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
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on 07/20/26 has been entered. Claim 3 has been canceled. Claims 1 – 2 and 9 – 11 remain pending under examination.
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 – 2 and 9 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubois (US2008/0192074, cited with the OA of 02/05/25) in view of Stucker (US2014/0255666, cited with the OA of 02/05/25) and in further view of Huang (US2005/0015175)
Regarding claim 1, Dubois teaches a system for inkjet printing in a layer-by-layer manner [Abstract], meeting the claimed limitation of an additive manufacturing system, containing a substrate to be printed on [Fig 5]. The system includes:
Multiple ejection heads with storage tanks [0133, 0134, Fig 5]. Each ejection head including a nozzle [0134, Fig 5], and a controllable solenoid discharge valve which controls flow out of the storage tank to the ejection nozzle (and therefore through) the nozzle [0179, Fig 5., Fig 7., Fig 8 (516)]. The storage tanks have a device for regulating the temperature of the material [0188, Fig 8] and the printing material is a dispersion (i.e. particles in solution) [0109, 0007]. Dubois further notes that the printing material is/are particles [0094, 0176].
The storage tanks with a temperature regulator meeting the claimed limitation of “first and second reservoirs for containing first and second heated solutions”
The ejections nozzles of the storage tanks meeting the claimed limitation of “first and second nozzles operably associated with the first and second reservoirs for channeling first and second quantities of the heated solution onto at least one of a substrate or a previously formed material layer”
The controllable solenoid valves of the storage tanks meeting the claimed limitation of “first and second valves associated with the first and second nozzles”
The dispersions (i.e. particles in solution; a “solution” is capable of evaporation) in the multiple storage tanks with temperature regulators meets the claimed limitations of “first and second heated solutions, the first heated solution forming a mixture of a quantity of first powdered meltable material particles and a first quantity of a volatile component, and the second heated solution forming a mixture of a quantity of second powdered meltable material particles different from the quantity of first powdered meltable material particles, and a second quantity of volatile component”
Dubois teaches the ejection head(s) which possess the controllable solenoid valve(s) and ejection nozzle(s) is/are connected to a data processing unit [Fig 6, “105”] that comprises an ejection control unit [0164].
The data processing unit with ejection control unit meeting the claimed limitation of “a processor configured to control flow of the first and second heated solutions through the first and second nozzles by controlling the first and second valves to enable the first and second heated solutions to be flowed out from the first and second nozzles, respectively, onto at least one of the substrate or the previously formed material layer”
Dubois states that the ejection means is capable of moving [0118]. Dubois states that the ejection means are on a displacement system allowing for three-dimensional movement [Fig 5. 0131]. These plates are connected to a controller and the data processing unit [0131, 0132]. Dubois further shows this by noting that the system contains position sensors for the displacement plates which includes the ejection means [0137 – 0139]. This meets the claimed limitation of “the processor further being configured to control movement of the first and second nozzles to deposit the solutions at specific locations on the substrate”.
A radiation source which can change the state of the deposited material [0146] and which is connected to the data processing unit [0146], meeting the claimed limitation of “a heat source responsive to the processor for generating heat sufficient to melt the first and second meltable powdered material particles”
Dubois also teaches that a database (interpreted as a “memory”) is present in the data processing unit [Fig 6, 0147] which can store printing parameters [0148]. The printing parameter can be the energy and duration of the radiation source [0165] and the printing parameters are based off the nature of the materials [0148], meeting the claimed limitation of “a memory in communication with the processor and the laser for storing a plurality of at least one of temperatures or durations used to tailor optical power for melting the first and second meltable powdered material particles within a predetermined time frame” and “the heat source configured to be controlled by the processor to apply a selected one of at least one of a plurality of different heating temperatures or heating durations, selected based on the first and second meltable powdered material particles being used, to sufficiently melt the first and second meltable powdered material particles”.
Wherein the limitation of “wherein the heat source is controlled to melt the first and second meltable powdered material particles on one of the substrate or a previously formed material layer after the volatile component in each of the first and second heated solutions has at least substantially evaporated therefrom, the volatile component operating to cool a previously formed material layer before heating of the first and second meltable powdered material particles takes place, and wherein the heating of the first and second meltable powdered material particles fuses the meltable powdered material particles into a single structural layer” is directed to the manner of operating the apparatus which does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114 II). “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”
Lastly, “wherein the part is formed exclusively by the first and second meltable powdered material particles” is directed to a material being worked upon and "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); (MPEP 2115)
Dubois teaches that the radiation source can be controlled to apply varying temperatures or duration based on the materials being used [0148, 0165]. However, Dubois does not explicitly teach that the heat source is capable of/configured to being controlled to apply different heating temperatures and/or durations to different regions of an entire material simultaneously or substantially simultaneously print a single layer of the part.
Stucker teaches a method of additive manufacturing by fusing powder [Abstract]. Stucker discloses that the additive manufacturing system can include deposition of a powder-ink suspension [0039], a controller with a memory operably coupled to the material depositing means, a thermal source, and able to deposit multiple material from multiple supply cartridges [claims 1 and 2]. Stucker teaches that in laser-based thermal systems, a digital light processing (DLP) projector known in the art can be used in the powder fusion systems [0026] and wherein the DLP can project the thermal source in the desired pattern (meeting the claimed limitation of the substantially simultaneously printing a single layer). Stucker teaches that the DLP projector can be controlled such that energy directed can be varied by region of the part [0025, 0026], meeting the claimed limitation of simultaneously applying different temperatures to different regions of the substrate or previously formed layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used a DLP projector system as taught by Stucker, with the apparatus of Dubois. Dubois and Stucker are in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing including fusing/melting powder material in a layer-by-layer manner via laser. Furthermore, Stucker makes clear that the DLP projector systems to be used are commercially available [0026]. As such, an ordinarily skill artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in using a DLP projector system in the apparatus of Dubois. Additionally, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to use said system because it can be controlled to regionally vary the energy being directed for different materials and Dubois is directed to producing multi-material objects [Title] with explicit disclosure of controlling the radiation source paraments based on the nature of the deposited material [Claim 78, 0165].
Dubois expressly acknowledges that the solvent can be evaporated (i.e. volatile component) [0007, 0111] but Dubois as-modified does not expressly teach a volatile solution of ethanol, methanol or acetone that is capable of/has a boiling point of below 100°C.
Huang teaches a process and device in the same field of endeavor of Dubois as-modified including a device which possesses/holds a suspension of particles and fluid and performs inkjet based dispensing followed by heating of the dispensed suspension [abstract]. Huang teaches that the suspension deposited includes a volatile liquid ingredient including one or more of ethanol, methanol, or acetone [0024], meeting the claimed structure of volatile component of acetone, methanol, and ethanol with a boiling point of less than 100°C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used a volatile solution of ethanol, methanol or acetone that is capable of/has a boiling point of below 100°C as the solvent (capable of being evaporated) in the device/system of Dubois to achieve predictable results. Dubois and Huang are in the same field of endeavor of producing a component via inkjet dispensing a of suspension and heating, and Dubois expressly includes an evaporative solvent. As such, an ordinarily skill artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using the solutions of ethanol, methanol and/or acetone in the apparatus of Dubois as-modified by Stucker to achieve predictable results.
Additionally, the limitation “that each volatile component evaporates from the respective heated solution at a temperature below 100 degrees Celsius, thereby actively cooling the previously formed material layer by latent heat of vaporization prior to activation of the heat source” is directed to the manner of operating the apparatus which does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114 II). “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”
Regarding claim 2, Dubois in view of Stucker and Huang teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Dubois teaches that after each layer is deposited successively [0023] the material is transformed into a different state with the radiation source [0146] and that the ejection nozzle and radiation source are connected to the data processing unit [0170, 0146], meeting the claimed limitation. The examiner notes that Dubois meets the limitation of claim 2, but that the limitation appears directed to the manner of operating the system, which does not differentiate the claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114 II). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”
Regarding claim 9, Dubois in view of Stucker and Huang teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Dubois teaches that the radiation source can be a laser [0146], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 10, Dubois in view of Stucker and Huang teaches the invention as applied in claim 9. Dubois teaches that the radiation source can be a laser [0146], however, Dubois does not expressly teach that the laser is a diode laser.
Stucker teaches a method of additive manufacturing by fusing powder [Abstract]. Stucker teaches that in additive manufacturing systems, laser-based thermal sources for inducing fusing of particles including CO2 lasers, fiber lasers, diode laser, and Nd-YAG lasers [0005]. Diode laser meeting the claimed limitation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used a diode laser as the laser type in device/system of Dubois to achieve predictable results. Dubois and Stucker are in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing. Furthermore, Stucker makes clear that diode lasers are known in the art of additive manufacturing for laser-based thermal sources for inducing fusion in particles/powder [0005]. As such, an ordinarily skill artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in using a diode laser as the laser type in the apparatus of Dubois as-modified by Stucker.
Regarding 11, Dubois in view of Stucker and Huang teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Dubois teaches that the controller includes a data processing unit/processor to implement a computer program stored on a storage medium [0147 – 0148] and that the printing parameters are a function of the nature of the materials are stored in the memory with the data processing unit [0149], meeting the claimed limitation of a memory for storing. A database (meeting the claimed limitation of a look-up table) is present in the data processing unit/storage medium for storing printing parameters [Fig 6, 0147] and a printing parameter can be the energy and duration of the radiation source [0165], meeting the claimed limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments thereto have been fully considered.
The examiner agrees that the limitations as introduced into claim 1, in particular that the volatile components of the first and second heated solutions consist of methanol, ethanol, and/or acetone that have boiling points below 100°C, are structural limitations and that Dubois in view of Stucker does not explicitly teach the solvent having this structure. Therefore, the previous rejection of claims 1 – 3 and 9 – 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubois (US2008/0192074), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Stucker (US2014/0255666) is withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new rejection is made of claims 1 – 2 and 9 – 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubois (US2008/0192074) in view of Stucker (US2014/0255666) and in further view of Huang (US2005/0015175), wherein Huang teaches inkjet printing with a suspension containing a volatile component of methanol, acetone, and/or ethanol.
Moreover, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but the examiner respectfully disagrees that the limitation “that each volatile component evaporates from the respective heated solution at a temperature below 100 degrees Celsius, thereby actively cooling the previously formed material layer by latent heat of vaporization prior to activation of the heat source” is a structural limitation. This limitation is directed to how the solvent is used in the printing process/how it functions and therefore is directed the manner of operating the device. That is, the limitation specifies what the volatile component does, not what it is. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” (MPEP 2114 II).
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 Austin M Pollock whose telephone number is (571)272-5602. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (11 - 8 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (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