DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 12, 2025 has been entered.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim to priority of US provisional application 62/492,305 filed May 1, 2017 is acknowledged. It is also acknowledged that applicant’s application is a 371 of PCT/IL2018/050475 filed April 30, 2018 and published as WO 2018/203331.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed December 26, 2021 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. A copy of the “Restriction Official Action Dated 13 December 2021 from US Patent and Trademark Office Re. Application No. 17/272,316. (8 pages)” has not been received. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks and Claim Amendments filed December 12, 2025.
Claims Filing Date
December 12, 2025
Amended
35, 37, 38
Cancelled
1-34, 36
Under Examination
35, 37, 38
Claim 38 appears to be supported by applicant’s Figs. 4-8 and specification at 14:23 to 15:10. Enclosing rim 48, lower part 62 of mold 60, and upper part 64 of mold 60 each appear to be a wall around the outside of an inner space that are shown in the drawings as each having a height. Mold 44 filled with cast material 50 appears to be an inner space that defines a layer of the product.
Amended claim 37 line 3 and claim 38 line 19 recite removing the first and second molds, which is support by applicant’s specification such as at 14:5-7.
Withdrawn Claim Objection
The following objection is withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 35 line 12 “additionaly”.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following 112(a) rejections are withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 35 lines 9-10 “the cast material…comprises a slip material” and lines 12-13 “the cast material additionaly comprising a paste”.
Claim 37 lines 9-12 “the cast material…comprises a gelcast material and a final part material…, wherein the gelcast material comprises a slurry containing the final part material in powdered form”.
The following 112(b) rejections are withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 35 lines 9-13 “the cast material of said first layer and/or said second layer comprises a slip material,…the cast material additionaly comprising a paste…”.
Claim 37 lines 9-10 “wherein the cast material of said first layer or second said layer comprises a gelcast material…and gelcasting”.
Claim 37 lines 9-12 “the cast material…comprises a gelcast material and a final part material…, wherein the gelcast material comprises a slurry containing the final part material in powdered form”.
Response to Remarks filed December 12, 2025
Applicant's arguments filed December 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant is reminded that a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2123(I).
The applicant argues it is not obvious to combine these documents from which features are cherrypicked without good reason (Remarks p. 11 para. 1, p. 16 paras. 5-6).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (cherrypicking), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. MPEP 2145(X)(A).
As presented in the pending rejections and following arguments, the combination of references is made with support for why the claimed invention would have been obvious.
Applicant argues against the references (Gifford, Shen, Wada, Masaoka, Snyder, Hao, and Whalen) individually.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues the references (Gifford, Shen, Wada, Masaoka, Snyder, Hao, and Whalen) are nonanalogous art to the present invention.
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). MPEP 2141.01(a)(I).
Claim 35: Gifford in view of Shen, either one of Wada or Masaoka, and Snyder; Hao in view of Shen, either one of Wada or Masaoka, and Snyder; Shen in view of Gifford, either one of Wada or Masaoka, and Snyder
The applicant argues Shen does not disclose the slip material comprises a hydrophilic component and is based on an organic solvent (Remarks p. 6 para. 6).
Shen in view of Wada discloses a slip material of solid powder and solvent (Shen [0015]-[0016]) of ceramic raw material powder that is hydrophilic with a solvent such as trichloroethylene (Wada pp. 1-2) to advantageously sufficiently and uniformly disperse the primary (ceramic) particles (Wada p. 1 para. 2) and form a dense layer with improved surface smoothness (Wada p. 1 para. 1).
Alternatively, Shen in view of Masaoka discloses a slip material of solid powder and solvent (Shen [0015]-[0016]) of ceramic powder dissolved in an organic solvent (Masaoka [0027]) to advantageously increase dispersibility of the ceramic powder, improve homogeneity, and have good coating workability (Masaoka [0009]) of a thin sheet (layer) (Masaoka [0031]).
The applicant argues Shen does not disclose using a paste material in addition to a slip material (Remarks p. 6 para. 6).
Amended claim 35 lines 8-13 recite “a cast material” that comprises “a slip material”. Amended claim 35 is silent to the alleged “paste material”. Shen discloses a slip material ([0015]-[0016]).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a paste material in addition to a slip material) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The applicant argues Shen does not disclose that the mold printing material should have higher viscosity than the cast material (Remarks p. 6 para. 6).
Shen in view of Snyder discloses support material having a higher viscosity than build (cast) material advantageously results in the support material damming or encapsulating the fluid build material prior to completion of curing (Snyder [0122]).
The applicant argues Shen does not disclose 3D printing like FDM or inkjet printing (Remarks p. 6 para. 6).
Shen discloses the claimed 3D printing and filling steps ([0011]).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., 3D printing methods of FDM or inkjet printing) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The applicant argues Shen appears to focus on a layered casting process for ceramics where each layer involves creating a mold with recesses, filling with ceramic slip, then repeating for subsequent layers (Remarks p. 6 para. 7).
This argued disclosure of Shen reads on claim 35. Claim 35 is directed to a layered casting process (printing and filling of a first mold and a second mold on top, lines 3-8) for ceramics (cast material containing a ceramic, lines 11-12) involving creating a mold with recesses (printing a first mold and second mold, lines 3, 6-7), filling with ceramic slip (cast material comprises a slip material, lines 4-5, 8-13), then repeating for subsequent layers (second layer on top of said first layer, lines 3-8).
The applicant argues Wada does not disclose additive manufacturing, building objects layer-by-layer using molds, or printing of molds and filling them with cast material (Remarks p. 7 para. 7).
Shen in view of Wada discloses additive manufacturing (Shen [0011]), building objects layer-by-layer using molds (Shen [0011]), printing of molds and filling them with cast material (Shen [0011]), wherein the cast material comprises a slip material and ceramic (Shen [0015]-[0016]; Wada pp. 1-2) that advantageously sufficiently and uniformly disperse the primary (ceramic) particles (Wada p. 1 para. 2) and form a dense layer with improved surface smoothness (Wada p. 1 para. 1).
The applicant argues Wada does not disclose removing mold materials (Remarks p. 7 para. 7).
Claim 35 is rejected over Wada. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., removing mold materials) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The applicant argues Wada manufactures ceramic slurries for ceramic substrates used in electronic components, which is a different field of endeavor than the present invention of additive manufacturing to produce metal or ceramic parts using molded layered construction (Remarks p. 7 para. 1, p. 11 para. 6, para. spanning pp. 11-12) and the advantages of Wada are not problems the present text looks to solve (Remarks p. 11 paras. 3, 5, p. 16 para. 3), such that Wada would not be obvious to combine (Remarks p. 11 para. 4, p. 12 para. 2).
Wada is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of using a slip material (applicant’s specification 4:30, 10:8; Wada pp. 1-2) with ceramic particles evenly (uniformly) distributed (applicant’s specification 16:22-23; Wada p. 1 para. 2) that is hardened (applicant’s specification 6:4-5; Wada p. 2 para. 2) to form a smooth surface layer (applicant’s specification 4:21, 19:20-22, 21:4-5; Wada p. 1 para. 1). Therefore, Wada is a analogous art and proper for use in an obviousness rejection. MPEP 2141.01(a)(I).
The applicant argues contrary to Wada’s advantage of a large sintered density, the sintered density of the present invention is solved by pressing (applicant’s specification 6:15-16) (Remarks p. 11 para. 5).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., pressing) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The applicant argues Masaoka does not disclose additive manufacturing, building objects layer-by-layer using molds, or printing of molds and filling then with cast material (Remarks p. 9 para. 2).
Shen in view of Masaoka discloses additive manufacturing (Shen [0011]), building objects layer-by-layer using molds (Shen [0011]), printing of molds and filling them with cast material (Shen [0011]), wherein the cast material comprises a slip material and ceramic (Shen [0015]-[0016]; Masaoka [0027]) that forms a thin sheet (layer) (Masaoka [0031]) with increased dispersibility of ceramic powder, a lower decomposition starting temperature during heating and firing, improved homogeneity, a small shrinkage rate, and good coating workability (Masaoka [0009]).
The applicant argues Masaoka does not disclose creating complex 3D geometries or removing mold materials (Remarks p. 9 para. 2).
Claim 35 is rejected over Masaoka. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., creating complex 3D geometries and removing mold materials) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The applicant argues Masaoka forms ceramic green sheets for multilayer ceramic circuit boards in electronic components, which is a different field of endeavor than the present invention of additive manufacturing to produce metal or ceramic parts using molded layered construction (Remarks p. 8 para. 1, p. 12 para. 8, p. 13 paras. 2-4) and the advantages of Masaoka are not issues in the present embodiments (Remarks p. 12 paras. 5-7, p. 16 para. 4), such that Masaoka is not reasonably pertinent to the problem (Remarks para. spanning pp. 12-13).
Masaoka is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of forming a layer (sheet) (applicant’s specification ; Masaoka [0013]) from a slip material (applicant’s specification 4:30, 10:8; Masaoka [0027]) in which the ceramic particles are evenly distributed (dispersed and homogeneous) (applicant’s specification 16:22-23; Masaoka [0009]) and has properties of flow and fill (coat) (applicant’s specification 6:7, 11:3, 13:3-4; Masaoka [0009], [0043], [0064]) that undergoes hardening (sintering) (applicant’s specification 6:4-5; Masaoka [0040]). Therefore, Masaoka is a analogous art and proper for use in an obviousness rejection. MPEP 2141.01(a)(I).
The applicant argues Snyder does not disclose metal or ceramic powder-based manufacturing, filing molds with cast material (Remarks p. 10 para. 4), or hydrophilic components in organic solvents (Remarks p. 10 para. 6).
Shen in view of either one of Wada or Masaoka and Snyder disclose metal or ceramic-based manufacturing (Shen [0001]), filing molds with cast material (Shen [0011], [0015]-[0016]), and hydrophilic components in organic solvents (Wada pp. 1-2; Masaoka [0027]).
The applicant argues Snyder does not disclose sintering (Remarks p. 10 para. 4), removing support material, or functional mechanical parts (Remarks p. 10 para. 5).
Claim 35 is rejected over Snyder. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., sintering, removing support material, or functional mechanical parts) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The applicant argues Snyder prints grayscale and full-color 3D articles for aesthetics, which is a different field of endeavor than the present invention of additive manufacturing to produce metal or ceramic parts using molded layered construction that are sintered (Remarks p. 9 paras. 3, 5, p. 10 para. 8, p. 14 para. 5 to p. 15 para. 4).
Snyder is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of the mold (support) material having a higher viscosity than the cast material so that the mold remains intact when the cast material is poured in (applicant’s specification 11:1-2; Snyder [0122]). The support (mold) material of Snyder dams or encapsulates a fluid build material, which is achieved through the relatively higher viscosity (Snyder [0122]). In order to perform this disclosed function, the support (mold) necessarily has to remain intact. Therefore, Snyder is a analogous art and proper for use in an obviousness rejection. MPEP 2141.01(a)(I).
Finally, Snyder is also reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of the mold (support) printing material having a higher viscosity than the viscosity of the cast material so that the mold (support) remains intact (dams or encapsulates) when the cast (fluid) material is poured (Snyder [0122]; applicant’s specification 10:27-29). Therefore, Snyder is proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
The applicant argues the support material of Snyder is different from the presently claimed mold layers (Remarks p. 13 paras. 6-8) because support material encapsulates fluid build material prior to curing (Remarks p. 13 para. 9, p. 15 para. 5, p. 16 para. 2).
Both the support material of Snyder and the presently claimed mold layers perform the same function of containing the cast (build) material deposited within the mold (support) (applicant’s claim 35; Snyder [0122]).
The applicant argues the viscosity teaching in Snyder [0122] dams fluid deposited during curing to prevent color bleed, which is not related to reservoir molds for casting metal/ceramic slip/paste that will be subsequent debinded and sintered (Remarks p. 15 para. 5).
Applicant’s invention, Snyder, and Shen are additive manufacturing processes that cure (harden) cast material that has been filled into a mold (applicant’s specification 9:27-31, 10:31-33, 11:5-7; Snyder [0122]; Shen [0015]). While Snyder discloses preventing color bleed (Snyder [0122]), this concept applied to the process of Shen would prevent the slip material from bleeding out of the mold. Evidence that the disclosure of Snyder is only applicable to the materials of Snyder has not been presented.
For the above cited reasons, the rejections of Gifford in view of Shen, either one of Wada or Masaoka, and Snyder; Hao in view of Shen, either one of Wada or Masaoka, and Snyder; and Shen in view of either one of Wada or Masaoka, and Snyder are maintained.
Claim 37: Whalen in view of Gifford
The applicant argues amended claim 37 defines alternating 3D printing and gelcasting operations and removes the mold afterwards (Remarks p. 16 para. 8), whereas Whalen creates a complete mold first then casts (Remarks p. 17 para. 5) and Gifford teaches layers without gels and with mold layers that are an integral part of the structure and not removed, but part of the final product (Remarks p. 17 para. 6) (Remarks p. 18 para. 1).
Whalen in view of Gifford discloses 3D printing a mold and gelcasting (Whalen 2:5-55, 3:49-59) by repetitively printing a mold layer then filling the mold layer (Gifford 1:27-38, 3:21-26, 4:15-55, 10:36-57, Figs. 11, 12) to advantageously minimize waste casting material, not require a seal for casting, and to allow for casting control by a 3D printer such that minimum skills in molding are required (Gifford 4:44-55).
Whalen in view of Gifford also disclose that the product is formed from the ceramic or metal (ceramic) following removal (separation or dissolution) of said first and second molds (boundary lines, 428) (Whalen 2:26-29, 36-42, 50-51, 3:38-42, 55-59, 5:6-7; Gifford 6:46-47, 7:16-18, 8:65-68, 9:9-10, 10:64-66, 11:29-30). Contrary to applicant’s allegation, the mold wall (boundary lines) are removed, such that they are not a part of the final object (Gifford 6:46-47, 7:16-18, 8:65-68, 9:9-10, 10:64-66, 11:29-30).
For the above cited reasons, the claim 37 rejection of Whalen in view of Gifford is maintained.
Claim 38: Gifford
The applicant argues amended claim 38 defines the product is formed from the metal or ceramic after the mold is removed (Remarks p. 18 para. 4), where the mold and cast material are separate materials with different functions with the cast material forming the product layers and the mold material being temporary (Remarks p. 18 para. 8), whereas Gifford 3D prints to create permanent walls that become part of the final object (Remarks p. 18 para. 7) that cross-links or sinters together (Remarks para. spanning pp. 18-19).
Contrary to applicant’s allegation, Gifford discloses removal of said first and second molds (boundary lines) (6:46-47, 7:16-18, 8:65-68, 9:9-10, 10:64-66, 11:29-30). The cross linking or sintering, such as Gifford 3:10-36, 53-59, 5:12-15, occurs in the castable material that is filled (poured) into the printed mold wall (boundary lines, reservoir).
Further, similar to amended claim 38 Gifford discloses a product (object) (1:36-37) formed from a ceramic (3:1-10, 5:58-59, 6:52-54, 6:67 to 7:2, 11:37-39), where the mold (boundary lines, 420) and cast material (440) are separate materials with different functions with the cast material forming the product layers (castable material 440 forms a solidly bonded layer of the object) and the mold material being temporary (boundary lines 420 form reservoir area 421 and can be removed and discarded after forming the part) (6:35-67, Figs. 4A-4C).
For the above cited reasons, the claim 38 rejection of Gifford is maintained.
Claim 38: Hao
In the Remarks filed December 12, 2025, applicant did not present arguments directed to Hao. The claim 38 lines 18-19 “wherein the product is formed from the ceramic or metal following removal of said first and second molds” is disclosed by Hao, such as in [0133]-[0136] where a complex structural metal part is produced after removing the support slurry (mold). Therefore, the claim 38 rejection of Hao is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 35 lines 10-12 “the slip material comprising a hydrophilic component and being based on an organic solvent” is given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with applicant’s specification of requiring the cast material to include (1) a hydrophilic component and (2) an organic solvent as the liquid carrier.
Applicant’s specification recites at 4:34 “the cast material comprises a hydrophilic or hydrophobic component” and at 10:34 “the cast material may include a hydrophilic or hydrophobic component.”
Applicant’s specification recites at 4:32 “the slip or paste is a water based or organic solvent based material” and at 10:1-2 “A slip, slurry or paste mixture is a suspensions of ceramic or and metal particles…in a liquid carrier, such as water or an organic solvent…”
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.
Claim 37 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 37 lines 9-12 “the cast material of said first layer or said second layer comprises a gelcast material…, thereby providing alternating…gelcasting stages” renders the claim indefinite. The first layer or second layer comprises a gelcast. Use of the conjunction “or” indicates alternatives. Alternating gelcast stages suggests both a first layer and a second layer comprise a gelcast. How can the process require the first or second layer to require a gelcast as alternatives, yet alternating gelcasting stages such that both the first and second layer are a gelcast? For the purpose of examination claim 37 will be interpreted as providing alternating gelcasting stages such that the first layer and the second layer comprise a gelcast material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 35 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gifford (US 10,137,642) in view of Shen (DE 19728113 machine translation), either one of Wada (JP S60-054964 machine translation) or Masaoka (JP H07-017769 machine translation), and Snyder (US 2015/0352783).
Regarding claim 35, Gifford discloses a method for forming 3D objects (i.e. molded layered product) by printing walls to form reservoir layers (i.e. carrying out 3D printing) and depositing in the reservoir layers sinterable material (i.e. filling said 3D printed mold with a cast material, thereby forming a layer) that forms the 3D object (1:27-38), where the boundary lines form a reservoir area inside the boundary lines that can be in the shape of a layer and material can fill the reservoir area to form a cross sectional layer of the body (4:15-19, 10:36-57, Figs. 11, 12) using a layered casting processed performed layer by layer (i.e. printing and forming a first layer then printing and forming a second layer on top of said first layer) (3:21-36, 4:20-43), where the castable material contains one member from the group consisting of a metal and a ceramic (ceramic) (3:3-4, 5:56-59, 6:52-54, 11:37-39).
Gifford is silent to the castable material comprising a slip material.
Shen discloses manufacturing a ceramic workpiece prototype ([0001]) by applying a thin layer of a mold material with recesses corresponding to the geometry of the workpiece and filling the recesses with castable workpiece material ([0011]) that is a slip with solid powder particles and a solvent ([0015], [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Gifford for the castable material to include a slip because it has a low viscosity that reliably penetrates even thin gaps when applied (Shen [0015]) and results in homogeneous material filling (Shen [0016]).
Gifford in view of Shen is silent to the slip material comprising a hydrophilic component and being based on an organic solvent.
Wada discloses a ceramic slip of ceramic raw material powder (component) that is hydrophilic and easily wetted by alcohols and uses a solvent such as trichloroethylene (organic solvent) (pp. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the slip of Gifford in view of Shen to include ceramic raw material powder that is hydrophilic in an alcohol such as trichloroethylene (organic solvent) so that the ceramic raw material powder are very easily wetted and thoroughly disintegrate into single particles (Wada p. 1 para. 1) so that the primary particles (ceramic) are sufficiently and uniformly dispersed (Wada p. 1 para. 2) and the resulting ceramic substrate (layer) is dense, has a large sintered density, a stable firing shrinkage rate, and improve surface smoothness (Wada p. 1 para. 1).
As an alternative to Wada, Masaoka discloses a ceramic slurry (slip) with modified polyvinyl acetal resin (component) having specifically mentioned hydrophilic groups, a ceramic powder, and a plasticizer dissolved in (based on) an organic solvent ([0027])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Gifford in view of Shen to use the slip (ceramic slurry) of Masaoka because it has increased dispersibility of ceramic powder, a lower decomposition starting temperature during hearing and firing, improved homogeneity, a small shrinkage rate after heating and firing, and good coating workability (Masaoka [0009]) with suppressed association and crystallization of the modified polyvinyl acetal resin (Masaoka [0043]) that obtains a thin sheet (layer) (Masaoka [0031]).
Gifford in view of Shen and either one of Wada or Masaoka is silent to the mold printing material comprising a viscosity which is higher than a viscosity of the cast material.
Snyder discloses printing three-dimensional articles or objects ([0002]) in which the support material has a higher viscosity than the build (i.e. cast) material ([0122]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Gifford in view of Shen and either one of Wada or Lange for the support material to have a higher viscosity than the build material so that the support material can “dam” or “encapsulate” a fluid build material prior to completion of curing of the build material (Snyder [0122]).
Claim 35 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hao (CN 106270512 Espacenet and Goggle Patents machine translations) in view of Shen (DE 19728113 machine translation), either one of Wada (JP S60-054964 machine translation) or Masaoka (JP H07-017769 machine translation), and Snyder (US 2015/0352783).
Regarding claim 35, Hao discloses a method of 3D printing (i.e. a molded layered product) a complex metal structure ([0002]) by printing the support paste (slurry) (i.e. printing a mold) ([0131]) then squeezing out or spraying metal paste (slurry) (i.e. a cast material) for model printing followed by raising the print head and again squeezing out or spraying out metal paste (slurry) and/or support paste (slurry) so as to be superimposed on the previous layer, and repeating until completion of model printing ([0132]). As evidenced by the Google Patents Translation of Hao (CN 106270512) the slurry in the Espacenet machine translation of Hao is synonymous with a paste.
Hao discloses a metal paste (i.e. a paste containing a metal) ([0132]).
Hao is silent to the castable material comprising a slip material.
Shen discloses manufacturing a metal or ceramic workpiece prototype ([0001]) by applying a thin layer of a mold material with recesses corresponding to the geometry of the workpiece and filling the recesses with castable workpiece material ([0011]) that is a slip ([0015], [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Hao for the castable material to be a slip because it has a low viscosity that reliable penetrates even thin gaps when applied (Shen [0015]) and results in homogeneous material filling (Shen [0016]).
Hao in view of Shen is silent to the slip material comprising a hydrophilic component and being based on an organic solvent.
Wada discloses a ceramic slip of ceramic raw material powder (component) that is hydrophilic and easily wetted by alcohols and uses a solvent such as trichloroethylene (organic solvent) (pp. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the slip of Gifford in view of Shen to include ceramic raw material powder that is hydrophilic in an alcohol solvent such as trichloroethylene so that the ceramic raw material powder are very easily wetted and thoroughly disintegrate into single particles (Wada p. 1 para. 1) so that the primary particles (ceramic) are sufficiently and uniformly dispersed (Wada p. 1 para. 2) and the resulting ceramic substrate (layer) is dense, has a large sintered density, a stable firing shrinkage rate, and improve surface smoothness (Wada p. 1 para. 1).
As an alternative to Wada, Masaoka discloses a ceramic slurry (slip) of modified polyvinyl acetal resin (component) having specifically mentioned hydrophilic groups, a ceramic powder, and a plasticizer dissolved in (based on) an organic solvent ([0027])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Gifford in view of Shen to use the slip (ceramic slurry) of Masaoka because it has increased dispersibility of ceramic powder, a lower decomposition starting temperature during hearing and firing, improved homogeneity, a small shrinkage rate after heating and firing, and good coating workability (Masaoka [0009]) with suppressed association and crystallization of the modified polyvinyl acetal resin (Masaoka [0043]) that obtains a thin sheet (layer) (Masaoka [0031]).
Hao discloses metal ([0132]) and either one of Wada or Masaoka discloses ceramic (Wada pp. 1-2; Masaoka p0027]). Shen discloses a slip with metallic or ceramic particles (Shen [0016]). Therefore, metallic and ceramic particles are art recognized equivalents that are known for the same purpose and are prima facie obvious to substitute. MPEP 2144.06
Hao in view of Shen and either one of Wada or Masaoka is silent to the mold printing material comprising a viscosity which is higher than a viscosity of the cast material.
Snyder discloses printing three-dimensional articles or objects ([0002]) in which the support material has a higher viscosity than the build (i.e. cast) material ([0122]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Hao in view of Shen and either one of Wada or Masaoka for the support material to have a higher viscosity than the build material so that the support material can “dam” or “encapsulate” a fluid build material prior to completion of curing of the build material (Snyder [0122]).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen (DE 19728113 machine translation) in view of either one of Wada (JP S60-054964 machine translation) or Masaoka (JP H07-017769 machine translation) and Snyder (US 2015/0352783).
Regarding claim 35, Shen discloses producing a metallic or ceramic workpiece ([0010]) by applying a thin layer of molding material with recesses (i.e. carrying out 3D printing of a first mold to define one layer of said product) and filling the recesses with a castable workpiece material (i.e. filling said 3D printed first mold with a cast material, thereby forming a first layer) ([0011]) to form a plurality of layers (i.e. carrying out 3D printing of a second mold on top of said first layer to define a second layer; and filling said 3D printed second mold, over said first layer, with a cast material to form said second layer; thereby to form a molded layer product), then removing the molding material, leaving the prototype workpiece (i.e. a method of manufacturing a molded layered product) ([0012]), where the workpiece material is a slip (i.e. the cast material comprises a slip material) ([0015], [0016]).
The process of Shen fills recesses with a castable workpiece material (Shen [0011]) comprising a slip (Shen [0011], [0015], [0016]) and additionally containing one member of the group consisting of a metal and a ceramic (Shen [0016]-[0017]).
Shen is silent to the slip material comprising a hydrophilic component and being based on an organic solvent.
Wada discloses a ceramic slip of ceramic raw material powder (component) that is hydrophilic and easily wetted by alcohols and uses a solvent such as trichloroethylene (organic solvent) (pp. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the slip of Shen to include ceramic raw material powder that is hydrophilic in an alcohol solvent such as trichloroethylene so that the ceramic raw material powder are very easily wetted and thoroughly disintegrate into single particles (Wada p. 1 para. 1) so that the primary particles (ceramic) are sufficiently and uniformly dispersed (Wada p. 1 para. 2) and the resulting ceramic substrate (layer) is dense, has a large sintered density, a stable firing shrinkage rate, and improve surface smoothness (Wada p. 1 para. 1).
As an alternative to Wada, Masaoka discloses a ceramic slurry (slip) of modified polyvinyl acetal resin (component) having specifically mentioned hydrophilic groups, a ceramic powder, and a plasticizer dissolved in (based on) an organic solvent ([0027])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Gifford in view of Shen to use the slip (ceramic slurry) of Masaoka because it has increased dispersibility of ceramic powder, a lower decomposition starting temperature during hearing and firing, improved homogeneity, a small shrinkage rate after heating and firing, and good coating workability (Masaoka [0009]) with suppressed association and crystallization of the modified polyvinyl acetal resin (Masaoka [0043]) that obtains a thin sheet (layer) (Masaoka [0031]).
Shen is silent to the mold printing material comprising a viscosity which is higher than a viscosity of the cast material.
Snyder discloses printing three-dimensional articles or objects ([0002]) in which the support material has a higher viscosity than the build (i.e. cast) material ([0122]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Shen in view of either one of Wada or Masaoka for the support material to have a higher viscosity than the build material so that the support material can “dam” or “encapsulate” a fluid build material prior to completion of curing of the build material (Snyder [0122]).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whalen (US 5,824,250) in view of Gifford (US 10,137,642).
Regarding claim 37, Whalen discloses a method of manufacturing a molded product (ceramic component) (1:7-10), the method including: carrying out 3D printing of a mold (rapid prototyping of a fugitive mold); filling (pouring) said 3D printed mold with a cast (gelcast) material; thereby to form a molded product, wherein the cast material comprises a gelcast material and a final part material and gelcasting, wherein the gelcast material comprises a (gelcast ceramic) slurry containing the final part (ceramic) material in powdered form (dried then sintered) (2:5-55, 3:49-59), wherein the product is formed from the ceramic or metal (ceramic) following removal (separation or dissolution) of said first and second molds (2:26-29, 36-42, 3:55-59).
Whalen is silent to a method of manufacturing a layered product.
Gifford discloses a method of manufacturing a layered product (1:27-38), the method including: carrying out 3D printing of a first mold (wall with reservoir layer) to define one layer of said product; filling said 3D printed first mold (wall with reservoir layer) with a cast material, thereby forming a first layer; carrying out 3D printing of a second mold on top of said first layer to define a second layer; and filling said 3D printed second mold, over said first layer, with a cast material; thereby to form a molded layered product (1:27-38, 3:21-36, 4:15-55, 10:36-57, Figs. 11, 12), wherein the product is formed following removal of said first and second molds (6:46-47, 7:16-18, 8:65-68, 9:9-10, 10:64-66, 11:29-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Whalen to manufacture the mold and component by printing and filling layer by layer to advantageously minimally waste casting material by only filing the area inside the boundary lines, not require a seal for casting since the boundary lines are built as the part is caste, and allowing control of the casting process by the 3D printer, such that minimum skills in molding processes are required (Gifford 4:44-55).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gifford (US 10,137,642).
Regarding claim 38, Gifford discloses a method of manufacturing a molded layered product comprising (1:27-35):
carrying out 3D printing of a first mold to provide a wall (boundary lines) around the outside of an inner space (reservoir layer), the inner space (reservoir layer) defining one layer of said product, the inner space (reservoir layer) having a height, the height defined by a height of said wall (boundary lines) (1:27-38, 3:21-36, 4:15-36, 4:20-43, 10:36-57, Figs. 11, 12);
filling said inner space (reservoir layer) of said 3D printed first mold by pouring in a cast (castable) material to said height, said inner space within said wall forming a first layer of said molded layered product (1:27-38, 3:21-36, 4:15-36, 4:20-43, 10:36-57, Figs. 11, 12);
carrying out 3D printing of a second mold to provide a second wall around the outside of a second inner space on top of said first layer, the second inner space defining a second layer of said product, the second inner space having a second height, the second height defined by a height of said second wall (1:27-38, 3:21-36, 4:15-36, 4:20-43, 10:36-57, Figs. 11, 12); and
filling said second inner space of said 3D printed second mold, over said first layer, by pouring in more of said cast material to said second height; thereby to form a second layer on top of said first layer, thereby to form a molded layered product (1:27-38, 3:21-36, 4:15-36, 4:20-43, 10:36-57, Figs. 11, 12), wherein the cast material comprises a paste containing a ceramic or a metal (ceramic paste), wherein the product (object) is formed from the ceramic or metal (3:1-10, 5:58-59, 6:52-54, 6:67 to 7:2, 11:37-39) following removal of said first and second molds (boundary lines) (6:46-47, 7:16-18, 8:65-68, 9:9-10, 10:64-66, 11:29-30).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao (CN 106270512 Espacenet and Google Patents machine translation).
Regarding claim 38, Hao discloses a method of manufacturing a molded layered product ([0002]) comprising:
carrying out 3D printing of a first mold to provide a wall (support) around the outside of an inner space (vacant), the inner space defining one layer of said product, the inner space having a height, the height defined by a height of said wall (support) ([0128]-[0129], [0131]-[0133], Fig. 1);
filling said inner space of said 3D printed first mold by pouring in a cast (paste) material to said height, said inner space within said wall forming a first layer of said molded layered product ([0128]-[0129], [0131]-[0133], Fig. 1);
carrying out 3D printing of a second mold to provide a second wall around the outside of a second inner space on top of said first layer (superimpose), the second inner space defining a second layer of said product, the second inner space having a second height, the second height defined by a height of said second wall ([0128]-[0129], [0131]-[0133], Fig. 1); and
filling said second inner space of said 3D printed second mold, over said first layer, by pouring in more of said cast material to said second height; thereby to form a second layer on top of said first layer, thereby to form a molded layered product, wherein the cast material comprises a paste containing a ceramic or a metal (metal paste) ([0128]-[0129], [0131]-[0133], Fig. 1), wherein the product is formed from the ceramic or metal (complex structural metal parts) ([0136], [0147]) following removal of said first and second molds (supports) ([0134]-[0135]).
Related Art
Hofmann (US 2015/0014885)
Hofmann discloses additive manufacturing by developing a boundary surface of the object to be fabricated then filling the interior volume within the boundary surface ([0079], [0080], Figs. 2, 3), where the filing is performed by pouring molten metal or polymer ([0081], [0082], Fig. 5).
Cruz-Uribe (US 2005/0015171)
Cruz-Uribe discloses a method of producing an object through solid freeform fabrication by selectively depositing a boundary structure then depositing a flowable build material to the boundary structure ([0005], [0042]).
Huang (CN 204136193 machine translation)
Huang discloses additive printing of a slurry material ([0002]) by printing a mold, filling the mold with wet slurry by layer printing, and removing the mold after solidification and drying ([0007]).
Su (CN 103612315 machine translation)
Su discloses three-dimensional printing for molding ceramic parts ([0002]) by printing a ceramic material and a wax support material ([0012], [0020], [0039]), dewaxing by high temperature heating ([0040]), then glazing ([0041]).
Yang (CN 105834422 machine translation)
Yang discloses a method of metal additive manufacturing ([0002]) in which the support structure is easy to remove ([0008]) by building a part and support structure layer by layer then removing the support structure by high temperature heating or organic solvent dissolution ([0010], [0024]).
Lange (US 6,165,425)
Lange discloses forming a silicon nitride (ceramic) layer by applying a slip to a substrate in which silicon nitride (ceramic) powder is dispersed in a solvent that is a mixture of water and a hydrophilic organic solvent (hydrophilic component and based on an organic solvent) (4:21-28) to advantageously form a homogeneous, uniform layer free of cracks and flakes (4:37-39).
Cooper (US 6,375,880)
Cooper discloses rapidly fabricating three-dimensional ceramic and metal parts by making molded parts using complex fugitive molds build using a layer manufacturing process (1:18-22) where the mold layer are sequentially deposited and shaped then the empty mold cavity receives castable part material, such as gelcasting slurry (3:6-20).
Reichle (DE 4216502 machine translation)
Reichle discloses producing an object using a layer process ([0001]) by manufacturing a layer ([0012]), removing parts of the layer that correspond to the object ([0013]), then filling the resulting mold with molding material ([0014]) and solidifying ([0015]). In Reichle the support material is removed once all layers of the object have solidified ([0017]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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 WALKER can be reached on 571-272-3458. 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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735