DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 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.
2. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi et al. (US 2022/0250145 A1) in view of Sugizaki et al. (US 5288578).
Wakabayashi et al. disclose an additive manufacturing powder (equivalent to the additive manufacturing powder of the claimed invention) that includes a metal powder (equivalent to the metal particle of the claimed invention); and a coating film provided on a particle surface of the metal powder (equivalent to the coating film of the claimed invention). The additive manufacturing powder has an average particle diameter of 3.0 μm or more and 30.0 μm or less (meeting the limitations of claim 5). The particles of the additive manufacturing powder are bound with a binder (meeting the limitations of claim 6) and allows for an excellent shape retention property. The coating film contains a coupling agent and the in a coupling agent reaction, the coupling agent having a functional group is reacted with the metal powder. Accordingly, the coupling agent is adhered to the surfaces of the metal particles. Examples of the coupling agent include a silane coupling agent. (See Abstract and paragraphs 0002, 0007, 0040-0084).
Wakabayashi et al. do not teach the claimed stricture of the silane coupling agent.
However, Sugizaki et al. teach that an amino group-containing silane coupling agent can be coated on ferrite particles and when heated, a hydrodecomposition reaction between the amino-containing silane coupling agent and water takes place to convert the amino group into a hydroxy group which undergoes a dehydrocondensation reaction with a hydroxy group present on the ferrite particles, whereby the silane coupling agent is chemically bonded to the ferrite particles. At the same time, the hydroxy groups of the silane coupling agent themselves undergo a dehydrocondensation reaction, so that an interlayer having a three-dimensional network structure of the coupling agent is formed on the ferrite particles. The coated particles with the coating have an improved charge-controlling property, environmental reliance, and better stability with the passage of time. (See Abstract and Column 1, lines 10-25; Column 3, lines 31-68, and Column 4, lines 1-21).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use silane coupling agents with amino and hydroxy groups in the coating film taught by Wakabayashi et al. given that Sugizaki et al. teach that an amino group-containing silane coupling agent can be coated on ferrite particles and results in metal coated particles with the coating having an improved charge-controlling property and better stability.
With regards to the property limitations of claims 3 and 4, the Examiner takes the position that such property limitations are inherent in the additive manufacturing powder taught by Wakabayashi et al. given that the structure and chemical composition of the powder as taught by Wakabayashi et al. and that of the claimed invention are identical.
Conclusion
3. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEEBA AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-6pm.
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, CALLIE SHOSHO can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/SHEEBA AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights