Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 18/578,949

IMPROVED METHOD FOR PRODUCING A COMPONENT BY MEANS OF ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jan 12, 2024
Priority
Jul 28, 2021 — DE 10 2021 208 164.9 +1 more
Examiner
WANG, NICHOLAS A
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Rwth Aachen
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 0m
Est. Remaining
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allowance Rate
289 granted / 539 resolved
-6.4% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
74 currently pending
Career history
596
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
59.2%
+19.2% vs TC avg
§102
7.9%
-32.1% vs TC avg
§112
25.2%
-14.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 539 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-12 are pending and currently under review. Claims 13-15 are cancelled. 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 . 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 1-12 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 phrase “in particular a substrate plate” in claim 1 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 1-12 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. Claims 1 and 4 recite the phrase “by Steven and Haynes”, which is indefinite because it is unclear as to what further features, if any, are required by this phrase. The examiner interprets this phrase to merely refer to the claimed Ms formula. Claims 1-12 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 “the main alloying elements iron-chrome-nickel or iron-manganese”, which is indefinite because it is unclear as to what particular amount, if any, if required by the term “main”. It is unclear if this requires majority amounts of these elements, or whether these elements merely need to be included in larger amounts relative to other elements, or something else entirely. Claims 2-3 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 phrase “preferably a wire arc additive manufacturing” in claim 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 4 is 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 phrase “preferably below 100 degrees C, particularly preferably…” in claim 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 9 is 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 phrase “preferably of below 70 degrees C” in claim 9 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 11 is 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 11 recites the term “essentially parallel” which is indefinite because it is unclear as to what particular quantitative degree/deviation, if any, from parallel is allowed for in the instant claim. Claim 12 is 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 12 recites the term “brittle” which is indefinite because “brittle” is a relative term of degree that is not further defined by the specification or claims. It is unclear as to what particular degree of stiffness, if any, is required by the claim scope, or whether “brittle” merely refers to some broad categorization of materials, or something else entirely. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Independent claim 1 is directed to a method of additive manufacturing wherein induced stress/strain due to martensitic transformation of the substrate after quenching of the entire substrate and part together aids in separation of the part. There is no prior art of record that teaches or suggests the claimed features together. The closest art of record is Versluys et al. (US 2018/0272609) which discloses an interface having a ductile-to-brittle transition temperature to facilitate breaking and separation of an additively manufactured part. However, the prior art does not expressly teach facilitating separation with martensitic transformation. The prior art generally teaches against deformation/distortion arising from martensitic transformation or other means of facilitating separation. See US 2015/0352794, US 2016/0340762, US 9,987,683, and US 20200023436. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5. 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 5712721177. 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. /NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 12, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12741317
CONTROLLING STAINLESS STEEL GREEN BODY OBJECT DEFORMATION
3y 4m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12729408
METHOD FOR PRODUCING A HIGH STRENGTH COATED STEEL SHEET HAVING IMPROVED DUCTILITY AND FORMABILITY, AND OBTAINED COATED STEEL SHEET
3y 7m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12716105
Method for producing liquid pig iron from a DRI product
3y 10m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12703143
THREE-DIMENSIONAL PRINTING WITH GLYCIDYL COMPOUNDS
4y 5m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12698550
Hot rolled and heat-treated steel sheet and method of manufacturing the same
3y 6m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+22.5%)
3y 9m (~1y 0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 539 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month