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 .
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 May 19, 2026.
Claims Filing Date
May 19, 2026
Amended
35
Cancelled
1-34, 36
Under Examination
35, 37, 38
Amended claims 35, 37, and 38 recite 3D printing, using inkjet printing, of a mold, which is supported by applicant’s specification at 4:6-7; 9:7-10; and 15:32-33.
Amended claims 35, 37, and 38 recite subsequent sintering, which is supported by applicant’s specification at 6:10-11; 9:20-22, 27-32; 11:16-19; 14:4-6; 15:8-10.
Amended claims 35, 37, and 38 recite removing the mold, which is supported by applicant’s specification at 6:7; 13:29-31; 15:8-10.
Response to Remarks filed May 19, 2026
112(b)
Applicant’s response filed May 19, 2026 does not argue the pending 112(b) rejection of claim 37. The claim 37 amendments also do not clarify how the process can require a first or second layer gelcast and a first and second layer gelcast.
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 either one of Wada or Masaoka and Snyder
Claim 37: Whalen in view of Gifford
Claim 38: Gifford; Hao
Applicant's arguments filed May 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the comments made in the previous response (p. 4 para. 3).
In the February 19, 2026 Non-Final Rejections pp. 4-13 respond to Applicant’s Remarks filed December 12, 2025. The response to applicant’s remarks is maintained.
The applicant argues convoluted rejections against claims 35, 37, and 38 (p. 4 paras. 2-3).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
The pending claim 35 rejections are over three references, the pending claim 37 rejection is over two references, and the pending claim 38 rejections are over one reference, which are contrary to applicant’s allegation of the rejection being convoluted. Applicant has not pointed out what about the pending rejections is convoluted.
The applicant argues the amended claims recite inkjet printing and that the product after layerwise construction is sintered and has the mold removed, which are not found in the prior art (p. 4 para. 4).
Gifford discloses inkjet printing (2:12-15) of a mold (walls for reservoir layers) (3:11-20) and the product after layerwise construction is sintered (claim 14) and has the mold (boundary lines) removed (6:46-47, 7:16-18, 40-43, 8:65-67).
Hao discloses inkjet (slurry jetting) printing ([0053], [0124]) of a mold (support paste) ([0131]) and the product after layerwise construction is sintered ([0052], [0136], [0147]) and has the mold removed ([0051], [0060], [0071], [0075], [0076], [0134]).
Shen discloses inkjet printing of a mold (cavity) ([0013]) and the product after layerwise construction is sintered and has the mold removed ([0014], [0018], [0030]).
Whalen in view of Gifford discloses inkjet printing (Gifford 2:12-15) of a mold (Whalen 2:5-55, 3:49-59) and the product after layerwise construction is sintered and has the mold removed (Whalen 2:16-17, 40-42, 3:54-59).
For the above cited reasons, the claim 35, 37, and 38 rejections are 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 10-13 “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. It is unclear how the process requires 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 discloses carrying out 3D printing, using inkjet printing, of a first mold to define one layer of said product (2:12-15, 3:11-22);
carrying out 3D printing, using inkjet printing, of a second mold on top of said first layer to define a second layer (2:12-15, 3:11-22);
using a mold printing material for said inkjet printing (2:12-15, 3:11-22); and
subsequently with the molded layered product carrying out sintering (claim 14) and removing the mold material (boundary lines) from the molded layered product (part) (6:46-47, 7:16-18, 40-43, 8:65-67).
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 carrying out 3D printing, using inkjet (slurry) printing, of a first mold to define one layer of said product ([0053], [0124], [0131]);
carrying out 3D printing, using inkjet (slurry) printing, of a second mold on top of said first layer to define a second layer ([0053], [0124], [0131]);
using a mold printing material for said inkjet (slurry) printing ([0053], [0124], [0131]); and
subsequently with the molded layered product carrying out sintering ([0052], [0136], [0147]) and removing the mold material from the molded layered product ([0051], [0060], [0071], [0075], [0076], [0134]).
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]).
Shen discloses carrying out 3D printing, using inkjet printing, of a first mold (cavity) to define one layer of said product ([0013]);
carrying out 3D printing, using inkjet printing, of a second mold (cavity) on top of said first layer to define a second layer ([0013]);
using a mold (cavity) printing material for said inkjet printing ([0013]); and
subsequently with the molded layered product carrying out sintering and removing the mold material from the molded layered product ([0014], [0018], [0030]).
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).
Whalen in view of Gifford discloses carrying out 3D printing, using inkjet printing, of a first mold to define one layer of said product (Gifford 2:12-15; Whalen 2:5-55, 3:49-59);
carrying out 3D printing, using inkjet printing, of a second mold on top of said first layer to define a second layer (Gifford 2:12-15; Whalen 2:5-55, 3:49-59);
using a mold printing material for said inkjet printing (Gifford 2:12-15; Whalen 2:5-55, 3:49-59); and
subsequently with the molded layered product carrying out sintering and removing the mold material from the molded layered product (Whalen 2:16-17, 40-42, 3:54-59).
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, using inkjet printing (2:12-15, 3:11-22), 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, using inkjet printing (2:12-15, 3:11-22), 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); and
with the product carrying out sintering (claim 14) and removing said first and second molds (boundary lines) from said product (part) (6:46-47, 7:16-18, 40-43, 8:65-67).
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, using inkjet printing ([0053], [0124], [0131]), 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, using inkjet printing ([0053], [0124], [0131]), 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]); and
with the product carrying out sintering ([0052], [0136], [0147]) and removing said first and second molds from said product ([0051], [0060], [0071], [0075], [0076], [0134]).
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]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Wednesday-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
Prosecution Insights