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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/19/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-5 are pending. Claim 1 is amended and presented for this examination. Claims 4-5 are withdrawn. Claims 2-3 and 6 are cancelled.
Status of Previous Rejection
All prior art rejections are withdrawn in view of amendment filed on 08/19/2026.
Four new grounds of art rejection are rendered as follows.
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.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN107287522A) in view of APA (Applicant’s admitted prior art).
As for claim 1, Li discloses a C350(18Ni maraging steel) [0042] having overlapping compositions as illustrated in Table 2 below.
Table 2
Element
Applicant
(weight %)
Li et al.
(weight %)
[0032]
Overlap
(weight %)
Ni
17-24
17.5-18.5
17.5-18.5
Mo
3-8
4-5
4-5
Co
11.5-13
11.5-12.5
11.5-12.5
Al
0.01-2
0.1-0.16
0.1-0.16
Ti
0.1-3
1.25-1.5
1.25-1.5
O
0.005-0.04
<=0.0015
0.0015 is close to 0.005
N
0.001-0.03
<=0.0015
0.001-0.015
C
<=0.1
<=0.005
<=0.005
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.
Li does not explicitly disclose the steel is in powder form.
Applicant’s admitted prior art [0002] discloses it is possible to manufacture a metal product having a complicated shape and a long durable life by additive manufacturing using maraging steel as a metal material. The additive manufacturing method would require the maraging steel in a metal powder form to be melted by laser irradiation and solidified layer by layer.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, to select the amount of each element within the ranges disclosed by Li in a metal powder form for the benefit of additive manufacturing a metal product having a complicated shape and a long durable life because applicant admitted prior art teaches additive manufacturing method would require the maraging steel in a metal powder form to be melted by laser irradiation and solidified layer by layer.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohishi (VN10013270B) in view of APA (Applicant’s admitted prior art).
As for claim 1, Ohishi discloses a maraging steel having overlapping compositions as illustrated in Table 3 below.
Table 3
Element
Applicant
(weight %)
Ohishi et al.
(weight %)
Claim 1
Overlap
(weight %)
Ni
17-24
8-22
17-22
Mo
3-8
2-10
3-8
Co
11.5-13
2-20
11.5-13
Al
0.01-2
<=0.1
0.01-0.1
Ti
0.1-3
<0.1
0.1
O
0.005-0.04
<=0.005
0.005
N
0.001-0.03
<=0.03
0.001-0.03
C
<=0.1
<=0.01
<=0.01
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.
Ohishi does not explicitly disclose the steel is in powder form.
Applicant’s admitted prior art [0002] discloses it is possible to manufacture a metal product having a complicated shape and a long durable life by additive manufacturing using maraging steel as a metal material. The additive manufacturing method would require the maraging steel in a metal powder form to be melted by laser irradiation and solidified layer by layer.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, to select the amount of each element within the ranges disclosed by Ohishi in a metal powder form for the benefit of additive manufacturing a metal product having a complicated shape and a long durable life because applicant admitted prior art teaches additive manufacturing method would require the maraging steel in a metal powder form to be melted by laser irradiation and solidified layer by layer.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishima (US20040093983) in view of APA (Applicant’s admitted prior art).
As for claim 1, instant claimed “for additive manufacturing” is intended use and preamble according to MPEP 2111.02 II.
Because the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than a claim limitation, no patentable weight would be given. See MPEP 2111.02 II or if a Prior Art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim.
Mishima discloses a maraging steel comprising overlapping compositions as illustrated in Table 1 below.
Table 1
Element
Applicant
(weight %)
Mishima et al.
(weight %)
Claim 6
Overlap
(weight %)
Ni
17-24
8-22
17-22
Mo
3-8
2-9
3-8
Co
11.5-13
5-20
11.5-13
Al
0.01-2
<=1.7
0.01-1.7
Ti
0.1-3
<=2
0.1-2
O
0.005-0.04
<0.01
0.005-0.01
N
0.001-0.03
<0.0015
0.001-0.0015
C
<=0.1
<=0.01
<=0.01
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.
Mishima does not explicitly disclose the steel is in powder form.
Applicant’s admitted prior art [0002] discloses it is possible to manufacture a metal product having a complicated shape and a long durable life by additive manufacturing using maraging steel as a metal material. The additive manufacturing method would require the maraging steel in a metal powder form to be melted by laser irradiation and solidified layer by layer.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, to select the amount of each element within the ranges disclosed by Mishima in a metal powder form for the benefit of additive manufacturing a metal product having a complicated shape and a long durable life because applicant admitted prior art teaches additive manufacturing method would require the maraging steel in a metal powder form to be melted by laser irradiation and solidified layer by layer.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishima (US20040093983) in view of Yang (CN110280764A)
As for claim 1, Mishima discloses a maraging steel as indicated in rejection over Chen in view of APA above.
Chen does not explicitly disclose the steel is in powder form.
Yang discloses maraging steel in powder form can be additive manufactured by SLM to make SLM molded part with improved mechanical strength and toughness. (Abstract)
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, to select the amount of each element within the ranges disclosed by Mishima in a metal powder form as suggested by Yang for the benefit of additive manufacturing a metal product having improved mechanical strength and toughness because Yang teaches additive manufacturing maraging steel in powder form is well known in the art.
Response to Argument
In response to applicant’s argument filed on 08/19/2026 that none of previously cited prior art discloses instant claim 1 amended feature, argument is moot since all prior art rejections are withdrawn. Newly cited Mishima, Li and Ohishi all explicitly disclose similar ranges of amended Ni and Mo as indicated in 103 art rejection above.
In response to argument that withdrawn Group II is subject to rejoinder, argument is not persuasive because elected Group I is not allowed. Hence, there is no common special technical feature shared between Group I and II. Unit of invention is lacking.
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
Prosecution Insights