Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-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 .
Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/13/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 9 and 14 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Ishida (US2018/0093326) in view of Sterzel (US 5,737,683, cited in the IDS of 08/05/21)
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Ishida teaches a method of manufacturing a three-dimensional shaped article [Title]. The method includes the steps of:
Forming a layer which includes forming a support portion (interpreted as the claimed first mold) and filling the mold with a three-dimensional shaped article composition [0050 – 0051, Fig 1 – 3], (meeting the claimed limitation of layerwise forming walls of a first mold using additive manufacturing and filling the mold to form a layer of a product or part).
Wherein a second layer of the support portion is formed on top of the first layer and said support portion layer is filled with another layer of the three-dimensional shaped article composition [0065 – 0069, Fig 5 – 6], (meeting the claimed limitation of subsequently forming and filling additional molds of a sequence of molds to form subsequent layers).
Wherein the three-dimensional shaped article composition can be a paste [0071], meeting the claimed limitation of claim 14 of printing a first mold using additive manufacture to define a first layer, defining an additional mold on top of said layer to form a second layer and filling the second layer with a paste material to form a molded layered product or part.
Wherein the steps are repeated to build a component [0093, Fig 7], meeting the claimed limitation of layerwise filling of a mold to form a product or part, wherein the manufactured article requires a later sintering after removing from the mold [0112, 0115, Fig 11], meeting the claimed limitation of the product or part requiring sintering.
Ishida does not teach producing a support component by layerwise filling a mold produced additive manufacturing, wherein said support component has a complimentary shape to the shaped article and the shaped article and support component are fitted together after forming to provide support during sintering.
Sterzel teaches a method of producing a metallic part by producing a green body by injection molding to give a shaped part [Abstract] including a granular material of metal powder and binder [Col 2, line 48 – 50]. Sterzel teaches that the shaped green body part is placed on a support (fitting after forming said product/part with a support) of approximately the same contour (interpreted as the claimed limitation of “complimentary shape”) during sintering [Abstract], meeting the claimed limitation of “after said product or part and said support component are formed, fitting said product or part in said complementary shape of said support component, thereby providing support from said support component”. Sterzel also teaches that the support can also be produced by same method as the shaped green body part [Col 2, line 28 – 31]. Sterzel describes that using a support of approximately the same contour during sintering has the advantage of preventing undesired distortion of parts with complicated shapes and/or low wall thickness during sintering [Col 1, line 32 – 42] thereby ensuring good shape stability during sintering [Col 2, line 8 – 11].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Ishida and combined it with teachings of Sterzel of providing a support to a green body during sintering in order to prevent undesired distortion of parts with complicated shapes and/or low wall thickness during said sintering and ensure good shape stability. Because Ishida, Sterzel, and the claimed invention involve the sintering of a green body to form the final object, the teachings/advantages disclosed in Sterzel of preventing undesired distortion/shape stability during sintering by using a support are pertinent to claimed invention and Ishida. Furthermore, the modification of Ishida of using a support during the sintering would not have changed the principle operation of Ishida and would provide a specific motivation for modification that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated to achieve an advantage/benefit.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the method of Ishida in view of Sterzel to produce the support structure via the additive manufacturing process disclosed to achieve predictable results. Ishida does not limit the shape of the three-dimensionally printed article and discloses that the additive manufacturing process allows for excellent dimensional accuracy [0326] and reduced production costs [0165]. Furthermore, Sterzel appreciates that the support structure can be produced in the same type of process as the component it is providing support for [Col 2, line 28 – 31]. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success and would have motivation for producing both the support structure and component by the disclosed additive manufacturing process. The combination of Ishida and Sterzel of using the additive manufacturing process of Ishida to produce a support structure would meet the claimed limitation of separately producing a support component (with a complementary shape) by forming walls of a mold and filling and forming additional molds to and filling.
A teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention supports a conclusion of obviousness. (See MPEP 2143 G). “The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
Regarding claim 2, Ishida in view of Sterzel teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Ishida teaches that the three-dimensional shaped article composition can include metal grains of various shapes [0155, 0158], meeting the claimed limitation of “metal powder”, and a binder [0173], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claims 3 – 5, Ishida in view of Sterzel teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Sterzel teaches an example in which the metal powder is stainless steel and the support is aluminum oxide [Example, Col 5], meeting the limitation of claim 5, wherein Ishida also teaches that a shaped-articles can be made from a metal or ceramic material [0152] and expressly discloses stainless steel [0155] and aluminum oxide [0156].
Furthermore, given that stainless steel and aluminum oxide are explicitly disclosed combinations in the specification [page 2, bottom] (and claimed), it is interpreted that aluminum oxide and stainless steel would have the same thermal expansion coefficients at the sintering temperature, meeting the limitation of claim 4. Lastly, Sterzel teaches that the stainless steel is sintered at 1300°C [Example, Col 6, line 5 – 10], which is below the melting point of aluminum oxide (~2000°C), meeting the limitation of claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, Ishida in view of Sterzel teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Ishida teaches that a shaped-article can be made from titanium [0155] (wherein Sterzel also teaches the article to be supported being made from titanium [Col 3, line 60]). Sterzel teaches that ceramic materials are particular useful as material for the support, including zirconium dioxide [Col 2, line 25], meeting the claimed limitation, wherein Ishida also teaches that a shaped-article can be made from ceramic [0152] including zirconium oxide [0156].
Regarding claims 7 – 8, Ishida in view of Sterzel teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Ishida teaches that the shaped articles can be metal or ceramic or both [0152, 0155 – 0156] and Sterzel discloses that the shaped part can contain cemented hard particles such as boron carbide [Col 3, line 60 – 65] and that the support material can be made from boron carbide [Col 2, line 24 – 26], meeting the claimed limitation of the product/part and support comprising the same material and said same material being ceramic.
Regarding claim 9, Ishida in view of Sterzel teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Sterzel teaches that the sintering support was sintered prior to being fitting with the green body part [Col 6, line 1 – 3], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 15, Ishida in view of Sterzel teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Ishida teaches that various materials can be used in the production of shaped articles [0155 – 0156], but Sterzel discloses that care must be taken to ensure that the undesired sintering does not occur between the support and the shaped article [Col 2, line 17 – 24]. Sterzel discloses that once such solution can be a coating on the support to prevent sintering between the shaped part and support [Col 2, line 17 – 24], meeting the claimed imitation of providing a refractive layer between the product/part and support.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have applied a coating onto a formed shaped article being used as a support in the sintering in the method of Ishida in view of Sterzel with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results. Ishida allows for many different materials to be used in the additive manufacturing process and Sterzel teaches that the coating prevents any undesired sintering between the support and shaped article. Therefore, an ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to apply the coating to allow for a greater freedom of materials to be used for the support and/or shaped article while still taking care to ensure no undesired sintering takes place between the support and shaped article.
Claims 10 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida (US2018/0093326) in view of Sterzel (US 5,737,683, cited in the IDS of 08/05/2021), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Cote (US2019/0344500)
Regarding claims 10 – 12, Ishida in view of Sterzel teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Ishida in view of Sterzel does not explicitly teach the limitations of claims 10 – 12.
Cote teaches a method and apparatus for additive manufacturing of three-dimensional parts wherein the apparatus contains multiple build modules for specific materials and settings [0095]. Cote teaches that the apparatus/method can be used to increase production speeds and yields for mass scale production [0095, 0004 – 0005] and can be programed such that each module has the same or different building instructions (which can include different materials), wherein the build instructions can be stored on a file [0137] and can include multiple 3D part models [0134], meeting the claimed limitation of making the product/part and support using a single print file (claim 12). Additionally, the apparatus can be used to produce different parts in the same production run, wherein each part is produced on a build platform/module [0131], meeting the claimed limitation of making the product/part and support using a single process on different stations (build modules) of a multi-station machine (claim 10) and making the product/part and support together in a single additive manufacturing process (i.e. single additive production run) (claim 11). Wherein the product/part and support produced on different modules would be transferred separately to a sintering step.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Ishida in view of Sterzel and used the multi build module apparatus disclosed by Cote. Cote discloses that the apparatus can be used for additive manufacturing and Ishida in view of Sterzel is directed to an additive manufacturing method. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings to achieve predictable results. Furthermore, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings because the apparatus of Cote allows for increased production speeds and higher yields for mass production.
Regarding claim 13, Ishida in view of Sterzel and Cote teaches the invention as applied in claim 12. Wherein identifying a common surface between the shaped part and support from a print file would be implied in the process of defining/deciding the shape of shaped part and the support structure. The support structure, as disclosed by Sterzel, is explicitly designed to prevent deformation/warpage during sintering (i.e. at high temperatures) and provides support/stabilization over a large contact area [Col 4, 42 – 55]. Therefore, in designing and deciding the shape of the support structure to support/contact the shaped part during sintering, a common surface would be identified.
The printing of the support and the printing of the shaped part within each mold that shared an approximate contour in the method of Ishida would meet the claimed limitation of printing versions of said common surface filled in from opposite sides (one side being said product/part and one side being said support) to define the complimentary shape.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida (US2018/0093326) in view of Sterzel (US 5,737,683, cited in the IDS of 08/05/21), as applied to claim 15 above, in further view of Fribourg (US2018/0193915)
Regarding claim 16, Ishida in view of Sterzel teaches the invention as applied in claim 15. Sterzel teaches that a coating can be provided between the support and shaped part, particularly when the support is metallic material [Col 2, line 17 – 24]. Sterzel does not teach that the coating is a paste applied by coating, or a spray applied by spraying.
Fribourg teaches a method for producing a titanium alloy part [Title]. Fribourg teaches that the titanium alloy is produced by injection molding [0044] and placed on a holder with a melting temperature higher than the sintering temperature of the titanium alloy [0039]. In addition, Fribourg discloses that the holder is covered with an anti-diffusion barrier which prevents the preform from adhering to the holder plate due diffusion of metallic elements [0041]. Fribourg teaches that the anti-diffusion barrier can be coated by spraying the powder from a solution (interpreted as meeting the claimed limitation of a spray applied by spraying [0041] and that the powder/anti-diffusion barrier comprises alumina [0020].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Ishida in view of Sterzel and applied the coating between the support and shaped part by spraying it from a solution onto the support, as taught by Fribourg. Given Fribourg is directed to prevention of bonding between a sintering support and the component being sintered, there would be no change is the respective function of the steps of Ishida in view of Sterzel. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in applying the teachings of Fribourg to Sterzel to apply the coating by spraying a solution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “It is stressed that all that Ishida teaches is walls 1A. These structures 1A have to serve as mold walls for the body part, mold walls for the support part and the support part itself. It is clear that such a construction is completely unreasonable and goes well beyond the bounds of the required "broadest reasonable construction" that the MPEP requires.”
This is not found persuasive because this is not the interpretation/reasoning relied upon.
The Office’s position is that it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to have used to the method of Ishida to produce the component (that is, the product or part) and also used the additive manufacturing method of Ishida to produce a support component for use during the sintering the component. There is no assertion or reliance that these must be produced simultaneously.
An ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to produce a support component for the component/product or part because Sterzel (also in the field of powder metallurgy) states that green bodies should be provided with a support component during sintering and that using a support of approximately the same contour during sintering has the advantage of preventing undesired distortion of parts with complicated shapes and/or low wall thickness during sintering [Col 1, line 32 – 42] thereby ensuring good shape stability [Col 2, line 8 – 11].
Applicant further argues that the support component of Sterzel teaches away from additive manufacturing and must be made via injection molding. Applicant argues that Ishida does not teach producing a support component and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would not understand that a support component could be produced in the process. This is not found persuasive.
It appears that the applicant’s interpretation of the Office’s position is that it would have been obvious to have specifically used the injection molded support component disclosed by Sterzel in the method of Ishida. However, the Office’s position is that Sterzel provides explicit motivation and reasoning as to why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified the method of Ishida to provide/produce a support component for the green body in Ishida’s method.
To this, an artisan possessing ordinary skill and ordinary creativity at a time before the effective filing date would logically use the same method of Ishida for producing the component to also then produce the support component. To specify, using Ishida to produce the component/“product or part” and then using the method of Ishida to also produce the support component. Ishida does not limit the shape of the three-dimensionally printed article and expressly discloses that the additive manufacturing process allows for excellent dimensional accuracy [0326] and reduced production costs [0165]. These are all reasons why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have also produced the support component using the method of Ishida and also why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
As discussed above, there is express benefits/advantages disclosed in the prior (Sterzel) to providing a support component for a green body during the sintering process (which Ishida must perform). A teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention supports a conclusion of obviousness. (See MPEP 2143 G). “The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN POLLOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-5602. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8 - 5).
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, Sally Merkling can be reached on (571) 272-6297. 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.
/AUSTIN POLLOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights