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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 18 claims “the metal and/or ceramic particles consist essentially of particles having a size between 5 μm and 50 μm”. The transitional phrase "consisting essentially of" limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps "and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)" of the claimed invention (MPEP 2111.03(III)). For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, "consisting essentially of" will be construed as equivalent to "comprising” (MPEP 2111.03(III)). Considering the specification does not identify how fine or coarse particles must be in order to materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the invention, and the specification discloses the particles comprise a distribution of particle sizes [0065], the limitation particles consist essentially of particles having a size between 5 μm and 50 μm will be interpreted as open to additional particles of sizes which are not within the claimed range.
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.
Claim 23 is 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.
Regarding claim 23, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (MPEP 2111.04(II)). When the claim limitations of claims 12, 20, and 22 are incorporated into claim 23, which depends on claims 12, 20, and 22 the claimed solidifying step recites:
solidifying the slurry by cooling the slurry and/or by exposing at least part of the mold to an environment below atmospheric pressure (from claim 12),
wherein exposing the at least part of the mold to an environment below atmospheric pressure comprises arranging the at least part of the mold in a chamber and lowering an air pressure within the chamber (from claim 20),
wherein the mold includes a sprue portion, and wherein disposing the at least part of the mold in the chamber comprises enclosing portions of the mold other than the sprue portion inside the chamber such that the sprue portion extends from inside to outside of the chamber and forms a pressure seal between the sprue portion and the chamber (from claim 22),
wherein providing the slurry into the interior of the mold comprises providing the slurry through the sprue portion into the portions of the mold other than the sprue portion (from claim 23).
Claim 22 claims that the mold includes a sprue portion regardless of solidifying mechanism, but introduces the “portions in the mold other than” in steps that are only required of the solidifying by exposing alternative. Claim 12 requires manipulating the step of “providing the slurry into the interior of the mold” regardless of which solidifying mechanism is manipulated. As the other portions are introduced in steps required in the solidifying by exposing alternative, it is not clear whether or not the portions other than limitations in claim 23 are required when manipulating the solidifying by cooling alternative. This issue may be resolved by altering claim 22 to claim the mold includes a sprue portion and portions of the mold other than the sprue portion, and wherein disposing the at least part of the mold in the chamber comprises enclosing portions of the mold other than the sprue portion and later referring to the portions where the other portions are currently introduced.
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(s) 12-14, 17, 19-24, 26-27, 29, and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US20060090603) in view of Uram (US20140339745). Uram is cited in the IDS filed January 16, 2025.
Regarding claim 12, Lewis discloses a method (abstract, [0007]). Lewis discloses obtaining a mold [0008], [0030]. Lewis discloses that the mold may comprise a shell or that the mold may be resinous [0030]. Lewis discloses supplying a slurry (raw particulate mixture of powder metal, binder, solvent, and any other additives) into an interior of the mold [0030]. Lewis discloses that the slurry comprises metal and/or ceramic particles (metal powder [0025], metal powder may be ceramic [0024]) comprising 50-60% by volume of the slurry [0025], which overlaps a range of between 40 vol % and 55 vol % of the slurry. Lewis discloses that the slurry comprises a binding agent which comprises 5% by volume of the slurry [0025]. Lewis discloses that the balance of the slurry comprises a solvent [0025], thereby disclosing that the slurry comprises 35-45% by volume (
35
%
=
100
%
-
60
%
-
5
%
;
45
%
=
100
-
50
%
-
5
%
) of solvent. The volume percentage ranges disclosed by Lewis [0025] overlap the ranges recited in claim 12. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Lewis discloses solidifying the slurry by cooling the slurry (cooling allows formation of a self-supporting article within the structure of the mold [0031]).
Lewis discloses that the mold may comprise a shell [0030] and that the mold may be resinous [0030], but Lewis does not disclose that the mold comprises a hollow shell of rigid material, wherein the rigid material comprises a thermoset polymer.
Uram teaches a method [0021], [0041]. Uram teaches obtaining a mold [0041]. Uram teaches that the mold comprises a hollow shell [0016], [0085] of rigid material [0027-28], [0066] (walls of the mold may be dimensioned and manufactured using 3D printing to be relatively thin, but having a thickness sufficient to retain the ceramic slip [0088]). Uram teaches that the rigid material comprises a thermoset polymer [0027-28], [0040], [0047], [0089] at least to the extent of what the present disclosure considers for mold materials (see instant dependent claim 24). Uram teaches supplying a slurry (slip mixture) into an interior of the mold [0021], [0041]. Uram teaches solidifying the slurry by cooling the slurry [0095], [0121], [0129]. Uram teaches that the molds allow the manufacture of objects having a complex shape with high density from materials suitable for casting [0015], [0087], [0123].
Both Lewis and Uram teach substantially similar processes for manufacturing an object from a slurry in a mold.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to use a mold comprising a hollow shell of rigid material, wherein the rigid material comprises a thermoset polymer in the method disclosed by Lewis, applied above because Uram teaches such molds as effective for manufacturing objects from a slurry by a similar molding process [0016], [0021], [0027-28], [0040-41], [0047], [0065-66], [0088-89], [0095], [0121], [0129]. The breadth of suitable molds disclosed by Lewis [0030-31] is open to applying the mold taught by Uram, and application of such a mold would predictably result in producing complex shapes with high densities in view of the teachings of Uram [0015], [0087], [0123].
Regarding claims 13 and 14 Lewis discloses that the binding agent includes a thermoplastic gelling agent [0026], and specifically names the polysaccharide agar as such a commonly used gelling agent [0026]. Lewis further discloses that the binding agent may be polysaccharides [0026].
Regarding claim 17, Lewis discloses that the solvent includes water [0026].
Regarding claim 19, Uram teaches that the mold is porous [0015-18], [0022], [0042], and Uram teaches that a porous mold comprises a plurality of pores [0017]. In providing the mold taught by Uram, and the process disclosed by Lewis in view of Uram, applied above, one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, would therefore provide a porous mold comprises a plurality of pores located (and therefore meeting the structure of pores formed) in the hollow shell of the mold.
Regarding claim 20, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (MPEP 2111.04(II)). When the claim limitations of claim 12 are incorporated into claim 20, which depends on claim 12, the claimed solidifying step recites:
solidifying the slurry by cooling the slurry and/or by exposing at least part of the mold to an environment below atmospheric pressure (from claim 12),
wherein exposing the at least part of the mold to an environment below atmospheric pressure comprises arranging the at least part of the mold in a chamber and lowering an air pressure within the chamber (from claim 20).
All of the additional limitations recited in claim 20 apply only to the solidifying by exposing at least part of the mold to an environment below atmospheric pressure; however, claim 20 still presents this solidifying by exposing step as an alternative to solidifying by cooling. As Lewis discloses solidifying the slurry by cooling the slurry [0031], Lewis meets the requirements of one of the solidifying alternatives recited in claim 20. If applicant intends to limit the scope of claim 20 to require a method comprising solidifying the slurry by exposing at least part of the mold to an environment below atmospheric pressure, applicant should claim that solidifying the slurry ‘comprises exposing at least part of the mold to an environment below atmospheric pressure’ and not as an alternative to solidifying by cooling.
Regarding claim 21, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (MPEP 2111.04(II)). When the claim limitations of claims 12 and 20 are incorporated into claim 21, which depends on claims 12 and 20, the claimed solidifying step recites:
solidifying the slurry by cooling the slurry and/or by exposing at least part of the mold to an environment below atmospheric pressure (from claim 12),
wherein exposing the at least part of the mold to an environment below atmospheric pressure comprises arranging the at least part of the mold in a chamber and lowering an air pressure within the chamber (from claim 20),
wherein the air pressure [within the chamber as claimed in claim 20] is lowered to below 0.1 atm (from claim 21).
All of the additional limitations recited in claim 21 apply only to the solidifying by exposing at least part of the mold to an environment below atmospheric pressure; however, claim 21 still presents this solidifying by exposing step as an alternative to solidifying by cooling. As Lewis discloses solidifying the slurry by cooling the slurry [0031], Lewis meets the requirements of one of the solidifying alternatives recited in claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, Uram teaches that the mold includes a sprue portion (hole 110, Fig. 1B). In providing the mold taught by Uram, applied above, one of ordinary skill in the art would provide some structure which meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a sprue portion. With the exception of the limitation on the mold structure itself, all additional limitations of claim 22 are directed entirely to the solidifying by exposing alternative and not to the solidifying by cooling alternative, and Lewis meets the limitations of the cooling alternative [0031].
Regarding claim 23, Uram teaches that providing the slurry into the interior of the mold comprises providing the slurry through the sprue portion into some other portions of the mold other than the sprue portion [0085]. In providing the mold taught by Uram, applied above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to apply the mold and portions thereof for the intended purpose of shaping the slurry taught by Uram [0021], [0041], [0085].
Regarding claim 24, Uram teaches that the thermoset polymer is an acrylic [0027-28], [0039], [0047], [0089]. In providing the mold taught by Uram, applied above, one of ordinary skill in the art would provide a mold comprising the materials taught by Uram.
Regarding claim 26, Uram is silent on the thickness of the shell. Uram teaches that in order to facilitate removal of the mold from the object, the shell thickness (walls of the mold) may be dimensioned and manufactured to be relatively thin, but having a thickness sufficient to retain the slurry until it is transformed into the green part [0088], thereby establishing the thickness of the shell as a variable against which the results of object separation and slurry retention are weighed [0088]. One of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing would have arrived at a shell thickness between 0.5 mm and 0.8 mm as the result of obvious, routine optimization for object removal and slurry retention, in view of the teachings of Uram. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 27, Lewis discloses removing a green part, formed by solidifying the slurry, from the interior of the mold [0031], [0033].
Regarding claim 29, Lewis discloses that solidifying the slurry produces a gel [0024], [0031-32].
Regarding claim 31, Lewis discloses that the slurry comprises stainless steel particles [0024-25], that the solvent includes water [0026], and that the binding agents include agar [0026].
Regarding claim 32, Lewis discloses sintering the green part in a furnace to produce a ceramic and/or metal part [0034-36], [0042-43].
Claim(s) 12, 17-24, 26-28, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ter Maat (EP-0561273-A1) in view of Uram (US20140339745). References to ter Maat are directed to the examiner-supplied English language translation.
Regarding claim 12, ter Maat discloses a method [0001]. Ter Maat discloses obtaining a mold [0035]. Ter Maat discloses supplying a slurry into an interior of the mold [0035]. Ter Maat discloses that the slurry comprises metal and/or ceramic particles (sinterable powder) comprising between 30 vol % and 70 vol % of the slurry [0013], [0027]. Ter Maat discloses that the slurry comprises one or more solvents comprising between 10 vol % and 55 vol % of the slurry ([0013], claim 1). Ter Maat discloses that the slurry comprises one or more binding agents comprising between 1 vol % and 55 vol % of the slurry ([0013], claim 1). The proportions disclosed by ter Maat encompass the slurry proportions recited in claim 12. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, and generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Ter Maat discloses solidifying the slurry by cooling the slurry in the mold [0035].
Ter Maat discloses an injection molding system as an appropriate mold [0035], but Ter Maat does not disclose that the mold comprises a hollow shell of rigid material, wherein the rigid material comprises a thermoset polymer.
Uram teaches a method [0021], [0041]. Uram teaches obtaining a mold [0041]. Uram teaches that the mold comprises a hollow shell [0016], [0085] of rigid material [0027-28], [0066] (walls of the mold may be dimensioned and manufactured using 3D printing to be relatively thin, but having a thickness sufficient to retain the ceramic slip [0088]). Uram teaches that the rigid material comprises a thermoset polymer [0027-28], [0040], [0047], [0089] at least to the extent of what the present disclosure considers for mold materials (see instant dependent claim 24). Uram teaches supplying a slurry (slip mixture) into an interior of the mold [0021], [0041]. Uram teaches solidifying the slurry by cooling the slurry [0095], [0121], [0129]. Uram teaches that the molds allow the manufacture of objects having a complex shape with high density from materials suitable for casting [0015], [0087], [0123].
Both ter Maat and Uram teach substantially similar processes for manufacturing an object from a slurry in a mold.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to use a mold comprising a hollow shell of rigid material, wherein the rigid material comprises a thermoset polymer in the method disclosed by ter Maat, applied above because Uram teaches such molds as effective for manufacturing objects from a slurry by a similar molding process [0016], [0021], [0027-28], [0040-41], [0047], [0065-66], [0088-89], [0095], [0121], [0129]. The general injection molding teachings for a mold disclosed by ter Maat [0035] is sufficiently broad to encompass the mold taught by Uram, and application of such a mold would predictably result in producing complex shapes with high densities in view of the teachings of Uram [0015], [0087], [0123].
Regarding claim 17, ter Maat discloses that the solvent includes water [0024], [0026].
Regarding claim 18, ter Maat discloses that the metal and/or ceramic particles have a particle size from 0.1 to 50 µm [0027], which overlaps a range of between 5 μm and 50 μm. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 19, Uram teaches that the mold is porous [0015-18], [0022], [0042], and Uram teaches that a porous mold comprises a plurality of pores [0017]. In providing the mold taught by Uram, and the process disclosed by ter Maat in view of Uram, applied above, one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, would therefore provide a porous mold comprises a plurality of pores located (and therefore meeting the structure of pores formed) in the hollow shell of the mold.
Regarding claim 20, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (MPEP 2111.04(II)). When the claim limitations of claim 12 are incorporated into claim 20, which depends on claim 12, the claimed solidifying step recites:
solidifying the slurry by cooling the slurry and/or by exposing at least part of the mold to an environment below atmospheric pressure (from claim 12),
wherein exposing the at least part of the mold to an environment below atmospheric pressure comprises arranging the at least part of the mold in a chamber and lowering an air pressure within the chamber (from claim 20).
All of the additional limitations recited in claim 20 apply only to the solidifying by exposing at least part of the mold to an environment below atmospheric pressure; however, claim 20 still presents this solidifying by exposing step as an alternative to solidifying by cooling. As ter Maat discloses solidifying the slurry by cooling the slurry [0035], ter Maat meets the requirements of one of the solidifying alternatives recited in claim 20. If applicant intends to limit the scope of claim 20 to require a method comprising solidifying the slurry by exposing at least part of the mold to an environment below atmospheric pressure, applicant should claim that solidifying the slurry ‘comprises exposing at least part of the mold to an environment below atmospheric pressure’ and not as an alternative to solidifying by cooling.
Regarding claim 21, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (MPEP 2111.04(II)). When the claim limitations of claims 12 and 20 are incorporated into claim 21, which depends on claims 12 and 20, the claimed solidifying step recites:
solidifying the slurry by cooling the slurry and/or by exposing at least part of the mold to an environment below atmospheric pressure (from claim 12),
wherein exposing the at least part of the mold to an environment below atmospheric pressure comprises arranging the at least part of the mold in a chamber and lowering an air pressure within the chamber (from claim 20),
wherein the air pressure [within the chamber as claimed in claim 20] is lowered to below 0.1 atm (from claim 21).
All of the additional limitations recited in claim 21 apply only to the solidifying by exposing at least part of the mold to an environment below atmospheric pressure; however, claim 21 still presents this solidifying by exposing step as an alternative to solidifying by cooling. As ter Maat discloses solidifying the slurry by cooling the slurry [0035], ter Maat meets the requirements of one of the solidifying alternatives recited in claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, Uram teaches that the mold includes a sprue portion (hole 110, Fig. 1B). In providing the mold taught by Uram, applied above, one of ordinary skill in the art would provide some structure which meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a sprue portion. With the exception of the limitation on the mold structure itself, all additional limitations of claim 22 are directed entirely to the solidifying by exposing alternative and not to the solidifying by cooling alternative, and ter Maat meets the limitations of the cooling alternative [0035].
Regarding claim 23, Uram teaches that providing the slurry into the interior of the mold comprises providing the slurry through the sprue portion into some other portions of the mold other than the sprue portion [0085]. In providing the mold taught by Uram, applied above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to apply the mold and portions thereof for the intended purpose of shaping the slurry taught by Uram [0021], [0041], [0085].
Regarding claim 24, Uram teaches that the thermoset polymer is an acrylic [0027-28], [0039], [0047], [0089]. In providing the mold taught by Uram, applied above, one of ordinary skill in the art would provide a mold comprising the materials taught by Uram.
Regarding claim 26, Uram is silent on the thickness of the shell. Uram teaches that in order to facilitate removal of the mold from the object, the shell thickness (walls of the mold) may be dimensioned and manufactured to be relatively thin, but having a thickness sufficient to retain the slurry until it is transformed into the green part [0088], thereby establishing the thickness of the shell as a variable against which the results of object separation and slurry retention are weighed [0088]. One of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing would have arrived at a shell thickness between 0.5 mm and 0.8 mm as the result of obvious, routine optimization for object removal and slurry retention, in view of the teachings of Uram. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 27, ter Maat discloses removing a green part, formed by solidifying the slurry, from the interior of the mold [0036-37].
Regarding claim 28, ter Maat discloses that solidifying the slurry comprises cooling the slurry to a temperature of 0-40°C [0035], which infinitesimally approaches a range defined by a temperature below 0° C at 0° C. Considering cooling to a temperature of 0.00001
°
C (within the range disclosed by ter Maat) would yield the same results as cooling to a temperature of
-
0.00001
°
C (within the range recited n claim 28), the temperature range disclosed by ter Maat [0035] is sufficiently close to that recited in claim 28, that the results of cooling to the claimed temperatures would be expected in view of the results of cooling to the temperature ranges disclosed by ter Maat [0035]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 32, ter Maat discloses sintering the green part in a furnace to produce a ceramic and/or metal part [0039-40], [0047].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US20060090603) in view of Uram (US20140339745) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Wang (US20120193841).
Regarding claim 15, Lewis broadly discloses that the binding agent may be any suitable binding agent [0026], but Lewis does not disclose that the binding agent includes a thermoset cross-linking polymer.
Wang teaches a method ([0001], [0008], [0045], Fig. 5). Wang teaches obtaining a mold ([0008], [0046], Fig. 5). Wang teaches that the mold comprises a hollow shell (Fig. 7, [0060]) of a thermoset polymer [0026]. Wang teaches supplying a slurry into an interior of the mold (Fig. 5, [0037], [0048]). Wang teaches that the slurry comprises metal and/or ceramic particles [0008], [0035] and a binding agent [0036]. Wang teaches that the binding agent is a thermoset cross-linking polymer (epoxy, siloxane, or another such resin [0036]; heat the disposable mold and slurry to form a cured structure [0049]). Wang teaches solidifying the slurry in the mold [0039], [0049-50], [0071]. Wang teaches that the binder holds the powder in a homogenously distributed state in the disposable mold [0036].
Both Wang and Lewis in view of Uram teach substantially similar methods for manufacturing an object from a slurry.
The combination of Lewis in view of Uram differ from claim 15 in that Lewis in view of Uram does not disclose a binding agent comprising a cross-linking thermoset polymer. In view of Wang one of ordinary skill in the art of manufacturing objects from a molded slurry would know that a cross-linking thermoset polymer (epoxy, siloxane, or another such resin) is an effective binding agent in a slurry comprising ceramic or metallic particles shaped by the same type of mold as that taught by Uram (Wang [0008], [0026], [0035-37], [0045-50]). One of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing would have regarded the process disclosed by Lewis in view of Uram wherein the binder comprises a cross-linking thermoset polymer as an obvious combination or substitution of known binding agents for metal or ceramic particles in a slurry to yield the predictable result of homogeneously distributing the particles in the slurry taught by Wang [0036]. See MPEP 2143(A) and (B).
Claim(s) 16 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US20060090603) in view of Uram (US20140339745) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Downing (US3885005).
Regarding claim 16, Lewis broadly discloses that the binding agent may be any suitable binding agent [0026], but Lewis does not disclose that the binding agent includes a silica-based binding agent.
Downing teaches a method (column 1 lines 42-58). Downing teaches obtaining a mold (column 1 lines 46-47, column 2 lines 18-22). Downing teaches supplying a slurry into an interior of the mold (column 1 lines 46-47, column 2 lines 22-28, column 3 lines 32-34). Downing teaches that the slurry comprises ceramic particles, a solvent (water) and colloidal silica binding agent (abstract, column 2 lines 1-12, claim 1). Downing solidifying the slurry by cooling the slurry in the mold (column 1 lines 47-50, column 2 lines 28-36). Downing teaches that during the cooling, the silica forms a high-strength bond with the ceramic particles in an irreversible gel (column 2 lines 30-35, column 3 lines 35-40).
Both Downing and Lewis in view of Uram teach substantially similar methods for manufacturing an object from a slurry.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide colloidal silica as a binding agent in the slurry disclosed by Lewis in view of Uram because Downing teaches that a silica binding agent results in high-strength bonds with the ceramic particles in cooling a molded slurry comprising ceramic particles and a silica binding agent (column 2 lines 1-12, 30-35, column 3 lines 35-40).
Regarding claim 28, Lewis discloses that cooling the slurry comprises lowering the temperature to a point below the gelling temperature of the binder [0031]. Downing teaches that the silica binder forms a gel at about -9.4
°
C (about 15
°
F) (column 2 lines 31-33, column 3 lines 35-40). In forming the object as disclosed by Lewis, one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing would have cooled to below the gelling temperature of the binder [0031] which requires cooling to below -9.4
°
C in the method of Lewis in view of Uram and Downing; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over Lewis in view of Uram and Downing to cool the slurry to a temperature below -9.4°C, which is a temperature below 0°C.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US20060090603) in view of Uram (US20140339745) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of ter Maat (EP-0561273-A1).
Regarding claim 18, the powder particles disclosed by Lewis [0024-25] must necessarily have some size, but Lewis is silent on appropriate size of the powder particles in the slurry.
Ter Maat teaches a method [0001]. Ter Maat teaches obtaining a mold [0035]. Ter Maat teaches supplying a slurry into an interior of the mold [0035]. Ter Maat teaches that the slurry comprises metal and/or ceramic particles (sinterable powder) comprising between 30 vol % and 70 vol % of the slurry [0013], [0027]. Ter Maat teaches that the slurry comprises one or more solvents comprising between 10 vol % and 55 vol % of the slurry ([0013], claim 1). Ter Maat teaches that the slurry comprises one or more binding agents comprising between 1 vol % and 55 vol % of the slurry ([0013], claim 1). Ter Maat teaches that the metal and/or ceramic particles have a particle size from 0.1 to 50 µm [0027]. Ter Maat teaches that for powders < 10 µm, it is often necessary to use a dispersing aid [0028]. Ter Maat teaches solidifying the slurry by cooling the slurry in the mold [0035].
Both Lewis and ter Maat teach substantially similar methods for manufacturing an object from a slurry in a mold.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to supply the slurry in the method disclosed by Lewis in view of Uram with a particle size of 0.1 to 50 µm because ter Maat teaches such a particle size range as effective for metal or ceramic particles is a slurry for molding [0013], [0027]. The metal or ceramic particles disclosed by Lewis [0024-25] must necessarily have some particle size, and in view of ter Maat [0013], [0027], [0035] a particle size range of 0.1 to 50 µm would predictably provide a slurry with metal or ceramic powder particles suitable for manufacturing a molded object. A range of 0.1 to 50 µm overlaps a range of between 5 μm and 50 μm. When 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(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US20060090603) in view of Uram (US20140339745) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Valls Anglés (US 20180318922). Valls Anglés is cited in the IDS filed January 16, 2025. Valls Anglés is a publication of an application for patent in the United States, effectively filed prior to the earliest effective filing date of the present application.
Regarding claim 25, Uram does not teach that the provided mold comprises a plurality of ribs formed on the exterior surface.
One embodiment of Valls Anglés teaches a method of manufacturing an object by introducing a mixture comprising metallic particles and a binding agent in a mold [1685-86], [1881-82]. Valls Anglés teaches supplying a mixture comprising particles and fluid into an interior of a mold [1891], [1896-97]. Valls Anglés teaches solidifying the mixture in the mold [1891], [1905-06]. Valls Anglés discusses additively manufactured molds [1915]. In manufacturing the mold, Valls Anglés teaches minimizing the amount of material used for economic purposes [1915]. Valls Anglés teaches that it is common to use ribbings in order to reduce the weight and thus the amount of material used in molding tools [1915].
Both Valls Anglés and Lewis in view of Uram teach manufacturing an object by solidifying a mixture comprising particles and liquid in a mold. Uram teaches additively manufacturing the mold taught by Uram [0088-90], relied upon above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to include ribbing on the external surface of the mold taught by Uram, applied to the method disclosed by Lewis in view of Uram, applied above because Valls Anglés teaches that ribbing is common for the economically beneficial material reduction in manufacturing molds. Note that the ribbing must necessarily be located on the external surface because ribbing on the internal surface would distort the shape of the mold cavity.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ter Maat (EP-0561273-A1) in view of Uram (US20140339745) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Valls Anglés (US 20180318922).
Regarding claim 25, Uram does not teach that the provided mold comprises a plurality of ribs formed on the exterior surface.
One embodiment of Valls Anglés teaches a method of manufacturing an object by introducing a mixture comprising metallic particles and a binding agent in a mold [1685-86], [1881-82]. Valls Anglés teaches supplying a mixture comprising particles and fluid into an interior of a mold [1891], [1896-97]. Valls Anglés teaches solidifying the mixture in the mold [1891], [1905-06]. Valls Anglés discusses additively manufactured molds [1915]. In manufacturing the mold, Valls Anglés teaches minimizing the amount of material used for economic purposes [1915]. Valls Anglés teaches that it is common to use ribbings in order to reduce the weight and thus the amount of material used in molding tools [1915].
Both Valls Anglés and ter Maat in view of Uram teach manufacturing an object by solidifying a mixture comprising particles and liquid in a mold. Uram teaches additively manufacturing the mold taught by Uram [0088-90], relied upon above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to include ribbing on the external surface of the mold taught by Uram, applied to the method disclosed by ter Maat in view of Uram, applied above because Valls Anglés teaches that ribbing is common for the economically beneficial material reduction in manufacturing molds. Note that the ribbing must necessarily be located on the external surface because ribbing on the internal surface would distort the shape of the mold cavity.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 12-14, 17, 19-27, 29, and 31-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,992,976 in view of Lewis (US20060090603). The patent is cited in the IDS filed January 16, 2025.
Regarding instant claim 12, the patent claims a method comprising obtaining a mold comprising a hollow shell of rigid material (claim 1). The patent claims the rigid material comprises a thermoset polymer (claim 1). The patent claims supplying a slurry into an interior of the mold (claim 1). The patent claims exposing at least part of the mold to an environment below atmospheric pressure (claim 1). The patent claims a method of method of casting an object (claim 1) and that the object forms from the slurry in the mold (claim 11), thereby indirectly claiming that the steps solidify the slurry in the mold.
The patent claims that the slurry is a “metal and/or ceramic slurry” (claim 1), but the patent does not claim a slurry composition.
Lewis teaches a method (abstract, [0007]). Lewis teaches obtaining a mold [0008], [0030]. Lewis teaches that the mold may comprise a shell or that the mold may be resinous [0030]. Lewis teaches supplying a slurry (raw particulate mixture of powder metal, binder, solvent, and any other additives) into an interior of the mold [0030]. Lewis teaches that the slurry comprises metal and/or ceramic particles (metal powder [0025], metal powder may be ceramic [0024]) comprising 50-60% by volume of the slurry [0025], which overlaps a range of between 40 vol % and 55 vol % of the slurry. Lewis teaches that the slurry comprises a binding agent which comprises 5% by volume of the slurry [0025]. Lewis teaches that the balance of the slurry comprises a solvent [0025], thereby disclosing that the slurry comprises 35-45% by volume (
35
%
=
100
%
-
60
%
-
5
%
;
45
%
=
100
-
50
%
-
5
%
) of solvent. Lewis teaches solidifying the slurry by cooling the slurry (cooling allows formation of a self-supporting article within the structure of the mold [0031]).
The patent claims and Lewis teaches similar processes for manufacturing an object. The slurry claimed by the patent (claim 1) must necessarily have some composition, and Lewis is broadly open to appropriate molds [0030-31].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to practice the method claimed in the patent (claim 1) with the slurry taught by Lewis [0025-27] because the patent requires a slurry of some composition in order to practice the claimed method, and the slurry taught by Lewis [0024-27] is effective for forming an object by a similar process [0030-31]. Considering Lewis teaches such a slurry is effective [0024-31], application of such a slurry to the method claimed in the patent (claim 1) would predictably result in successfully manufacturing an object from the slurry. The volume percentage ranges taught by Lewis [0025] overlap the ranges recited in claim 12. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 13, 14, and 17 Lewis teaches that the binding agent includes a thermoplastic gelling agent [0026], and specifically names the polysaccharide agar as such a commonly used gelling agent [0026]. Lewis further teaches that the solvent includes water [0026]. In practicing the patented method with the slurry taught by Lewis as above, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to provide the binder materials and solvent which Lewis teaches as effective.
Regarding claim 19, the patent claims the mold comprises a plurality of pores formed in the hollow shell (claim 1). Regarding claim 20, the patent claims exposing the at least part of the mold to an environment below atmospheric pressure comprises arranging the at least part of the mold in a chamber and lowering an air pressure within the chamber (claim 4). Regarding claim 21, the patent claims that the air pressure is lowered to below 0.1 at (claim 5). Regarding claim 22, the patent claims the mold includes a sprue portion, and wherein disposing the at least part of the mold in the chamber comprises enclosing portions of the mold other than the sprue portion inside the chamber such that the sprue portion extends from inside to outside of the chamber and forms a pressure seal between the sprue portion and the chamber (claim 6). Regarding claim 23, the patent claims that providing the slurry into the interior of the mold comprises providing the slurry through the sprue portion into the portions of the mold other than the sprue portion (claim 7). Regarding claim 24, the patent claims that the thermoset polymer is an acrylic (claim 8). Regarding claim 25, the patent claims that the mold comprises a plurality of ribs formed on its exterior surface (claim 9). Regarding claim 26, the patent claims that the hollow shell has a thickness between 0.5 mm and 0.8 mm (claim 10). Regarding claim 27, the patent claims removing a green part, formed by solidifying the slurry, from the interior of the mold (claim 11).
Regarding claim 29, Lewis teaches that solidifying the slurry produces a gel [0024], [0031-32]. As Lewis teaches that the slurry forms a gel, practicing the patented method with that same slurry taught by Lewis, applied above, would be expected to form a gel.
Regarding claim 31, Lewis teaches that the slurry comprises stainless steel particles [0024-25], that the solvent includes water [0026], and that the binding agents include agar [0026]. In practicing the patented method with the slurry taught by Lewis as above, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to provide the binder materials and solvent which Lewis teaches as effective.
Regarding claim 32, Lewis teaches sintering the green part in a furnace to produce a ceramic and/or metal part [0034-36], [0042-43]. Lewis teaches that the sintering results in the complete removal of organic material from the green blank and an increase in the material density [0036]. In order to remove the binding agent from the final part and increase the density of the object manufactured by practicing the patented method with the slurry taught by Lewis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to sinter the part removed from the mold.
Claims 12, 17-28, and 32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,992,976 in view of ter Maat (EP-0561273-A1).
Regarding instant claim 12, the patent claims a method comprising obtaining a mold comprising a hollow shell of rigid material (claim 1). The patent claims the rigid material comprises a thermoset polymer (claim 1). The patent claims supplying a slurry into an interior of the mold (claim 1). The patent claims exposing at least part of the mold to an environment below atmospheric pressure (claim 1). The patent claims a method of method of casting an object (claim 1) and that the object forms from the slurry in the mold (claim 11), thereby indirectly claiming that the steps solidify the slurry in the mold.
The patent claims that the slurry is a “metal and/or ceramic slurry” (claim 1), but the patent does not claim a slurry composition.
Ter Maat teaches a method [0001]. Ter Maat teaches obtaining a mold [0035]. Ter Maat teaches supplying a slurry into an interior of the mold [0035]. Ter Maat teaches that the slurry comprises metal and/or ceramic particles (sinterable powder) comprising between 30 vol % and 70 vol % of the slurry [0013], [0027]. Ter Maat teaches that the slurry comprises one or more solvents comprising between 10 vol % and 55 vol % of the slurry ([0013], claim 1). Ter Maat teaches that the slurry comprises one or more binding agents comprising between 1 vol % and 55 vol % of the slurry ([0013], claim 1). Ter Maat teaches solidifying the slurry by cooling the slurry in the mold [0035].
The patent claims and ter Maat teaches similar processes for manufacturing an object. The slurry claimed by the patent (claim 1) must necessarily have some composition.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to practice the method claimed in the patent (claim 1) with the slurry taught by ter Maat (claim 1, [0013], [0027]) because the patent requires a slurry of some composition in order to practice the claimed method, and the slurry taught by ter Maat (claim 1, [0013], [0027] is effective for forming an object by a similar process [0035]. Considering ter Maat teaches such a slurry is effective [0035], application of such a slurry to the method claimed in the patent (claim 1) would predictably result in successfully manufacturing an object from the slurry. The volume percentage ranges taught by ter Maat (claim 1, [0013], [0027]) encompass the ranges recited in claim 12. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, and generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 17, ter Maat teaches that the solvent includes water [0024], [0026]. Practicing the patented method with the slurry taught by ter Maat would comprises a slurry comprising the constituents taught by ter Maat, which would include water as a solvent [0024], [0026].
Regarding claim 18, ter Maat teaches that the metal and/or ceramic particles have a particle size from 0.1 to 50 µm [0027]. In practicing the patented method with the slurry taught by ter Maat, one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, would supply a slurry comprising particles having a size of 0.1 to 50 µm, which overlaps a range of between 5 μm and 50 μm. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 19, the patent claims the mold comprises a plurality of pores formed in the hollow shell (claim 1). Regarding claim 20, the patent claims exposing the at least part of the mold to an environment below atmospheric pressure comprises arranging the at least part of the mold in a chamber and lowering an air pressure within the chamber (claim 4). Regarding claim 21, the patent claims that the air pressure is lowered to below 0.1 at (claim 5). Regarding claim 22, the patent claims the mold includes a sprue portion, and wherein disposing the at least part of the mold in the chamber comprises enclosing portions of the mold other than the sprue portion inside the chamber such that the sprue portion extends from inside to outside of the chamber and forms a pressure seal between the sprue portion and the chamber (claim 6). Regarding claim 23, the patent claims that providing the slurry into the interior of the mold comprises providing the slurry through the sprue portion into the portions of the mold other than the sprue portion (claim 7). Regarding claim 24, the patent claims that the thermoset polymer is an acrylic (claim 8). Regarding claim 25, the patent claims that the mold comprises a plurality of ribs formed on its exterior surface (claim 9). Regarding claim 26, the patent claims that the hollow shell has a thickness between 0.5 mm and 0.8 mm (claim 10). Regarding claim 27, the patent claims removing a green part, formed by solidifying the slurry, from the interior of the mold (claim 11).
Regarding claim 28, ter Maat teaches that solidifying the slurry comprises cooling the slurry to a temperature of 0-40°C [0035], which infinitesimally approaches a range defined by a temperature below 0° C at 0° C. In practicing the patented method with the slurry taught by ter Maat, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to cool to temperatures which ter Maat teaches as effective for solidifying that very slurry. Considering cooling to a temperature of 0.00001
°
C (within the range taught by ter Maat) would yield the same results as cooling to a temperature of
-
0.00001
°
C (within the range recited n claim 28), the temperature range disclosed by ter Maat [0035] is sufficiently close to that recited in claim 28, that the results of cooling to the claimed temperatures would be expected in view of the results of cooling to the temperature ranges taught by ter Maat [0035]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 32, ter Maat teaches sintering the green part in a furnace to produce a ceramic and/or metal part [0039-40], [0047]. Ter Maat teaches that sintering allows the part to reach its final form [0042]. In order to attain the final form of the product formed by practicing the patented method with the slurry taught by ter Maat, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to sinter the green part in a furnace.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 30 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claim 12 claims a method. Claim 12 claims obtaining a mold comprising a hollow shell of rigid material. Claim 12 claims the rigid material comprises a thermoset polymer. Claim 12 claims supplying a slurry into an interior of the mold. Claim 12 claims the slurry comprises metal and/or ceramic particles comprising between 40 vol % and 55 vol % of the slurry; one or more solvents comprising between 30 vol % and 50 vol % of the slurry; and one or more binding agents comprising between 5 vol % and 15 vol % of the slurry. Claim 12 claims solidifying the slurry by cooling the slurry and/or by exposing at least part of the mold to an environment below atmospheric pressure. Claiming solidifying by cooling the slurry and/or by exposing is open to claiming either cooling or by exposing alone or to the combination of cooling and exposing. Claim 30 depends on claim 12. Claim 30 claims the one or more solvents include water, wherein the one or more binding agents include a silica-based binding agent that is water-soluble, and wherein solidifying the slurry comprises cooling the slurry to a temperature below 0°C and forming the slurry into a gel.
The present office action rejects independent claim 12 over the combination of Lewis (US20060090603) in view of Uram (US20140339745) and in a separate set of rejections over ter Maat (EP-0561273-A1) in view of Uram (US20140339745). Rejections relied either on Lewis or on ter Maat to meet slurry composition. Both Lewis and ter Maat disclose a slurry which includes water. Neither Lewis nor ter Maat in view of Uram discloses a silica based material as a binding agent constituent of the slurry. The present office action relies on Downing (US3885005) to meet silica-based binding agent limitations of present claim 15. The silica-based binding agent taught by Downing is colloidal silica in a water medium (column 2 lines 1-14). As colloidal silica is by definition a dispersion of silica within a medium and not a true solution, the colloidal silica taught by Downing is not a water-soluble silica-based binding agent. Claim 30 defines over Lewis in view of Uram and Downing and over ter Maat in view of Uram and Downing at least in claiming the one or more binding agents include a silica-based binding agent that is water-soluble [emphasis added].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P O'KEEFE whose telephone number is (571)272-7647. The examiner can normally be reached MR 8:00-6:30.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/SEAN P. O'KEEFE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/ SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights