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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3 August 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Responsive to the amendment filed 3 August 2026, claims 1, 7, and 8 are amended and claims 4-6, and 9-13 are cancelled. Claims 1-3, 7, and 8 are currently under examination.
Status of Previous Rejections
Responsive to the amendment filed 3 August 2026, new grounds of rejection are presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the steps of “extracting a sub-batch from a batch of powder, the batch having a rate X0 of a predetermined element” and of “measuring a rate Xnamx of the element in at least one of the parts manufactured during a last cycle or a test piece manufactured during the last cycle. These steps are not presented in the specification as filed. Instead the specification describes that X0 is a “content,” which is different from a rate. For example, there is a reference of a “rate” in the specification to describes a variable TRn, which is not believed to be the same thing. A rate is by definition different from a content in this case.
Each of claims 2-3 and 7-8 depends from claim 1 and is also not described.
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, 7, and 8 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 requires the limitation “recycling again the powder from the manufacturing step and manufacturing parts by powder-bed based additive manufacturing with the again recycled powder until at least all of the again recycled powder has been used at least once. This limitation is unclear. Prior to this, multiple manufacturing steps are now invoked. It is not clear which one of the manufacturing steps is meant here. Additionally, the term “at least all of the again recycled powder” is unclear. What is the scenario in which more than all is used? The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
All of claims 2-3, 7, and 8 depend from claim 1 and are also indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim 7 recites that the steps of extracting, producing, and manufacturing in step 1 are performed without determining whether the rate Xnmax fulfills the condition. This claim is indefinite. Claim 1 requires that the step of determining be performed prior to those steps. It is suggested that applicant may be able to overcome this specific rejection ground by more clearly describing the steps of claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims as filed are supported by the specification. Specifically applicant argues that the applicant is referring to the French text of the application, and that this is the text which is relied upon, rather than the English text which applicant submitted to the USPTO, and which is in the file. It is noted that applicant has amended the specification as such. In order to expedite prosecution, it will be assumed that applicant’s new translation of the claim terms is a faithful English language translation.
Applicant argues that the amendment to the claims overcome the rejection under 35 USC 112 (b). New grounds of rejection are presented, which are accordingly non-final. When all of the evidence is considered, the claims are still indefinite.
Conclusion
NO claims are allowable. NO rejections are made over the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights