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 Amendment
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-15 are pending. Claims 9-15 remain withdrawn. Claim 1 is currently amended.
In view of the amendment, filed 02/03/2026, claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are updated from the previous Office Action mailed 11/03/2025.
Claim Interpretation
Claim interpretation is consistent with the prior Office Action. The following limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f): in claim 3, “a predetermined amount of the powder material is discharged from a material supplier.” The specification provides corresponding structure for a material supplier 21, including in Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0058], [0061], [00103]-[00104] of the filed specification. The disclosure describes different possible configurations of the material supplier, including a supplier housing a volume of powder and a lifting part 22, shown as a table or piston, which is lifted by a predetermined distance to discharge the amount of powder ([0058], Fig. 2), as well as the supplier 21 being positioned on the body 20 or inside of the scraper 40 (see [0061]), similar to a hopper.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomita, JP 6545411 (citations to US 20200254684 A1), in view of Jowkar et al., WO 2020153941 A1, and Whitmarsh et al., WO 2018017082 A1 (references of record).
PNG
media_image1.png
901
1023
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
220
222
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Tomita (see above) discloses a three-dimensional printing method using a three-dimensional printer (Abstract), the method comprising:
Coating a powder material on a predetermined area of a bed of the printer while moving a scraper from an initial waiting position to a predetermined position on the bed of the printer, and returning the scraper from the predetermined position to the initial waiting position (forming powder layers by reciprocating movement of a squeegee 2, Abstract, [0015], [0021], see arrow depicting left-right squeegee movement in referenced figures);
Irradiating a laser to the coated powder material based on a two-dimensional shape information of a manufacturing structure and a first wall, to form a manufacturing structure layer and a first wall layer on the bed of the printer (forming sintered layer and wall layer on table 1 by irradiation with a laser beam, [0016], [0022]);
Piling the powder material on the formed manufacturing structure layer and the first wall layer while moving the scraper from the initial waiting position to a return position which is a top surface of the first (outer) wall layer, and returning from the return position to the initial waiting position (see horizontal arrow indicating travel of scraper); and irradiating the laser to the piled powder material based on the two-dimensional shape information (further sintered layers 3 and wall layers 4 are formed, [0016]-[0017], each having defined shapes, Figs. 4a-4c), to build the first wall and the manufacturing structure each having a three-dimensional structure (repeating previous steps to build the 3d product and wall, [0017], [0023]),
Wherein the first wall is disposed around the manufacturing structure and is disposed to isolate an area enclosing the manufacturing structure from a remaining area of the bed of the printer so that the powder material is filled in a space of the enclosed area (Figs. 1-4, see wall composed of wall layers 4 built around and segregating manufacturing structure composed of sintered layers 3 and powder 10 from remainder of bed), wherein the first wall is formed vertically (Fig. 4a).
Tomita is silent regarding limitations directed to a second wall and its corresponding second wall layer as currently claimed. Tomita therefore does not disclose the return position is a top surface of the second wall layer, that a height of the second wall is substantially the same as that of the first wall until the manufacturing structure is completed, and the second wall is disposed to isolate an area enclosing the first wall and the manufacturing structure from a remaining area of the bed.
In the analogous art (Abstract), Jowkar discloses a method for additive manufacturing including the generation of barrier walls surrounding build objects ([0042], see side and top views of Figs. 4E-4F). Jowkar teaches building a second perimeter wall outside of and in addition to a first perimeter wall (Figs. 4E-4F, the first wall enclosing a first build object 370A) such that multiple objects can be built inside the contained spaces that are isolated from each other (Figs. 4E-4F, [0051]-[0052]). The two wall structures have approximately the same height throughout a build (Fig. 4E).
PNG
media_image3.png
643
1186
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate from Jowkar the building of a second wall structure to the method of Tomita, such that an outer second wall was also built together with the first wall and the manufacturing structure, in order to provide the capability of isolating different areas of the manufacturing structure and/or to provide separated construction areas, as taught by Jowkar. In doing so, other than the second wall being inclined, the method would additionally comprise the presently claimed limitations directed to construction of the second wall and second wall layer. Further, in incorporating the construction of the additional second wall outside of the first wall of Tomita, the “return position” of the scraper would be a top surface of the second wall layer, instead of the first, as the return position of the scraper corresponds to the maximum distance the scraper needs to travel between the initial position and the farthest build structure (see Tomita Fig. 4).
Tomita discloses the return position of the scraper corresponds to a position of the outermost build structure as the integration height is increased (see horizontal arrow in Figs. 4a-4c; the traveling distance of the squeegee being shortened relative to the full distance of the shaping table in accordance with the partial region defined by the wall locations, e.g., [0001], [0013]-[0017]). The combination does not disclose that as an integration height of the powder material increases, the return position of the scraper is progressively moved toward the first wall to reduce a moving distance of the scraper, and the second wall is formed with an inward inclination toward the first wall as a result of the progressive movement of the return position during layer-by-layer integration of the powder material.
In other words, the combination does not disclose the second wall becoming inclined toward the first wall during the manufacturing, and that the return position of the scraper is correspondingly progressively moved toward the first wall thereby reducing a moving distance of the scraper as the integration height is increased.
In the analogous art (Abstract), Whitmarsh discloses constructing adaptive build partitions surrounding a build volume and separating the build volume from empty areas of the work space ([0021], Fig. 3a). Whitmarsh teaches configuring an outermost build wall 156 to be sloped inward toward the 3D object being produced, the wall being progressively sloped inward along its height (Fig. 5 below, [0043]). Whitmarsh teaches that inwardly sloped walls provide more stability to a build partition for better containing the build volume and separating the build volume from the empty area of the work space ([0043]).
PNG
media_image4.png
422
692
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of the combination such that the second wall becomes inclined toward the first wall during the manufacturing, wherein as an integration height of the powder material increases, the return position of the scraper is progressively moved toward the first wall to reduce a moving distance of the scraper, and the second wall is formed with an inward inclination toward the first wall as a result of the progressive movement of the return position during layer-by-layer integration of the powder material in order to provide a higher stability configuration for the outermost second wall containing the build volume and providing separation from the empty area of the work space, as taught by Whitmarsh. In incorporating the construction of the inwardly inclined second wall outside of the first wall of Tomita, the “return position” of the scraper would be a top surface of the second wall layer, instead of the first, and would be moved toward the first wall as the height of the integration of the powder material is increased, because the second wall is inclined inwardly toward the manufacturing structure and first wall and therefore a maximum travel distance of the scraper away from the waiting position would only decrease progressively toward the first wall until layer-wise construction of the second wall was complete.
Regarding claim 3, Tomita further discloses discharging a predetermined amount of the powder material from a material supplier (powder feeder 5, inside of squeegee 2, Fig. 4a) while moving the scraper from the initial waiting position to the return position on the bed (supplying squeegee with powder from powder feeder, forming powder layers within walls by movement of squeegee over the traveling distance [0013]-[0022]).
Tomita is silent as to the predetermined amount of the powder material being determined based on a round trip distance of the scraper.
However, Tomita describes in [0004] that, traditionally, when powder layers were formed to cover the entirety of a shaping table, excess powder layers are formed and the working efficiency by movement of the squeegee is not satisfactory. Tomita discusses a desire to avoid the formation of excess powder layers and thereby improve the working efficiency of the squeegee movement in [0010]. Tomita discloses that the formation of the powder layers is controlled by the movement of the squeegee in [0012], and Figs. 1-2 and 4 illustrating the invention that the powder is deposited by the squeegee only corresponding to its travel distance, which is shorter than the full travel distance across the chamber ([0013]-[0015]). Tomita shows the squeegee depositing an amount of powder corresponding to its set travel distance, and the defined partial area of the bed, in Figs. 1-2 and 4. The cited figures show that the squeegee does not deposit powder along the entire length of the powder bed and does not deposit powder less than the length of the partial area (see powder 10 within area enclosed by wall, lack of powder outside enclosed area).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Tomita to specify that the predetermined amount of the powder material is determined based on a round trip distance of the scraper in order to ensure that an accurate amount of powder corresponding to the defined partial area is deposited for each layer and to avoid the formation of excess powder layers as described by Tomita.
Regarding claim 4, Tomita further discloses the first wall is built to enclose at least two side surfaces of the manufacturing structure (Figs. 1-2, 4; see, e.g., the Figs. 1(b) and 4(c) below showing at least two side surfaces of the manufacturing structure 3 enclosed by wall 4).
PNG
media_image5.png
743
895
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
527
559
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, modified Tomita teaches the limitations of claim 1. Tomita is silent regarding the first wall having a grid shape in a plan view, and the powder material being filled in a space of the grid shape.
Jowkar further teaches forming a barrier wall to have a grid shape in a plan view with powder filled in spaces of the grid shape (grid with holes, or mesh structure, Fig. 5B, [0056]), in order to provide the capability of recycling a larger amount of build material corresponding to the untreated build material ([0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first wall of Tomita to have a grid shape in a plan view with the powder material filled in a space of the grid shape, in order to consume less build material in the construction of the walls so as to increase the amount of powder which can be recycled, as taught by Jowkar.
Regarding claims 7-8, modified Tomita discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination as set forth above further discloses the second wall is built with the manufacturing structure and the first wall at the same time, wherein the second wall is adjacent to the first wall, (claim 1, per Jowkar the second perimeter wall is positioned adjacent to and outside of the first perimeter wall), wherein the second wall becomes inclined toward the first wall when building the second wall (claim 1, per combination with Whitmarsh).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (pp. 8-9) that Jowkar does not teach “wherein the first wall is disposed between the second wall and the manufacturing structure,” as well as limitations directed to an inward inclination of the second wall. Applicant seems to argue (p. 9) that because Jowkar discloses an additional build object between the first and second walls then Jowkar does not teach the first wall being formed between the manufacturing structure and the second wall.
These arguments are not persuasive. Jowkar teaches building multiple barrier walls dividing the build area into multiple regions that can contain build objects. Incorporating an additional wall, as shown by Jowkar, outside of a first wall defining a region containing the manufacturing structure, as shown by Tomita, results in the first wall being between the manufacturing structure and the second wall. Applicant’s arguments specific to Figs. 4E and 4F of Jowkar are not persuasive because the annotated “first wall” 380B immediately outside of the first object 370a is disposed between the annotated “second wall” 380C and the first object/manufacturing structure internal to the first wall, 370A. The fact that another build object 370B is shown between the first and second walls does not contradict the claim language. Jowkar was not relied upon to specifically teach the inward inclination of this wall and therefore those arguments are not pertinent.
Applicant argues (pp. 10-11) that Whitmarsh teaches forming a sloped wall for separation of the build volume from the empty area or for providing structural stability but the present invention forms the second layer at an incline as an inevitable result of the scraper movement being shifted inwards.
This argument is not found persuasive. The formation of a wall defining a smaller build volume (Tomita) wherein the travel distance of the scraper is set according to the location of the wall (Tomita) wherein the wall is an inwardly sloped wall (Whitmarsh) requires the movement distance of the scraper to correspondingly shift inward with the progressive building of the wall. Applicant’s argument that the inward slope of the wall is a result of the progressive inward movement of the scraper does not amount to a material distinction between the building of an inwardly sloped wall via the progressive inward movement of the scraper. The process in either case involves the same steps and achieves the same result. Note that the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. MPEP 2144(IV).
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 In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant argues (p. 11) that Whitmarsh does not disclose the last steps of claim 1, but the rejection was based on the combination of Tomita, Jowkar, and Whitmarsh. 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).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm ET.
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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/FARAH TAUFIQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights