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 6/9/23 and 3/21/25 have been considered by the examiner. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of claims 1-6 in the reply filed on FILLIN "Indicate the filing date of the reply." \d "[ 2 ]" 11/14/25 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 Claims 7-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected FILLIN "Enter the appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/14/25. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim FILLIN "Pluralize the word 'Claim' if necessary and then identify the claim(s) being rejected." s 1- 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea s without significantly more. Regarding claim 1 , the claim recite s the abstract ideas of (a) constructing a [mathematical] model, (b) selecting a build design, which can be a mental step, (c) determining quality characteristics, which also can be a mental step as broadly recited, and (d) determining the importance of each build parameter, which is also a mental step . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because after determining the importance there is no application of the determination . Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly mor e. See MPEP § 2106.05 ( f) 2. Here, the limitation “ using a LPBF system, a plurality of test pieces of the selected build design using different layouts or set ups ” is simply the use of machinery in its ordinary capacity. The claim do es not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements , building a plurality of test pieces, are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC ) . The claim is not patent eligible . Regarding claim 2 , the additional limitation is further defining the abstract idea of determining quality characteristics . The claim is not patent eligible . Regarding claim 3 , the additional limitation is further defining the abstract idea of constructing a model . The claim is not patent eligible . Regarding claim 4-5 , the additional limitation s are directed to the abstract idea of mathematical formulas . The claim s are not patent eligible . Regarding claim 6 , the additional limitation s are directed to the abstract idea of comparing to make a determination, then carrying out the determination . Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer . See MPEP § 2106.05 (f). Here, carrying out the determination (reuse or discard) is considered generally “applying” the abstract idea and not a particular practical application. The claim is not patent eligible . 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. Claim s 4-5 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. Clai ms 4-5 give variables and constants that may comprise a calculation of the powder reuse index. However, no equation is given. Thus how these variables and constants are to be used is unclear . Claims 4-5 are 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. Claims 4-5 depend upon claim 1 . Claims 4-5 give variables and constants that may comprise a calculation of the powder reuse index. However, no equation is given. Accordingly, any or all of the constants and variables may be multiplied by zero in the model and thus not be relevant to the model, and not further limit claim 1. 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 § 103 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. 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 s 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett et al. (US 20190242865 A1), in view of Santecchia et al. , Material Reuse in Laser Powder Bed Fusion: Side Effects of the Laser—Metal Powder Interaction, Metals 2020, 10(3), 341 . Regarding claim s 1 and 4-5 , Bennett teaches “ the method comprises determining, based on an output of the at least one test, a reuse number for the residual powder material, wherein the reuse number indicates a number of reuses of the residual powder material before the residual powder material is discarded or reallocated to an alternative use ” (which reads upon “ a method for determining whether build powder is fit for reuse in a laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing (LPBF) process, comprising the steps of ”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [00 08 ]). Bennett teaches that “ the method comprises determining a difference between an output of the at least one test and a model, updating the model based on the determined difference, and utilizing the updated model to generate a prediction regarding a reuse number of the powder ” (which reads upon “ constructing a model for determining a Powder Reuse Index indicative of whether build powder is fit for reuse in the LPBF process based upon LPBF process operating parameters ”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [00 08 ]). Bennett teaches “ fabricating at least one component from a powder material as a plurality of layers via a powder bed fusion additive manufacturing technique, and generating a capsule concurrent with the manufacture of the at least one component, the capsule including a core that is representative of one or more scaled build configuration layers of the at least one component, a sample of the powder material, and a shell that at least partially encloses the sample ” (which reads upon “ selecting at a build design to be built using the LPBF process to collect data for constructing the model for determining the Powder Reuse Index ”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [00 08 ] ; a capsule concurrent with the manufacture of the at least one component, the capsule including a core that is representative of one or more scaled build configuration layers of the at least one component, a sample of the powder material, and a shell that at least partially encloses the sample reads on a plurality of test pieces ). Bennett teaches that “the components 206 a-1, 206 a-2, 206 a-3, 206 b-1, and 206 b-2 may be at least partially differentiated from one another ” (which reads upon “ building, using a LPBF system, a plurality of test pieces of the selected build design using different layouts or set ups ”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [00 29 ]). Bennett teaches that “the reuse model may be calibrated by capsule-captured powder and specimen testing ” (which reads upon “ to collect data for constructing the model for determining the Powder Reuse Index ”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [00 38 ]). Bennett teaches that “the reuse model may obtain as inputs one or more of: (1) a build configuration, (2) build theme parameters, (3) material characteristics, or (4) machine characteristics ” (which reads upon “ LPBF process build parameters ”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [00 41 ]). Bennett teaches that “ the at least one test incudes at least one of: a first test to determine a chemical composition of the sample, a second test to determine a particle distribution of the sample, a third test to determine a morphology of the sample, a fourth test to determine a flow capability of the sample, a fifth test to determine a moisture content of the sample, and a sixth test to measure a density of the sample ” (which reads upon “ determining quality characteristics for each of the plurality of test pieces ”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [00 08 ]). Bennett teaches “ determining, based on an output of the at least one test, a reuse number for the residual powder material, wherein the reuse number indicates a number of reuses of the residual powder material before the residual powder material is discarded or reallocated to an alternative use ” (which reads upon “ determining, using the quality characteristics for each of the plurality of test pieces, whether a batch of build powder is fit for reuse ”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [00 08 ]). Bennett is silent regarding determining a relative importance of each LPBF process build parameter as to whether a batch of build powder is fit for reuse . Santecchia is similarly concerned with material reuse in laser powder bed fusion ( title ). Santecchia teaches that “ to make LPBF more cost-efficient and environmentally friendly, it is of paramount importance to recycle (reuse) the unfused powder from a build job ” ( page 1 ). Santecchia teaches that “the present review paper is focused on the clarification of the interaction between laser and metal powder, with a strong focus on its side effects ” ( page 1 ). Santecchia teaches that “ process parameters are, in general, quite different in terms of laser power and scan speed, and the laser–matter interaction is much more complicated in LPBF processes, since the powder feedstock is inherently unstable and the solidified material undergoes multiple thermal cycles corresponding to the fusion of subsequent layers during the additive process ” ( page 2 ). Santecchia teaches that “ the level of metal powder sensitivity to the laser action during LPBF is not yet fully understood, despite the efforts of the scientific community to uncover it ” ( page 2 ). Santecchia teaches that “the interaction between the high-energy laser typical of LPBF equipment and the metal powder bed can result in powder contamination through different phenomena including agglomeration, partial fusing, partial/full oxidation, metal vapor condensate, and generation of spatter ” ( page 3 ). Santecchia teaches that “the se phenomena can alter not only the properties of the reused powder (i.e., flowability, chemical composition, tap density, particle size), but also the surface (i.e., roughness), microstructural (i.e., local variation of chemical composition, pore formation), and mechanical properties of the final part ” ( page 3 ). Santecchia teaches that “ the present review paper aims to shed light on the interaction between laser and metal powder, with a strong focus on its side effects, which could affect the chance to recycle the powder feedstock and the following reliability of LPBF-built parts ” (which reads upon “ determining a relative importance of each LPBF process build parameter as to whether a batch of build powder is fit for reuse ”, as recited in the instant claim; page 3 ). Santecchia teaches that “mechanical properties could be improved, decreased, or unaffected by the reuse of feedstock material, as shown by the results reported in Table 1, and that this result suggests that more attention should be paid to what really happens inside the chamber during the laser–powder interaction and not only to the metal powder quality itself” (page 4 and Table 1 ). Santecchia teaches that “the evaporation of the feedstock material under high laser intensity values leads to the formation of a depression and a further metal vapor plume, and that the orientation of this plume can be controlled by tuning the above-mentioned process parameters ” (page 10 and FIG. 5 ). Santecchia teaches that “ a fine-tuning of the process parameters and an extremely accurate gas flow regime seem to be mandatory to make laser powder bed fusion a more reliable process ” (page 15 ). 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 method of Bennett to include varying and analyzing the LPBF process parameters , as taught by Santecchia because a fine-tuning of the process parameters and an extremely accurate gas flow regime seem to be mandatory to make laser powder bed fusion a more reliable process and because more attention should be paid to what really happens inside the chamber during the laser–powder interaction and not only to the metal powder quality itself. Regarding claim 2 , modified Bennett teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Bennett teaches that “ the components will include specified material properties ” (paragraph [00 41 ] ; material properties reads on mechanical properties ). Bennett teaches that “ a material-component-property linkage/relationship may be established for qualification of material reuse in additively manufactured components ” (paragraph [00 59 ]). Santecchia teaches that “the most typical approach to study the microstructural and mechanical properties of parts built by LPBF is to compare them with castings of the same alloy or, rather, the corresponding alloy since the starting material is metal powder rather than a fuse” (page 2 ). Regarding claim 3 , modified Bennett teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Bennett teaches that “ a build theme may include one or more of a build layer height, (laser) scan strategy, machine software, etc ” (paragraph [00 44 ]). Regarding claim 6 , modified Bennett teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Bennett teaches “determining, based on an output of the at least one test, a reuse number for the residual powder material, wherein the reuse number indicates a number of reuses of the residual powder material before the residual powder material is discarded or reallocated to an alternative use” (paragraph [0008]). Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5434 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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