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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
An amendment, filed 2/23/2026, is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 11 are amended; Claims 16-17 are newly added; claim 12 is canceled. Claims 1-11 and 13-17 are currently pending; claims 5-7 and 9-10 are withdrawn.
The previous rejection of claims 1-4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claim; however, a new 112(b) rejection over claim 8 is made, as detailed below, in view of Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites “An additive manufacturing process comprising the method of moderating a reaction of metal particles according to claim 1.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 1 is not drawn to a method of moderating a reaction of metal particles, but rather “A method for moderating a reactivity of metal condensate from an additive manufacturing process.” Furthermore, Claim 1 is drawn to, essentially, a method of coating metal particles, not an additive manufacturing method. As a result, it is also unclear what step or process is required by “An additive manufacturing process” as required by the instant claim. For example, it is unclear if the claim intends to require an additive manufacturing process using the coated particles as a build material, or whether the coating step itself is intended to be repeated in some manner to additively form an article.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 recites “An additive manufacturing process comprising the method of moderating a reaction of metal particles according to claim 1” yet claim 1 is not drawn to a method of moderating a reaction of metal particles. Therefore, Claim 8 may be interpreted as failing to include all of the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama (WO 2010/055830)(machine translation provided) in view of Guerrier (US 2017/0246709).
With respect to Claim 1, Sugiyama teaches a method of preparing a coated particulate waste material, the method comprising steps of providing a waste metal particles, combining the waste particulate with an at least partially meltable inerting material comprising, preferably, borax, heating the combined waste metal particles and inerting material such that the inerting material coats the metal particles, resulting in coated composite particles having a metal particle core and glass coating forming a coating/shell on the core particle. (abstract; pgs. 1, 3-4, 10-13 of translation). In particular, Sugiyama teaches that the “particle treatment method of the present invention is used, the ‘metal-containing particles’, for example, waste particles, heavy metal-containing particles, and needle-like particle-containing particles are detoxified safely, simply, and inexpensively. be able to. Moreover, it is possible to obtain composite particles as valuable materials with excellent heat resistance; flame retardancy; chemical resistance to acids, alkalis, organic solvents, etc .; weather resistance; water repellency; Recyclable.” (pg. 19 of translation).
Thus, Sugiyama teaches a method of moderating the reactivity of waste metal particles, the method comprising collecting waste metal particles, combining the waste metal particles with an inerting material such that the particles are separated by a glass coating formed on the metal particles.
Sugiyama teaches that the metal particles may have an average particle size prior to coating of 1 μm to 3 mm, preferably, 30 μm to 100 μm, and the coated composite particles may have a size of 100 μm to 2 mm, and may be pulverized to a preferable average size of 20 μm to 100 μm. (pgs. 8, 12 of translation). The reference further teaches wherein the inerting material (e.g. borax) may be dissolved in solution prior to combining with the metal particles. (pg. 4, 7, 10, 12 of translation). As the inerting material is in a dissolved state, reduced to approximately the size of a single compound, it is deemed to fall within the claimed particle size of 100 μm or less. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to minimize the size of the inerting material prior to dissolving in order to expedite the dissolving process. As the reference is drawn to pulverizing materials to a desired average particle size below 100 μm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the method of Sugiyama to pulverize the inerting material to a size of 100 μm or less, with a predictable result of success.
Finally, Sugiyama teaches that the metal particles may be any waste metal particles, but is silent as to wherein the waste metal particles are specifically a metal condensate from 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 Sugiyama, drawn to moderating the reactivity of metal waste particles, 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 and/or reduce the risks associated with free metal condensate. In other words, Sugiyama is drawn to solving the problem of reducing risks associated with waste metal particles 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 Sugiyama to a known source of waste metal particles, such as metal condensate from an additive manufacturing process, in order to achieve the same purpose or reducing risks associated with the waste metal material and enhancing the utility of the particles for recycling or alternative applications.
With respect to Claim 2, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, Sugiyama teaches pulverizing material to a desired particle size of, for example, 30 to 100 μm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce the size of the inerting material to an average particle size of, for example, 30 to 100 μm, prior to dissolving in order to expedite the dissolving process. 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, Sugiyama teaches wherein the inerting material is/forms glass (see rejection of claim 1 above; pgs. 3, 12 of translation), deemed to meet the instant claim.
With respect to Claim 4, Sugiyama teaches where the inerting material comprises borax, and thus, does not contain lime, meeting the instant claim. (see rejection of claim 1 above; abstract).
With respect to Claim 11, Sugiyama teaches a method of moderating the reactivity of waste metal particles, the method comprising collecting waste metal particles, combining the waste metal particles with an inerting material 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 Sugiyama 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 Sugiyama 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 and/or reduce the risks associated with free metal condensate.
With respect to Claim 13, Sugiyama 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, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, Sugiyama teaches wherein the inerting material is dissolved in solution and thus, has a particle size of less than 100 μm and further teaches pulverizing material to a desired particle size of, for example, 30 to 100 μm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce the size of the inerting material to an average particle size of, for example, 30 to 100 μm, prior to dissolving in order to expedite the dissolving process. 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, Sugiyama teaches 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, Sugiyama 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 Sugiyama 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 8 under 35 U.S.C. over McCarthy in view if Guerrier and LaTour and over Protzmann in view of Guerrier and LaTour 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 Sugiyama in view of Guerrier, as detailed above.
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. GB 2454485, drawn to encapsulating waste materials in a glass layer/coating.
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