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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in view of the amendments filed August 25th, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments to claim 1 concerning “the unfocused energy source and the focused energy source are configured to operate such that:…” afford the claim patentable weight and distinguish from the prior art of record. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that the claims are directed to an apparatus/a system and therefore are only limited by positively recited elements. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Furthermore, it is well settled that the intended uses of and the particular material used in an apparatus have no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114 (II) and 2115 for further details. Limitations such as “the unfocused energy source and the focused energy source configured to operate such that:…” are an intended use of the unfocused energy source and focused energy source claimed. As such, if the prior art , in this instance Barnes and Chidambaram, discloses the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it would necessarily be capable of performing the intended use. Furthermore, Applicant’s reference to the board decision concerning “a controller configured to…” is not applicable herein concerning the unfocused and focused energy sources as these energy sources do not need to be programmed or specially adapted in order to be capable of the recited intended use. Barnes already discloses the any suitable number of energy sources 104 can selectively direct energy and/or heat the layer of build material on which the fusing agent has been selectively dispensed ([0049]; energy source maybe selectively applied to areas wherein the fusing agent was deposited). As such, in the combination of Barnes and Chidambaram, the unfocused and focused energy sources are capable of selectively applying energy to targeted areas and are capable of use together.
Applicant argues that Barnes does not describe that concurrently with an unfocused source heating an area to cause agent-bearing material to fuse, a focused source applies additional energy exclusively to a smaller targeted portion within that same area. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that the claims are directed to an apparatus/a system and therefore are only limited by positively recited elements. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Furthermore, it is well settled that the intended uses of and the particular material used in an apparatus have no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114 (II) and 2115 for further details. Limitations such as “the unfocused energy source and the focused energy source configured to operate such that:…” are an intended use of the unfocused energy source and focused energy source claimed. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145 (IV). The rejection of claim 1 is based on a combination of Barnes and Chidambaram. As such, if the prior art , in this instance Barnes and Chidambaram, discloses the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it would necessarily be capable of performing the intended use. Furthermore, Applicant’s reference to the board decision concerning “a controller configured to…” is not applicable herein concerning the unfocused and focused energy sources as these energy sources do not need to be programmed or specially adapted in order to be capable of the recited intended use. Barnes already discloses the any suitable number of energy sources 104 can selectively direct energy and/or heat the layer of build material on which the fusing agent has been selectively dispensed ([0049]; energy source maybe selectively applied to areas wherein the fusing agent was deposited). As such, in the combination of Barnes and Chidambaram, the unfocused and focused energy sources are capable of selectively applying energy to targeted areas and are capable of use together.
Applicant argues that Chidambaram does not describe an unfocused source causing agent-mediated fusion while a focused source concurrently applies energy exclusive to a smaller portion within the area being heated by the unfocused source. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that the claims are directed to an apparatus/a system and therefore are only limited by positively recited elements. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Furthermore, it is well settled that the intended uses of and the particular material used in an apparatus have no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114 (II) and 2115 for further details. Limitations such as “the unfocused energy source and the focused energy source configured to operate such that:…” are an intended use of the unfocused energy source and focused energy source claimed. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145 (IV). The rejection of claim 1 is based on a combination of Barnes and Chidambaram. As such, if the prior art , in this instance Barnes and Chidambaram, discloses the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it would necessarily be capable of performing the intended use. Furthermore, Applicant’s reference to the board decision concerning “a controller configured to…” is not applicable herein concerning the unfocused and focused energy sources as these energy sources do not need to be programmed or specially adapted in order to be capable of the recited intended use. Barnes already discloses the any suitable number of energy sources 104 can selectively direct energy and/or heat the layer of build material on which the fusing agent has been selectively dispensed ([0049]; energy source maybe selectively applied to areas wherein the fusing agent was deposited). As such, in the combination of Barnes and Chidambaram, the unfocused and focused energy sources are capable of selectively applying energy to targeted areas and are capable of use together.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that the claims are directed to an apparatus/a system and therefore are only limited by positively recited elements. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Furthermore, it is well settled that the intended uses of and the particular material used in an apparatus have no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114 (II) and 2115 for further details. Limitations such as “the unfocused energy source and the focused energy source configured to operate such that:…” are an intended use of the unfocused energy source and focused energy source claimed and therefore only given patentable weight to the extent that they add structure to the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “while selectively directing the focused energy onto the targeted portion, the focused energy source does not direct the focused energy onto any portion of the layer outside the targeted portion”. The specification fails to provide support for this limitation. "While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure." See MPEP 2163 (1B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes (WO 2018075087 A1), in view of Chidambaram (WO 2019217515 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Barnes discloses an additive manufacturing machine (Fig. 1A, 2; [0011, 0021]; apparatus 100 and 200 are 3D printers) comprising:
a build bed ([0037]; print bed 202);
a spreader ([0012, 0024]; recoater 102, 208 spreads build material particles 110, 206) to spread a layer of build material ([0012, 0024]; layers of build material particles 110, 206) across the build bed;
a dispenser carriage ([0024]; agent delivery device 214) to selectively dispense ([0048]) fusing agent ([0024]; the agent may be a liquid that is to absorb fusing radiation (e.g., in the form of light and/or heat) to cause the build material particles 206 upon which the agent has been deposited to fuse together when the fusing radiation is applied) on the layer at which the build material is to fuse together to form a corresponding layer of a three-dimensional (3D) being additively manufactured ([0028]);
an energy source (Fig. 1A; [0011, 0013]; any suitable number of energy sources 104) to selectively direct energy and/or heat the layer of build material on which the fusing agent has been selectively dispensed ([0049]; energy source maybe selectively applied to areas wherein the fusing agent was deposited).
Barnes discloses the energy source maybe any suitable number of energy sources ([0011]; any suitable number of energy sources 104) that may be used to heat and fuse build material particles ([0011]; 104 to sufficiently heat the build material particles 110, and particularly, fused build material particles). The any suitable number of energy sources may be unfocused, such as a heating lamp, or focused, such as a laser ([0013]) and are capable of heating the build material particles to above a melting temperature of the build material particles ([0013]; the energy source 104 may output energy at a level that causes the build material particles 110 to be heated to above a certain temperature, e.g. melting temperature). Barnes further discloses the energy sources direct the energy on the targeted portion of the layer of build material, and not direct energy at a portion of the build material other than the targeted portion (Fig. 1A; [0013, 0046, 0049]; laser 104 is controlled by processor to selectively apply laser energy to portions of the layer of build material particles, wherein the laser can be applied to portions with the fusing agent dispensed). Barnes also discloses heating from the energy source results in enhanced material properties for the 3D part being formed ([0017]). From this disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize that a finite number of configurations exists for the energy sources 104. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try selecting one of the any number of suitable energy sources 104 as an unfocused energy source (a heating lamp) and another one of the any number of suitable energy sources 104 as a focused energy source (laser) because a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." See MPEP 2143 (IE).
Furthermore, in the analogous art Chidambaram discloses an additive manufacturing machine (Fig. 1, 2A; Pg. 3, Ln. 25-26; additive manufacturing apparatus 100) comprising: an unfocused energy source (Fig. 1, 2A; Pg. 5, Ln. 24-26; inductive heater 112 or alternatively Pg. 10, Ln. 29 to Pg. 11, Ln. 2; heat lamps) and a focused energy source (Fig. 1, 2A; Pg. 5, Ln. 9-13; energy source 114 forms light beam 115) in the additive manufacturing machine; the unfocused energy source to heat portions of a layer of build material (Pg. 5, Ln. 24-26; 112 heats a portion of the powder layer or alternatively Pg. 10, Ln. 29 to Pg. 11, Ln. 2; heat lamps that scan across the layer of powder) as the unfocused energy source moves across (Fig. 1, 2A; 112 moves in direction A across the powder layer or alternatively Pg. 10, Ln. 29 to Pg. 11, Ln. 2; heat lamps that scan across the layer of powder) the layer of build material during a build operation of a three-dimensional (3D) object (Pg. 3, Ln. 11-12; AM apparatus can form an object); and the focused energy source controllable to selectively direct focused energy (Fig. 1, 2A; Pg. 5, Ln. 14-19; 114 selectively heats regions of the powder layer such that selective activation of 115 permits selective voxels to be fused) on the layer of build material during the build operation. From these teachings of Chidambaram, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there would be a reasonable expectation of success in selecting such a configuration or selecting such a combination for the energy sources 104 of Barnes.
Barnes and Chidambaram are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of additive manufacturing apparatuses using energy sources to fuse build material particles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Barnes with the teachings of Chidambaram to provide an unfocused energy source and a focused energy source in the additive manufacturing machine. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." See MPEP 2141 (I). Doing so would allow for the selective fusing of some particles when working with two or more types of build material (Chidambaram Pg. 7, Ln. 27-31) and therefore allow for the manufacture of a greater variety of objects.
The combination of Barnes, in view of Chidambaram, provided above provides all the positively recited structures of the claimed invention and as such would be capable of performing the intended use recited of “(a) the unfocused energy source heats an area of the laver of build material, including the build material on which the fusing agent has been selectively dispensed, to cause the build material on which the fusing agent has been selectively dispensed to fuse together and (b) concurrently with the unfocused energy source heating the area, the focused energy source selectively directs focused energy onto a targeted portion of the layer of build material to either or both of improve quality of the 3D object being additively manufactured and impart a property to the 3D object at the targeted portion, wherein the targeted portion is within and less than all of the area on which the fusing agent has been selectively dispensed, and wherein, while selectively directing the focused energy onto the targeted portion, the focused energy source does not direct the focused energy onto any portion of the layer outside the targeted portion”.
Regarding claim 3, modified Barnes discloses the additive manufacturing machine of claim 1, wherein Barnes further discloses:
a translatable carriage (Fig. 1A; [0011]; carriage 106) to carry the unfocused energy source (Fig. 1A; [0011, 0013]; carriage 106 supports heating lamp 104) across the build bed as the carriage moves along a direction of travel (Fig. 1A,B; [0011]; carriage 106 can move in directions 116 and 132).
Regarding claim 4, modified Barnes discloses the additive manufacturing machine of claim 3, wherein Barnes further discloses the spreader ([0024]; recoater 102, 208 spreads build material particles) is coupled to the translatable carriage ([0046]; the recoater may be supported by the carriage) to move with the translatable carriage to spread the build material onto the build bed ([0046]; the recoater may move concurrently with the carriage).
Regarding claim 5, modified Barnes discloses the additive manufacturing machine of claim 3, wherein Barnes further discloses the focused energy source is part of the translatable carriage (Fig. 1A; [0011, 0013]; the carriage 106 may support laser 104).
Regarding claim 6, modified Barnes discloses the additive manufacturing machine of claim 1, wherein Barnes further discloses a controller ([0011, 0036]; controller 108/processor 302) to:
determine, based on data representing the 3D object ([0044]; computer aided design information indicative of the object to be formed), the property of a feature to be formed in the layer of build material, the property selected from among a size of the feature or a location of the feature ([0033, 0044]; computer aided design information may identify the physical characteristics of the parts, for instance, the shapes and dimensions of the part and the locations of build material layers),
wherein the focused energy source is to selectively direct the focused energy on the targeted portion of the layer of build material based on the determined property ([0039-0040, 0049]; processor 302 uses computer aided design information to generate and execute instructions to fuse the powder, wherein the energy source maybe applied selectively).
Regarding claim 7, modified Barnes discloses the additive manufacturing machine of claim 1, wherein Barnes further discloses the focused energy source selectively directs focused energy in a form of electromagnetic light ([0013, 0049]; laser 104 applies energy 120 in the form or radiation and/or light, wherein the laser energy source maybe applied selectively).
Regarding claim 11, modified Barnes discloses the additive manufacturing machine of claim 1, wherein Barnes further discloses the build material is non-white build material build material ([0023]; build material particles can be metal, therefore non-white).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes (WO 2018075087 A1), in view of Chidambaram (WO 2019217515 A1) as applied to claim 6, and further in view of Ge et al. (WO 2017200534 A1; hereafter Ge).
Regarding claim 8, modified Barnes discloses the additive manufacturing machine of claim 6.
Modified Barnes does not disclose a controller to: select a first wavelength from the different wavelengths based on a property of a first liquid agent applied to the layer of build material, and control the focused energy source to emit the focused energy at the selected first wavelength.
However, Ge teaches an additive manufacturing machine (Fig. 4) wherein a focused energy source ([0066]; fusing radiation generator 134) is controlled to selectively emit focused energy at a wavelength based on a property of a first liquid agent applied to a layer of build material (Fig. 4; [0065-0066]; controller 140 may tune a wavelength of 134 based on a radiation absorbing property of a first liquid applied on build material layer 160).
Barnes and Ge are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of additive manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Barnes with the teachings of Ge to provide a controller to: select a first wavelength from the different wavelengths based on a property of a first liquid agent applied to the layer of build material, and control the focused energy source to emit the focused energy at the selected first wavelength. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(D). Doing so would enable the time and amount of focused energy required to fuse the build materials together to be minimized substantially (Ge [0011]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Barnes discloses the additive manufacturing machine of claim 8.
Modified Barnes does not disclose a controller to: select a second wavelength from different wavelengths based on a property of a second liquid agent applied to the layer of build material, and control the focused energy source to emit the focused energy at the selected second wavelength.
However, Ge teaches an additive manufacturing machine (Fig. 4) wherein a focused energy source ([0066]; fusing radiation generator 134) is controlled to selectively emit focused energy at a wavelength based on a property of a first liquid agent applied to a layer of build material (Fig. 4; [0065-0066]; controller 140 may tune a wavelength of 134 based on a radiation absorbing property of a first liquid applied on build material layer 160) and select a second wavelength from different wavelengths based on a property of a second liquid agent applied to the layer of build material (Fig. 5; 508 determine fusing radiation absorbing property of a next fluid, then 504 choose a range of wavelengths of fusing radiation to be emitted onto a section containing the next fluid), and control the focused energy source to emit the focused energy at the selected second wavelength (Fig. 5; 514 selectively emit fusing radiation at chosen range of wavelength(s)).
Barnes and Ge are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of additive manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Barnes with the teachings of Ge to provide a controller to: select a second wavelength from the different wavelengths based on a property of a second liquid agent applied to the layer of build material, and control the focused energy source to emit the focused energy at the selected second wavelength. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(D). Doing so would enable the time and amount of focused energy required to fuse the build materials together to be minimized substantially (Ge [0011]).
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 Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/VIPUL MALIK/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights