DETAILED ACTION
Claims 19-33 were subject to a restriction requirement on 12/23/2025.
Applicant elected Group I, claims 19-25, with traverse on 02/17/2026.
Claims 19-33 are pending, of which claims 26-33 are withdrawn by the Examiner.
Claims 19-25 are rejected.
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 19-25, in the reply filed on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that in the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority the European Examiner did not require a lack of unity between the claims. The Examiner did not believe that there was a separate invention. In addition, Danford does not disclose or reasonably suggest a ceramic feedstock as defined by the claims as amended. This is not found persuasive because regarding the written opinion of the international search authority, it appears the European examiner found the application does not meet the requirements of unity of invention in view of pages 5-9. Regardless, the Examiner agrees with the unity of invention analysis from the restriction requirement mailed 12/23/2025. While Applicant has since amended the claims, the technical feature is still not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Van Der Schaaf et al. (US 2018/0202076) (Van Der Schaaf) in view of Shuck et al. (US 2022/0305558) (Shuck), as set forth below. The technical feature is still not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Van Der Schaaf et al. (US 2018/0202076) (Van Der Schaaf) in view of Danforth et al. (US 5,738,817), as set forth below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 26-33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/17/2026.
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.
Claims 19-25 are 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.
Claim 19 recites, “a ceramic feedstock comprising the compounds a), b) and optionally c)… …. c) 1 to 5% by volume, based on the total volume of the ceramic feedstock of at least one additive (A)” in lines 1-9. Claim 19 further recites the additive is an optional ingredient in the core material and the shell material of the filament. It is unclear if the at least one additive is required in the ceramic feedstock. The claim recites the additive is optional, yet recite “1 to 5% by volume… …of at least one additive” in lines 8-9. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the additive as being optional.
Claim 22 recites, “(measured by Alpine Air Sieve determined as D90 in % by weight)” in lines 9-10. The use of parentheses in the claim language gives the appearance that the enclosed language is optional. It’s not clear if the method of measuring the particle size is required. The Examiner will interpret a particle size falling in the claimed range, regardless of method of measurement, as meeting the claim requirement for the purpose of examination.
Claim 23 recites, “the ceramic feedstock comprises the components a), b), and optionally c) in an amount of each based on the total volume of the ceramic feedstock… … 2 to 4% by volume of at least one additive” in lines 1-6. Claim 23 depends from claim 19. Claim 19 further recites the additive is an optional ingredient in the core material and the shell material of the filament. It is unclear if the at least one additive is required in the ceramic feedstock. Claims 19 and 32 recite the additive as optional, yet claim 23 recites “2 to 4% by volume of at least one additive” in line 6. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the additive as being optional.
Regarding dependent claims 20-25, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 19 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Schaaf et al. (US 2018/0202076) (Van Der Schaaf) in view of Shuck et al. (US 2022/0305558) (Shuck).
Regarding claims 19 and 23
Van Der Schaaf teaches a filament comprising a core material and the core material is coated with a layer of shell material. The core material comprising at least one inorganic powder, at least one binder comprising at least one polymer, and optionally at least one additive. The shell material comprising at least one thermoplastic polymer, optionally at least one inorganic powder, and optionally at least one additive. The inorganic powder is selected from the group consisting of a metal, a metal alloy, and a ceramic material. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [009-0018], [0032], and [0034-0046].
Van Der Schaaf further teaches the filament possesses a diameter in the range of 1.5 to 3.5 mm, the core material possesses a diameter in the range of 1.5 to 3.0 mm, and the thickness of the layer of the shell material is 0.05 to 0.5 mm. The core comprises 30 to 80% by volume of at least one inorganic powder, wherein the inorganic powder is selected from the group consisting of a metal, a metal alloy, and ceramic material. The core comprises 20 to 70% by volume of at least one binder and 0 to 20% by volume of at least one additive. The shell material comprises 75% to 100% by volume of a thermoplastic polymer. The thermoplastic polymer is identical to the binder of the core. Paragraphs [0025-0030], [0032], [0034-0035], and [0211-0213].
The amount of inorganic powder in the filament ranges from 22.5% to 78.7% by volume based on the volume of the filament. (1.5/2.0 = 0.75, 0.75*30 = 22.5%; 3.0/3.05 = 0.98, 0.98*80 = 78.7%).
The amount of binder in the filament ranges from 77.5% to 21.3% by volume based on the volume of the filament. (100%-22.5% = 77.5%; 100%-78.7% = 21.3%).
With respect to the difference, Shuck teaches a filament for additive manufacturing. The filament comprises a sacrificial binder and a powder. The powder incudes metal, alloy, and ceramic particles. The powder includes a ceramic in combination with metal or alloy powder. The ceramic acts as a reinforcement material in a final component formed from the filament. The reinforcement material includes ceramic particulates including silicon nitride and silica. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0032-0038] and [0047].
Shuck and Van Der Schaaf are analogous art as they are both drawn to filaments for additive manufacturing.
In light of the motivation as provided by Shuck, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the at least one inorganic powder of Van Der Schaaf to include a metal powder reinforced with ceramic powder or an alloy powder reinforced with ceramic powder, in order to provide a ceramic powder as a reinforcement in the final component formed from the filament, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Since the amount of inorganic powder in the filament ranges from 22.5% to 78.7% by volume based on the volume of the filament, and since the inorganic powder includes a metal powder reinforced with ceramic powder or an alloy powder reinforced with ceramic powder, it follows the amount of ceramic in the filament is less than 22.5% by volume in the filament. The amount of binder in the filament ranges from 77.5% to 21.3% by volume based on the volume of the filament.
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. In the instant case, the claimed range and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would expect them to have the same properties.
Regarding claims 20 and 24
Van Der Schaaf further teaches the binder comprises 50 to 96% by weight at least one polymer, wherein the at least one polymer is polyoxymethylenene. The binder further comprises 2 to 35% by weight at least one polyolefin and 2 to 40% by weight at least one further polymer and/or at least one further polymer. Paragraphs [0057-0059], and [0111-0127].
It should be noted that 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 Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Regarding claim 21
Van Der Schaaf further teaches binder comprising a polyoxymethylene copolymer which is prepared by the polymerization of at 50 mol% of a formaldehyde source and 0.01 to 20 mol% of at least one first comonomer of the general formula (II) shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
262
825
media_image1.png
Greyscale
R1 to R4 are each independently of one another selected from the group consisting of H, C1-C4-alkyl and halogen-substituted C1-C4-alkyl;
R5 is selected from the group consisting of a chemical bond, a (—CR5aR5b—) group and a (—CR5aR5bO—) group,wherein R5a and R5b are each independently of one another selected from the group consisting of H and unsubstituted or at least monosubstituted C1-C4-alkyl, wherein the substituents are selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br, OH and C1-C4-alkyl;
N is 0,1, 2, or 3,
and from 0 to 20 mol% of at least one second comonomer selected from the group consisting of a compound of formula (III) and a compound of formula (IV)
PNG
media_image2.png
375
825
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wherein Z is selected from the group consisting of a chemical bond, an (—O—) group and an (—O—R6—O—) group,
wherein R6 is selected from the group consisting of unsubstituted C1-C8-alkylene and C3-C8-cycloalkylene.
Paragraphs [0059-0087].
Regarding claim 22
Van Der Schaaf further teaches the further polymer is preferably selected from the group consisting of a polyether, a polyurethane, a polyepoxide, a polyamide, a vinyl aromatic polymer, a poly(vinyl ester), a poly(vinyl ether), a poly(alkyl(meth)acrylate) and copolymers thereof. Van Der Schaaf further teaches the ceramic material includes MgO, CaO, SiO2, Na2O, Al2O3, ZrO2, Y2O3, SiC, Si3N4, TiB and AlN and possesses a particle size of 0.1 to 80 microns. Paragraphs [0050] and [0053-0054]. Paragraph [0127]. Van Der Schaaf further teaches the polyolefin is selected from the group consisting of polymethylpentene, poly-1-butene, polyisobutylene, polyethylene and polypropylene. Paragraph [0119]. Van Der Schaaf further teaches the additive is a dispersant. Paragraph [0200].
Regarding claim 25
Van Der Schaaf further teaches the diameter of the filament is 1.5 to 3.5 mm, the diameter of the core material 1.5 to 3.0 mm, the thickness of the shell layer is 0.05 to 0.5 mm, and the at least one thermoplastic polymer of the shell material is polyoxymethylene (POM), polyolefins (PE) such as polypropylene, polyurethanes (PU), polyamides (PA), polyethers (PETH), polycarbonates (PC), and/or polyesters (PES), such as polylactic acid and blends thereof. Paragraphs [0024-0030] and [0216].
Claims 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Schaaf et al. (US 2018/0202076) (Van Der Schaaf) in view of Danforth et al. (US 5,738,817) (Danforth).
Regarding claims 19 and 23
Van Der Schaaf teaches a filament comprising a core material and the core material is coated with a layer of shell material. The core material comprising at least one inorganic powder, at least one binder comprising at least one polymer, and optionally at least one additive. The shell material comprising at least one thermoplastic polymer, optionally at least one inorganic powder, and optionally at least one additive. The inorganic powder is selected from the group consisting of a metal, a metal alloy, and a ceramic material. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [009-0018], [0032], and [0034-0046].
Van Der Schaaf further teaches the filament possesses a diameter in the range of 1.5 to 3.5 mm, the core material possesses a diameter in the range of 1.5 to 3.0 mm, and the thickness of the layer of the shell material is 0.05 to 0.5 mm. The core comprises 30 to 80% by volume of at least one inorganic powder, wherein the inorganic powder is selected from the group consisting of a metal, a metal alloy, and ceramic material. The ceramic material is selected from the group consisting of oxides, carbides, borides, nitrides and silicides. The core comprises 20 to 70% by volume of at least one binder and 0 to 20% by volume of at least one additive. The shell material comprises 75% to 100% by volume of a thermoplastic polymer. The thermoplastic polymer is identical to the binder of the core. Paragraphs [0025-0030], [0032], [0034-0035], [0050], and [0211-0213].
The amount of inorganic powder in the filament ranges from 22.5% to 78.7% by volume based on the volume of the filament. (1.5/2.0 = 0.75, 0.75*30 = 22.5%; 3.0/3.05 = 0.98, 0.98*80 = 78.7%).
The amount of binder in the filament ranges from 77.5% to 21.3% by volume based on the volume of the filament. (100%-22.5% = 77.5%; 100%-78.7% = 21.3%).
With respect to the difference, Danforth teaches a solid particle binder feedstock composition for preparing a three dimensional object. The amount of solid particles in the mixture will depend on the bulk density of the article being produced. For certain low density applications, the solid particles desirably constitute at least about 10 volume percent of the mixture. Suitable solid particles include ceramic materials, including oxides, carbides, borides, nitrides, and the likes. See, e.g., abstract and col. 3, lines 13-20 and col. 5, lines 15-43.
Danforth and Van Der Schaaf are analogous art as they are both drawn to feedstock for forming a three dimensional object.
In light of the motivation as provided by Danforth, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the amount of inorganic powder and amount of binder in the filament of Van Der Schaaf, including decrease the percent volume of inorganic powder to at least 10 volume percent and increase the percent volume of binder in the filament to at least 90 volume percent, in order to produce an article for low density applications, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
It should be noted that 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 Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Regarding claims 20 and 24
Van Der Schaaf further teaches the binder comprises 50 to 96% by weight at least one polymer, wherein the at least one polymer is polyoxymethylenene. The binder further comprises 2 to 35% by weight at least one polyolefin and 2 to 40% by weight at least one further polymer and/or at least one further polymer. Paragraphs [0057-0059], and [0111-0127].
It should be noted that 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 Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Regarding claim 21
Van Der Schaaf further teaches binder comprising a polyoxymethylene copolymer which is prepared by the polymerization of at 50 mol% of a formaldehyde source and 0.01 to 20 mol% of at least one first comonomer of the general formula (II) shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
262
825
media_image1.png
Greyscale
R1 to R4 are each independently of one another selected from the group consisting of H, C1-C4-alkyl and halogen-substituted C1-C4-alkyl;
R5 is selected from the group consisting of a chemical bond, a (—CR5aR5b—) group and a (—CR5aR5bO—) group,wherein R5a and R5b are each independently of one another selected from the group consisting of H and unsubstituted or at least monosubstituted C1-C4-alkyl, wherein the substituents are selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br, OH and C1-C4-alkyl;
N is 0,1, 2, or 3,
and from 0 to 20 mol% of at least one second comonomer selected from the group consisting of a compound of formula (III) and a compound of formula (IV)
PNG
media_image2.png
375
825
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wherein Z is selected from the group consisting of a chemical bond, an (—O—) group and an (—O—R6—O—) group,
wherein R6 is selected from the group consisting of unsubstituted C1-C8-alkylene and C3-C8-cycloalkylene.
Paragraphs [0059-0087].
Regarding claim 22
Van Der Schaaf further teaches the further polymer is preferably selected from the group consisting of a polyether, a polyurethane, a polyepoxide, a polyamide, a vinyl aromatic polymer, a poly(vinyl ester), a poly(vinyl ether), a poly(alkyl(meth)acrylate) and copolymers thereof. Van Der Schaaf further teaches the ceramic material includes MgO, CaO, SiO2, Na2O, Al2O3, ZrO2, Y2O3, SiC, Si3N4, TiB and AlN and possesses a particle size of 0.1 to 80 microns. Paragraphs [0050] and [0053-0054]. Paragraph [0127]. Van Der Schaaf further teaches the polyolefin is selected from the group consisting of polymethylpentene, poly-1-butene, polyisobutylene, polyethylene and polypropylene. Paragraph [0119]. Van Der Schaaf further teaches the additive is a dispersant. Paragraph [0200].
Regarding claim 25
Van Der Schaaf further teaches the diameter of the filament is 1.5 to 3.5 mm, the diameter of the core material 1.5 to 3.0 mm, the thickness of the shell layer is 0.05 to 0.5 mm, and the at least one thermoplastic polymer of the shell material is polyoxymethylene (POM), polyolefins (PE) such as polypropylene, polyurethanes (PU), polyamides (PA), polyethers (PETH), polycarbonates (PC), and/or polyesters (PES), such as polylactic acid and blends thereof. Paragraphs [0024-0030] and [0216].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE X NISULA whose telephone number is (571)272-2598. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:00.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/C.X.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789