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 with traverse of Group I claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 06/08/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Applicant submits that at least Groups I, III and IV, each of which depend from independent claim 1, recite a special technical feature not described in DORFMAN. In particular, Applicant submits that, while disclosing a powder having different morphologies, the different morphologies in DORFMAN include pluralities of metal and non-metal subparticles in different proportions or first and second powders produced from differently sized subparticles. DORFMAN also discloses that, with powders having differently sized subparticles, the metal lean powder made by spray drying consists essentially of spheroidal agglomerates. However, contrary to Applicant's claimed embodiments, DORFMAN fails to suggest a powder agglomerate, which includes a first powder comprising metal and second powder comprising a mineral, having at least one morphology selected from the group consisting of porous agglomerate, a hollow agglomerate, a complex agglomerate and a composite agglomerate, as recited in at least Applicant's independent claim 1
This is not found persuasive because Dorfman in view of Lee discloses powder agglomerate which is a unity of invention as stated below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected claims, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/08/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorfman et al. (US 5122182) in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0326641).
Regarding claim 1, 7, 11 Dorfman discloses composite powder of a metal and a non-metal for the thermal spray process. Another object is to provide improved coatings containing both metal and non-metal, with a wide range of selection of the ratio of metal to non-metal (col. 2, lines 5-10). The first powder comprises metal such as nickel or nickel alloy and second powder comprises non-metal such as calcined siliceous clay such as aluminum silicate clay (mineral of present claim) (col. 2, lines 45-50). The two powders were blended as constituents to form a powder blend, in proportions 90 % by weight of the first powder and 10 % of the second powder (see Example 1).
Alternatively, with respect to the first powder comprising 10-90 wt%, When faced with a mixture, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by common sense to select a 1:1 ratio, a ratio that falls within the presently claimed amount, absent evidence of unexpected or surprising results. Case law holds that "[h]aving established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely... on a conclusion of obviousness, 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art within any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.'" In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
However, Dorfman fails to disclose that powder blend of first and second powder are powder composite agglomerate.
Whereas Lee discloses manufacturing metal powder is provided. The method includes preparing first metal powder, agglomerating the first metal powder to manufacture second metal powder in which the first metal powder is agglomerated, coating the second metal powder with an organic binder, and agglomerating and coarsening the second metal powder coated with the organic binder to manufacture third metal powder having higher flowability than the second metal powder coated with the organic binder (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form powder blend of first and second powder of Dorfman in to composite agglomerate as taught by Lee motivated by the desire to have improved compressive strength and moldability.
Regarding claim 4, 9 Dorfman discloses Composite powders of the invention are formed of a metal and a non-metal, for the spraying of coatings containing both constituents. Generally the metal may be any ordinary or desired metal utilized in thermal spraying such as nickel, cobalt, iron, copper, aluminum and alloys thereof, including alloys with each other as well as with other elements (col. 2, lines 53-58).
Regarding claims 10 and 12 Dorfman discloses composite powder of a metal and a non-metal for the thermal spray process. Another object is to provide improved coatings containing both metal and non-metal, with a wide range of selection of the ratio of metal to non-metal (col. 2, lines 5-10). The first powder comprises metal such as nickel or nickel alloy and second powder comprises non-metal such as calcined siliceous clay such as aluminum silicate clay (mineral of present claim) (col. 2, lines 45-50). The two powders were blended as constituents to form a powder blend, in proportions 90 % by weight of the first powder and 10 % of the second powder (see Example 1).
Alternatively, with respect to amount of first powder in an amount of 10-40 or 60-90 wt% It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges of pure metal or metal alloy through process optimization motivated by the desire to have desired mechanical properties, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorfman et al. (US 5122182) in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0326641) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Mellor et al. (WO 2018/051105).
Regarding claim 2, Dorfman in view of Lee fails to disclose the powder agglomerate is complex agglomerate having first powder partially or fully covered by the second powder.
Whereas, Mellor teaches a powder agglomerate (page 25 line 32-34 "precursor powder may comprise an agglomeration, or mixture, of matrix precursor material particles interspersed with particles of reinforcement precursor material") comprising a metal (page 4 line 21-22 "reinforcement phase may thus be a compound of first-metal-plus-reinforcement-precursor-material") and a mineral (page 20 line 24-28 "metal oxide matrix precursor particles minerals containing one or more oxides in particular, oxides of silicon") wherein the metal phase is encapsulated by the mineral phase (page 29 line 4-5 "reinforcement phase, which is encapsulated by the matrix phase").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art through routine experimentation to use the powder agglomerate taught by Dorfman in view of Lee wherein the first powder is encapsulated by the second powder taught by Mellor motivated for end use application because both inventions relate to powder agglomerates containing a metal and a mineral.
Regarding claim 3, Dorfman in view of Lee teaches the powder agglomerate of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the powder agglomerate is the composite agglomerate having the first powder partially or fully encapsulated by the second powder, and wherein the second powder comprises hollow pores.
Mellor teaches a powder agglomerate (page 25 line 32-34 "precursor powder may comprise an agglomeration, or mixture, of matrix precursor material particles interspersed with particles of reinforcement precursor material") comprising a metal (page 4 line 21-22 "reinforcement phase may thus be a compound of first-metal-plus-reinforcement- precursor-material") and a mineral (page 20 line 24-28 "metal oxide matrix precursor particles minerals containing one or more oxides in particular, oxides of silicon") wherein the metal phase is encapsulated by the mineral phase (page 29 line 4-5 "reinforcement phase, which is encapsulated by the matrix phase") and the precursor powder has a porosity between 5-50% (page 18 line 13-14 "precursor powder may comprise a plurality of particles having a porosity between 5% and 50%").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art through routine experimentation to use the powder agglomerate taught by Dorfman in view of Lee wherein the first powder is encapsulated by a second porous particle and second powder having hollow pores as taught by Mellor motivated for end use application because both inventions relate to powder agglomerates containing a metal and a mineral.
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorfman et al. (US 5122182) in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0326641) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Li et al. (CN 107716918).
Regarding claims 5-6, Dorfman discloses Composite powders of the invention are formed of metal and non-metal, for the spraying of coatings containing both constituents. Generally, the metal may be any ordinary or desired metal utilized in thermal spraying such as nickel, cobalt, iron, copper, aluminum and alloys thereof, including alloys with each other as well as with other elements (col. 2, lines 53-58), but fails to disclose that the aluminum alloy is aluminum silicon alloy comprising 8-14 wt% of Si.
Whereas Li discloses 3D printing with AlSi10Mg powder material and preparation method thereof, the mass fraction of the main alloy elements in the powder material is: Si 9.0 to 11.5%, Mg 0.2 to 0.50%, and the rest is aluminium. The invention adopts the inert gas atomization method to prepare powder material, using high speed airflow to high temperature smelting liquid of the powder material is crushed into small droplets and then quickly cooling to make it solidified into metal powder, metal powder is obtained by sieving for particle size classification to obtain the product. AlSi10Mg powder material of the invention reaches 3 D industrial grade metal for printing quality requirement of the powder material, and has high purity, low impurity content and uniform alloy ingredients, low oxygen content, high spherical degree, small satellite balls; uniform powder particle size distribution, controllable quality and excellent powder properties (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include aluminum silicon alloy having silicon in an amount of 9-11.5 wt% as taught by Li in the metal powder of Dorfman motivated by the desire to have excellent powder quality and properties.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorfman et al. (US 5122182) in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0326641) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Launag et al. (US 2010/0034857).
Regarding claim 8, Dorfman fails to disclose that the silicate is phyllosilicate.
Whereas Launag discloses a method for producing particulate composite materials. According to the method, solid inorganic or organic particle agglomerates or particle aggregates that are provided in a dry state, particularly in powder form, are first reduced in size in the gas phase or in a gaseous carrier medium in the presence of organic matrix particles by applying energy (abstract). Examples of materials which can be used in accordance with the invention for the starting agglomerates or aggregates are--for example and nonrestrictingly--silicates, boehmites, talc, CNT, carbon nanofibers, Alosil, ZnO, titanium dioxide, iron oxides, magnetite, iron, cobalt, nickel, silver, phyllosilicates (para 0049). Where, for example, materials are incorporated such as aluminum oxide, silica, phyllosilicates, talc, boehmite, carbon dust, calcium carbonate, barium sulfate, etc., it is possible to enhance mechanical properties such as toughness, stiffness, Young's modulus, impact strength, etc. [para 0067].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include phyllosilicate or talc as taught by Launag in the second powder of Dorfman motivated by the desire to have enhanced mechanical properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONAK C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-6:30PM (FLEX).
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.
/RONAK C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights