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 1-7, in the reply filed on 1 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 8 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 1 June 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 March 2024 was considered by the examiner.
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.
In regards to independent claim 1, this claim sets forth the requirement for the additive manufacturing powder having a specific surface area. However, this claim does not set forth the method by which the specific surface area is determined. Various methods can be utilized, including BET gas absorption, gas permeability, Blaine method, etc. These methods do not necessarily produce equivalent results, including some wherein a result would be inside the claimed range for one test and outside for another test. For the purposes of examination the Office is construing this to refer that one of the testing methods must yield a result within the claimed range, but not every test must yield a result falling within the claimed range.
As to claims 2-7, these claims depend from independent claim 1 and incorporate the limitations therein. Accordingly, these claims are rejected for the reasons set forth above in regards to independent claim 1.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0250149 (Gibson) in view of U.S. Application Publication Number 2021/0260650 (Colon).
In regards to independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5, Gibson is directed to methods and systems for controlling the packing behavior of powders for additive manufacturing processes. (¶1) The packing of a powder used in a powder-based additive manufacturing process can have a significant impact on the performance of the process and the quality of the manufactured parts. (¶24) For example, the powder packing behavior can impact the ability of the powder to spread evenly across and through a powder bed, which in turn can affect the homogeneity of a final manufactured part. (¶24)
A build material may comprise various combinations of particles with different shapes and/or morphologies. (¶81) The particles can have a generally uniform size distribution but may also have non-uniform distributions. (¶81)
Gibson teaches that the base powder may have a D50 of about 12 microns, a D10 of about 5 microns, and a D90 of about 25 microns. (¶78) The D50 may be as small as 5 microns and the D10 as small as 1 micron. (¶78) Gibson teaches a 17-4 PH base powder with a standard metal injection molding composition suitable for forming parts from a powdered metal, with a D10 of 6 microns, D50 of 11 microns, and D90 of 19 microns. (¶91) These would include values that would fall overlap the claimed ranges.
This reference does not explicitly set forth the specific surface area, average circularity of the particles, oxygen content, or water content as set forth in the instant claims.
In the same field of endeavor of powder compositions for additive manufacturing, Colon is directed to metal-based powder for additive manufacturing processes, wherein the metal-based particles are characterized by a combination of specific physical and chemical properties being suitable for deposition in layers or for forming through powder metallurgy processes. (¶1)
The sphericity of a particle influences erosion, transportation, and deposition patterns of such particle. (¶104) The metal-based particles have an average aspect ratio greater than or equal to about 0.95. (¶107) The metal-based particles have a specific surface area of at most about 0.15 m2/g when measured using Inverse Gas Chromatography. (¶120) The combination of the specific physiochemical properties can exhibit a synergistic response for enhancing the powder performance and the mechanical properties of a consolidated part, including by reducing the moisture sorption of the metal-based particles, enhancing chemical stability of the powder, enhancing flowability of the powder, and enhancing spread density of the powder. (¶123)
Oxygen and/or moisture can result in the degradation of the microstructure and poorer mechanical properties of the consolidated parts made using the powder. (¶5) Therefore, this reference teaches minimizing oxygen and water content within the material in order to prevent the degradation of such properties.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the physical and chemical properties of the powder as taught by Colon within the powder of Gibson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the desire and expectation of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, including selecting the specific surface area, water content, oxygen content, and circularity in order to improve powder performance and enhance the mechanical properties of the resulting product.
As to claim 6, Gibson teaches that the base powder can be a stainless steel. (¶83)
As to claim 7, Gibson in view of Colon teaches the material, particle distribution, particle sizes, specific surface area, and circularity as set forth in the instant claims and within the instant specification. Therefore, it would be expected that the resulting overlapping compositions would likewise meet the tapped density to a bulk density as set forth in the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Schleis whose telephone number is (571)270-5636. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM to 4 PM Monday through Friday.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
Daniel J. Schleis
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/Daniel J. Schleis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights