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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: The use of an abbreviation “ED AX”, should have been spelled out for the first time in a claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3,6 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2018-119202 A(herein after, JP-202; provided with the IDS).
Note: all the citation to be found in the machine translation of the JP-202.
Regarding claim 1, JP- discloses a method for producing a metal powder
for three dimensional additive manufacturing, comprising: reducing an oxygen concentration in the metal powder; wherein the step of reducing comprises: dry etching the metal powder; and removing at least a part of an oxide film of the metal powder (see paragraphs [0016],[0023], [0028] and claims 1-2, 8-10).
Regarding claim 2, JP-202 discloses the metal powder added to the etching solution is stirred by ultrasonic vibration and is separated from the etching solution [0037].
Regarding claim 3, JP-202 discloses the metal powder comprises a metal alloy material [0036].
Regarding claim 6, JP-202 discloses above that the metal material is in a powder form [0023].
Regarding claim 24, JP-202 discloses that the above-mentioned process including reducing the oxygen concentration of the metal powder while suppressing a decrease in fluidity of the used metal powder. Therefore, the used metal powder can be reused as a metal powder [0028] and therefore, the metal powder being reconditioned.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-202 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chung et al (US 2008/0164238).
Regarding claims 7 and 27 , JP-202 discloses above for the claim 1 but fails to disclose the claimed temperature.
However, Chung et al disclose (see, paragraph [0007]and claims 1, 5): a method of etching a metal oxide layer, comprising: primary etching the metal oxide layer exposed by the photoresist using chlorine gas in an inductively coupled plasma method, wherein the primary etching is performed at a temperature of 0°C to 100°C, and a reactive ion etching (RIE) is performed at a temperature of approximately 300°C or higher.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Chung et al's teaching of etching metal oxide with the temperature range encompasses the instant range into the teaching of JP-202 for effective removal of the oxide material as suggested by Chung et al.
Additionally, the selection of reaction parameters such as temperature and concentration would have been obvious as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller 105 USPQ 233, 255 (CCPA 1955).See also In re Waite 77 USPQ 586 (CCPA 1948);
Claim(s) 9-10,13-18 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-202.
Regarding claims 9-10, JP-202 discloses that at least a part of the oxide film of the metal powder can be removed by dry etching using a mixed gas containing boron trichloride gas, chlorine gas, and argon gas (see paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 13, JP-202 discloses that at least a part of the oxide film of the metal powder can be removed by dry etching using a mixed gas containing boron trichloride gas, chlorine gas, and argon gas (see paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 14, JP-202 discloses that the metal powder added to the etching solution is stirred by ultrasonic vibration and is separated from the etching solution (see claims 2, 5); and aforesaid teaching obviously milling the etched metal material after etching and before the separation.
The additional feature of claim 16 would be easily derived from the disclosure of JP-202(see claim 1: a method for producing a metal powder for three dimensional additive manufacturing.
Regarding claim 17, JP-202 discloses that by removing at least a part of the film, it is possible to reduce the oxygen concentration of the metal powder, and to reuse it as a metal powder suitable for three-dimensional additive manufacturing (see paragraph [0016]).
Regarding claim 18, JP-202 discloses that the oxygen concentration of the used metal powder before performing the oxide film removal process was 2000 ppm, and by performing the oxide film removal process, the oxygen concentration of the metal powder could be reduced to 150 ppm or less (see paragraph [0045]); and such detection would have been performed by ordinary skill in the art by known technique, such as Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX/EDAX) evaluates localized oxide concentration.
Regarding claim 23, JP-202 discloses that at least a part of the oxide film of the metal powder is removed while stirring the metal powder added to the etching solution by ultrasonic vibration, and the metal powder is separated from the etching solution using a sieve or filter paper (see paragraph [0037]).
Claim(s) 22, 25-26 and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-202 as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Carrion et al (Powder Recycling Effects on the Tensile and Fatigue Behavior of Additively Manufactured Ti-6AI-4V Parts; provided with the IDS).
Regarding claim 22, JP-202 discloses above for the claim s1-2 but fails to teach the metal material comprises titanium alloy material.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Carrion et al disclose a process of powder recycling effects on titanium alloy material (see at least the abstract, introduction at page 963-964).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Carrion et al's teaching of recycling metal material comprising titanium alloy material into the teaching of JP-202 because such would have been a simple substitution for known materials as suggested by Carrion et al.
Regarding claim 25, JP-202 discloses above that metal material could be metal alloy and claim 25 relates to a titanium alloy material and has substantially the same technical features disclosed in claim 1 of JP-202,differing only in the category of invention. Thus, the same reasoning as in claim 1 applies to claim 25.
Regarding claims 26,28-29, JP-202 discloses above and would be easily derived from the disclosure of JP-202 (see paragraph [0028]: the used metal powder can be reused as metal powder suitable for three-dimensional additive manufacturing and the metal could be titanium alloy as the metal material, suggested by Carrion et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed in the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAMIM AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1457. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH (8-5:30pm).
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
SHAMIM AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/SHAMIM AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights