is separated from the unsolidified particulate material. ‘CN995 also teaches sintering (‘CN995, paragraph [0012]), which meets a further heat treatment and as ‘CN995 discloses adhesive jetting 3D printing technology (‘CN995, paragraph [0005]), there would necessarily be a coater to apply particulate material and printing liquid selectively applied using a print head.
However, ‘CN995 does not disclose where the molding part is left for 1 to 24 hours at ambient conditions in the powder bed.
Herzog relates to the same field of endeavor of manufacturing molds by 3D printing (Herzog, abstract). Herzog teaches using sodium waterglasses as a binder (Herzog, paragraph [0060]). Herzog teaches where the binder can be self-curing where an ester curing agent such as, for example, diacetin or triacetin is present as stationary binder component in the layer of the mold base material (Herzog, paragraph [0092]). Herzog teaches that with this method, there is no need to cure by microwave (Herzog, paragraph [0093]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a step of self-curing the binder as taught by Herzog to the method disclosed in ‘CN995, thereby not needing to cure by microwave (Herzog, paragraph [0093]) and therefore reducing the energy cost of producing the part. Further, as Herzog instructs to self-cure the binder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an appropriate time for the binder to set including 1 to 24 hours. Discovery of optimum ranges of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of art and selection of the optimum ranges within the general condition is obvious see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110395995 A with reference to its English translation of ‘CN995 in view of US 2004/0045698 A1 of Grassi with evidentiary reference to “Alumina” by US National Library of Medicine, “Triacetin” by Sigma Aldrich, and “Sodium silicate solution” of Univar.
As to claim 20, ‘CN995 discloses the method according to claim 19, see claim 19 rejection above. However, ‘CN995 does not disclose where the molding part is subjected to a treatment using microwave radiation for 2 – 30 minutes.
Grassi relates to the same field of endeavor of forming molds of aggregate refractory particulate material (Grassi, abstract). Grassi teaches where the binder used is sodium silicate (Grassi, paragraph [0035]). Grassi teaches where drying is conducted using a microwave oven for a three minute cycle (Grassi, paragraph [0060]), meeting the limitation of a microwave treatment of 3-20 minutes. Grassi teaches that the sand absorbs energy in the drying process and remains hot in the surrounding pumice, thereby facilitating moisture evaporation (Grassi, paragraph [0029]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a step of drying using a 3 minute microwave treatment as taught by Grassi into the method of forming a part using a sodium silicate binder disclosed in ‘CN995, thereby facilitating moisture evaporation from the part (Grassi, paragraph [0029]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua S Carpenter whose telephone number is (571)272-2724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 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 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.
/JOSHUA S CARPENTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JOPHY S. KOSHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights