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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 5 August 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims make a contribution over the prior art and therefore unity of invention is present. This is not found persuasive because the claims are rejected over the prior art, and therefore the shared technical feature is not a special technical feature, and unity of invention is lacking. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Responsive to the amendment filed 5 August 2026 claims 1, 2, and 4-9 are amended and claims 10-15 are cancelled. Claims 7-10 are withdrawn. Claims 1-6 are currently under examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-6 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 recites “wherein the conditioned particulate build material has a modified cohesive index ranging from about 25 cohesive index units to about 35 cohesive index units.” This limitation renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear what is meant by a “modified cohesive index.” The term “modified cohesive index” is not recognized as a measure of a material. If this is intended to refer to a cohesive index, for the conditioned particulate build material, then applicant can describe such in the claim. As the claim is written, it requires that the cohesive index itself is what is modified, and there is no basis to determine what this means. The skilled artisan can only determine what is or is not a “modified cohesive index” arbitrarily because the term is not explained sufficiently by applicant’s specification. The point of infringement of claim 1 cannot be determined, and the claim is indefinite. Each of claims 2-6 depends from claim 1 and is also indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the conditioned particulate build material has a modified cohesive index ranging from about 25 cohesive index units to about 35 cohesive index units.” This limitation renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear what is being claimed. The term “cohesive index” is understood by the skilled artisan to be an index which measures relative standard deviations of a physical measurement within a rotating drum apparatus, serving as a relative index of flowability for powders. As this is an entirely arbitrary system of measurement, dependent upon the parameters chosen for the testing, it is not clear what measure would qualify as “from about 25 cohesive index units to about 35 cohesive index units” for the cohesive index claimed. The term “25 cohesive index units” is not specially defined in the specification, and the term would not be recognized by the skilled artisan where cohesive index can be measured using an infinite number of types of units. “25 units” is an entirely arbitrary number without any context as to scale or structure. The point of infringement of claim 1 cannot be determined, and the claim is indefinite. Each of claims 2-6 depends from claim 1 and is also indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “mechanically conditioning…wherein the conditioned particulate build material has a modified cohesive index ranging from about 25 cohesive index units to about 35 cohesive index units.” This limitation renders the claim indefinite. A functional limitation must be evaluated and considered, just like any other limitation of the claim, for what it fairly conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art in the context in which it is used. A functional limitation is often used in association with an element, ingredient, or step of a process to define a particular capability or purpose that is served by the recited element, ingredient or step. In this case the applicant describes that the cohesive index units are measured using a proprietary equipment, and a software using proprietary algorithm that is not described in the specification. Thus the function of achieving a cohesive index unit value in the ranges as claimed does not provide a clear-cut indication of what the claimed subject matter includes or excludes. Applicant’s claim amounts to using proprietary algorithms that are not provided, and as mentioned previously, the cohesive index would be understood to be a relative index which is highly dependent upon the processes during the measurement.
The claim includes placing the particles in a mixer and “mechanically conditioning.” It is not clear what would or would not include “mechanically conditioning” in order to achieve the claim value for “cohesive index units.” The claim limitation amounts to a result to be achieved, and it is not clear from the claim what the result is, nor what the method step of “mechanically conditioning” would include or exclude. The point of infringement of claim 1 cannot be determined, and the claim is indefinite. Each of claims 2-6 depends from claim 1 and is also indefinite.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "wherein the mechanically conditioning occurs in the tumbler mixer." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The tumbler mixer is not invoked in parent claim 1, and it is not clear whether applicant wished to further limit claim 1 or actually limit claim 4, which does invoke a tumbler mixer, or whether something else altogether was intended. The point of infringement of claim 6 cannot be determined.
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)(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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20220250149 A1 (hereinafter “Gibson”).
Regarding claim 1, it is noted that the point of infringement of the claim cannot be determined. See rejections above under 35 USC 112.
Gibson teaches a method of improvement of the flowability of metal powders used for additive manufacturing (See abstract or SUMMARY). Gibson teaches to mix a base powder, which may be a metal powder, with a modifier powder in order improve the packing density (see [0024]-[0028]). Gibson teaches that this mixing will lower the cohesion of the powder (see [0024]-[0028]).
Gibson teaches that a 17-4 PH powder has a D10 of 6 µm, a D50 of 11 µm, and a D90 of 19 µm (see [0091]). The stainless steel of Gibson is well known in the art to have a passive oxide (hence “stainless”). Additionally this is the same material specifically described by applicant as having the property of the surface oxide (instant claim 2).
The powder particle size distribution falls entirely within the range claimed, anticipating the entire ranges. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2131.03. Gibson teaches that the powder is added with 0.05% SiO2 and/or with 0.1% of Fe2O3 (see [0092]). The composition of the “fresh” build material falls inside the claimed ranges. Gibson teaches adding the powder to a bottle and shaking by hand (See [0092]). It is believed that the mixing bottle and other tools (media) meets a broadest reasonable interpretation of “mechanical mixer.” However, Gibson further teaches that the mixing may be instead done in mixing equipment that is well described (see [0096]-[0100] and Figs 8, 9, and 10). Thereby Gibson clearly envisions that the mixing step is conducted in a mechanical mixer such as those of Fig 8, 9, or 10. The mixing is considered to meet the limitation of “mechanically conditioning.”
Gibson does not teach that a “modified cohesive index” of the resultant powder is “about 25 cohesive index units to about 35 cohesive index units.“ Gibson does not mention any modified cohesive index or any cohesive index units. However Gibson teaches or plainly envisions every process step enumerated, and as cited teaches to reduce the cohesion of a metal powder for the purposes of additive manufacturing. The same powder as claimed, processed in the same way as claimed, with the same equipment as claimed, with the same inventive goal as claimed, would have had the same properties as claimed inherently. MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 2, Gibson teaches stainless ([0091]).
Regarding claim 3, Gibson envisions that the particles may be gas atomized (See [0035]).
Regarding claim 4, Gibson teaches a vertical mixer (see Fig 9 and [0090]-[0100]).
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson.
Regarding claims 5-6, Gibson does not teach a speed or mixing time as claimed. Gibson does not specify mixing time or speed. However Gibson teaches that a mixer rotates in order to mix the powders ([0094]-[0100] and Figs 8-9). Gibson teaches that the process stops after the powder is well mixed ([0094]-[0100] and Figs 8-9). Thus the skilled artisan, when practicing the invention of Gibson, would have adjusted a mixing speed and a mixing time in order to achieve the goal of mixing. The optimization of the variables of mixing would have required not more than through a routine investigation of the processes and equipment described, being the same ones claimed (instant claim 4).
Applicant is directed to MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20210260650 A1 teaches mixing of powder for additive manufacturing. US 20160002471 A1 teaches treating powders in a tumbler mixer for additive manufacturing.
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
