DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/05/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application. Claims 6-10 have been withdrawn due to a restriction requirement. No claims have been cancelled and no new claims have been added. Applicant's amendments to the specification have overcome the drawing and specification objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 09/05/2025. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 09/05/2025. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 09/05/2025.
Specification
The amendment filed 12/05/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
adding three paragraphs (page 11, lines 7-24) at the end of the instant specification providing additional information regarding embodiments and terminology used in the instant specification.
Applicant’s attempt to provide additional information, clarification or definition to the originally-filed disclosure is improper since it changes the scope and intent of the disclosure.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/105563 A1 of Heikkinen (as cited in prior Office action and using its equivalent US 2020/0368816 A1 for reference).
Regarding claim 1, Heikkinen teaches a powder mixture for use in the manufacture of a three-dimensional object by means of an additive manufacturing method (Title, reads on the claimed metal powder for use within an additive manufacturing process).
Heikkinen teaches the powder comprises a first material and a second material, where the first material is a steel powder and the second material is a reinforcement material ([0009], first material reads on the claimed said powder comprises steel particles). Heikkinen teaches the reinforcement material comprises nanoparticles and, preferably, titanium carbide nanoparticles ([0009], [0026], the reinforcement material reads on the claimed comprising carbon nitrides (C,N) and/or carbides (C) and/or nitrides (N) selected from the group consisting of titanium, zirconium or mixtures thereof since the reinforcement material is titanium carbide).
Heikkinen teaches the content of the nanoparticles in the powder mixture is 0.05 wt % or more and 40 wt % or less, and preferably 10 wt % or less if the nanoparticles comprise titanium carbide ([0028]-[0029], 0.05-10 wt% overlaps with the claimed range of at a weight fraction greater than or equal to 0.01 wt% and less than or equal to 5 wt%). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
Heikkinen therefore reads on the limitations a metal powder for use within an additive manufacturing process, characterized in that said powder comprises steel particles, said steel particles comprising, at a weight fraction greater than or equal to 0.01 wt% and less than or equal to 5 wt%, carbonitrides and/or carbides and/or nitrides selected from the group consisting of titanium, zirconium or mixtures thereof of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Heikkinen teaches the powder of claim 1, as described above.
Heikkinen teaches the median grain size of the first material is 1 μm or more and 150 μm or less (claim 6, claim 25; D50 and “median grain size” are used interchangeably as explained in [0013]). Heikkinen further teaches an example where the steel powder has a d50 size between 33 and 40 μm ([0076]). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
Regarding the method of measuring the average particle diameter, Heikkinen teaches the dimensions of particles, in particular an average grain size and the maximum grain size of nanoparticles, can be determined using laser scattering or laser diffraction or alternatively using Scanning Electron Microscopic (SEM) or Transmission Electron Microscopic (TEM) image analysis ([0012], the claimed dynamic laser light scattering is a type of laser scattering).
Given that Heikkinen discloses particle diameters overlapping with the ranges as presently claimed and absent evidence of criticality in how the particle diameter is measured, it is the Examiner's position that the particle diameters and measurement methods disclosed by Heikkinen meets the claim limitations.
Heikkinen therefore reads on the limitation wherein the metal powder comprises particles having a median particle diameter, D50, obtained via dynamic laser light scattering of greater than or equal to 10 nm and less than or equal to 100 μm of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Heikkinen teaches the content of the nanoparticles in the powder mixture is 0.05 wt % or more and 40 wt % or less, and preferably 10 wt % or less if the nanoparticles comprise titanium carbide ([0028]-[0029]).
While Heikkinen does not explicitly disclose the titanium weight fraction, one can calculate the titanium weight fraction given the 0.05-10 wt% titanium carbide content of the powder of Heikkinen. Since titanium and carbon have a molar mass of 48 g/mol and 12 g/mol respectively, the titanium content is 80% of the total weight and carbon is 20% of the total weight. The powder of Heikkinen therefore has a titanium content of 0.04-8 wt% (resulting from calculating 0.05-10 wt% titanium carbide times 80% titanium/titanium carbide), which overlaps with the claimed 0.01-2.0 wt% titanium and/or zirconium weight fraction. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
Heikkinen therefore reads on the limitation wherein the titanium and/or zirconium weight fraction in the metal powder is greater than or equal to 0.01 wt% and less than or equal to 2.0 wt% of claim 3.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/105563 A1 of Heikkinen (as cited in prior Office action and using its equivalent US 2020/0368816 A1 for reference), as applied to claims 1-2 above, in view of “Structural properties of H13 tool steel parts produced with use of selective laser melting technology” of Safka (as cited in prior Office action and as cited in IDS mailed 11/15/2022).
Regarding claims 4-5, Heikkinen teaches the powder of claim 1, as described above.
Heikkinen teaches an embodiment where the first material is a 316L grade steel ([0074]) and further teaches that a steel of a different type can be used ([0082]).
However, Heikkinen does not explicitly disclose wherein the metal powder has a carbon content of greater than or equal to 0.25 wt% and less than or equal to 4 wt% of claim 4 and wherein the steel particles comprise a base composition for tool steel according to 1.2344 H13 of claim 5.
Safka teaches using H13 tool steel powder in selective laser melting technology (Title and Section 1 Introduction; selective laser melting is an additive manufacturing method). Safka is considered analogous art to Heikkinen since it is similarly concerned with using a metal powder composed of steel in additive manufacturing processes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the steel particles of Heikkinen with the H13 tool steel powder of Safka since Safka demonstrates H13 steel powder is a known material for additive manufacturing processes. It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP § 2144.07. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when adding the H13 powder of Safka to the powder of Heikkinen for use in additive manufacturing process. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art understands H13 tool steel typically has a carbon content of 0.32-0.45 wt%, which overlaps with the claimed carbon content of greater than or equal to 0.25 wt% and less than or equal to 4 wt%.
Modified Heikkinen therefore reads on the limitations wherein the metal powder has a carbon content of greater than or equal to 0.25 wt% and less than or equal to 4 wt% of claim 4 and wherein the steel particles comprise a base composition for tool steel according to 1.2344 or H13 of claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Heikkinen does not disclose a steel powder comprised of steel particles, wherein the steel particles comprise carbonitrides, carbides, or nitrides at weight fraction greater than or equal to 0.01 wt% and less than or equal to 5 wt% (remarks, page 6). Applicant argues that Heikkinen teaches "there may be some TiC nanoparticle agglomerates which can be seen within the structure, which may have not been fully dispersed within the first material during the powder mixing process” at page 35, lines 15-17 (remarks, page 7).
In response, Heikkinen teaches partial dissolution of the nanoparticles in the melt of the first material or reaction of the nanoparticles with the first material can also be beneficial as it can improve the bonding between the nanoparticles and the steel and that the amount of nanoparticles that is dissolved is preferably 1 wt% or more ([0093]). Since Heikkinen teaches the first material is a steel powder ([0009]) and the nanoparticles comprise titanium carbide ([0028]-[0029]), a dissolution of nanoparticles in the first material means that the steel powder of Heikkinen has 1wt% or more TiC nanoparticles dissolved within the steel particle, which reads on the metal powder of instant claim 1. The teaching of Heikkinen regarding TiC agglomerates that have not been fully dispersed ([0120]) does not negate the dissolution of TiC that does occur in the steel powder of Heikkinen as taught by Heikkinen. Patents are relevant for all they contain. See MPEP 2123. In this case, Heikkinen teaches a powder comprising steel particles with preferably 1 wt% or more TiC dissolved in the steel particles, which reads on the claimed powder of claim 1.
Applicant argues that claim 1 recites a homogeneous particle powder comprising steel particles with carbonitrides, carbides, or nitrides incorporated (remarks, page 6).
In response, claim 1 does not recite a limitation of a homogeneous particle powder, as argued by Applicant. Claim 1 recites “a metal powder for use within an additive manufacturing process, characterized in that said powder comprises steel particles, said steel particles comprising, at a weight fraction greater than or equal to 0.01 wt% and less than or equal to 5 wt%, carbonitrides and/or carbides and/or nitrides selected from the group consisting of titanium, zirconium or mixtures thereof”. The term “comprising” is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements. See MPEP 2111.03. In this case, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed metal powder is a powder including steel particles and carbonitrides and/or carbides and/or nitrides selected from the group consisting of titanium, zirconium or mixtures thereof. Therefore, the powder of Heikkinen reads on the instant claims as described in the 103 rejections in this Office action.
Applicant argues that any size distribution disclosed in Heikkinen is for the single particle powders and therefore Heikkinen cannot teach the median particle diameter of the metal powder of claim 2 (remarks, page 7).
In response, claim 2 recites “wherein the metal powder comprises particles having a median particle diameter”. Since the powder of Heikkinen comprises particles with the claimed median particle diameter, as outlined in the 103 rejection in this Office action, the powder of Heikkinen reads on instant claim 2.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYELA ALDAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday: 10 am - 7 pm and alternate Friday: 10 am - 6 pm.
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
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733