DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 11/25/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 4-14 remain pending in the application. Claim(s) 2-3 have been canceled. Applicant's amendments to the specification have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 8/25/2025. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the 112 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 8/25/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parenthesis. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
Claims 1 and 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al. (US 20190381564 A1), in view of Schalk et al. (US 20210197471 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 4-5, and 12, Barnes teaches that “disclosed herein are embodiments of methods, devices, and assemblies for recycling/reusing/reconditioning used powders” (which reads upon “a metal powder recycling system”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0061]). Barnes teaches that “the process starts with Ti raw material (step a, 205)” (which reads upon “comprising at least one chamber into which metal scraps are placed”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0057]; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the raw material must be contained in some manner). Barnes teaches “the feedstock materials disclosed herein pertain to scrap materials, dehydrogenated or non-hydrogenated feed material, and recycled used powder, the feedstocks which may require initial pre-processing” (which reads upon “at least one first transmission line enabling metal scraps to be transferred out of the chamber, at least one pretreatment unit into which the metal scraps are transferred through the first transmission line”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0032]; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that powders are moved from one container to another via a transmission line, as further detailed below). Barnes teaches that “following oxygen purging the, hydrogenation may begin” (which reads upon “which is configured to perform oxygen-removal, hydrogenation”, as recited in instant claims 1 and 4; paragraph [0055]). Barnes teaches that “the furnace is filled with hydrogen gas and heated up to a few days at high temperature to fully form the metal hydride, and that the brittle nature of the metal hydride allows the bulk material to be crushed into fine powders which are then screened into desired size distributions” (which reads upon “cooling, grinding and sieving processes for the metal scraps to create sieved metal powder, at least one mill, at least one sieve”, as recited in instant claims 1 and 4; paragraph [0055]). Barnes teaches that “before the powder can be removed from the furnace, it can be sufficiently cooled to maintain safety and limit contamination” (which reads upon “cooling” as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0056]). Barnes teaches that “the screen hydride powder is loaded into the vacuum furnace then heated under partial vacuum, promoting dissociation of hydrogen from the metal hydride to form H2 gas and dehydrided metal” (which reads upon “at least one gathering chamber into which the sieved metal powder is transferred from the pretreatment unit through the at least one second transmission line, at least one dehydrogenation chamber into which sieved metal powder is transferred from the gathering chamber to perform a dehydrogenation process therein”, as recited in the instant claim; which reads on “at least one vacuum unit” as in claim 4; paragraph [0056]). Barnes teaches “converting it into a feedstock for a microwave plasma process to form a final spheroidized powder, which can then be used in different processes, such as additive manufacturing processes” (which reads upon “at last one additive manufacturing device into which the sieved metal powder dehydrogenated for use in production is transferred through the at least one third transmission line”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0061]; AM machine is implied here and explicitly taught by Schalk below). Barnes teaches that “the process can run continuously and the drums are replaced as they fill up with spheroidized metal or metal alloy particles” (which reads upon “allowing a continuous presence of metal scraps in the at least one first transmission line in which metal scraps are transferred out of the chamber”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0105]). Barnes teaches that “cooling processing parameters include, but are not limited to, cooling gas flow rate, residence time of the spheroidized particles in the hot zone, and the composition or make of the cooling gas” (paragraph [0108]; controlling the flow rate of a material in a line is known).
Barnes is silent regarding at least one scrap chamber in which metal scraps are collected, a first chamber and a second chamber into which metal scrap is transferred. A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. See MPEP § 2164.01. It is well known to move powder from one vessel to another using conduits, valves, and sensors, controlled by controllers, see Schalk, below. Barnes is silent regarding the details of the transmission lines such as sensors, valves and controllers. Regarding the number of conduits, valves, sensors, and controllers claimed, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.04 VI B.
Schalk is similarly concerned with a 3D printer that may receive new material and also handle recycle material (which reads upon “at last one additive manufacturing device into which the [recycled metal powder] for use in production is transferred through the at least one third transmission line”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0011]). Schalk teaches that “a first conveying system of the 3D printer may facilitate transport of new material and recycle material as build material to, for example, a build enclosure such as a build chamber, build bucket, and the like” (which reads upon “at last one additive manufacturing device into which the [recycled powder] for use in production is transferred through the at least one third transmission line”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0010]). Schalk teaches that “recycle material within a 3D printer may be loaded into cartridges held internally in the printer” (which reads upon “at least one scrap chamber in which metal scraps are collected”, as recited in instant claim 5; paragraph [0011]). Schalk teaches that “also, the 3D printer may include multiple internal vessels to store fresh material received from the fresh material cartridge or recycle material received from either the recycle material cartridge or the build enclosure” (which reads upon “at least one chamber into which metal scraps are placed”, as recited in instant claim 1; which reads upon “a first chamber and a second chamber into which metal scrap is transferred”, as recited in instant claim 5; paragraph [0019]). Schalk teaches that “a second conveying system may facilitate recovery of excess build material or powder from the build platform and build enclosure” (which reads upon “at least one first transmission line”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0010]). Schalk teaches that “the conveying system may include a feed vessel or dispense vessel to provide the build material to a powder handling system” (paragraph [0031]; various intermediate vessels are encompassed by the conveying system). Schalk teaches that “the conveying systems 110 and 112 may each include a motive component to provide a motive force on conveying fluid to transport build material” (which reads upon claim 12; paragraph [0039]; “the motive component may be a venturi or a blower, or both”, a blower includes a motor). Schalk teaches that “the printer 400 conduits (e.g., piping, tubing, etc.), fittings, and valves associated with such flow of material and the first conveying system” (which reads upon “valves”, as recited in the instant claims; paragraph [0058]). Schalk teaches that “the alternate vessel 640 may discharge material 646 to the recycle material vessel 622 or recycle material cartridge in the recycle cartridge receiver 620 via a feeder 642 and a diverter valve 644, in some examples, the diverter valve 644 may be positioned to direct flow to either the recycle material vessel 622 or the recycle cartridge receiver” (paragraph [0083]; valves control flow between various vessels). Schalk teaches that “the vessels, conveying systems, and associated equipment may include instrumentation such as pressure sensors and temperature sensors, and so forth” (which reads upon “sensors”, as recited in the instant claims; paragraph [0089]). Schalk teaches that “the control system may provide for the specified ratio by directing the metering of the weight or volume of material dispensed from the new material vessel 518 and recycle material vessel 516” (paragraph [0072]; controller controls the weight or volume of material moving through the conveying systems). Schalk teaches that “the second conveying system 112 of the 3D printer 100A may include conduits or a manifold to receive excess build material from the build enclosure 104 and transport the recovered material to, for example, a reclaim vessel, indeed, a reclaim vessel may receive the excess build material from the second conveying system” (paragraph [0040]). Schalk teaches that “manual handling of build material may be reduced” (paragraph [0013]).
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 apparatus of Barnes to include sensors, valves, and controllers with the transmission lines, as taught by Schalk (assuming such sensors, valves, and controllers are not held to be present inherently) to automate powder circulation control and gas circulation control thereby reducing manual handling of build material.
Regarding limitations which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed apparatus, 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 6, modified Barnes teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as stated above. Barnes teaches that “the drums are replaced as they fill up with spheroidized metal or metal alloy particles” (paragraph [0105]). Regarding limitations which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed apparatus, 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 7, modified Barnes teaches the apparatus of claim 5 as stated above. Barnes teaches that “following oxygen purging the, hydrogenation may begin, and that the furnace is filled with hydrogen gas and heated up to a few days at high temperature to fully form the metal hydride” (paragraph [0055]). Cheng teaches that “the screening device is also connected to a waste barrel, and a switch valve is also provided between the screening device and the waste barrel” (paragraph [0018]). Addition of a second vacuum furnace to increase throughput, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.04 VI B.
Regarding claim 8, modified Barnes teaches the apparatus of claim 4 as stated above. Barnes teaches that “a hydride-dehydride (HDH) process can be used to resize large metallic or metallic alloy pieces down to a finer particle size distribution through crushing, milling, and screening” (paragraph [0053]). Barnes teaches that “the feedstock can be processed to meet certain criteria for size, gas content, purity contamination and chemistry by processing such as but not limited to grinding, milling, cleaning, washing, drying and screening” (paragraph [0101]). The selection of an appropriate mill is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 9, modified Barnes teaches the apparatus of claim 4 as stated above. Barnes teaches that “the feedstock can be processed to meet certain criteria for size, gas content, purity contamination and chemistry by processing such as but not limited to grinding, milling, cleaning, washing, drying and screening” (paragraph [0101]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Barnes teaches the apparatus of claim 4 as stated above. Barnes teaches that “the cooling rate or quenching rate of the particles can be increased by increasing the rate of flow of the cooling gas” (paragraph [0108]). Barnes teaches that “before the powder can be removed from the furnace, it can be sufficiently cooled to maintain safety and limit contamination” (paragraph [0056]). See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C, rearrangement of parts. Regarding limitations which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed apparatus, 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 11, modified Barnes teaches the apparatus of claim 4 as stated above. Barnes teaches that “the feedstock can be processed to meet certain criteria for size, gas content, purity contamination and chemistry by processing such as but not limited to grinding, milling, cleaning, washing, drying and screening” (paragraph [0101]). Cheng teaches that “the screening device screens out the incoming powder by providing mechanical vibration and ultrasonic vibration” (paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Barnes teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as stated above. The selection of an appropriate vacuum is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07. Cheng teaches that “the vacuum unit in this embodiment is composed of multiple pumps such as a molecular pump and a rotary vane pump” (paragraph [0078]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Barnes teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as stated above. Barnes teaches that “nickel or nickel alloys, steel or steel alloys, cobalt or cobalt alloys, and titanium or titanium alloys can be used in embodiments of the disclosure, and the particular material is not limiting” (paragraph [0102]). Regarding limitations which are directed to the material worked upon, 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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Examiner asserts that Barnes teaches "a metal powder recycling system," but Barnes in fact operates on entirely different principles (remarks, page 12). This is not found convincing because the term “a metal powder recycling system” is from claim 1. The Examiner mapped the relevant portion of the reference to the claim language by stating: Barnes teaches that “disclosed herein are embodiments of methods, devices, and assemblies for recycling/reusing/reconditioning used powders” (which reads upon “a metal powder recycling system”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0061]). The Examiner retains the position that devices and assemblies for recycling/reusing/reconditioning used powders reads on a metal powder recycling system.
Applicant argues that Barnes describes batch hydrogenation and dehydrogenation of titanium raw material or recycled powder within a furnace environment, rather than a multi-chamber system that continuously transfers metal scraps along independent transmission lines (remarks, page 12). This is not found convincing because making a batch process continuous has been held to be obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04 V E. In re Dilnot, 319 F.2d 188, 138 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1963) (Claim directed to a method of producing a cementitious structure wherein a stable air foam is introduced into a slurry of cementitious material differed from the prior art only in requiring the addition of the foam to be continuous. The court held the claimed continuous operation would have been obvious in light of the batch process of the prior art.).
Applicant argues that no component analogous to the claimed scrap- reception chamber and scrap-transfer line is present (remarks, page 12). Applicant argues that Barnes further fails to disclose a gathering chamber that buffers or stores the sieved metal powder before dehydrogenation (remarks, page 8). Applicant further argues that the claimed configuration requires a distinct gathering chamber that receives material from the pretreatment unit via a second transmission line, which is completely absent from Barnes (remarks, page 12). This is not found convincing because Schalk teaches these limitations as stated above.
Applicant argues that Barnes does not disclose any pretreatment unit that performs, in a single integrated structure, the sequential operations of oxygen removal, hydrogenation, cooling, grinding, and sieving as recited, and that although Barnes describes certain steps that can be performed in various furnace cycles, those disclosures relate to individual batch operations performed within furnace vessels, not to a dedicated pretreatment module that is fed by a transmission line and that outputs sieved metal powder into a downstream gathering chamber (remarks, page 8). This is not found convincing because the term module is interpreted to encompass the various vessels.
Applicant argues that Barnes is silent regarding any sensors, valves, or control units capable of regulating scrap flow and powder transfer in real time (remarks, page 13). Applicant argues that Cheng does not cure these deficiencies (remarks, page 13). Applicant further argues that Cheng does not process metal scraps at all and therefore cannot supply the required upstream structure or the transition between scrap processing and powder flow (remarks, page 13). This is not found convincing because Barnes teaches scrap metal processing and Cheng teaches sensors, valves, and control units. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 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. 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
Prosecution Insights