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
Claims 5-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10 July 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1 March 2024. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative under 35 USC 103 over Du, Wenchao, et al. "Model guided mixing of ceramic powders with graded particle sizes in binder jetting additive manufacturing." International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference. Vol. 51357. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2018 (hereinafter “Du”).
Regarding claim 1, Du teaches the effects of particle size on density for additive manufacturing applications (title). Du measures an analytical packing model to determine the best density for binary mixtures of powders (see 3. MODEL-GUIDED SELECTION). Du teaches that alumina powders are mixed, using particle sizes of 2, 10, and 70 microns (see 3. MODEL-GUIDED SELECTION). Du teaches that the tap density of the powder mixtures are measured (see 3. MODEL-GUIDED SELECTION and Table 4). Du teaches that a tap density for a mixture of 10 micron and 2 micron alumina powders is 69.0% theoretical (Table 4). Du teaches to measure the powder bed density of a powder bed made from the powders (see 3 4. EXPERIMENTAL METHODS). Du teaches that the powder bed density of 10 microns/2 microns mixed powder with the 66.3 vol% mixing fraction is 45.2% ± 0.9 (see 5. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS and Table 5). Du teaches that the theoretical maximum density of the alumina is 3.97 g/cm3 (see 3. MODEL-GUIDED SELECTION). The powder sample including 10 and 2 microns of alumina meets condition 1 inherently. The two particle sizes would show peaks at those values when measured by a suitable means.
Regarding condition 2, it is noted that the bulk density is not the same as a powder bed density, which is usually having been applied with a roller or scraper means. It is believed that this would affect the density as by increasing. Therefore Du does not teach a value of bulk density minus tap density, either explicitly or implicitly. However the properties not disclosed by the prior art would have been inherently present in the art, having the same composition, the same condition 1, and a similar increase in tap density over a powder bed density. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112.
In the alternative, Du teaches implicitly that a tap density minus a powder bed density is about 69-45.2% theoretical, or about 0.949 g/cm3 based on the density of alumina. The error of ± 0.9% would make the range of the tap density minus a powder bed density 0.909 to 0.981 g/cm3 based on the density of alumina. If we take the powder bed density as being a “bulk” density then the range overlaps the claimed range for condition 2, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2144.05. Further in the alternative, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case the skilled artisan would expect the powders to be similar where the only difference is a small amount of tap density – bulk density.
Regarding claim 3, it is noted that the bulk density is not the same as a powder bed density, which is usually having been applied with a roller or scraper means. It is believed that this would affect the density as by increasing. Therefore Du does not teach a value of bulk density minus tap density, either explicitly or implicitly. However the properties not disclosed by the prior art would have been inherently present in the art, having the same composition, the same condition 1, and a similar increase in tap density over a powder bed density. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 4, Du teaches alumina (3. MODEL-GUIDED SELECTION).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du.
Du is applied to the claim as stated above. Du does not teach a condition wherein the peaks are at 1 to less than 2 and 10 to 12. Du teaches 2 and 10. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case the skilled artisan would expect the powders to be similar where the only difference is a peak at 2 instead of a peak at a range including less than 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20170316857 A1 teaches ferrite powders having particle sizes in a range as claimed. US 20050221179 A1 teaches nickel hydroxide for lithium batteries having particle sizes as claimed. US 20090148772 A1 teaches lithium composite oxide having sizes overlapping those claimed. Du, Wenchao, et al. "Binder jetting additive manufacturing: Effect of particle size distribution on density." Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering 143.9 (2021): 091002 teaches similar results to those in the Du reference applied against the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights