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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on March 16, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 10-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
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 1, 2, and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoh et al. (US 2022/0112329) in view of any one of Zurcher et al. (US 2023/0057940), Ederer et al. (US 2018/0319078), El-Siblani (US 9,975,296), Hull et al. (US 2002/0195747), or Fan et al. (US 5,474,719).
Regarding claim 1, Satoh et al. teach a method for producing a three-dimensional fabricated object comprising: forming a powder layer (Abstract; Figures 2A-2D; paragraphs [0006], [0014], [0015], [0025], [0026], [0116], [0117], [0120], [0121], [0191] and [0243]) with a powder containing a ceramic material (paragraphs [0019], [0027], [0031], [0032], [0039]-[0042], [0049], [0094]-[0101], [0108]-[0115]); applying a liquid on the powder layer (Abstract; Figure 2E, paragraphs [0006], [0014], [0015], [0047], [0053], [0119], [0125]-[0127], [0189], [0190] and [0244]); and heating the powder layer applied with the liquid, wherein in the heating, a temperature of the powder layer applied with the liquid is controlled to a temperature that overlaps the claimed range of 30°C or higher and 60°C or lower (paragraph [0245]), and repeating the forming and the applying steps once or more than once (Figures 2A-2E; paragraphs [0014], [0191] and [0243]-[0246]). Satoh et al. provide teaching regarding the required strength of the fabricated object prior to further processing (paragraphs [0170], [0171], [0206], [0207], [0246], [0279]-[0283]), but do not explicitly teach the fabricated object has a viscosity of 1,000 Pa·s or higher and 100,000 Pa·s or lower.
However, each of Zurcher et al. (paragraphs [0128], [0176], [0185] and [0187]; Figure 4; demonstrates viscosity values of starting pastes can be as high as 200,000 cP/200 Pa s and that from this starting point the value will rise, including to values within the claimed range, as the object is solidified through evaporation/drying of the solvents/liquids), Ederer et al. (Figures 1-5; paragraphs [0014], [0016], [0021], [0026]-[0029], [0037], [0039], [0040], [0059]-[0066]), El-Siblani (col. 4, lines 4-26; col. 5, lines 1-37), Hull et al. (paragraphs [0042] and [0068]; the last sentence in paragraph [0068] establishes the viscosity as a result effective variable that would be readily optimized), or Fan et al. (col. 8, lines 25-30; suggesting that an analogous material is reasonably considered to have become a solid at 104 Poise/1000 Pa s) provide additional context which suggest and establish that the viscosity of the fabricated object of Satoh et al. would have a viscosity as claimed or that the viscosity of the fabricated object of Satoh et al. would have been readily selected or optimized to a desired value, including a value within the claimed range.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Satoh et al. and any one of the secondary references and to have produced a fabricated object having a viscosity as claimed in the method of Satoh et al., as suggested by any one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of producing a fabricated object having a desired strength for further processing, for producing a fabricated object that is sufficiently solid subsequent to the shaping process, or to produce an object having improved shape control/results.
As to claim 2, the combination suggests controlling/achieving a viscosity of the fabricated object within the claimed range, from provided values within or which overlap the claimed range, and that the viscosity is a variable that impacts the strength and shaping of the object and that this is a function of the amount of liquid included with the powder. Measuring the viscosity and making needed adjustments as claimed is suggested by the combination for the same reasons as set forth above.
As to claim 4, Satoh et al. teach heating as claimed (paragraphs [0243]-[0245]; Figures 2A-2E).
As to claims 5-7, Satoh et al. teach primary and secondary particles as claimed with particle sizes that overlap the claimed range and further teach and suggest the particle size is selected depending on the intended purpose (Figures 1A and 1B; paragraphs [0039]-[0049], [0056]-[0059], [0093]-[0100], [0108]-[0110]).
As to claim 8, Satoh et al. teach and suggest binder resins as claimed (paragraphs [0080]-[0083]).
As to claim 9, Satoh et al. teach and render prima facie obvious liquids as claimed (paragraphs [0151]-[0156]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoh et al. (US 2022/0112329) in view of any one of Zurcher et al. (US 2023/0057940), Ederer et al. (US 2018/0319078), El-Siblani (US 9,975,296), Hull et al. (US 2002/0195747), or Fan et al. (US 5,474,719), as applied to claims 1, 2 and 4-9 above, and further in view of either one of Okamoto et al. (US 11,911,962) or Jacobs et al. (US 5,688,464).
As to claim 3, the combination teaches the method set forth above. Satoh et al. do not teach vibrating as claimed. However, each of Okamoto et al. (col. 11, line 49-col. 12, line 10) and Jacobs et al. (Abstract; Figures 1 and 2; col. 7, lines 1-30) disclose analogous methods wherein the object is vibrated as claimed.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Satoh et al. and either one of Okamoto et al. or Jacobs et al. and to have vibrated the object of Satoh et al. as claimed, as suggested by either one of Okamoto et al. or Jacobs et al., for the purpose, as suggested by Okamoto et al. of removing unbonded material from the object, or for the purpose, as suggested by Jacobs et al., of further facilitating the accurate and uniform production of additional parts/portions/layers of the object.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights