DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 7, 9-11, and 13-20 are pending, and claims 1, 7, 9-11, and 13-16 are currently under review.
Claims 2-6, 8, and 12 are cancelled.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn.
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 Amendment
The amendment filed 12/01/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 7, 9-11, and 13-20 remain(s) pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 8/01/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9-11, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priedeman et al. (US 2005/0173838) in view of Klaczynski et al. (US 2021/0114321) and Luo et al. (US 2019/0151886); and alternatively further in view of Sachs et al. (US 6,112,804) and University of Arizona (2016, A closer look at evaporation and condensation).
Regarding claims 1 and 14-15, Priedeman et al. discloses a method for smoothing the surface of an object made from a layered manufacturing rapid prototyping technique (ie. additive manufacturing) [abstract].
Said method includes the step of providing a built object which can be made of green metals dispersed in a thermoplastic polymeric binder and meets the claimed step a) [0015, 0024, 0027]. The examiner notes that one or ordinary skill in the field of powder metallurgy would understand this to refer to metal powders and a polymeric binder. Priedeman et al. further teaches exposing the object having a stair step appearance (ie. stepped surface) to a solvent to soften and reflow the material to eliminate said step appearance and smooth the object surface, which meets the claimed steps d) and e) because reflowing would naturally occur under gravity as recognized by one of ordinary skill [0005, 0027-0031]. Priedeman et al. does not expressly teach that the green metals are resistant to the solvent as claimed. However, the examiner submits that this would have been obvious or suggested by the disclosure of Priedeman et al. Specifically, Priedeman et al. expressly teaches softening of the polymeric modeling material and discloses the use of chemical solvents such as methylene chloride, abzol.RTM, perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, or vertrel.RTM [0027]. These solvents are well-known in the art to be used for degreasers/cleaners for metal surfaces and therefore do not dissolve or soften the green metal of Priedeman et al. Accordingly, the specific embodiments of Priedeman et al. suggest utilizing only chemical solvents which soften polymers while being non-reactive with metals, such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill or would have been suggested by Priedeman et al. to utilize a chemical which softens binder material while not softening/dissolving metal material as claimed.
Priedeman et al. does not teach initial steps b) and c) of placing the object in an airtight chamber and applying negative pressure as claimed. Priedeman et al. also does not teach the considerations in step d) of vaporizing said chemical in a different chamber to introduce said chemical into the processing chamber and adjusting the reduced negative pressure to cause condensation as claimed.
Regarding said initial steps b) and c) and the consideration of adjusting pressure to cause condensation in step d), Klaczynski et al. discloses an improved method of smoothing additively manufactured models by solvent vapor condensation smoothing [abstract, 0054]; wherein said method includes positioning the model within a sealed, closed (ie. airtight) chamber provided with a negative pressure within said chamber (ie. steps b) and c)) [0010, 0036, 0046, fig.1]. Klaczynski et al. also teaches that a desired pressure within the chamber can be desirably selected to achieve a desired intensity of smoothing [0042]; wherein one of ordinary skill would recognize that increasing chamber pressure would naturally result in higher condensation rates (according to basics of thermodynamics) and higher smoothing intensity. Alternatively, the concept that condensation rate is increased by increasing pressure is further shown in view of University of Arizona [p.1]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of Priedeman et al. by utilizing the smoothing parameters of applying negative pressure in an airtight chamber and increasing pressure to increase condensation rates taught by Klaczynski et al. and University of Arizona for the aforementioned benefits.
Regarding said step of vaporizing the chemical in a separate chamber and further introducing said chemical into the processing chamber, Luo et al. discloses a method for smoothing the surface of an object through application of a mist (ie. vapor) of chemical solvent to said object [abstract, fig.1]; wherein said method can be performed by providing a processing chamber (210) along with a second, lower chamber (216) separated from the processing chamber by a plate (214) [0086-0092, fig.5c]. Said lower chamber includes a nebulizer (212) (ie. mist generated) on plate (224) (ie. below the processing chamber) such that mist can be desirably flowed/dispersed (ie. introduced) into the processing chamber [0086-0092, fig.5c]. This configuration is also useful for a removable assembly depicted by Luo et al. [fig.5a-c]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by locating the chemical vaporizer (ie. mister) in a separate chamber for the aforementioned benefit as taught by Luo et al. Alternatively, the examiner notes that all of the claimed features are disclosed in the prior art, although not necessarily in a single reference, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the general method of the aforementioned prior art (Priedeman et al.) by utilizing the structure of a vaporizer located separate from the processing chamber (Luo et al.) to arrive at the predictable result of an apparatus wherein vaporization and part removal can be controlled as taught by Luo et al. above. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Priedeman et al. does not expressly teach final steps of curing and sintering as claimed. However, the examiner submits that these steps (ie. binder curing and sintering/de-binding) are well-known and commonly performed steps in the art of powder metallurgy that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill. Alternatively, Sachs et al. discloses that binder jetting additive manufacturing is commonly known to include a step of heat curing for further binding of metal powder and subsequent sintering and de-binding (ie. removal by thermal decomposition), which one of ordinary skill would understand to include vaporization [col.4 ln.1-37]. The examiner considers this to meet the claimed steps d) and e).
Regarding claim 7, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Priedeman et al. further teaches that the chemical solvent is removed through drying [0030].
Regarding claims 9, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Priedeman et al. further teaches that the chemical solvent can be applied through boiling the solvent (ie. vaporizing by heating from a liquid state) and condensing the solvent on the object [0028-0029].
Regarding claims 10-11, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claims 1 and 9 (see previous). Priedeman et al. further teaches that condensation stops when the temperature of the object reaches the temperature of the boiling solvent [0029]. This suggests that the object temperature is initially lower than the solvent boiling temperature, which would require some consideration of cooling (ie. lower temperature relative to the solvent temperature), which meets the limitations of a cooled part and resulting energy potential as claimed. Alternatively, Klaczynski et al. discloses that condensation can occur due to the part being cooler than the chamber temperature, which meets the limitation of an energy potential due to the cooled part [0054].
Regarding claim 13, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Priedeman et al. further teaches a vaporizer apparatus (30) includes coils (33, 35) which serve to actively contain the solvent vapor and therefore act as a dispensing device [0026-0030]. Specifically, the examiner submits that containing said vapor around the object serves to distribute said vapor, which meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of “dispensing” as claimed.
Regarding claim 16, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Luo et al. further teaches that the part can be made at least partially of thermoplastic material and with suitable chemical solvents for softening/smoothing said thermoplastic material including formic acid among others [0010, 0057]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by selecting formic acid, for example, as a suitable chemical solvent for the same purpose of softening/smoothing additively manufactured parts including thermoplastic material as taught by Luo et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Klaczynski et al. does not teach causing condensation due to pressure. In response, the examiner notes that this point was not alleged in the previous rejections. Rather, Klaczynski et al. expressly teaches controlling pressure to control intensity of smoothing as stated above, wherein one of ordinary skill would naturally recognize that smoothing intensity is directly correlated to condensation amount. One of ordinary skill would further recognize that increasing chamber pressure would naturally result in higher condensation rates, which is further evidenced by University of Arizona.
Applicant argues that Priedeman et al. is directed to smoothing of plastic parts and is not directed to smoothing of parts made of metal and plastic binder as claimed. The examiner cannot concur. Priedeman et al. expressly teaches green metals with a polymer binder [0024].
Applicant’s arguments regarding the newly amended limitation of vaporizing the chemical in a separate chamber have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Luo et al. above.
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 NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights