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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9, 11-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Daute et al. (US 10737480, hereafter “Daute”).
Regarding claim 1, Daute discloses a particular feedstock compound adapted for use in additive manufacturing process (col. 1, lines 4-15), comprising a) a sinterable metal or ceramic particles (see col. 4 table examples) with a particle size of 15 microns or less dispersed throughout the particulate feedstock compound (see examples 1-2, kneaded powder); and b) a binder component comprising 3-70% by volume (col. 4 table examples) of a thermoplastic polyamide (e.g. polyether-block-amide, claim 4) having a DSC melt peak temperature below 140 ̊C (col. 5, lines 5-12; col. 7, lines 45-47), and 30-97% by volume of wax-type material (aromatic ester) having a drop point in the range of 20-80 °C (col. 5, lines 13-32). The polyether-block-amide is also known as PEBAX® polymers in the industry. The respective volume % and temperature of the binder components taught by Daute fall within the claimed ranges. For example, PEBAX® 2533 has a DSC melt peak temperature Tm of 134°C, which meets below 140 ̊C. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05. Examiner notes the particulate feedstock compound of Daute is adapted for use in a powder bed AM process by grinding the granules, which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to obtain powder feed for desired AM use.
As to claims 2-3, Daute discloses that the thermoplastic polyamide has a melt volume-flow rate (VMR) of at least 1 cm3/10 min, according to ISO 1133 with 2.16 kg at 160 °C (see figs. 1-2; col. 8, lines 25-39). Duate teaches thermoplastic polyamide selected copolyimide, polyether-block-amide (PEBAX®) and mixtures thereof (col. 5, lines 5-7) - this encompasses at least one polyamide having a DSC melting temperature below 130°C. For instance, copolyimide Platamid® 1276 powder having a DSC melt temperature Tm of 110°C meets below 130 ̊C.
As to claims 4-5, Daute discloses that the wax or wax-type material is selected from aromatic esters (col. 5, lines 16-32).
As to claim 6, Daute discloses that, in a further embodiment, the binder component additionally comprises a plasticizer being a mixture of esters (col. 5, lines 42-51, examples).
As to claims 7-8, Daute discloses that the binder component additionally comprises a dispersant selected from fatty acids having 10 to 24 carbon atoms (mixture of hydroxybenzoic acid esters- claims 7-9).
As to claim 9, Daute discloses the sinterable non-organic particles are selected from metals and ceramic particles.
As to claim 11, Daute discloses that the amount of the sinterable metal or ceramic particles is in the range of about 50-90% by volume and the amount of binder component is in the range of about 10-50% by volume (col. 4- table examples), which falls within the recited ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 12, Daute discloses, in one example, the feedback compound having a particle size distribution with a maximum particle size of 15 microns (0.015 mm- example 1), which falls within the claimed range 0.005-0.3 mm and thereby renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 13, Daute discloses comprising the steps of: merging a plurality of the particulate feedstock compounds according to claim 1 (see rejection above) to obtain a green part, partially debinding the green part by selectively removing the wax or wax-type material to obtain a brown part comprising the sinterable non-organic particles bound to each other by the thermoplastic polyamide, and sintering the brown part to obtain a sintered part (col. 2, lines 45-55; claim 14).
As to claim 14, Daute discloses that the step of merging a plurality of the particulate feedstock compounds comprises the steps of: providing a first layer of feedstock compound particles; selectively densifying the first layer of feedstock compound particles to bind the compound particles to each other in a predefined manner so to produce a first shaped part layer; providing at least one further layer of feedstock compound particles on the first shaped part layer; and selectively densifying the further layer feedstock compound particles to bind the feedstock compound particles to each other in a predefined manner so to produce at least one further shaped part layer, the first shaped part layer and the further shaped part layers forming a green part (col. 2, lines 45-49- printing green body- 3D printing & fused deposition modelling (FDM) encompasses multiple shaped part layers forming a green part- col. 1, lines 51-57). Examiner also notes that binding in any manner meets “predefined manner”.
As to claim 16, Daute discloses a printed green part obtained by merging a plurality of the particulate feedstock compounds (col. 2, lines 45-49).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daute as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Hens et al. (US 5641920, “Hens”).
As to claim 10, Daute is silent with regard to critical solids loading of the sinterable particles/powder. However, such feature is known in the art. Hens (also directed to powder and binder system for manufacturing sintered parts- abstract) teaches that powders of suitable particle size distributions are blended to optimize the powder packing characteristics and to optimize the amount of solids loading in the powder system feedstock (col. 4, lines 14-30, 41-47). As an example, stainless steel powders have been molded with solids loadings above 72% by volume, resulting in reduced shrinkage and better shape retention during debinding and sintering (col. 4, lines 55-58) - 72% falls within the claimed range 70-99% by volume. It is noted that one example in Daute also uses stainless steel powder (fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide solids loadings above 72% by volume in the feedstock compound of Daute because doing so would result in reduced shrinkage and better shape retention during debinding and sintering, as suggested by Hens.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daute as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Barlow et al. (US 6048954, “Barlow”).
As to claim 15, although Daute does not mention selectively densifying the first and further layer of compound particles by selectively irradiating with laser, examiner maintains official notice for this feature since use of laser is conventional in the art of additive manufacturing. As evidence, Barlow teaches binders combined with powders composition for laser sintering and 3D object fabrication using laser (SLS) has been well-known in prior art (see Background- col. 1, lines 10-16, 25-40, 60-65). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to selectively densify the first and further layer of compound particles in Daute by selectively irradiating with laser, as SLS is common knowledge in the art.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for following reasons.
Applicant argues (pg. 1 of Remarks): Daute does not disclose a thermoplastic polyamide having a DSC melt peak temperature of below 140°C.
PNG
media_image1.png
162
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response, examiner submits that Daute is not limited to examples 1-2 listing Orgasol polyamide binder component. Daute teaches using thermoplastic polyamide selected from the group consisting of copolyimide, polyamide 11, polyamide 12, a polyether-block-amide (PEBAX®) and mixtures thereof (col. 5, lines 5-7) -this encompasses at least one polyamide having a DSC melting temperature below 140°C For instance, PEBAX® 2533 having a DSC melt peak temperature Tm of 134°C meets below 140 ̊C. Applicant must look to the whole reference for what it teaches to one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant cannot merely rely on the examples and argue that the reference did not teach others.” In re Courtright, 377 F.2d 647, 153 USPQ 735,739 (CCPA 1967). All the disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they fairly teach to ordinary skilled artisan even though the art teachings relied upon are phrased in terms of a non-preferred embodiment. In re Boe, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966), In re Nehrenberg, 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960).
Applicant also argues (pg. 2 of Remarks):
PNG
media_image2.png
240
678
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In response, examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that “adapted for use” refers to an intended use of the compound for a powder bed AM process. The product as claimed is NOT limited to only use for powder bed AM process. Nonetheless, the feedstock compound of Daute is adapted for use in a powder bed AM process by grinding the granules, which is within common knowledge of ordinary artisan.
Applicant further argues: Very good results were obtained with the inventive particulate feedstock compound used for the production of notched specimen.
PNG
media_image3.png
370
692
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features, examiner contends that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., producing notched specimen with high density, little caking etc.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, above argument is not commensurate with the scope of present claims. Concerning any surprising and/or unexpected results, the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. Examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration include statements regarding unexpected results, commercial success and solution of a long-felt need (see MPEP 716.01(c)). Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. However, the issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). (see MPEP 716.02). Applicant' s above arguments based on unexpected results lacks supporting evidence and therefore, are not convincing.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735
Prosecution Insights