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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending and presented for examination on the merits. Claims 1-15 are currently amended.
Priority
Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage application from the International Bureau.
Information Disclosure Statement
One (1) information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 04/15/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
it is unclear from the instant specification and Figure 1 how composition meter (5) can measure the composition of powder (T) and waste gas (G) simultaneously when waste gas (G) is not connected to composition meter (5),
it is unclear how the control unit (6), as shown in Figure 1, is connected to the relevant components, and
it is unclear what the difference is between the two powder (T) references shown in Figure 1 (e.g. different powders, same powder, or same powder at different locations) and it is further unclear whether the claims are referring to different instances of powder (T), as shown in the drawings, without making an explicit distinction (see related 112(b) rejection in this Office action).
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 Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “user-predetermined composition content” and “user-determined target composition content data”. Claim 2 recites “user-determined target composition content”. Claim 4 recites “user-predetermined target composition content data” and “user-determined target composition content data”. Claim 6 recites “user-predetermined composition content data”. Claim 10 recites “user-determined target composition content data”. The claims use different terminology (e.g. “predetermined” vs “determined” and including “target” or “data” in some but not all instances). Applicant is encouraged to use consistent terminology for clarity.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a enables ny production parameter”, which is difficult to understand. This limitation appears to be a typo from adding the word “enables” in the middle of the word “any”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding the claimed “system” of claims 1-15, 35 U.S.C. 101 enumerates four categories of subject matter that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. As explained by the courts, these "four categories together describe the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. See MPEP § 2106.03. System is not one of the four statutory classifications. Nonetheless, applicants are free to write patent claims as system claims and have done so over 200 years. System claims must be interpreted by the Examiner or the courts as one of the four statutory classifications for patents on a case-by-case basis. Generally, system claims are either process (method) or machine (apparatus) claims. For a history of how the Supreme Court has handled system claims, see Cole, section V, history of system claims, NTP v. RIM: The Diverging Law Between System and Method Claim Infringement, Pierce Law Review, Vol. 5, No.2 pp. 347-365, 2007. In this case, claim 1 recites machine (apparatus) limitations, and thus claim 1 and its dependent claims will be interpreted as machine (apparatus) claims.
Regarding limitations which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed apparatus, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” In this case, the primary material and secondary material of claim 1 are considered the articles worked upon and do not further limit the apparatus claim. Additionally, the control unit of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-13 merely has to be capable of performing the intended operations since a manner of operating a disclosed device does not further limit an apparatus claim. In this case, the claimed apparatus, as presently claimed, requires at least one feeding unit, a first transmission line, at least one plasma torch, at least one powder composition meter, at least one waste gas composition meter, at least one composition meter, and at least one control unit. The remaining limitations are either drawn to a manner of operating the claimed powder production system or the article worked upon in the claimed powder production system.
Regarding the plasma torch parameters of claims 2, 10, and 13, the plasma torch parameters are interpreted as including, but not limited to, plasma temperature, cooling temperature, and cooling rate (page 2, lines 22-24 of the instant specification).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the limitations “enabling the one that is in a solid form from the primary material (M) or the secondary material (N) to be fed” of claim 14 and “enabling the one that is in the form of a liquid or a gas from the primary material (M) or the secondary material (N) to be fed” of claim 15 are interpreted as reciting that either the primary or secondary material is in a solid form in claim 14 and either the primary or secondary material is in a liquid or gas form in claim 15.
Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“feeding unit” in claims 1, 4, and 6, since there is not sufficient structure recited to perform the claimed enabling the primary material and the secondary material to be fed or the claimed feeding rate changes by means of the feeding unit in the instant claims nor in the instant specifications,
“control unit” in claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-13 since there is not sufficient structure recited to perform the claimed: (1) enabling the feeding rates to be changed by means of the feeding unit, (2) compares amounts converted for each element to the user-determined target composition content of the powder and waste gas, (3) enables the primary and secondary material to be fed, (4) enables any production parameter and outputs generated using a machine learning method, (5) enables the user to change the feeding rates for reducing cost, (6) changes the parameters of the plasma torch, (7) powder chamber by means of its sieve structure being brought to open or closed position by the control unit, (8) control unit triggers taking a sample from the powder, and (9) transmitting the measurement date to the control unit for changing feeding rates and/or plasma torch parameters in the instant claims nor in the instant specifications, and
“sieve structure” in claim 11 since there is not sufficient structure recited to perform the claimed “separated and transmitted to the relevant powder chamber”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 1-15 covers a powder production system (interpreted as an “apparatus”, see Claim Interpretation) using a primary material and secondary material that are solid, liquid, or gas (see claims 14-15) and that generates a waste gas when the primary and secondary material are “brought into a powder form” (see lines 4-9 of claim 1). The specification does not provide direction on how to make powder from any material that is in a solid, liquid, or gas form, nor does it provide direction as to which materials and in which states of matter would generate the waste gas (G) that is measured by the claimed waste gas composition meter (502) and composition meter (5). While the claimed system is interpreted as an apparatus and the process of operating the apparatus does not hold patentable weight (see Claim Interpretation in this Office action), one of ordinary skill in the art understands that different materials require different apparatus structures to handle the requirements of said materials. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that plasma atomization methods are typically limited to metals (see CN 207239152 U of Kong and CN 108637267 A of Wang cited in “Free of Prior Art” section in this Office action for examples of plasma atomization apparatus using metal wire) and do not generate waste gas from atomizing metal.
Regarding the state of the art of powder production systems using plasma atomization, Schade teaches atomization is the dominant method for producing metal and prealloyed powders from aluminum, brass, iron, steels, superalloys, titanium alloys, and other alloys and is simply the breakup of a liquid into fine droplets (page 58). Schade further teaches atomization is done in an inert-gas-filled chamber and has the benefit of no liquid metal/container contact, preventing addition of foreign particles from external sources, and provides a method for making powder with exact standards of cleanliness (Rotating Electrode Process, page 69). Schade mentions the use of gas in atomizing, such as filling a chamber with inert gas. The Examiner notes that a gas used inside a chamber may be referred to in the metallurgy arts as a “carrier gas” and is distinct from the “waste gas” presently claimed.
Importantly, Schade does not recite that atomizing entails generating waste gas from the material being converted into powder since that is not a typical part of atomization methods and one of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably expect waste gas generation from combining metals in plasma atomization.
Regarding the primary and secondary materials of the claimed invention, the instant specification provides no guidance nor examples as to which materials are suitable for the claimed system. The instant specification recites the primary material (M) and the secondary material (N) […] can be in the form of a solid, liquid or gas and have a certain composition (page 6, lines 21-25). The breadth of the claims is therefore extremely broad since the claims, as currently written, encompass any material in solid, liquid, or gas form. Even if the “plasma atomization method” recited in claim 1 was used to narrow the selection of materials only to metals, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have a reasonable expectation as to which combination of metals would generate a waste gas when melted to form powder since one of ordinary skill in the art understands plasma atomization does not generate waste gases from interacting metals with each other and rather, that plasma atomization uses a gas in its method to control the environment and therefore impurities of the resulting powder. The instant disclosure provides no working examples and merely recites an example of “element X” in page 7, which does not provide useful guidance as to which materials may be used in the claimed system, and consequently, what structure the claimed system would require to be able to handle said materials. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably add a waste gas composition meter to a production powder system since one of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably expect generating waste gases from melting metal.
At the time of filing, the state of the art was such that it is understood that plasma atomization is done by melting metals and cooling them, as taught by Schade, and it is not possible to perform plasma atomization with any material in solid, liquid, or gas form. While plasma atomization can be done on two metals, not every metal nor every solid, liquid, or gas can be used in plasma atomization methods to generate powder. It is physically impossible, for example, to obtain powder from any two gases, any two liquids, any two solids, or any of their combinations by plasma atomization methods. For instance, plastics, while solid, cannot be made into powder via plasma atomization. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art further understands that making materials into powder by plasma atomization does not generate a waste gas. Given the state of the art and the guidance provided in the instant disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to manufacture the claimed powder production system such that the apparatus can generate a powder and waste gas from any primary material and secondary material in solid, liquid, or gas form. Thus, the disclosed guidance does not bear a reasonable correlation to the full scope of the claim. Taking these factors into account, undue experimentation would be required by one of ordinary skill in the art to make the invention recited in claims 1-15, as one of ordinary skill in the art would need to test an excessively large number of material combinations for the primary material and secondary material to encompass the full scope of the claim including any solid, liquid, or gas, and combinations that generate a waste gas.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 6 recite a “feeding unit”. The instant specification does not recite a corresponding structure for the claimed “feeding unit” and only recites the feeding unit in terms of various functions such as “enabling the primary material and the secondary material to be fed to a first transmission line” (page 2, lines 2-4), and “varying relative feeding rates” (page 2, lines 13-15; page 3, lines 15-20). There is insufficient description regarding the claimed feeding unit since there is no information in the claims nor the instant specification on the structure of the feeding unit. Thus, based on the instant disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have the information necessary to build the claimed feeding unit.
Claims 2-3, 5, and 7-15 depend on claim 1, do not resolve the aforementioned issues, and are thereby also rejected.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-13 recite a “control unit”. The instant specification does not recite a corresponding structure for the claimed “control unit” and only recites the control unit in terms of various functions such as “enabling” (page 2, lines 13-16; page 2, lines 31-33; page 3, lines 14-20; page 3, line 21-25), “comparing” (page 2, lines 17-24), “varying” (page 2, lines 17-24; page 4, lines 1-4), “changing” (page 7, lines 6-11) or “obtaining” and/or “transferring” data (page 8, lines 25-30). There is insufficient description regarding the claimed control unit since there is no information in the claims nor the instant specification on the structure of the control unit. Thus, based on the instant disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have the information necessary to build the claimed control unit.
Claims 3, 5, and 14-15 depend on claim 1, do not resolve the aforementioned issues, and are thereby also rejected.
Claim 11 recites a “sieve structure”. The instant specification does not recite a corresponding structure for the claimed “sieve structure” and only recites the sieve structure as a “perforated sieve structure” (page 9, line 4) or in terms of its function as “enabling the desired macro-, micro- or nano-sized powders (T) to be separated and transmitted to the relevant powder chamber with its sieve structure” (page 10, lines 9-10). There is insufficient description regarding the claimed sieve structure since there is no information in the claims nor the instant specification on the structure of the sieve structure. Thus, based on the instant disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have the information necessary to build the claimed sieve structure.
Claims 1-15 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, 3-7, 11-12, and 14-15 recite limitations with the word “enables” or “enabling”. The use of the term “enabling” renders the claim indefinite. Merriam-Webster defines “enabling” as “to make possible, practical, or easy”. It is unclear whether the claimed apparatus performs the limitations following the term “enabling” or if the limitations, as claimed, merely require the possibility of performing the limitation following the “enabling” terms. For example, in the claimed “at least one plasma torch (4) enabling a powder (T) to be obtained” of claim 1, it is unclear whether the claimed enabling step merely requires the possibility of obtaining a powder or if the claimed powder production system must obtain a powder.
Claims 1-15 recite “powder (T)” or “powders (T)” in various instances. It is unclear whether these terms refer to different powders, to the same powder, or to the same powder at different locations, especially since two different “T” reference characters are shown in Figure 1. See Drawings objection.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a secondary material (N) having a composition content that is almost entirely different from that of the primary material (M)" in lines 6-7. The term “almost entirely” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “almost entirely” 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. In this case, it is unclear what degree of “difference” would meet the claimed “almost entirely different”. Furthermore, as currently written, this term would be subjective depending on what each reader considers “almost entirely different”. For example, some metallurgists might consider a steel with a different carbon content an “almost entirely different” material since steels are different materials depending on their carbon content while others might consider two steels to be the same material despite different carbon contents.
Claims 2-15 depend on claim 1, do not resolve the aforementioned issues, and are thereby also indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "at least one control unit (6) enabling the feeding rates of the primary material (M) and the secondary material (N) to be changed by means of the feeding unit (2) to almost completely approximate the composition content data of the powder (T) and waste gas (G) obtained from the composition meter (5) to the user-determined target composition content data of the powder (T) and waste gas (G)" in the last 5 lines of claim 1. The term “almost completely approximate” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “almost completely approximate” 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. In this case, it is unclear how close the “composition content data of the powder (T) and waste gas (G) obtained from the composition meter (5)” must be to the “user-determined target composition content data of the powder (T) and waste gas (G)” to meet the claimed “almost completely approximate”.
Claims 2-15 depend on claim 1, do not resolve the aforementioned issues, and are thereby also indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a primary material suitable to be brought into powder (T) form” in line 4. This limitation renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear which materials are considered “suitable to be brought into powder form”. It is further unclear whether the primary material can already be a powder or if it has to be in a different form of solid, liquid, or gas. See 112(a) rejection in this Office action.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “more than one waste gas (G) that is released when the primary material (M) and the secondary material (N) are brought into a powder (T) form and that is a waste product” in lines 7-9. This limitation renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what process is required to so that the materials are “brought into a powder form”. It is further unclear which primary material and secondary materials would release a waste gas in a plasma atomization method. See 112(a) rejection in this Office action.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the feeding rates" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since “feeding rates” are not introduced before this instance.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one powder composition meter (501) acquiring the composition content data of the powder (T), at least one waste gas composition meter (502) acquiring the composition content data of the waste gas (G), at least one composition meter (5) acquiring the composition content data of the powder (T) and waste gas (G)” in lines 16-21. This limitation renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what the difference is between composition meter (5) which measures the composition of the powder (T) and waste gas (G) and the powder composition meter (501) and waste gas composition meter (502). Does the composition meter (5) measure the composition at a different point in processing that meters (501) and (502)? As currently written, all three meters (5), (501), and (502) measure the same powder (T) and waste gas (G). It is further unclear how composition meter (5) can measure the composition of a powder and a gas simultaneously.
Claims 2-15 depend on claim 1, do not resolve the aforementioned issues, and are thereby also indefinite.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the amounts converted from the primary material and secondary material" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "such that the powder (T) is almost exactly equalized to user-determined target composition content data" in the last 2 lines of claim 4. The term “almost exactly equalized” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “almost exactly equalized” 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. In this case, it is unclear what aspect of the powder is being “almost exactly equalized” and how much difference is allowed for the powder (T) to meet the claimed “almost exactly equalized to user-determined target composition content data”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation " enabling the powders (T) of almost larger sizes than the powders (T) collected in the first powder chamber (8) to be collected in itself" in the last 2 lines of claim 5. The term “almost larger sizes” in claim 5 renders the claim indefinite. In this case, it is unclear whether “almost larger sizes” means powders which are of the same size as the powders collected in the first powder chamber, powders which are of a slightly smaller size than the powders collected in the first powder chamber, or powders which are of a slightly larger size than the powders collected in the first powder chamber. It is further unclear what degree of difference between powder sizes would meet the claimed “almost”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation " enabling the powders (T) of almost larger sizes than the powders (T) collected in the first powder chamber (8) to be collected in itself" in the last 2 lines of claim 5. This limitation renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear whether the term “in itself” is referring to the first powder chamber, the second powder chamber, both powder chambers, or a different interpretation.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "enables the powder (T) composition to be almost exactly approximated to the user- predetermined composition content data" in the last 2 lines of claim 6. The term “almost exactly approximated” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “almost exactly approximated” 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. In this case, it is unclear how close the powder (T) composition must be to the user-predetermined composition content data to meet the claimed “almost exactly approximated”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the data previously defined by the user in the control unit” in lines 3-4. This limitation renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what data this limitation is referring to.
Claims 6 and 7 recite the limitation "the user" in lines 4 and 2, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation " so that the composition content data of the powder (T) and waste gas (G) are almost entirely approximated to user-determined target composition content data of the powder (T) and waste gas (G)" in the last 3 lines of claim 10. The term “almost entirely approximated” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “almost entirely approximated” 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. In this case, it is unclear how close the powder (T) and waste gas (G) composition must be to the user-determined target composition content data to meet the claimed “almost entirely approximated”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first powder chamber" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since a “first powder chamber” is introduced in claims 3 or 5. Claim 11 depends on claim 4, and does not depend on any claim introducing a “first powder chamber”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second powder chamber" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since a “second powder chamber” is introduced in claim 5. Claim 11 depends on claim 4, and does not depend on any claim introducing a “second powder chamber”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the target composition ratio" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since no ratio has been introduced before this instance.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "and to which only the amount of powder (T) that is required to take a sample from the powders (T) obtained in the plasma torch (4) is transferred" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since “the amount of powder (T) that is required to take a sample” is not introduced before this instance.
112(b) rejections regarding claims with 112(f) limitations
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation “at least one feeding unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The instant specification recites the feeding unit in terms of its function of “enabling the primary material and the secondary material to be fed” (page 6, lines 3-6). The instant specification further recites “the powder production system comprises a primary feeder which is a vibrating feeder or a screw disc feeder” and “comprises a second feeder which is a peristaltic pump or a flow meter”, but does not recite whether these feeders are part of the claimed “at least one feeding unit”. The recitation of a “feeding unit”, “primary feeder” and/or “secondary feeder” does not provide sufficient information regarding the structure of the claimed feeding unit meant to feed the primary material and secondary material. Therefore, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2-15 depend on claim 1, do not resolve the aforementioned issues, and are thereby also rejected.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-13, claim limitation “control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The instant specification recites the claimed control unit only in terms of the functions it can perform such as “enabling” (page 2, lines 13-16; page 2, lines 31-33; page 3, lines 14-20; page 3, line 21-25), “comparing” (page 2, lines 17-24), “varying” (page 2, lines 17-24; page 4, lines 1-4), “changing” (page 7, lines 6-11) or “obtaining” and/or “transferring” data (page 8, lines 25-30). The recitation of “control unit” does not provide sufficient information regarding the structure of the claimed control unit meant to “enable”, “compare”, or “change” various parts of the system and/or parameters. Therefore, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 3, 5, and 14-15 depend on claim 1, do not resolve the aforementioned issues, and are thereby also indefinite.
Regarding claim 11, claim limitation “sieve structure” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The instant specification does not recite a corresponding structure for the claimed “sieve structure” and only recites the sieve structure as a “perforated sieve structure” (page 9, line 4) or in terms of its function as “enabling the desired macro-, micro- or nano-sized powders (T) to be separated and transmitted to the relevant powder chamber with its sieve structure” (page 10, lines 9-10). The recitation of “sieve structure” does not provide sufficient information regarding the structure of the claimed sieve structure meant to “enable” the powders to be separated and transmitted to the relevant powder chamber. Therefore, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claims 1-15 with claim limitations invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f), Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, and 10 recite “wherein the control unit” limitations reciting a manner of operating the control unit of claim 1. Since process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim, claims 2, 4, 6, 7, and 10 fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. See Claim Interpretation section regarding manner of operating a device and article worked upon.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Free of Prior Art
At this time, the pending claims are indicated herein as being free of the prior art. The closest prior art is CN 207239152 U of Kong (as cited in IDS mailed 04/15/2024 with reference to its English machine translation) which teaches an apparatus for preparing metal powder by plasma atomization with a first conveying unit and second conveying unit ([0001], conveying units read on claimed feeding unit and the two conveying units of Kong are capable of feeding a primary material and a secondary material), and a plasma source which emits a plasma arc ([0001], reads on claimed plasma torch), but does not explicitly disclose nor render obvious a powder composition meter, a waste gas composition meter, a composition meter, and a control unit.
Another closest prior art is CN 108637267 A of Wang (as cited in IDS mailed 04/15/2024 with reference to its English machine translation) which teaches an apparatus for preparing spherical metal powder using metal wire with a wire feeder (reads on claimed feeding unit), a plasma torch (reads on claimed plasma torch), control assembly (reads on claimed control unit), and a powder container (reads on claimed powder chamber) ([0001], [0058], Figs. 1-2). However, Wang does not explicitly disclose nor render obvious a powder composition meter, a waste gas composition meter, and a composition meter.
Claim 1 presents a combination of features that are neither anticipated by nor obvious in view of the prior art available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Further, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kong or Wang in the claimed manner without the use of impermissible hindsight. Consequently, the claims are deemed to be free of the prior art.
However, claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 112(b), and 112(d) in this Office action. A further search of prior art would be required to make an allowability determination should claims be amended in a manner that improves clarity and overcomes the 112 issues described in this Office action.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2018/0169763 A1 of Dorval Dion teaches an apparatus for producing powders from a wire using plasma torches and controlling particle size distribution (Abstract) and is considered relevant to claim 1. Dorval Dion teaches an apparatus with a wire feeder (3, Fig. 1, reads on claimed feeding unit) and plasma torch (7, reads on claimed plasma torch) (Figs. 1-2, [0042]-[0046]), but does not explicitly disclose nor render obvious a powder composition meter, a waste gas composition meter, and a composition meter.
“Emerging metallic systems for additive manufacturing: In-situ alloying and multi-metal processing in laser powder bed fusion” of Sing teaches a review of in-situ alloying and is considered relevant to claim 1. Sing teaches “in-situ alloying” is a term coined for using L-PBF to simultaneously fabricate functional parts and to create alloys via mixed powder feedstocks (page 1, first paragraph). The in-situ alloying of Sing differs from claim 1 in that the raw materials are both in solid powder form, as opposed to encompassing any combination of solid, liquid, or gas, and are mixed rather than fed together to “be brought into powder form” as recited in claim 1. The in-situ alloying of Sing does not generate waste gas. The compositions of the alloys of Sing are measured from the already printed parts using EDS rather than using a composition meter during processing, as recited in claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art understands an EDS can be used as a “composition meter”.
“Vibratory powder feeding for powder bed additive manufacturing using water and gas atomized metal powders” of Sinclair teaches using vibratory systems for powder feeding using one or more powders (pages 1-17) and is considered relevant to claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYELA ALDAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday: 10 am - 7 pm and alternate Friday: 10 am - 6 pm.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights