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 of Group I (Claims 1-6) in the reply filed on 05/29/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 7-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-6 are examined herein.
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)(2) as being anticipated by Kamimoto (US 2023/0144481).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Kamimoto teaches an additive manufacturing composition comprising an Fe-Cr-Ni alloy and nitrogen incorporated into the Fe-Cr-Ni by nitrogen atomization (i.e. niobium-absorption element), wherein the Fe-Cr-Ni alloy powder has a niobium content of about 0.5% by weight, wherein the nitrogen forms a precipitate with niobium (Abstract; [0002]; [0055] to [0078]; Table 2, Ex. 20), which meets the limitations recited in claims 1 and 2.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Kamimoto discloses that nitrogen is incorporated by nitrogen atomization ([0071]), which meets the limitation that nitrogen (i.e. niobium-absorption element) is initially separate from the iron, chromium, and nickel alloying elements as recited in claim 3 and that the niobium-absorption element is nitrogen gas as recited in claim 4.
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.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimoto (US 2023/0144481), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Denis (US 2012/0201712).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Kamimoto does not teach that the niobium-absorption element comprises solid carbon as recited in claim 5 and that the solid carbon of the niobium-absorption element is initially separate from the carbon of the powder as recited in claim 6.
Denis teaches a stainless-steel powder containing Fe, Cr and Ni that is analogous to the powder of Kamimoto (Abstract). Denis discloses that adding graphite powder to the stainless-steel powder strengthens the material and increases corrosion resistance ([0051]; [0052]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add graphite powder to the stainless-steel powder as taught by Denis in the stainless- steel powder of Kamimoto in order to strengthen the material and increase corrosion resistance as disclosed by Denis. The powder mixture of stainless-steel alloy powder and graphite powder disclosed by Denis meets the limitation that the niobium-absorption element comprises solid carbon as recited in claim 5 and that the solid carbon of the niobium-absorption element is initially separate from the carbon of the powder as recited in claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiaowei Su whose telephone number is (571)272-3239. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00.
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 5712721401. 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.
/XIAOWEI SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights