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 without traverse of claims 1-7 and 11 in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Onozaki et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2022/0236657).
Limitations in the preamble that do not limit the structure or are statements reciting purpose or intended use are not considered as giving patentable weight to the claims. MPEP 2111.02. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. With respect to the limitation “an additive manufacturing powder used for producing an additively manufactured body to be formed into a metal sintered body by sintering”, these limitations do not confer any clear structural features to the claim and are being interpreted as statements of intended use.
Regarding claim 1, Onozaki et al. disclose a magnetic carrier including a magnetic core and a coating resin on the surface of the core. (Abstract). 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, the magnetic core material includes a metal particle (par. [0069]) which includes on the surface thereof a coating resin material which include hydrophobic groups such as silicone resin. (par. [0071]-[0072]). In Example 22 shown in Table 4, a magnetic carrier material (i.e. a metal material containing core) is surface treated with Graft resin A and Graft Resin B (referring to Tables 2-3, which are coupling agent hydrophobic functional group resins such as trimethylene groups) and the surface of the magnetic carrier has a surface Si content of 17 atomic%. The Si value is measured by XPS (par. [0189]).Where the prior art teaches a specific example which is within the claimed range, the disclosure anticipates the claimed range. MPEP 2131.03 I.
While Onozaki et al. does not disclose that the magnetic carrier is used in the intended use limitation in claim 1, given that the powder includes all of the structural features of claim 1, the magnetic carrier material as disclosed in the reference anticipates the claim as it would be capable of performing in the claimed intended use.
Regarding claim 2, the magnetic core material includes iron powders containing Si. (par. [0074] and Example 22, Table 4).
Regarding claim 3, the coating material of Graft Resin A1 includes silicon-containing acrylic resin monomers and therefore contain Si. (par. [0252]-[0254]).
Regarding claim 5, 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.
Regarding claim 11, the magnetic core and coating resin are mixed with a binder material. (par. [0088]-[0089]).
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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitteramskogler et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2023/0311208).
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 Si content of the particles, the presence of a silicon oxide layer (i.e. SiO2) would mean that on the surface of the particle the Si content would be at least 33 atomic% given the 1:2 ratio of silicon to oxide in SiO2. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
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.
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.
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 of Jangam et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2021/0331235).
Mitteramskogler 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.
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).
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 Si content of the particles, the presence of a silicon oxide layer (i.e. SiO2) would mean that on the surface of the particle the Si content would be at least 33 atomic% given the 1:2 ratio of silicon to oxide in SiO2. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
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.
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), further in view of Jangam et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2021/0331235).
Mitteramskogler et al. in view of Okamoto 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.
Conclusion
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 01/24/2026