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
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 05/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the entire application could be performed without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because while the examiner has argued a case for restriction based on a lack of unity of invention, the applicant has not provided a counterargument in their response as to why the groups outlined in the restriction have unity of invention.
Claims 9-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 5/12/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples include:
Pg.1 ln. 22, “suitably” should read “suitable”
Pg. 1 ln. 34 and pg. 2 ln. 1, “from sinter together” should read “from sintering together”
Pg. 2 ln. 2, “by physically prevent” should read “by physically preventing”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Flon (WO 2021004776 A1) in view of Bose (“Sintering of Hardmetals”, ASM Handbook, Vol. 7, Powder Metallurgy), as evidenced by Wolfe (“Production of Carbide Powders”, ASM Handbook, Vol. 7, Powder Metallurgy).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, De Flon teaches a method for producing a ready-to-print cemented carbide powder, wherein WC (i.e. a hard constituent), Co (i.e. a metal binder, Cr, and PEG (i.e. an organic binder) are mixed to produce a raw powder (pg. 10 ln. 9-11). The raw powder is then spray-dried to form granules (pg. 10 ln. 12-14). While De Flon is silent on forming a slurry with the raw powder and a solvent, it is well-known that, in order to spray-dry the powder, it must be in a slurry (Wolfe pg. 713 § “Graded Powder Production” and Figs. 3 & 4). In one embodiment, the spray-dried granules are then pre-sintered at temperature of 1250OC (pg. 10 ln. 17). A person skilled in the art, upon consulting a WC-Co binary diagram, would know that the taught temperature of De Flon fulfills the temperature limitations recited in claim 1 (See Bose Fig. 1). The sintered powder is subsequently milled to produce a ready to print powder (Clm. 10).
However, De Flon fails to teach sintering of the spray-dried granules in a carburizing atmosphere.
Bose teaches that sintering of cemented carbides in carbon-containing atmosphere is a well-known technique in the art (pg. 720-721 §” Oxygen and Carbon Control”). Particularly, Bose teaches that sintering in CO and CH4 atmospheres is done to prevent both oxidation and decarburization of the carbides during the sintering process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application incorporate a CO or CH4 atmosphere, as taught by Bose, into De Flon’s granule sintering step because there is a well-known advantage in sintering cemented carbides in a carbon-containing atmosphere (I.e. the prevention of oxidation and decarburization of cemented carbides).
Regarding claim 3, Bose teaches the maximum CO+CO2 gas pressures needed to prevent decarburization and oxidation across different sintering temperatures (Fig. 4). Based on the taught maximum pressures for WC and Co, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use carbon-containing gas partial pressures below the maximums. These pressures overlap with the claimed range of at least 50 mBar. 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(1).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, De Flon teaches a cemented carbide powder that comprises 12.79 wt% Co, 0.58 wt% Cr, and a balance of WC (pg. 10 ln. 12-14). The taught Co and WC proportions reads on the claimed Co and WC proportions.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, as discussed above, De Flon sinters their cemented carbide powders at a temperature of 1250OC, which is within the claimed sintering temperature of 1250-1300OC. De Flon does not teach a temperature within the claimed range of 1260-1290OC. However, the De Flon’s temperature and the claimed temperature range is sufficiently close enough that a person skilled in the art knows that both the taught temperature and the claimed range would yield similar results. Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (MPEP 2144.05)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Flon (WO 2021004776 A1) in view of Bose (“Sintering of Hardmetals”, ASM Handbook, Vol. 7, Powder Metallurgy) and as evidenced by Wolfe (“Production of Carbide Powders”, ASM Handbook, Vol. 7, Powder Metallurgy) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Runyon (“Cemented Carbide Quality Control”, ASM Handbook, Vol. 7, Powder Metallurgy).
Neither De Flon nor Bose teach the sieving of granules after the sintering step.
Runyon teaches that sieving of particles is a well-known technique in the art for the purpose of controlling powder properties such as bulk density and flowability (pg. 729 § “Powder Characterization” & Table 1). Given the state of the art, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate sieving steps after sintering the spray dried granules (as taught by De Flon in view of Bose) and expect a well-known and predictable result (I.e. obtaining RTP powders with improved flowability and bulk densities).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAVIER FLORES whose telephone number is 571-272-9130. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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 WALKER can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/J.F./ Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights