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 .
Status of Claims
Responsive to the amendment filed 5 February 2026, claims 1-3, 7, and 8 are amended and claims 4, 6, and 9-13 are cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 8 are currently under examination.
Status of Previous Rejections
Responsive to the amendment filed 5 February 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, 5, 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.
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, 5, 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 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. It is not clear from the specification what exactly the “rate of an element” means. Instead the specification describes that X0 is a “content,” which is different from a rate. There is a reference of a “rate” in the specification to describes a variable TRn, which is not believed to be the same thing. The point of infringement of claim 1 cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
All of claims 2-3, 5, 7, and 8 depend from claim 1 and are also indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim 1 requires the limitation “recycling the powder and continuing the manufacturing step until all of the powder has been used at least once.” This limitation is unclear. Prior to this, there is powder used in the manufacturing step, which is then recycled in a step of “recycling a powder from the manufacturing step.” Now in the further step, “the powder” is recycled during the manufacturing step. It is not clear what is happening here. Which powder is “the powder?” This would appear to require that all of the recycled powder is recycled at least twice again, but it cannot be determined clearly from the claim if the additional steps after this limitation are included within a second recycling step, or with an additional new sub batch of the batch, or if the limitations are meant to be a part of the prior step. Furthermore, the claim recites the conditional step, when Xn fulfills the predetermined condition, of “recycling a powder and continuing a recycling step until all of the recycled powder has been used at least once. ” Which powder is now “the recycled powder” after the three different recycling steps? The point of infringement of claim 1 cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
All of claims 2-3, 5, 7, and 8 depend from claim 1 and are also indefinite for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, applicant argues that “claim 1 has been amended to recite post solution activity” to overcome the rejection (Remarks, p. 8). It is noted that the metes and bounds of claim 1 are indefinite. See rejections above. By the amendment, applicant’s method appears to invoke a decision tree based on the calculation of a Xn value and comparison to a known value, which then includes additional steps based on the comparison. Thus it is believed that the claim 1 includes mathematical calculations that are integrated into the larger process of additive manufacturing and recycling of the used powder therein. No rejection under 35 USC 101 is made at this time.
Applicant argues that the prior art Nandwana does not fairly render the claimed invention obvious. In response to the amendment to the claims, the rejection under 35 USC 103 is withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 112(b), applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive because they are not commensurate in scope with the claims.
Claim 1 was rejected because it is not clear what is happening in the second step of recycling “the powder” until all of the powder has been used at least once. In response, applicant argues at pp. 6-7 that the claim includes an “inhiation phase” and further that “claim 1 recites an “operating phase” (Remarks at p 7). These are not found in the claim. The scope of what is claimed is different from what applicant argues. For example, amended claim 1 requires that the manufacturing step uses powder from the initial sub-batch, but later “the manufacturing step” requires that instead the recycled powder is used, and this happens at least twice over. It is not clear from claim 1 whether there would be any “initiation phase,” because “the manufacturing step” requires to use a mixture of initial sub batch powder with recycled powder from the same initial sub batch that had already been used (presumably in the unclaimed initiation phase). The metes and bounds of claim 1 cannot be determined.
Claim 1 was rejected due to the concentration Xn of a “compound” being oxygen, nitrogen, or hydrogen. In the amended claim applicant has instead claimed that Xn is a “rate” of an element in one of the parts manufactured. It is not clear what is happening, as this language is not found in the instant specification. Applicant argues that the language is found in the priority document. This is not commensurate in scope with what is now claimed because the language is not found in the instant specification. Applicant argues at page 7 of the Remarks that the Xn is a value in mass percent. “Mass percent” is not considered to be present in any claim. Applicant has to this point chosen instead to claim “rate,” which the skilled artisan would not have equated to a “mass percent” without benefit of applicant’s arguments. If Xn means a mass percentage, applicant could have easily said that in the claim at any point. Applicant’s arguments are considered to be evidence of the indefiniteness of claim 1, as a “rate” is not a “mass percent.”
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.
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 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