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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I: claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 2/2/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/2/2026.
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 2-3 and 9 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.
The term “substantially pure” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially pure” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what degree of purity meets the limitation of “substantially pure,” which renders the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2 and is thus also rejected for the same reason.
Claim 9 recites “mixing the metal powder with the alloying powder in a roller mill” and later recites “transferring the material powder from the ball mill,” which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the ball mill” in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear whether “the ball mill” is referring to the “roller mill” or referring to a different mill.
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, 4, and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. (CN 108941563), hereinafter “Zeng,” as cited in the IDS dated 8/14/2023, wherein the English machine translation filed 8/14/2023 is used and cited herein.
Regarding claim 1, Zeng teaches a method for fabricating a nitrogenous steel material, the method comprising preparing the powder to be formed, wherein the powder to be formed includes steel powder and chromium nitrate, and forming the powder using a selective laser melting device (Abstract, [0005], [0011]-[0012]), which necessarily requires preparing a material powder in a powder reservoir of an additive manufacturing apparatus. Zeng teaches that selective laser melting uses a laser to scan layer by layer to selectively melt the pre-laid powder and bond it to the formed part ([0005]), which reads on displacing layers of the material powder from the powder reservoir to a build platform of the additive manufacturing apparatus, and fusing the layers of the material powder on the build platform to fabricate the nitrogenous steel material. Zeng is silent as to performing the selective laser melting under any induced vacuum or induced pressure; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret that the process of Zeng is carried out under atmospheric pressure conditions.
Regarding claim 4, Zeng teaches wherein the alloying powder is chromium nitride (Abstract, [0011]-[0012]).
Regarding claims 7-8, Zeng teaches wherein the chromium nitride content in the powder to be formed is 0.5-10 wt%, with the balance being steel powder ([0011]-[0013]), which results in a nitrogenous steel material having a nitrogen content that overlaps with the instantly claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Zeng teaches wherein the steel powder and chromium nitride are mechanically mixed, wherein in an example, the equipment used for mixing the powder is a turbula three-dimensional mixer ([0036]). Zeng teaches wherein the chromium nitride has a particle size of 2-20 µm and a particle size of the steel powder is 15-65 µm ([0014]-[0015]). Zeng discloses ball milling as a means of mechanically mixing powders in the background technology section, but does not explicitly disclose the use of ball milling in its examples. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use ball milling for mechanical mixing in the process of Zeng to reduce particle sizes to the desired ranges when starting with more coarse particles.
As to claim 10, Zeng teaches wherein the additive manufacturing process comprises selective laser melting (Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 2-3 and 5-6, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest a method having the features as recited. In particular, the closest prior art, Zeng (CN 108941563), as cited in the IDS dated 8/14/2023, wherein the English machine translation filed 8/14/2023 is used and cited herein, teaches a method for fabricating a nitrogenous steel material, the method comprising preparing the powder to be formed, wherein the powder to be formed includes steel powder and chromium nitrate, and forming the powder using a selective laser melting device (Abstract, [0005], [0011]-[0012]), which necessarily requires preparing a material powder in a powder reservoir of an additive manufacturing apparatus. Zeng teaches that selective laser melting uses a laser to scan layer by layer to selectively melt the pre-laid powder and bond it to the formed part ([0005]), which reads on displacing layers of the material powder from the powder reservoir to a build platform of the additive manufacturing apparatus, and fusing the layers of the material powder on the build platform to fabricate the nitrogenous steel material. Zeng is silent as to performing the selective laser melting under any induced vacuum or induced pressure; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret that the process of Zeng is carried out under atmospheric pressure conditions. Zeng teaches wherein the metal powder comprises steel powder ([0011]), but fails to teach or fairly suggest wherein the metal powder comprises a pure iron material and/or one or more ferroalloy materials, as required by claims 2-3. Thus, claims 2-3 are distinct over the teachings of the prior art. Furthermore, Zeng fails to teach or fairly suggest wherein the material powder further comprises a second alloying powder for improving corrosion resistance of the nitrogenous steel material, as required by claims 5-6. Thus, claims 5-6 are distinct over the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY M LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0483. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1177. 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.
/ANTHONY M LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights