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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 30 August 2023. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 1 requires that the first alloy powder includes 1) ~13.5-14.5 wt% Zr, 2) ~18-19 wt% Nb, and 3) a congruently melting alloy. This feature is not described in the specification. Throughout the specification the congruently melting alloy is the titanium mixed with the ~13.5-14.5 wt% Zr, and the ~18-19 wt% Nb, but now the claim requires that the congruently melting alloy is itself then further mixed with ~13.5-14.5 wt% Zr, and the ~18-19 wt% Nb. This feature is not described and it is not clear if this was the scope that was intended or not.
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 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 requires that the first alloy powder includes 1) ~13.5-14.5 wt% Zr, 2) ~18-19 wt% Nb, and 3) a congruently melting alloy. It is not clear what is happening in claim 1. Claim 1 appears to require that a congruently melting alloy is used as a portion of an alloy in order to form a congruently melting alloy. It is not clear that this was what was contemplated in the specification and it is not entirely clear if applicant intended this claim feature to be included. Additionally it would not be clear what is included or excluded by the “congruently melting alloy of titanium” in the context where the “congruently melting ally of titanium” is used as a source to create the congruently melting alloy. The meaning of “congruently” would seem to be contradicted entirely by applying it to a titanium alloy used to make the first alloy powder in this way.
The exact point of infringement of claim 1 cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
Each of claims 2-7 depends from claim 1 and is also indefinite.
Claim 1 recites that “a blend” is deposited in order to form a first layer including a composite. Claim 1 later recites that “blend is deposited at each repetition.” It is not clear in the context of claim 1 as written what is happening. Is “blend is deposited” referring to the same as the blend in the first instance? It would seem that the “blend is deposited” should refer to a different blend than the one in the first instance in order to achieve the compositional gradient. See for example, claim 3 which merely refers to “the blend.” While the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification.
The exact point of infringement of claim 1 cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite. Various instances of “the blend” in claim 3 and claim 6 lack antecedent basis as discussed above.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the blend." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Prior to this in claim 1 at least two different blends appear to be invoked, and it is not clear whether the limitations apply to one or both blends. The exact point of infringement of claim 3 cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite. Each of claims 4-7 depends from claim 3 and is also indefinite.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the second powder" in two places. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Prior to this a second metallic alloy powder is invoked instead.
Claim 5 recites that the composite part includes a homogenous composition. Claim 1 requires that the composition is a gradient rather than homogenous. It is not clear what is happening in claim 5. The exact point of infringement of claim 5 cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the second powder" in two places. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Prior to this a second metallic alloy powder is invoked instead.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the blend." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Prior to this in claim 1 at least two different blends appear to be invoked, and it is not clear whether the limitations apply to one or both blends. The exact point of infringement of claim 6 cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
NO claims are allowable. NO rejections are made over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 12,241,143 is applicant’s prior art describing congruently melting TNZ alloys such as the one used in this application. US 2019/0111482 A1 discloses similar TNZ alloys made in an AM scheme. US 2019/0105876 A1 teaches to manufacture composite alloys of a TNZ alloy. US 5,545,227 describes a TNZ alloy used for orthopedic prosthetics.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1759