RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The 35 U.S.C. §102/103 rejections of the claims made of record in the office action mailed on 01/28/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 04/22/2026.
REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitteramskogler et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2023/0311208) in view Okamoto (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2015/0210016) and Bedford et al. (EP 06006665).
Regarding claim 1, Mitteramskogler et al. discloses a method of manufacturing a metallic or ceramic component comprising additive manufacturing particles of metal or ceramic and organic binder. (Abstract). The particles include a coating film on the surface thereof which may include metal oxides such as silicon oxide (par. [0023]-[0024]) and which may be treated with a coupling agent such as silanes, acid anhydrides, organophosphorus compounds, titanate and borates which attach to the surface of the metal oxide layer. (par. [0026]).
With respect to the limitation “a compound derived from a coupling agent containing a hydrophobic functional group”, the limitation “derived from” is being interpreted as a product by process limitation which further limits the “compound”. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. MPEP 2113. The limitation “derived from” does not provide a distinct structural feature to the “compound” as it may or may not include the hydrophobic functional group actively being claimed. As such, in the absence of clear structural features present in the claimed “compound”, the disclosure in Mitteramskogler et al. of the silanes, acid anhdyrides, organophosphorus, titanate and borate compound are sufficient to meet the limitation of a “compound” as claimed.
Furthermore, Okamoto discloses a three-dimensional shaped object which is formed using metal or metal oxide particles which are surface treated with a hydrophobic material including silane materials. (Abstract, par. [0289]-[0292] and [0296]-[0298]). Okamoto et al. discloses that this hydrophobic treatment improves the anchoring effect between the particles and improves the mechanical strength of the three-dimensional shaped object. (par. [0296]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a hydrophobic silane coupling agent as the coupling agent disclosed in Mitteramskogler et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a hydrophobic silane material in order to improve the anchoring effect between the particles and improves the mechanical strength of the three-dimensional shaped object using the powder disclosed in Mitteramskogler et al.
Mitteramskogler in view of Onozaki et al. does not disclose a Si content on the surface in the range of 36-40 atomic% as claimed but does teach a result effective nature of the hydrophobic silane treatment in affecting the properties of the metal or metal oxide particles.
Bedford et al. teaches an adhesive composition including an organosilane modified silicon dioxide sol. (Abstract). Bedford et al. teaches that organically modified silica sols are essentially discrete, non-aggregated silica particles with high dispersibility and the non-aggregation being the result of the organosilane present on the particle surface in an Si amount of 10-60 at%. (page 5, last paragraph, page 7, 4th full paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use treat the metal or metal oxide particles in combination of Mitteramskogler in view of Onozaki et al. to an amount such that a content of Si present on the surface of the particles is in the range of 10-60 at% as taught in Bedford et al., overlapping with the presently claimed range.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to treat the particles with an amount of silane such that the content of Si on the surface thereof is in the range of 10-60 at% in order to impart improved dispersibility and non-aggregation properties to the particles. Bedford et al. teaches that the improved dispersibility and non-aggregation of silica particles results from the silane being present in effective amount on the particle surface, as represented by the Si surface at% measurement. There is a reasonable expectation of success that a similar amount of silane material would therefore impart similar properties to metal or metal oxide particulates such as the ones taught by the combination of Mitteramskogler in view of Onozaki et al. Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific amount of Si content on the surface of the particles is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. The prior art recognizes the result effective nature of the silane content on the particle surfaces, as shown in Bedford et al. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical.
Regarding claims 3-4, the particle disclosed in Mitteramskogler et al. meets the limitation of “a modeling particle” as claimed including a core portion made of a metal material (Abstract) and a coating portion which may include silicon oxide which includes Si. (par. [0023]-[0024]).
Regarding claim 5, the claim is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1, above. Given that “derived from” when referring to the compound does not explicitly require that the final compound contain the claimed hydrophobic functional groups, the groups may or may not be present in the claimed compound and therefore are considered optional.
Furthermore, the hydrophobic silane material disclosed in Okamoto may include cyclic silane compounds such as vinylphenyl based silanes and fluoroalkyl silanes as disclosed in par. [0298].
Regarding claim 6, given that Okamoto discloses the use of “hydrophobic” surface treatment, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that this generally refers to a water contact angle on the surface of greater than 90o, overlapping with the presently claimed range. (see below)
PNG
media_image1.png
697
1001
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the water contact angle of the particles to control the overall hydrophobicity of the treatment as disclosed in Okamoto. In view of the explicit recognition of the result effective nature of the hydrophobicity of the particle surface treatment with respect to the mechanical properties of the three-dimensional product made from the particles, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the water contact angle of the particles.
Regarding claim 11, Mitteramskogler et al. discloses including the additive manufacturing powder and an organic binder material. (Abstract).
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitteramskogler et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2023/0311208) in view Okamoto (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2015/0210016) and Bedford et al. (EP 06006665), further in view of Jangam et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2021/0331235).
Mitteramskogler in view of Okamoto and Bedford et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 2, Mitteramskogler et al. does not disclose that the metal particles include Fe containing Si.
Jangam et al. teaches a powder bed material including metal particles for use in 3D printing, rapid prototyping or additive manufacturing. (par. [0001]). Jangam et al. teaches that the metal materials may include alloys of iron (par. [0012]) including iron alloys containing Si. (par. [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an Fe alloy containing Si and the metal material in Mitteramskogler et al. based on the disclosure of Jangam et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use an Fe alloy containing Si as the metal particle material in Mitteramskogler et al. since it is known in the art that such alloys are suitable for use and have utility in making a product in additive manufacturing. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 7, Mitteramskogler et al. does not specifically disclose the particle size of the metal particles.
Jangam et al. discloses that the particle size distribution of the metal particle includes a D50 diameter in the range of 4-150 microns, a D10 value in the range of 5-50 microns and a D90 value in the range of 25-85 microns. (par. [0024]). The value of the D50 value in Jangam et al. therefore overlaps with the presently claimed range as well as the ratio of (D90-D10)/D50. For example, a D50 of 10 microns, a D10 of 5 microns and a D90 microns, all of which lie within the range taught by Jangam et al., would result in a (D90-D10)/D50 of 2.0 which lies within the range of 0.8-2.7 as presently claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use metal particles in Mitteramskogler et al. having D50, D10 and D90 values as disclosed in Jangam et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use D50, D10 and D90 values as disclosed in Jangam et al. in view of the disclosure therein that such particle size distributions are suitable for use in an additive manufacturing process. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.07.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 04/22/2026 regarding the prior art rejections made of record in the office action mailed on 01/28/2026 have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
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 ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 05/20/2026
Prosecution Insights