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
Claims 1-15 are examined in this office action as claim 16 was canceled and claims 1, 3, 11, and 14 were amended in the amendment dated 8/4/25.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites the limitation “the additive manufacturing process comprising, for each respectively layer of the material powder:” in lines 9-10.. “respectively” is not grammatically correct in this instance and also this does not create proper antecedent basis for “respective layer” in the claims. Therefore, claim 1 should be amended to recite “each respective layer” in line 10 to cure this grammatical issue and create antecedent basis for the later recitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-3, 7 and 10 all use the term longitudinal to describe the orientation of features in the claims. Also, claims 1, 2, and 5 also use the term transverse to describe the orientation of features in the claims. The specification defines longitudinal as parallel to the centerline of the supply container in lines 8-9 of page 6 of the specification and that transverse is defined as perpendicular to the longitudinal in line 26 on pg. 7 of the specification. These definitions will be used to interpret the claims below.
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.
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 1-15 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 has been amended to recite wherein “each longitudinal volume comprising a respective metallic powder that blends with respective metallic powder in an adjacent longitudinal volume;” and claim 3 has similarly been amended to recite “and removing the dividers from the supply container, such that the respective metallic powders in adjacent longitudinal volumes blend with each other.” Applicant points to page 9, lines 7-27 of the specification as support for this amendment. While this section notes the dividers prevent the different metallic powders from mixing during filling, this does not mean that the inverse (that mixing/blending occurs when the dividers are removed) occurs. The dividers allow the different powders to stay in position in their respective section while the respective sections are being filled (see Fig. 2). However, their removal will merely result in a block of powder remaining to be dispensed. The dividers are merely separating the powders and as they are solid materials, they will not mix when the dividers are removed. All other references to blend in the specification refer to either compositions of powder (blends) or the process of roller milling powder to achieve homogeneity in the blend. Therefore, the specification does not describe the claimed subject matter of “respective metallic powder that blends with respective metallic powder in an adjacent longitudinal volume” in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 2 and 4-15 are also rejected as they depend from claim 1 and do not solve the above issue.
Claims 1-15 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 limitation “a graded metallic structure” in lines 8-9. As there is already “a graded metallic structure” recited in the preamble, it is not clear if this is creating a separate graded metallic structure, whether this intends to refer back to the graded metallic structure recited in the preamble, or some other meaning. Claims 2-15 are also rejected as they depend from claim 1 and do not solve the above issue.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the drawing objections, it is agreed that applicant’s amendments to the specification to recite 124a and 124b instead of 124ab as well as 124b and 124c instead of 124bc cures the previous issue and the objection is withdrawn.
Also, applicant’s amendment to the abstract cures the previous issues concerning implied phraseology and therefore the objection is withdrawn.
With respect to the 112(b) rejection concerning whether the process is a layer-by-layer process, applicant’s amendments cure the previous issues and the rejection is withdrawn. However, see new 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above.
With respect to the 102 over claim 16 in view of Bao, it is agreed that the cancellation of claim 16 renders the rejection moot.
With respect to the 102 rejection over Sun, it is agreed with applicant’s arguments (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 13, last paragraph – pg. 14 first paragraph) that Sun does not disclose the removal of partition dividers nor does Sun disclose where each longitudinal volume comprising a respective metallic powder that blends with respective metallic powder in an adjacent longitudinal volume. As Sun discloses partition dividers and does not disclose where they are removed, it would not be possible for the respective metallic powders to blend. However, as applicant does not have support for this limitation, see 112(a) rejection above, the claims are not allowable.
Conclusion
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 Joshua S Carpenter whose telephone number is (571)272-2724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 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 on (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.
/JOSHUA S CARPENTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JOPHY S. KOSHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733