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 Status
An amendment, filed 6/15/2026, is acknowledged. Claims 1, 8, and 11 are amended. Claims 1-11 and 13-17 are currently pending; claims 5-7 and 9-10 are withdrawn.
The previous rejection of claims 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and (d) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claim.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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson (US 5830251) in view of Guerrier (US 2017/0246709)(previously cited).
With respect to Claim 1, Sugiyama teaches a method of inerting industrial waste material, including metal and metal-oxide waste particles and mixtures thereof, the method comprising combining waste material particles which include solid glass particles and further optionally adding additional additive material such as glass, clay, and/or quartz, and thus, teaches combining waste material comprising metal particles with solid waste material particles and solid additive material particles having inerting compositions (e.g. metal oxides/glass, clay, quartz, etc.)(wherein portions of the solid waste particles and/or solid additive particles may be deemed to constitute the at least partially meltable inerting material), the combining comprising mixing the inerting material with the metal particles, including solid mixing and optionally further milling the mixture, and heating the mixture to at least partially melt the inerting material to form a solid glass tile product, thereby, separating particles of the metal waste particles from each other and at least partially coat the metal waste particles. (col. 1, ln. 7-26; col. 3, ln. 5-38; col. 3, ln. 55 to col. 4, ln. 55; col. 36 to col. 14, ln. 40). In particular, Simpson teaches wherein the mixture comprises primarily glass forming particles and small contents of waste metal, for example, heavy metals and trace metal elements. (col. 5, ln. 20 to col. 6, ln. 29). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the method encompasses forming a solidified body after heating wherein the waste metal particles comprise a small fraction of the body and the waste metal particles are substantially separated from one another and “coated” with glass inerting material. For example, Simpson teaches an example comprising heavy metal such as lead in metallic state, combined with glass frit, and additional inerting material additives such as clay and quartz, then heated to at least partially melt the inerting material(s). (col. 13, ln. 36 to col. 14, ln. 40).
It is noted that the claim requires that the metal condensate is at least partially coated and the condensate particles are separated from one another, but does not require forming, for example, individually coated particles. Therefore, a single solidified mass wherein the metal particles are surrounded/coated and separated in a glass matrix material, as taught by Simpson, meets the instant limitations. It is also noted that the instant specification discloses that the inerting material may comprise coal fly ash (para. 32 of PG Pub.) and Simpson specifically teaches the use solid particle mixtures comprising coal flyash. (col. 5, lns. 25-32; abstract).
Simpson further teaches wherein the inerting material comprises particles with a particle size of less than 200 microns, preferably less than 50 microns. (col. 10, ln. 37-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claim overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
Simpson teaches that the industrial waste may comprise such as boiler fly ash, auto shredder residue ash, sewage sludge ash, municipal solid waste incinerator ash, spent potliners from aluminum reduction, and electric arc furnace dust particle waste, and thus, teaches a wide applicability of the method to metal and metal-containing waste particle materials; however, the reference is silent as to using metal condensate created as a byproduct of an additive manufacturing process.
Guerrier teaches a method of additive manufacturing wherein a laser beam is applied to metal powder particles so as to form metal condensate, wherein the condensate is controlled so as to optimize collection of the metal condensate and thus, reduce unwanted metal condensate accumulation and/or reduce the risks associated with free metal condensate (para. 20-24, 28-29, 33, 37). Thus, Guerrier teaches the ability to efficiently collect metal condensate from a laser additive manufacturing process and the motivation to collect such waste material for the purposes of reducing risks associated with free waste particulate material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Simpson, drawn to inerting metal waste particles and recycling the waste into a useful product, to perform a step of collecting waste metal condensate from an additive manufacturing process, as taught by Guerrier, in order to reduce unwanted metal condensate accumulation in the build chamber, reduce the risks associated with free metal condensate, and gain additional utility by recycling at least a portion of the condensate into a product. In other words, Simpson is drawn to solving the problem of reducing risks associated with waste metal particles (e.g. leaching into water supplies, col. 1, lns. 13-26) and enabling recycling of such particles; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the method of Simpson to a known source of waste metal particles, such as metal condensate formed as a byproduct of an additive manufacturing process, in order to achieve the same purpose or reducing risks associated with waste metal material and enhancing the utility of the particles through recycling. One of ordinary skill in the art would be further motivated to make the combination as metal condensate from an additive manufacturing, such as aluminum condensate, would necessarily comprise at least a portion of oxidized metal enhancing its use in the method of Simpson. (see Guerrier, para. 6; Simpson, Tables 5 and 6, teaches waste material comprising sizeable contents of aluminum oxide).
Simpson in view of Guerrier, therefore, are deemed to teach a method of “moderating the reactivity of waste metal particles” and meeting each limitation of claim 1.
With respect to Claim 2, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, Simpson teaches wherein the inerting material comprises particles with a particle size of less than 200 microns, preferably less than 50 microns, overlapping the claimed range. (col. 10, ln. 37-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claim overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claim 3, Simpson teaches wherein the inerting material is/forms glass (see rejection of claim 1 above), deemed to meet the instant claim.
With respect to Claim 4, Simpson teaches where the inerting glass material comprises 0-25 wt% CaO (lime), overlapping the claimed range. (see col. 3, ln. 24-27; col. 4, ln. 56-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claim overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claim 8, as detailed above Guerrier teaches melting metal particles with a radiation device in an additive manufacturing process so as to produce metal condensate. (para. 29, 36-37). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art carrying out the combination of Simpson in view of Guerrier to, prior to the moderating the reaction of metal particles of claim 1, perform at least a portion of the additive manufacturing process of Guerrier resulting in the formation and collection of metal condensate in order to obtain metal condensate for the method of claim 1.
With respect to Claim 11, Simpson in view of Guerrier teach a method of moderating the reactivity of waste metal particles, the method comprising collecting waste metal particles, combining the waste metal particles with solid particles of a glass inerting material and heating to form a body such that the particles are separated by a glass coating formed on the metal particles. (see rejection of claim 1, incorporated here by reference).
Guerrier teaches melting metal particles with a radiation device in an additive manufacturing process so as to produce metal condensate, transporting the metal condensate with gas flow (thus with an exhaust system) and collecting the metal condensate in a filter. (para. 29, 36-37). As detailed with respect to Claim 1, incorporated here by reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the method of Simpson to metal condensate collected from an additive manufacturing process, as taught by Guerrier. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the method of Simpson to metal condensate collected from an additive manufacturing process, the process comprising transporting metal condensate from an additive manufacturing process with an exhaust system and collecting the metal condensate in a filter, as taught by Guerrier, in order to reduce unwanted metal condensate accumulation in the additive manufacturing build chamber, reduce the risks associated with free metal condensate, and enhance the utility of the metal condensate by recycling it into a product.
With respect to Claim 13, Simpson teaches wherein the inerting material is/forms glass (see rejection of claim 1 above), deemed to meet the instant claim.
With respect to Claims 14-15, Simpson teaches wherein the inerting material comprises particles with a particle size of less than 200 microns, preferably less than 50 microns, overlapping the claimed range. (col. 10, ln. 37-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claim overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claims 16-17, Simpson teaches a method carried out in the absence of an additive manufacturing step or device, and therefore, is deemed to teach wherein the combining step is performed outside a build-up area of an additive manufacturing device. (see rejections of claims 1 and 11 above). That is, Simpson does not teach any additive manufacturing device, nor build up area associated with such a device. Claims 16-17 are interpreted such that the method must not be performed inside the build up area of an additive manufacturing device, but does not require that the process is performed, for example, in close proximity (but outside) an additive manufacturing device. Accordingly, the method of Simpson is interpreted as taking place outside a build up area of an additive manufacturing device, meeting the instant claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4 and 11-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Sugiyama in view of Guerrier have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Simpson in view of Guerrier, as detailed above.
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A HEVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JOHN A HEVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights