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 § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 14-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamimoto et al. (EP 4056299).
Regarding claim 1, Kamimoto et al. a powder composition comprising metal particles (P1) that are formed of iron-based alloy (i.e. an alloy powder as claimed) which are surface modified with nanoparticles (P2) which have not been surface-treated with an organic substance. (Abstract). The P2 nanoparticles include metal oxides, nitrides or carbides and therefore meet the limitation of “oxide nanoparticles” as claimed. (par. [0032]).
Regarding claim 2, with respect to the limitation “Ni-based”, the examiner is interpreting the term consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation (see MPEP 2111) as referring to an alloy composition which comprises non-trace amounts of Ni. Kamimoto et al. discloses that the iron alloy may include SUS630 (par. [0027] and par. [0058]) which is a stainless-steel alloy containing about 4% nickel, which is sufficient to meet the limitation of “Ni-based” as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Kamimoto et al. a powder composition comprising metal particles (P1) that are formed of iron-based alloy. (Abstract).
Regarding claims 6 and 14-15, Kamimoto et al. discloses in a production example the use of 10-15 nm diameter SiO2 nanoparticles. (par. [0059]). The reference therefore discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity as to anticipate the claim range due to the disclosure in a specific example. (see MPEP 2131.03 I).
Regarding claims 7 and 18-19, Kamimoto et al. discloses that the metal oxide materials may include SiO2, Al2O3 and TiO2. (par.[0032]).
Regarding claim 8, Kamimoto et al. discloses using the power composition to make an additively manufactured article. (par. [0001]).
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 4-5, 9-13, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimoto et al. (EP 4056299).
Kamimoto et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Regarding claims 4 and 9-10, Kamimoto et al. discloses that the nanoparticles preferably include no agglomerates present between the metal particles when present on the surface thereof. (par. [0012]). Kamimoto et al. discloses that reducing the agglomerates results in improved flowability and eliminating points of fracture in a three-dimensional shaped article made using the power and that the presence of these agglomerates may be evaluated using an SEM image. (par. [0040]).
Therefore, although Kamimoto et al. does not disclose the presence of nanoparticle aggregation in an area ratio as claimed, based on the art recognized result effective nature of the low aggregates on the surface of the metal particles for contributing to flowability and mechanical weakness points, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the amount of nanoparticle aggregation measured by area as presently claimed. "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claims 5 and 11-13, the content of P2 nanoparticles is disclosed to be in the range of 0.001% to 0.5% by mass (par. [0051]), overlapping with the presently claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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). It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claims 16-17, Kamimoto et al. discloses in a production example the use of 10-15 nm diameter SiO2 nanoparticles. (par. [0059])
Regarding claim 20, Kamimoto et al. discloses that the metal oxide materials may include SiO2, Al2O3 and TiO2. (par.[0032]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimoto et al. (EP 4056299) in view of Okumura et al. (JP 2019-112699).
Kamimoto et al is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
As an alternative to the SUS630 alloy meeting the limitation of a “Ni-based alloy” as claimed in claim 2, Okumura et al. teaches surface modification of metal powders with smaller nanoparticles for use as an additive manufacturing powder material, similar to Kamimoto et al. (Abstract and page 2). Okumura et al. teaches that suitable metal powders used for additive manufacturing and surface modification include iron alloys, titanium alloys, cobalt alloys and nickel alloys due to the large demand of three-dimensional structures made from these alloys. (page 6, 3rd full paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use nickel-based alloy powders to be surface modified in Kamimoto et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use nickel-based alloys in view of the known equivalence with iron alloys for powder feedstock used in additive manufacturing and in view of the explicit disclosure of the high demand for nickel alloy products made by additive manufacturing. Using such high demand alloy materials would improve the likelihood of commercial success of the powder composition of Kamimoto et al. to the high demand for such alloys as taught by Okumura et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 12/17/2025