DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s response filed 7 May 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 15, 25, and 26 have been amended, and claims 1-6, 8, 10-16, and 25-30 remain pending.
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 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, 10, 13, 16, 25, 26, and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sachs et al. (US 5,775,402; hereinafter “Sachs”).
Regarding claim 1, Sachs teaches a method of manufacturing a part (see 6:37-55), comprising steps of:
additively manufacturing (see 6:7-14) a wall (shell 25, see Fig. 9; 12:50-13:15) substantially enclosing an interior volume (see Fig. 9) and additively manufacturing an infill portion (cellular structure 23, see Fig. 9; 12:50-13:15) having a repeated geometric pattern defining structures and space within the interior volume (see Figs. 9 and 20), the wall (shell 25, see Fig. 9), and infill portion (cellular structure 23, see Fig. 9) made of a first metal (see 12:50-13:15); and
infiltrating the first metal with a second metal having a lower melting temperature than the first metal (see 12:50-13:15 and 9:5-10:58) to form an interpenetrating structure having minimal erosion of the first metal by the second metal (see 8:19-65), wherein the second metal substantially surrounds the infill portion of the first metal and fills the space within the interior volume of the part (see 12:50-13:15 and 9:5-10:58).
Regarding claim 2, Sachs teaches wherein printing the part comprises printing one or more channels within and traversing through the interior volume of the part (conformal cooling channels 22, see Fig. 9; 12:50-13:15).
Regarding claim 3, Sachs teaches wherein the first metal is steel (see 6:37-55), and the second metal is copper (bronze, see 7:43-62).
Regarding claim 10, Sachs teaches wherein in the infiltrating step the second metal unimpededly flows through the interior volume (Sachs does not specify otherwise so the second metal inherently unimpededly flows through the interior volume; see 12:50-13:15 and 9:5-10:58).
Regarding claim 13, Sachs teaches wherein the infiltrating step substantially fills empty space within the interior volume (see Figs. 16A-16D; 12:50-13:15 and 9:5-10:58).
Regarding claim 16, Sachs teaches wherein the infiltrating step comprises heating the part with the second metal in a reducing argon atmosphere (see 9:16-55).
Regarding claim 25, its limitations have been discussed in the rejection for claim 1 above. Claim 25 differs from claim 1 in that debinding and sintering the green part is required, which is also taught by Sachs (see 6:35-55).
Regarding claim 26, Sachs teaches a method of manufacturing a die insert for a mold (see 6:37-55), comprising steps of:
additively manufacturing (see 6:7-14) a wall (shell 25, see Fig. 9; 12:50-13:15) substantially enclosing an interior volume (see Fig. 9) and additively manufacturing an infill portion (cellular structure 23, see Fig. 9; 12:50-13:15) to form a green part (see 12:50-13:33), the infill portion having a repeated geometric pattern defining structures and spaces throughout the interior volume (see Figs. 9 and 20; 12:50-13:15), the wall and infill portion made of a first metal (see 12:50-13:15), wherein
additively manufacturing the wall and the infill portion includes printing one or more fluid tight channels within and traversing through the interior volume of the part (conformal cooling channels 22, see Fig. 9; 12:50-13:15); and
infiltrating the first metal with a second metal having a lower melting temperature than the first metal to form an interpenetrating structure of the first metal by the second metal (see 12:50-13:15 and 9:5-10:58),
wherein the second metal substantially surrounds the infill portion of the first metal and fills the space within the interior volume of the part (see 12:50-13:15 and 9:5-10:58).
Regarding claim 28, Sachs teaches debinding and sintering the green part after forming the green part (see 6:35-55 and 13:15-33).
Regarding claim 29, Sachs teaches wherein the first metal is steel (see 6:37-55), and the second metal is copper (bronze, see 7:43-62) or magnesium.
Regarding claim 30, Sachs teaches wherein the infiltrating step comprises heating the part with the second metal in a reducing argon atmosphere (see 9:16-55).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 10, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amstutz (US 2016/0039006), in view of Cronin (US 2016/0221266).
Regarding claim 1, Amstutz teaches a method of manufacturing a part, comprising steps of:
additively manufacturing a wall substantially enclosing an interior volume (shell 104 is created by an additive manufacturing process (see [0023] and [0049]-[0051]) and forms a wall 106 surrounding a cavity 118 defined by one or more interior surfaces of the shell 104, see Fig. 2; [0023]-[0027]) and additively manufacturing an infill portion having a pattern defining structures and space within the interior volume (support structure 116, see Fig. 2; [0026]), the wall (see [0048]-[0051]), and infill portion (though Amstutz is silent to specifically teaching wherein the infill portion is made of a first metal, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to do so because the shell 104, which includes said support structures 116 (see [0026]), is additively manufactured of metal (see [0048]-[0051])) made of a first metal; and
infiltrating the first metal with a second metal having a lower melting temperature than the first metal, wherein the second metal substantially surrounds the infill portion of the first metal and fills the space within the interior volume of the part (see [0034]-[0041] and [0048]-[0054]).
Though Amstutz is silent to specifically teaching to form an interpenetrating structure having minimal erosion of the first metal by the second metal, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to do so in order to maintain the integrity of the first metal during infiltration of the second metal (see [0048]).
Amstutz is silent to the infill portion having a repeated geometric pattern defining structures and space throughout the interior volume.
Cronin teaches that a hollow object has 0% infill and a completely solid object has 100% infill. Cronin teaches that the infill may have a repeated geometric pattern defining structures and space throughout the interior volume (see Figs. 2-4; [0024]-[0028]).The infill can have a significant impact on the manufacturing process and the characteristics of the printed object. For example, as the percent infill is increased, the weight and strength of the object generally increase and manufacturing (printing) time and cost and amount of raw materials also increase. Thus, reducing the amount of infill can have a positive effect of reducing printing time and cost, but doing so may result in a printed object having unacceptable structural characteristics (see [0005], [0024]-[0028], and Fig. 2C). Therefore, the percent infill is a result effective variable.
In view of Cronin’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Amstutz to include optimizing its infill portion so it has a repeated geometric pattern defining structure and space throughout the interior volume, as taught by Cronin, because it would increase the strength of the object. Where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Amstutz and Cronin teaches wherein the first metal is steel (Amstutz: see [0051]), but is silent to wherein the second metal is copper. However, Amstutz teaches that the filler material 164 is selected in order to ensure adequate metallurgical bonding with the additive manufactured shell 104 (see [0048]), so it would have been within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine through routine experimentation an appropriate material for the second metal, such as copper. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Amstutz and Cronin teaches wherein the first metal is steel (Amstutz: see [0051]), but is silent to wherein the second metal is magnesium. However, Amstutz teaches that the filler material 164 is selected in order to ensure adequate metallurgical bonding with the additive manufactured shell 104 (see [0048]), so it would have been within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine through routine experimentation an appropriate material for the second metal, such as magnesium. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Amstutz and Cronin teaches where the first metal is titanium (Amstutz: see [0051]), but is silent to wherein the second metal is magnesium. However, Amstutz teaches that the filler material 164 is selected in order to ensure adequate metallurgical bonding with the additive manufactured shell 104 (see [0048]), so it would have been within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine through routine experimentation an appropriate material for the second metal, such as magnesium. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Amstutz and Cronin teaches wherein in the infiltrating step the second metal unimpededly flows through the interior volume (Amstutz does not specify otherwise so the second metal inherently unimpededly flows through the interior volume; see [0034]-[0041] and [0048]-[0054]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Amstutz and Cronin teaches wherein the infiltrating step substantially fills empty space within the interior volume (Amstutz: see Fig. 6, [0034]-[0041] and [0048]-[0054]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Amstutz and Cronin teaches wherein prior to the infiltrating step, comprising a step of forming one or more openings in the wall (Amstutz: aperture 162 through the wall 106 of the shell 104, see Fig. 2; [0034]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Amstutz and Cronin teaches a source of the fluid filler material 166 above the aperture 162 (Amstutz: see Fig. 5 and [0034]) but is silent to specifically teaching that the volume of the second metal is suspended above the one or more openings. However, it would have been obvious and within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine how best to hold and secure the second metal, including via suspension above the aperture, in order to deliver second metal during the injection process.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Amstutz and Cronin is silent to wherein the infiltrating step comprises heating the part with the second metal in a reducing argon atmosphere. However, it is the Examiner’s position that heating the part with the second metal in a reducing argon atmosphere is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to prevent oxidation of the metal during use.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Sachs as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tobia (US 2019/0240734).
Regarding claim 6, Sachs is silent to wherein the infill portion is a continuous gyroid geometry.
Tobia teaches that it is known to utilize a gyroid pattern as an infill structure for 3D printed objects in order to provide sufficient object strength (see [0070]-[0071]).
In view of Tobia’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Sachs to include wherein the infill portion is a continuous gyroid geometry, as taught by Tobia, because it is a known pattern for 3D printed objects used to provide sufficient strength to the object. Furthermore, the substitution of a known element (the infill of Sachs) for another known element (the gyroid infill of Tobia) would have been obvious with predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Amstutz and Cronin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tobia (US 2019/0240734).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Amstutz and Cronin is silent to wherein the infill portion is a continuous gyroid geometry.
Tobia teaches that it is known to utilize a gyroid pattern as an infill structure for 3D printed objects in order to provide sufficient object strength (see [0070]-[0071]).
In view of Tobia’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of the combination of Amstutz and Cronin to include wherein the infill portion is a continuous gyroid geometry, as taught by Tobia, because it is a known pattern for 3D printed objects used to provide sufficient strength to the object. Furthermore, the substitution of a known element (the infill of the combination of Amstutz and Cronin) for another known element (the gyroid infill of Tobia) would have been obvious with predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachs as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schmehl (US 2014/0121813).
Regarding claim 8, Sachs is silent to wherein the infill portion is an alternating stacked rectangular infill geometry.
Schmehl teaches 3D printing of a object that may be fabricated with a first material to provide an object having a number of layers that generally define an exterior surface of the object and an infill for the object within the exterior surface. The infill may further define one or more void spaces within an interior of the object. This may include space left in the interior by a regular (e.g., triangular, square, rectangular, hexagonal) or irregular (e.g., random space filling) geometry of vertical walls, such as conventionally used to provide structural integrity for a three-dimensional object, and to provide supporting structure for top surfaces where needed. In another aspect, the regular pattern of the infill may be further modified to provide additional cavities as contemplated herein (see [0041]).
In view of Schmehl’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to modify the method of Sachs to include a rectangular infill geometry, as taught by Schmehl, because it is a known infill pattern for additively manufactured objects. Furthermore, the substitution of a known element (the infill of Sachs) for another known element (the rectangular pattern of Schmehl) would have been obvious with predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.
Though the combination of Sachs and Schmehl is silent to specifically teaching an alternating stacked rectangular infill geometry, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, an alternating stacked rectangular infill geometry would merely be a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious at the time the invention was filed.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Amstutz and Cronin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schmehl (US 2014/0121813).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Amstutz and Cronin is silent to wherein the infill portion is an alternating stacked rectangular infill geometry.
Schmehl teaches 3D printing of a object that may be fabricated with a first material to provide an object having a number of layers that generally define an exterior surface of the object and an infill for the object within the exterior surface. The infill may further define one or more void spaces within an interior of the object. This may include space left in the interior by a regular (e.g., triangular, square, rectangular, hexagonal) or irregular (e.g., random space filling) geometry of vertical walls, such as conventionally used to provide structural integrity for a three-dimensional object, and to provide supporting structure for top surfaces where needed. In another aspect, the regular pattern of the infill may be further modified to provide additional cavities as contemplated herein (see [0041]).
In view of Schmehl’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to modify the method of the combination of Amstutz and Cronin to include a rectangular infill geometry, as taught by Schmehl, because it is a known infill pattern for additively manufactured objects. Furthermore, the substitution of a known element (the infill of the combination of Amstutz and Cronin) for another known element (the rectangular pattern of Schmehl) would have been obvious with predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.
Though the combination of Amstutz, Cronin, and Schmehl is silent to specifically teaching an alternating stacked rectangular infill geometry, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, an alternating stacked rectangular infill geometry would merely be a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious at the time the invention was filed.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachs as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holland (US 4,106,408).
Regarding claim 11, Sachs is silent to applying a protectant on an outside surface of the part before infiltration.
Holland teaches protecting an outer surface of a cylinder with a lacquer coating to prevent any deposition of copper thereon (2:33-52).
In view of Holland’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Sachs to include applying a protectant on an outside surface of the part before infiltration, as taught by Holland, because it can be used as a means to prevent unwanted deposition of a material onto a surface.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Amstutz and Cronin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holland (US 4,106,408).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Amstutz and Cronin is silent to applying a protectant on an outside surface of the part before infiltration.
Holland teaches protecting an outer surface of a cylinder with a lacquer coating to prevent any deposition of copper thereon (2:33-52).
In view of Holland’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of the combination of Amstutz and Cronin to include applying a protectant on an outside surface of the part before infiltration, as taught by Holland, because it can be used as a means to prevent unwanted deposition of a material onto a surface.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sachs and Holland as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Riel (US 3,747,197)
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Sachs and Holland is silent to wherein the step of applying the protectant comprises coating the outside surface of the part with a stop-braze.
Riel teaches it is known to utilize a braze stop-off coating compound to prevent bonding in areas (see 3:17-32).
In view of Riel’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of the combination of Sachs and Holland to include wherein the step of applying the protectant comprises coating the outside surface of the part with a stop-braze, as taught by Riel, because it is a known coating used to prevent bonding in areas where bonding is not desired. Furthermore, the substitution of a known element (the protectant coating of the combination of Sachs and Holland) for another known element (the braze stop-off coating of Riel) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with predictable results at the time the invention was filed.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Amstutz, Cronin, and Holland as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Riel (US 3,747,197)
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Amstutz, Cronin, and Holland is silent to wherein the step of applying the protectant comprises coating the outside surface of the part with a stop-braze.
Riel teaches it is known to utilize a braze stop-off coating compound to prevent bonding in areas (see 3:17-32).
In view of Riel’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of the combination of Amstutz, Cronin, and Holland to include wherein the step of applying the protectant comprises coating the outside surface of the part with a stop-braze, as taught by Riel, because it is a known coating used to prevent bonding in areas where bonding is not desired. Furthermore, the substitution of a known element (the protectant coating of the combination of Amstutz, Cronin, and Holland) for another known element (the braze stop-off coating of Riel) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with predictable results at the time the invention was filed.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachs as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Amstutz (US 2016/0039006).
Regarding claim 14, Sachs is silent to wherein prior to the infiltrating step, comprising a step of forming one or more openings in the wall.
Amstutz teaches wherein prior to the infiltrating step (see [0034]-[0041] and [0048]-[0054]), comprising a step of forming one or more openings in the wall (Amstutz: aperture 162 through the wall 106 of the shell 104, see Fig. 2; [0034]).
In view of Amstutz’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Sachs to include forming openings in the shell prior to the infiltrating step, as taught by Amstutz, because it allows for infiltration of the second metal into the shell of the first metal and the substitution of a known element (the infiltration by Sachs) for another known element (the infiltration of Amstutz) would have been obvious with predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amstutz (US 2016/0039006), in view of Cronin (US 2016/0221266) and Sachs (US 5,775,402).
Regarding claim 25, its limitations have been discussed in the rejection for claim 1 above. Claim 25 differs from claim 1 in that debinding and sintering the green part is required. The combination of Amstutz and Cronin is silent to debinding and sintering the green part.
Sachs teaches three dimensional printing of a mold. During fabrication of the mold, as by three dimensional printing, a powder material is deposited in layers, and a polymer or inorganic binder is selectively printed on each layer. The powder material may include stainless steels, such as the 400 series and particularly 420, tool steels such as H13 or S7, or carbides, such as tungsten carbide, titanium carbide, or tantalum carbide. The cooling channels are automatically formed as unbound regions during the printing. After process completion and curing of the polymer binder, the unbound powder is removed from the mold, leaving behind the desired network of channels. The mold is then debound and either sintered directly to full density, or presintered and then infiltrated. In this manner, channel shape and layout can be optimized for heat transfer while avoiding adverse effects to the mechanical integrity of the mold (see 6:35-55).
In view of Sachs’ teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of the combination of Amstutz and Cronin to include debinding and sintering the green part, as taught by Sachs, because it provides the full density of the part.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sachs as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Amstutz (US 2016/0039006).
Regarding claim 27, Sachs is silent to wherein infiltrating the first metal with the second metal comprises:
forming openings in the shell, suspending an amount of the second metal near the openings and heating the second metal to infiltrate melted second metal into the interior volume.
Amstutz teaches wherein prior to the infiltrating step, comprising a step of forming one or more openings in the wall (Amstutz: aperture 162 through the wall 106 of the shell 104, see Fig. 2; [0034]).
In view of Amstutz’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Sachs to include forming openings in the shell prior to the infiltrating step, as taught by Amstutz, because it allows for infiltration of the second metal into the shell of the first metal and the substitution of a known element (the infiltration by Sachs) for another known element (the infiltration of Amstutz) would have been obvious with predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.
Though the combination of Sachs and Amstutz is silent to suspending an amount of the second metal near the openings and heating the second metal to infiltrate melted second metal into the interior volume, it would have been obvious and within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine how best to hold and secure the second metal, including via suspension above the aperture, in order to deliver second metal during the injection process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 6-8 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Sachs does not anticipate claim 1. Applicant argues that while Sachs contemplates cooling channels 22 are filled with second “infiltrant” metal, the open cellular network is not filled with metal.
The Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive because the open cellular network does get filled with a second metal (see 9:5-10:58). Sachs teaches that the infiltrant wicks through all of the part 101 and may fill some or all of the channels 102. However, after infiltration, a vacuum draws the residual molten infiltrant from outside the part 101 and from within the cooling channels 102. The infiltrant does not drain from the body of the part 101 because the meniscus of the molten infiltrant attached to the powder can sustain a substantial pressure differential across it (see 9:5-10:58).
On page 8 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Sachs does not meet the limitations of claim 2 and does not anticipate the claim as it requires printing one or more channels within and traversing through the interior volume of the part.
The Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive as Sachs clearly teaches one or more channels within and transversing through the interior volume of the part (conformal cooling channels 22, see Fig. 9; 12:50-13:15). Any portion of the part enclosed by the outer shell wall is considered to be part of the interior volume of the part. Applicant appears to be arguing that the one or more channels are within and traverse through the infill portion, which is not commensurate with the scope of the current claim language.
On page 8 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Sachs does not anticipate claim 26, and by virtue, its dependent claims 28-30. Applicant again argues that Sachs fails to teach wherein additively manufacturing the wall and the infill portion includes printing one or more fluid tight channels within and traversing through the interior volume of the part.
The Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive as Sachs clearly teaches one or more channels within and transversing through the interior volume of the part (conformal cooling channels 22, see Fig. 9; 12:50-13:15). Any portion of the part enclosed by the outer shell wall is considered to be part of the interior volume of the part. Applicant appears to be arguing that the one or more channels are within and traverse through the infill portion, which is not commensurate with the scope of the current claim language.
On page 9 of the remarks, Applicant argues, with respect to claim 15, that the limitation “including via suspension above the one or more openings” is not taught or made obvious in view of Sachs.
The Examiner finds this argument persuasive so the rejection of claim 15 in view of Sachs is withdrawn.
On pages 10-12 of the remarks, Applicant argues, with respect to claim 1, that what the Office refers to as “infill” in Amstutz are reinforcing or support structures of the shell. This element is part of the shell and a person skilled in the art would not confuse it with patterned infill, nor would it have been obvious or even feasible to extend such support structures throughout the interior volume of the shell. Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to provide the shell and core structure described in Amstutz with a patterned infill structure because the basic operation of Amstutz involves filling the hollow shell with the liquid core material and bonding the core material to the hollow shell, and it is not obvious to modify a reference in a way that makes the technology in reference unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. In this instance, by impeding the bonding of the core to the shell, adding infill structure to Amstutz as suggested in the Office Action is not obvious. With regard to the combination of Amstutz in view of Cronin, Applicant argues that the combination fails to make obvious that infill would be added to Amstutz at all.
The Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive. Applicant’s current claim language does not preclude equating the support structures of Amstutz to the claimed infill pattern. In Figure 2 of Amstutz, the support structures 116 clearly define structures and space within the interior volume 118, and create a symmetrical pattern within the interior of volume 118. Additionally, Amstutz teaches that the shell 104 may be constructed with a plurality of support structures 16, such as supporting ribs, walls or columns, for purposes such as to maintain dimensional stability of a part 100 when secondary, filler material 164 is injected into internal cavity 118 (see [0044]). Applicant merely alleges that adding or modifying the infill structure of Amstutz would impede the bonding of the core to the shell of Amstutz without any scientific evidence or data to prove that such a change would have to result in an unsatisfactory bond between the core and shell of Amstutz. Amstutz is silent to the infill portion having a pattern defining structures and space throughout the interior volume, and so Cronin was utilized to teach that the infill throughout the volume is a result effective variable. Cronin teaches that a hollow object has 0% infill and a completely solid object has 100% infill. The infill an have a significant impact on the manufacturing process and the characteristics of the printed object. For example, as the percent infill is increased, the weight and strength of the object generally increase and manufacturing (printing) time and cost and amount of raw materials also increase. Thus, reducing the amount of infill can have a positive effect of reducing printing time and cost, but doing so may result in a printed object having unacceptable structural characteristics (see [0005], [0024]-[0028], and Fig. 2C). Therefore, the percent infill, or the infill throughout the interior volume, is a result effective variable. With regard to the combination of Amstutz and Cronin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Amstutz to include optimizing its infill portion so it has a repeated geometric pattern (see Figs. 2-4; [0024]-[0028]) defining structure and space throughout the interior volume, as taught by Cronin, because it would increase the strength of the object.
Claim 1 is also rejected by Sachs which teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
On page 12 of the remarks, Applicant argues, with respect to claim 2, that Forsmark does not overcome the deficiencies of Amstutz and Cronin as applied to claim 1. Furthermore, cooling channel 40 in Forsmark does not appear to be “within and traversing through the interior volume of the part”.
The Examiner finds these arguments persuasive so the rejection of claim 2 in view of Amstutz, Cronin, and Forsmark is withdrawn.
On pages 12-13 of the remarks, Applicant argues, that substitution of a gyroid pattern infill (claim 6) or a rectangular infill (claim 8) for the cellular structures 23 of Sachs would not have been obvious. Applicant argues that the infill of Sachs plays a particular thermal management role and the reasoning of “provide sufficient object strength” as a basis for obviousness is generic and hindsight-motivated.
The Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive. Sachs does not appear to be limited to a particular shape for its infill, as Sachs teaches the cellular structure “can, for example, be designed as a triangulated, pyramidal truss structure”. As Tobia teaches that a gyroid pattern infill is known, the substitution of a known element (the infill of Sachs) for another known element (the gyroid infill of Tobia) would have been obvious with predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. Similarly, as Schmehl teaches rectangular in fill pattern, the substitution of a known element (the infill of Sachs) for another known element (the rectangular infill of Schmehl) would have been obvious with predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. Furthermore, the change in shape does not preclude the infill from playing the same role in thermal management. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, 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. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
On page 13 of the remarks, Applicant argues, with respect to claims 11, 12, and 14, Applicant argues that their rejections do not give weight to the uncertainties involved in adapting manufacturing techniques and processes from the conventional manufacturing realm to 3D printing. At the time the invention was made, there was no reasonable expectation of success that a stop-braze would work to facilitate infiltration by a second metal as claimed.
The Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive. In response to applicant's argument that there was no reasonable expectation of success that a stop-braze would work to facilitate infiltration by a second metal as claimed, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Given that the prior art teaches that applying a protectant (see rejection for claim 11 above), such as a stop-braze (see rejection for claim 12 above), on an outside surface of the part to prevent deposition/bonding is known (see rejections for claims 11 and 12 above), it would have been reasonable to apply these teachings to accomplish the same thing for infiltration of a 3D printed part where deposition/bonding is not desired. Furthermore, Applicant does not provide any data or scientific arguments against the combination. Applicant merely alleges that the prior art wouldn’t work in combination and the combination would not be made.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 EST.
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 at 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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 7 August 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights