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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/05/2026 has been entered.
Status of claims
Claims 1, 38 and 39 have been amended and claims 1-3 and 37-40 remains under consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 3, it suggested to replace “magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) system” with --magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) powder production system--, based on the specification and also to better capture the domain of the invention.
In claim 1, line 4, it is suggested to replace “generate globules by applying a pulsed electric field to molten metal” with --generate metal globules by applying a pulsed electric field to molten metal in a heated vessel--, in accordance with the specification and the illustration in the figures.
In claim 1, lines 5-6, it suggested to replace “hit the molten metal with a cross
flow of inert gas to reduce the molten metal to globules and cool the globules to solid
particles;” with -- hit the molten metal with a cross flow of inert gas to transform the molten metal to globules and cool the globules to solid particles; --. Particularly since the metal globule formation involves more of breaking the molten metal stream into pieces than reducing the molten metal stream. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 37-40 are 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 1 as amended recites the limitation “a magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) system configured to generate globules by applying a pulsed electric field to molten metal; hit the molten metal with a cross flow of inert gas to reduce the molten metal to globules and cool the globules to solid particles; collect the solid particles into different collection bins based on the solid particles' respective masses” in lines 4-8. This new limitation presented in claim 1 as instantly amended lack clarity because of the follow reasons: (i) it recites applying a pulse electric field without reciting how, what manners and by what structure the pulse electric field is generated (ii) the molten metal lacks a containment vessel to allow the pulse electric field to be applied to (iii) how is the molten metal cross flow hit by the inert gas. In particular, the limitation as presented appears incomplete for omitting essential structural features for performing the recited functions or steps, thereby amounting to omissions and gaps between the claimed elements. Also See MPEP § 2172.01.
Claim 1 is indefinite in that it further recites “a print station configured to hold a removable cartridge containing the generated powder, the generated powder being a portion of the solid particles in at least one collection bin of the different collection bins; and a laser engine positioned to direct a laser beam into the removable cartridge”. In particular, it is unclear as to how the generated globules differ from the generated powder contained in the removable cartridge, and furthermore it is unclear as to the structural cooperative relationships between the magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) system and the removable cartridge of the print station, since the claim lacked any structural connection between the two structures. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim is unascertainable.
Claim 37 is indefinite because it recites “the MHD system applies thermal heating to generate the molten metal from solid metal” without reciting how and by what structure said thermal heating is employed to transform solid metal to molten metal; and furthermore, how is the thermal heat conducted and transferred to the solid metal. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim is unascertainable.
Claim 38 is indefinite because it recites “distribute the solid particles into the
different collection bins” without reciting how and by what structure said particle distribution into collection bins are performed. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the
claim is unascertainable.
Claim 39 is indefinite because it recites “a distribution of lightest particles of the solid particles are pushed to a furthest collection bin of the different collection bins” without reciting how and by what structure said claimed particle sorting is performed. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim is unascertainable.
Claim 40 is indefinite because it recites the molten metal is pumped into a charged fountain spray and cooled to become charged solid particles, wherein the MHD system separates the solid particles by electrostatics and gravity”, without reciting how and by what structure the molten metal is pumped and how by what structure the particles are electrostatics and gravity separated.
Art Rejection
Besides the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, the claims are free from art rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 37-40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ABOAGYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8165. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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 Hendricks can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
/M.A/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759