DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 03/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 4-8 remain pending in the application. Claims 2 and 3 have been canceled. No new claims have been added. Applicant's amendments to the drawings have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 10/31/2025. However, the amendments to the drawings introduce new matter. See Drawings section in this Office action. The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s remarks explaining the claimed powder delivery channel, spiral threads (“spiral threaded drive rod” in amended claim 1), drive assembly, and powder delivery system (remarks, page 9) locations in the drawings. Applicant's amendments have overcome the specification objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 10/31/2025. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 10/31/2025. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) and 112(d) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 10/31/2025.
Examiner’s Note
The instant claims recite the terms “powder”, “metal powder”, and “powdered metal” interchangeably. Claim 1 introduces “powdered metal” in the preamble and a “metal powder compartment” in line 3. The claim later recites “said powdered metal” in line 16. It is unclear whether the claimed “metal powder” is referring to the “powdered metal” delivered in the claimed device or to “metal powder” in the claimed “metal powder compartment”. Similarly, claim 5 recites “metal powders” in the preamble and later recites “said powdered metal” in line 19. It is recommended to maintain consistent terminology throughout the claims for clarity.
Drawings
The amended drawings were received on 03/10/2026. These drawings are unacceptable since Fig. 2 introduces new matter.
Fig. 2 adds a pair of electrodes with arrows signaling to a substrate and nozzle 15. The instant specification recites “device may include a pair of electrodes, a first of which is configured to provide a charge to the powder delivered from the powder delivery system, a second of which is configured to impart an opposite charge to a substrate” ([0016]). However, the instant specification does not provide any information as to the location of the pair of electrodes.
Fig. 2 also adds a liquid electroplating solution container and a substrate.
Regarding the container of Fig. 2, the instant specification recites “a liquid electroplating solution container located as to receive powder from the powder delivery system” ([0015]) and “a liquid electroplating solution contained in the liquid electroplating solution container” ([0016]). However, the instant specification does not recite the structure of the container shown in amended Fig. 2 including walls that extend past nozzle 15.
Regarding the substrate of Fig. 2, the instant specification recites “the inventors have discovered a solution to this problem with an innovative metal powder delivery system/device capable of delivering and releasing microscopic metal powder onto the substrate at a smooth and controlled rate and without clogging” ([0009]). However, the instant specification does not recite the claimed substrate is inside the claimed liquid electroplating solution container as shown in amended Fig. 2.
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Amended claims 1, 4, and 5 now contain the limitations “vertical rod”, “vertical rod rotation motor”, and “vertical rod reciprocation motor”. The instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “vertical rod”, “vertical rod rotation motor”, and “vertical rod reciprocation motor”. The term “vertical rod” does not appear anywhere in the instant specification. The Examiner acknowledges the amended specification recites “an elongated needle mixer (also referred to herein as “mixing needle”)” ([0029]), “needle rotation motor” ([0029]), and “needle reciprocating motor” ([0030]). It is recommended to use the term “mixing needle” in the instant claims because that term is more informative than “vertical rod” and is also consistent with the terminology used in the instant specification.
Amended claims 1 and 5 now contain the limitation “horizontal projections”. The instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “horizontal projections”. The term “horizontal projection does not appear in the instant specification. The instant specification recites “projections 21 or grooves in the shape of flanges, discs, plates, knobs, grooves or similar features” ([0029]). While Fig. 2 shows a projection that can be interpreted as “horizontal”, the instant specification does not recite a “horizontal projection”.
Amended claims 1 and 5 now contain the limitation “horizontal drive motor”. The instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “horizontal drive motor”. The instant specification recites “a first drive motor” ([0015]).
Amended claim 1 now contains the limitation “horizontal plates”. The instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “horizontal plates”. The term “horizontal plates” does not appear in the instant specification. The instant specification recites “projections 21 or grooves in the shape of flanges, discs, plates, knobs, grooves or similar features” ([0029]). While the instant specification recites projections in the shape of plates, the instant specification does not recite “horizontal plates”.
Amended claim 4 now contain the limitation “horizontal drive shaft”. The instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “horizontal drive shaft”. The instant specification recites the term “drive shaft” ([0014], [0029]), not “horizontal drive shaft”.
Amended claims 1 and 5 now contain the limitation “plurality of projections”. The instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “plurality of projections”. While Fig. 2 shows multiple horizontal lines that can be interpreted as a “plurality of projections”, the instant specification does not recite the term “plurality of projections”.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 1 and 5 recite the limitation “nozzle connected to a bottom end of tube” in lines 13 and 16 respectively. It is recommended to amend “tube” to “said tube” to clarify that “tube” is not referring to a different tube than the one introduced in line 12 of claim 1 and line 15 of claim 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5 contain the limitation “said vertical rod connected at a top end to a drive assembly that simultaneously drives said vertical rod rotationally and in a reciprocating up and down motion to convey said metal powder downward through said vertical segment.” The instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “said vertical rod connected at a top end to a drive assembly that simultaneously drives said vertical rod rotationally and in a reciprocating up and down motion to convey said metal powder downward through said vertical segment.” The instant specification does not recite a “vertical rod” and recites “the spiral threads dimensioned to convey the metal powder” ([0011]) which is not sufficient support for the claimed “said vertical rod […] to convey said metal powder downward through said vertical segment”.
Claims 4 and 6-8 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 1.
Claims 1 and 5 contain the limitation “said nozzle configured to be submerged in a liquid electroplating solution.” The instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “said nozzle configured to be submerged in a liquid electroplating solution.” The term “configured to” only appears in the instant specification with regards to a pair of electrodes ([0015]).
Claims 4 and 6-8 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 1.
Claims 1 and 5 contain the limitation “said vertical rod having a length sufficient to extend through said tube, out through a bottom of said nozzle and into said liquid electroplating solution.” The instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “said vertical rod having a length sufficient to extend through said tube, out through a bottom of said nozzle and into said liquid electroplating solution.” The instant specification does not recite a “vertical rod” nor the claimed length, out through a bottom of the nozzle and into the liquid electroplating solution.
Claims 4 and 6-8 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 1.
Claims 1 and 5 contain the limitation “said horizontal plates configured to push said powdered metal out through said bottom of said nozzle and into said liquid electroplating solution” and “said horizontal projections configured to push said powdered metal out through said bottom of said nozzle into said liquid electroplating solution” respectively. The instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “configured to push said powdered metal out through said bottom of said nozzle and into said liquid electroplating solution.” The term “configured to” only appears in the instant specification with regards to a pair of electrodes ([0015]).
Claims 4 and 6-8 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 1.
Claim 1 contains the limitation “said device further comprising a first electrode located at said nozzle where said powder is delivered from said device.” The instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “said device further comprising a first electrode located at said nozzle where said powder is delivered from said device.” The instant specification recites “device may include a pair of electrodes, a first of which is configured to provide a charge to the powder delivered from the powder delivery system, a second of which is configured to impart an opposite charge to a substrate” ([0016]). There is no information in the instant specification nor the originally filed drawings regarding the location of the claimed first electrode.
Claims 4 and 6-8 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 1.
Claim 6 contains the limitation “a second electrode which is configured to impart a negative charge to a substrate.” The instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “a second electrode which is configured to impart a negative charge to a substrate.” The instant specification recites “a second of which is configured to impart an opposite charge to a substrate” ([0016]). The term “opposite charge” is not synonymous with the claimed “negative charge”.
Claims 1 and 4-8 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 limitation “said metal powder” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim introduces “powdered metal” in the preamble and a “metal powder compartment” in line 3.
Claims 4 and 6-8 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 1.
Further regarding claim 1, the limitation “said metal powder” in line 11 renders the claim indefinite. The claim introduces “powdered metal” in the preamble and a “metal powder compartment” in line 3. The claim later recites “said powdered metal” in line 16. It is unclear whether the claimed “metal powder” is referring to the “powdered metal” delivered in the claimed device or to “metal powder” in the claimed “metal powder compartment”.
Claims 4 and 6-8 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said horizontal plates” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim introduces “horizontal projections” in line 9 and not “horizontal plates”.
Claims 4 and 6-8 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "horizontal plates" in line 15. This limitation renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what structure is encompassed by the limitation “horizontal plates”. The instant specification recites “projections 21 or grooves in the shape of flanges, discs, plates, knobs, grooves or similar features” ([0029]). If Applicant is intending to claim the projections are in the shape of plates, the claim as currently amended is indefinite. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “horizontal projections”, and the claim also recites “horizontal plates” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 4 and 6-8 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “said needle” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since the claim introduces a “vertical rod” and not a “needle”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 4-8 are free of the prior art. However, the instant claims have pending rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as well as objections, as set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The instant claims are to a device comprising, among other things, a vertical rod that moves rotationally and in a reciprocating motion, and a nozzle with an electrode configured to be submerged in liquid electroplating solution. The closest prior art is US 2022/0281005 A1 of Kandasamy as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 10/31/2025.
Kandasamy teaches a manufacturing machine using a variety of powdered metals, with the machine comprising feeders, feedstock, screw conveyor, rotor, tube, and nozzle, as previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 10/31/2025. However, Kandasamy does not teach an electroplating solution nor an electrode.
Another prior art of record is “A Low Cost Desktop Electrochemical Metal 3D Printer” of Chen, as previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 10/31/2025. Chen teaches an electrochemical 3D printer (Title) and is considered relevant to the instant application since it is similarly concerned with a device for 3D printing and the printer of Chen similarly comprises a vertical segment with a tube and needle, a reference electrode, counter electrode, anode, and cathode, and electroplating solution (see Figure 1, electrodes read on the claimed pair of electrodes). While Chen teaches a reference electrode, counter electrode, anode, and cathode, it does not teach the use of powder in its 3D printer, which is the material used in the machine of Kandasamy. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the apparatus of Chen with the powder delivery system of Kandasamy to deliver powdered metal to the electrochemical 3D printer of Chen since Chen teaches using an electrolyte solution for 3D printing and powdered metal would not be an obvious substitution for an electrolyte solution.
Another prior art of record is US 6059952 A of Kang, as previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 10/31/2025. Kang teaches a method of fabricating coated powder particles and that powder particles are placed in contact with a cathode surface and immersed in an electroplating solution and an anode placed in close proximity to the cathode to bias the anode and plate the powder particles with a metal coating (Title and Abstract). Kang teaches an apparatus used to electrolytically deposit thin metal or alloy coatings on fine copper powder using an anode and cathode (col. 4, lines 48-51, Fig. 4, copper powder reads on the claimed metal powder and Fig. 4 shows a compartment 7; the anode and cathode read on the claimed further comprising a pair of electrodes). Kang is considered relevant since the apparatus of Kang includes powdered metal and a pair of electrodes. However, Kang does not teach an apparatus including a vertical rod, motors, and drive rods. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kandasamy with the electroplating solution and electrodes of Kang.
Kandasamy, Chen, and Kang, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest said nozzle configured to be submerged in a liquid electroplating solution, said vertical rod having a length sufficient to extend through said tube, out through a bottom of said nozzle and into said liquid electroplating solution of claim 1 and said device further comprising a first electrode located at said nozzle where said powder is delivered from said device of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 03/10/2026, with respect to claims 1-5 and 7-8 (referring to amended claims 1, 4, and 7-8 since claims 2-3 are cancelled) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1 and 4-8 has been withdrawn. The Examiner agrees that Kandasamy fails to disclose or suggest the additional features of the amended claims.
See Allowable Subject Matter section above.
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 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 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
Prosecution Insights