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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 6/15/23, 10/6/23, and 1/11/24 have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/4/25.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11623278 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 11623278 B2 claim 1 recites an expeditionary additive manufacturing (ExAM) system for manufacturing metal parts comprising a mobile foundry system configured to produce an alloy powder from a feedstock, the mobile foundry system comprising (a system for producing rare earth magnets from a metal powder comprising) a cold hearth mixing system for melting the feedstock (a melting cold hearth atomization system for producing the metal powder from a scrap material, the melting cold hearth atomization system comprising a melting cold hearth system for melting the scrap material into a molten metal) and a gas atomization system for forming the alloy powder (and an atomizer for spheroidizing the molten metal into powder particles forming the metal powder); an additive manufacturing system configured to fabricate a part using the alloy powder (and an additive manufacturing system for building the rare earth magnets using the metal powder and an additive manufacturing process), the additive manufacturing system comprising a computer system having a plurality of computer programs configured to access parts data including material specifications, drawings, process specifications, assembly instructions and product verification requirements on a top 100 field requested parts; and a machining system controllable by the computer system and configured to machine the part using the parts data.
Regarding limitations which are directed to the composition of the metal worked upon (rare earth), it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11235389 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 11235389 B2 claim 1 recites a deployable manufacturing center (DMC) system for manufacturing metal parts comprising (a system for producing rare earth magnets from a metal powder comprising:) a foundry module configured to store a feedstock, to remove contaminants from the feedstock, to melt the feedstock to form a molten metal, and to atomize the molten metal into an alloy powder, the foundry module comprising a metallurgical system and a first container configured to contain the metallurgical system, the metallurgical system comprising a plasma torch configured to heat the feedstock into the molten metal, a mixing cold hearth configured to mix the molten metal into a uniform composition (a melting cold hearth atomization system for producing the metal powder from a scrap material, the melting cold hearth atomization system comprising a melting cold hearth system for melting the scrap material into a molten metal) and an atomization system configured to atomize the molten metal into the alloy powder (and an atomizer for spheroidizing the molten metal into powder particles forming the metal powder); an additive manufacturing (AM) module configured to form the alloy powder from the foundry module into rough metal parts (and an additive manufacturing system for building the rare earth magnets using the metal powder and an additive manufacturing process), the additive manufacturing (AM) module comprising an additive manufacturing system and a second container configured to contain the additive manufacturing system, the additive manufacturing (AM) system comprising a system selected from the group consisting of 3-D printer systems, direct energy deposition systems, powder bed fusion systems and cold spray systems; a machining module configured to machine the rough metal parts formed by the additive manufacturing (AM) module into the metal parts, the machining module comprising a machining system and a third container configured to contain the machining system; and a quality conformance (QC) module configured to inspect and evaluate the metal parts, the quality conformance module (QC) module comprising an inspection and evaluation system and a fourth container configured to contain the inspection and evaluation system; the first container, the second container, the third container and the fourth container configured for deployment to a desired location for manufacturing the metal parts at the desired location .
Regarding limitations which are directed to the composition of the metal worked upon (rare earth), it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation " a magnetic build plate configured to build the rare earth magnets with a selected geometrical shape". It is unclear if with a selected geometrical shape modifies the rare earth magnets or the magnetic build plate. Claims 9-16 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 8.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 13 depends from claim 8. Claim 13 recites “wherein the atomization system is selected from the group consisting of atomization die atomizers, and electrode inert gas atomization (EIGA) atomizers”. Claim 8 recites “an atomizer comprising an atomization tower in flow communication with the reactor configured to operate at the vacuum pressure and an atomizing die in the atomization tower having inert gas jets for spheroidizing the molten metal into powder particles.” Accordingly claim 8 requires an atomization die. Claim 13 fails to further limit the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by La Tour et al. (US 20200086390 A1).
Regarding claim 1, La Tour teaches “a deployable manufacturing center (DMC) system includes an array of modules containing equipment configured to convert a raw material, such as recycled metal, into an alloy powder, and then to build metal parts from the alloy powder using an additive manufacturing (AM) process” (which reads upon “a system for producing rare earth magnets from a metal powder comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0005]; for producing rare earth magnetics is interpreted as intended use). La Tour teaches that “the mixing cold hearth 30 can include fluid cooled walls, a melting cavity configured to hold the molten metal 44, and an induction coil configured to generate an electromagnetic field for stirring and heating the molten metal” (which reads upon “a melting cold hearth atomization system for producing the metal powder from a scrap material, the melting cold hearth atomization system comprising a melting cold hearth system for melting the scrap material into a molten metal”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0031]). La Tour teaches that “the foundry module 12 performs the steps of melting and atomization of scrap into alloy powder” (which reads upon “from a scrap material”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0045]). La Tour teaches that “following processing in the mixing cold hearth 30 the atomization process can be performed using the gas atomization system 32 to form the alloy powder 48” (which reads upon “and an atomizer”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0033]). La Tour teaches that “the stream of turbulent high-velocity gas disintegrates the molten stream and produces spherical metal particles that are cooled rapidly in flight as they travel through an atomization chamber” (which reads upon “for spheroidizing the molten metal into powder particles forming the metal powder”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0033]). La Tour teaches that “the additive manufacturing module 14 includes a 3D printer 50 configured to perform the additive manufacturing process using the alloy powder” (which reads upon “an additive manufacturing system for building the rare earth magnets using the metal powder and an additive manufacturing process”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0036]; for building the rare earth magnets is interpreted as intended use).
Additionally, or alternatively, regarding limitations which are directed to the composition of the metal worked upon (rare earth), it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 2, La Tour teaches the system of claim 1 as stated above. La Tour teaches that “the foundry module 12 performs the steps of melting and atomization of scrap into alloy powder” (paragraph [0045]). Regarding limitations which are directed to the composition of the metal worked upon (rare earth), it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 3, La Tour teaches the system of claim 1 as stated above. La Tour teaches that “one exemplary additive manufacturing process comprises 3D printing performed with a laser or electron-beam system, and that other exemplary additive manufacturing processes include direct energy deposition, powder bed fusion and cold spray” (paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 5, La Tour teaches the system of claim 1 as stated above. La Tour teaches that “the deployable manufacturing center (DMC) system 10 includes four modules 12, 14, 16, 18” (paragraph [0014]). La Tour teaches that “Each module 12, 14, 16, 18 comprises a container 20 sized to contain the necessary equipment” (paragraph [0015]). La Tour teaches that “each container 20 can comprise a standard sized metal shipping container that can be easily transported by truck, rail or ship” (paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claim 7, La Tour teaches the system of claim 1 as stated above. La Tour teaches that “the foundry module 12 performs the steps of melting and atomization of scrap into alloy powder, which can be sieved and analyzed” (paragraph [0045]). La Tour teaches that “the foundry module 12 includes a scrap collection container 24, an XRF analysis instrument 26, a saw 28, a mixing cold hearth 30, a gas atomization system 32, a cyclone 34 and a SEM analysis apparatus 36” (paragraph [0023]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over La Tour et al. (US 20200086390 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 20220097173 A1).
Regarding claim 4, La Tour teaches the system of claim 1 as stated above.
La Tour is silent regarding wherein the additive manufacturing system comprises a magnetized build plate.
Wang is similarly concerned with additive manufacturing (paragraph [0001]). Wang teaches that “one of the challenges in additive manufacturing processes that use technologies such as directed energy deposition or powder bed fusion is controlling porosity” (paragraph [0002]). Wang teaches that “powder bed fusion creates a product by depositing a layer of material and melting and fusing the deposited material particles, as particles are exposed to the presence of the applied energy beam, their movement may be influenced by a number of factors” (paragraph [0002]). Wang teaches that “influencing factors such as gas flow may cause particles to move in ways that concentrate more in some areas of the product and leave voids in other areas of the product, and that the precise control of deposited particles is challenging” (paragraph [0002]). Wang teaches that “systems and methods to control deposited materials using magnetic fields as described herein may be used for magnetic assisted additive manufacturing processes and other applications” (paragraph [0034]). Wang teaches that “the build platform is selectively magnetized by the magnetic field delivery system 106 supplies a magnetic field via the permanent magnet set 122 and/or the electromagnet set 124” (which reads upon “wherein the additive manufacturing system comprises a magnetized build plate”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0040]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the build substrate/plate of La Tour to be selectively magnetized, as taught by Wang to allow for the precise control of deposited particles.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over La Tour et al. (US 20200086390 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zakotnik et al. (US 20140369881 A1).
Regarding claim 6, La Tour teaches the system of claim 1 as stated above. La Tour teaches that “the foundry module 12 performs the steps of melting and atomization of scrap into alloy powder” (paragraph [0045]). La Tour teaches that “a plasma torch can then be used to direct plasma gas and generate an electric arc, heating the feedstock 38 to the desired temperature and melting into the molten metal 44” (paragraph [0030]).
La Tour is silent regarding a demagnetizer system for demagnetizing the scrap material.
Zakotnik is similarly concerned with the manufacture of a Neodymium-Iron-Boron (Nd—Fe—B) sintered magnet from waste magnetic material (paragraph [0001]; waste reads on scrap). Zakotnik teaches that “one innovative aspect of the subject matter described in this specification can be embodied in methods that include the actions of demagnetizing magnetic material from a waste magnet assembly by cyclic heating and cooling of the magnetic material” (which reads upon “a demagnetizer system for demagnetizing the scrap material”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0005]). Zakotnik teaches that “a recycling process has low energy consumption and low virgin material consumption” (paragraph [0028]). Zakotnik teaches that “recycling Nd—Fe—B magnets may reduce economic and/or environmental costs, without diminishing the magnetic performance and deliverable value of a final product, a fully dense Nd—Fe—B sintered magnet” (paragraph [0028]). Zakotnik teaches that “a recycled Nd—Fe—B magnet product may have a performance similar to or better than virgin Nd—Fe—B magnets” (paragraph [0028]). Zakotnik teaches that “a recycled Nd—Fe—B magnet product may include as much as 99.9% of the waste starting magnetic material used to create the recycled magnet” (paragraph [0028]). Zakotnik teaches “manufacturing fully dense Nd—Fe—B sintered magnet using waste magnets, e.g., bulk magnetic material and/or end-of-life (EOL) magnets” (paragraph [0043]). Zakotnik teaches “harvesting the magnetic material from one or more magnet assemblies by separating a waste magnet part from a non-magnet part included in the magnet assemblies, and extracting the waste magnet part from the non-magnet part” (paragraph [0007]). Zakotnik teaches that “the harvested magnetic assemblies are loaded into a furnace and exposed to a cyclic heating process. In such a process, the material may be heated above the Curie temperature, for example at 600° C., of the Nd—Fe—B sintered magnet, e.g., the point where the magnetic flux is reduced to zero, in order to demagnetize the magnet and weaken or burn any adhesive attached to the magnets or parts thereof” (which reads upon “a demagnetizer system for demagnetizing the scrap material”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0048]). Zakotnik teaches that “demagnetization of the magnets may be ensured by heating at least to the Curie temperature, e.g., 320° C., of the magnetic material without an applied field” (paragraph [0084]). Zakotnik teaches that “the Curie temperature may be between 310° C. to 900° C. depending on the composition of the magnetic material” (paragraph [0085]). Zakotnik teaches “a furnace 40 which processes magnets or magnetic assemblies for demagnetization” (paragraph [0082]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of La Tour to add a furnace for demagnetizing, as taught by Zakotnik to allow the system of La Tour to be applied to magnetized scrap materials, such as Nd—Fe—B magnets, thus allowing for recycling of magnetic materials, reducing the environmental impact of sourcing virgin magnetic materials, while producing magnets with a performance similar to or better than virgin magnets.
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over La Tour et al. (US 20200086390 A1) and Eonta et al. (US 20160052060 A1), PG Pub for U.S. Pat. No. 9,925,591 B2, in view of Wang et al. (US 20220097173 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 13, for the purposes of applying prior art, with a selected geometric shape will be interpreted as modifying the rare earth magnets. La Tour teaches that “U.S. Pat. No. 9,925,591 B2 entitled “Mixing Cold Hearth Metallurgical System and Process For Producing Metals and Metal Alloys”, which is incorporated herein by reference, describes some of the foundry equipment that can be used in the foundry module 12” (paragraph [0016]; U.S. Pat. No. 9,925,591 B2 is “Eonta”, paragraph numbers from the ‘060 pub will be used herein). La Tour teaches “a deployable manufacturing center (DMC) system includes an array of modules containing equipment configured to convert a raw material, such as recycled metal, into an alloy powder, and then to build metal parts from the alloy powder using an additive manufacturing (AM) process” (which reads upon “a system for producing rare earth magnets from a metal powder comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0005]; for producing rare earth magnetics is interpreted as intended use). La Tour teaches that “the mixing cold hearth 30 can include fluid cooled walls, a melting cavity configured to hold the molten metal 44, and an induction coil configured to generate an electromagnetic field for stirring and heating the molten metal” (which reads upon “a melting cold hearth atomization system for producing the metal powder from a scrap material, the melting cold hearth atomization system comprising a melting cold hearth system in the reactor for melting the scrap material into a molten metal, the melting cold hearth system comprising a melting hearth”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0031]). Eonta teaches “a metallurgical system for producing metals and metal alloys includes a mixing cold hearth having fluid cooled walls and a melting cavity configured to hold a raw material for melting into a molten metal, and an induction coil configured to generate an electromagnetic field for stirring and heating the raw material into the molten metal” (paragraph [0006]). Eonta teaches that “the metallurgical system 10 includes a sealed chamber 12, a mixing cold hearth 14 having a mechanical drive 16, a heat source 18, and a heat removal system 20” (paragraph [0029]). Eonta teaches that “the sealed chamber 12 can have a selected positive pressure or can be in flow communication with a vacuum pump to provide a selected vacuum pressure” (which reads upon “a reactor configured to operate at a vacuum pressure”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0030]). La Tour teaches that “plasma torch can then be used to direct plasma gas and generate an electric arc, heating the feedstock 38 to the desired temperature and melting into the molten metal 44” (which reads upon “a plasma torch system for heating the scrap material”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0030]). Eonta teaches that “a raw material 44 can be fed into the mixing cold hearth 14 continuously, semi-continuously, or in batches” (which reads upon “a feeder system for feeding the scrap material into the melting hearth without breaking the vacuum pressure”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0031]; sealed vessel reads on without breaking the vacuum pressure). Eonta teaches that “the heat source generates a plasma arc between the electrode of a plasma torch and the work piece, which can be the mixing cold hearth 14, the atomization system 22 (FIG. 1), or the raw material 44 (FIG. 1) contained in the mixing cold hearth 14” (paragraph [0037]). Eonta teaches that “a reaction between the raw material 44 (FIG. 1) and the plasma gas can also be accomplished by using a reactive plasma gas such as oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, or another gas” (which reads upon “reactor”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0037]; reactions can occur during heating with plasma). La Tour teaches that “following processing in the mixing cold hearth 30 the atomization process can be performed using the gas atomization system 32 to form the alloy powder 48” (which reads upon “the melting cold hearth atomization system comprising an atomizer comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0033]). Eonta teaches that “the atomization system 22 also includes an atomization tower 104 for cooling the particles 102 and a collection chamber 106 for collecting the particles 102” (which reads upon “an atomization tower in flow communication with the reactor configured to operate at the vacuum pressure”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0046]). Eonta teaches that “the atomization system includes an electrically conductive atomization die” (which reads upon “and an atomizing die in the atomization tower”, as recited in the instant claim; which reads on claim 13 paragraph [0009]). Eonta teaches that “the gas nozzles 96 are in flow communication with the inert gas supply 28 (FIG. 1) or a separate inert gas supply (not shown), and are configured to supply high pressure inert gas to the gas nozzles 96 forming turbulent jets and causing disintegration of the molten stream 100 (FIG. 4A) into particles (FIG. 4A) to form a metal powder” (which reads upon “having inert gas jets for spheroidizing the molten metal into powder particles”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0042]). La Tour teaches that “the stream of turbulent high-velocity gas disintegrates the molten stream and produces spherical metal particles that are cooled rapidly in flight as they travel through an atomization chamber” (which reads upon “for spheroidizing the molten metal into powder particles”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0033]). Eonta teaches that “the atomization system 22 also includes an atomization tower 104 for cooling the particles 102 and a collection chamber 106 for collecting the particles 102” (which reads upon “and a collection vessel configured to collect the metal powder without breaking the vacuum pressure”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0046]). La Tour teaches that “the additive manufacturing module 14 includes a 3D printer 50 configured to perform the additive manufacturing process using the alloy powder” (which reads upon “an additive manufacturing system for building the rare earth magnets using the metal powder and an additive manufacturing process configured to build the rare earth magnets with a selected geometrical shape”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0036]; for building the rare earth magnets and configured to build the rare earth magnets with a selected geometrical shape are interpreted as intended use).
Additionally, or alternatively, regarding limitations which are directed to the composition of the metal worked upon (rare earth) and the shape of the magnets built, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
La Tour is silent regarding the additive manufacturing system comprising a magnetic build plate.
Wang is similarly concerned with additive manufacturing (paragraph [0001]). Wang teaches that “one of the challenges in additive manufacturing processes that use technologies such as directed energy deposition or powder bed fusion is controlling porosity” (paragraph [0002]). Wang teaches that “powder bed fusion creates a product by depositing a layer of material and melting and fusing the deposited material particles, as particles are exposed to the presence of the applied energy beam, their movement may be influenced by a number of factors” (paragraph [0002]). Wang teaches that “influencing factors such as gas flow may cause particles to move in ways that concentrate more in some areas of the product and leave voids in other areas of the product, and that the precise control of deposited particles is challenging” (paragraph [0002]). Wang teaches that “systems and methods to control deposited materials using magnetic fields as described herein may be used for magnetic assisted additive manufacturing processes and other applications” (paragraph [0034]). Wang teaches that “the build platform is selectively magnetized by the magnetic field delivery system 106 supplies a magnetic field via the permanent magnet set 122 and/or the electromagnet set 124” (which reads upon “wherein the additive manufacturing system comprises a magnetized build plate”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0040]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the build substrate/plate of La Tour to be selectively magnetized, as taught by Wang to allow for the precise control of deposited particles.
Regarding claim 9, modified La Tour teaches the system of claim 8 as stated above. La Tour teaches that “the deployable manufacturing center (DMC) system 10 includes four modules 12, 14, 16, 18” (paragraph [0014]). La Tour teaches that “Each module 12, 14, 16, 18 comprises a container 20 sized to contain the necessary equipment” (paragraph [0015]). La Tour teaches that “each container 20 can comprise a standard sized metal shipping container that can be easily transported by truck, rail or ship” (paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claim 11, modified La Tour teaches the system of claim 8 as stated above. Regarding limitations which are directed to the shape of the article produced by the system, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 12, modified La Tour teaches the system of claim 8 as stated above. Eonta teaches that “raw material 44 can be fed into the mixing cold hearth 14 continuously, semi-continuously, or in batches” (paragraph [0031]). Eonta FIG. 1 shows that raw material 44 is particulate.
Regarding claim 14, modified La Tour teaches the system of claim 8 as stated above. Wang teaches that “the magnetic field controlled material deposition system 200 also includes the material deposition system 104, an energy delivery system 102 of the laser type, the build platform 108, and the gas delivery system 110 for delivery of an inert gas to the build chamber” (paragraph [0045]). Wang FIG. 1 shows magnetized build area 108 supported by plates 131-137.
Regarding claim 15, La Tour teaches the system of claim 8 as stated above. La Tour teaches that “the foundry module 12 performs the steps of melting and atomization of scrap into alloy powder, which can be sieved and analyzed” (paragraph [0045]). La Tour teaches that “the foundry module 12 includes a scrap collection container 24, an XRF analysis instrument 26, a saw 28, a mixing cold hearth 30, a gas atomization system 32, a cyclone 34 and a SEM analysis apparatus 36” (paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 16, modified La Tour teaches the system of claim 8 as stated above. Eonta teaches that “tubular passages within the atomization tower 104 emit a cone of inert gas behind the collection funnels, and that the inert gas inlet is directed towards the oncoming particles 102, causing the smaller particles to travel more slowly than larger particles 102” (paragraph [0046]). Eonta teaches that “this enables the horizontal atomization tower 104 to produce powders that are separated based on particle size” (paragraph [0046]). Eonta teaches that “the variables that can be changed include the following: the velocity of the gas jet fluid, the pressure of the gas jet fluid, the velocity of the molten metal, the type of fluid used, the temperature of the fluid used, the temperature of the molten stream (superheat), the turbulence of the fluid, the pressure of the collection chamber, the turbulence of the collection chamber” (paragraph [0047]; collection chamber, and it’s inputs and outputs must be sealed / mated in order to control the pressure of the collection chamber).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tour et al. (US 20200086390 A1), Eonta et al. (US 20160052060 A1), PG Pub for U.S. Pat. No. 9,925,591 B2, and Wang et al. (US 20220097173 A1), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Zakotnik et al. (US 20140369881 A1).
Regarding claim 10, La Tour teaches the system of claim 8 as stated above. La Tour teaches that “the foundry module 12 performs the steps of melting and atomization of scrap into alloy powder” (paragraph [0045]). La Tour teaches that “a plasma torch can then be used to direct plasma gas and generate an electric arc, heating the feedstock 38 to the desired temperature and melting into the molten metal 44” (paragraph [0030]).
La Tour is silent regarding a demagnetizer system for demagnetizing the scrap material.
Zakotnik is similarly concerned with the manufacture of a Neodymium-Iron-Boron (Nd—Fe—B) sintered magnet from waste magnetic material (paragraph [0001]; waste reads on scrap). Zakotnik teaches that “one innovative aspect of the subject matter described in this specification can be embodied in methods that include the actions of demagnetizing magnetic material from a waste magnet assembly by cyclic heating and cooling of the magnetic material” (which reads upon “a demagnetizer system for demagnetizing the scrap material”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0005]). Zakotnik teaches that “a recycling process has low energy consumption and low virgin material consumption” (paragraph [0028]). Zakotnik teaches that “recycling Nd—Fe—B magnets may reduce economic and/or environmental costs, without diminishing the magnetic performance and deliverable value of a final product, a fully dense Nd—Fe—B sintered magnet” (paragraph [0028]). Zakotnik teaches that “a recycled Nd—Fe—B magnet product may have a performance similar to or better than virgin Nd—Fe—B magnets” (paragraph [0028]). Zakotnik teaches that “a recycled Nd—Fe—B magnet product may include as much as 99.9% of the waste starting magnetic material used to create the recycled magnet” (paragraph [0028]). Zakotnik teaches “manufacturing fully dense Nd—Fe—B sintered magnet using waste magnets, e.g., bulk magnetic material and/or end-of-life (EOL) magnets” (paragraph [0043]). Zakotnik teaches “harvesting the magnetic material from one or more magnet assemblies by separating a waste magnet part from a non-magnet part included in the magnet assemblies, and extracting the waste magnet part from the non-magnet part” (paragraph [0007]). Zakotnik teaches that “the harvested magnetic assemblies are loaded into a furnace and exposed to a cyclic heating process. In such a process, the material may be heated above the Curie temperature, for example at 600° C., of the Nd—Fe—B sintered magnet, e.g., the point where the magnetic flux is reduced to zero, in order to demagnetize the magnet and weaken or burn any adhesive attached to the magnets or parts thereof” (which reads upon “a demagnetizer system for demagnetizing the scrap material”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0048]). Zakotnik teaches that “demagnetization of the magnets may be ensured by heating at least to the Curie temperature, e.g., 320° C., of the magnetic material without an applied field” (paragraph [0084]). Zakotnik teaches that “the Curie temperature may be between 310° C. to 900° C. depending on the composition of the magnetic material” (paragraph [0085]). Zakotnik teaches “a furnace 40 which processes magnets or magnetic assemblies for demagnetization” (paragraph [0082]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of La Tour to add a furnace for demagetization, as taught by Zakotnik to allow the system of La Tour to be applied to magnetized scrap materials, such as Nd—Fe—B magnets, thus allowing for recycling of magnetic materials, reducing the environmental impact of sourcing virgin magnetic materials, while producing magnets with a performance similar to or better than virgin magnets.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q1: 1/5-1/9/26; Q2: 3/30-4/3/26; Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733