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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-3 and 6 in the reply filed on 01/26/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 4-5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 are pending. Claims 1-3 and 6 are presented for this examination. Claims 4-5 are withdrawn.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 08/28/2023, 11/26/2023, 07/11/2025, 09/16/2025, 11/17/2025 and 01/12/2026 and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stoll (NPL document “SLM Processing of 14 Ni (200 Grade) Maraging Steel” published in 2016).
As for claims 1-3 and 6, Stoll discloses a 14 Ni maraging steel powder for SLM processing, which reads on instant claim 1 required metal powder for additive manufacturing. (Title and Table 1)
Table 1 below illustrates the steel powder has elemental compositions all within presently claimed ranges.
Table 1
Element
Applicant
(weight %)
Stoll et al.
(weight %)
Table 1
Within
(weight %)
Ni
14-24
14.5
14.5
Mo
2-8
4.37
4.37
Co
10.5-20
10.98
10.98
Al
0.01-2
0.056
0.056
Ti
0.1-3
0.24
0.24
N (Claim 2)
<=0.03
0
0
O (Claim 3)
<=0.04
0
0
O (Claim 6)
<=0.04
0
0
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzawa (US20200399747A1).
As for claims 1-3 and 6, Fukuzawa discloses a laminated shaped article made of a maraging steel powder. [0064] Hence, instant claim 1 required metal powder for additive manufacturing is met. The maraging steel powder comprising overlapping compositions as illustrated in Table 2 below.
Table 2
Element
Applicant
(weight %)
Fukuzawa et al.
(weight %)
[0034]
Overlap
(weight %)
Ni
14-24
14-22
14-22
Mo
2-8
0.1-15
2-8
Co
10.5-20
0-20
10.5-20
Al
0.01-2
<=3
0.01-2
Ti
0.1-3
0.1-5
0.1-3
N (Claim 2)
<=0.03
0
0
O (Claim 3)
<=0.04
0
0
O (Claim 6)
<=0.04
0
0
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Hence, based on the teaching of Fukuzawa, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, to select the amount of each element within the ranges disclosed by Fukuzawa in order to arrive at steel powder of claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN110280764A).
As for claims 1-3 and 6, Yang discloses maraging steel powder based on selective laser melting. Hence, instant claim 1 required metal powder for additive manufacturing is met. The maraging steel powder comprising overlapping compositions as illustrated in Table 3 below.
Table 3
Element
Applicant
(weight %)
Yang et al.
(weight %)
Claim 2
Overlap
(weight %)
Ni
14-24
18.2-20
18.2-20
Mo
2-8
4-9
4-8
Co
10.5-20
10-13
10.5-13
Al
0.01-2
0.1-0.3
0.1-0.3
Ti
0.1-3
0.5-1
0.5-1
N (Claim 2)
<=0.03
0
0
O (Claim 3)
<=0.04
0
0
O (Claim 6)
<=0.04
0
0
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Hence, based on the teaching of Yang, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, to select the amount of each element within the ranges disclosed by Yang in order to arrive at steel powder of claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNY R WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5515. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM-5:00 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 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.
/JENNY R WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733