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 .
Request to Continue 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/07/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
The previously claim set filed on 03/11/2026 was entered after final with a response to the amendments and remarks on 03/24/2026. This is the most recently filed claim set and as such, this Office action is in response to the claim set of 03/11/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase "volatile component" is interpreted as a placeholder for a component and is not
interpreted to impart any physical limitation on the component with the exception of it being capable of
being evaporated.
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 – 3 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), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Stucker (US2014/0255666, cited with the OA of 02/05/25)
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].
Regarding claim 2, Dubois in view of Stucker 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 3, Dubois in view of Stucker teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. The specific chemical of the volatile component is a limitation directed the 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)
Regarding claim 9, Dubois in view of Stucker 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 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 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 remarks filed on 03/11/2026 were responded to in the Office action on 03/24/2026. The response to remarks is provided here as well for clarity of the record.
Applicant argues that the Dubois is not directed to a mixture but instead appears to be a molten material suitable for sintering/melting. Applicant does not provide a citation to support this assertion. However, the examiner notes that Dubois explicitly refers to the material as a “dispersion” [0109, 0007], a “dispersion” is reasonably understood to be a material dispersed in another. Dubois makes clear that the printing material is/are particles [0094, 0176]. Lastly, Dubois notes that stirring is provided in the storage tank to prevent “particle agglomerates” [0109] and that evaporation can take place [0071].
It is noted that throughout prosecution (see for example the Office Action of 09/08/2025) that the phrase "volatile component" is interpreted as a placeholder for a component and is not interpreted to impart any physical limitation on the component with the exception of it being capable of being evaporated. Therefore, because Dubois notes that evaporation of solvent takes place, this meets the limitation of “volatile component”.
As such, the preponderance of the evidence supports that the material in Dubois is/are particles in solution and applicant’s arguments that the material of Dubois appears to be molten material is not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Dubois does not teach or suggest that the nozzles have the ability to be moved by the processor. This is not persuasive. Dubois notes 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 and therefore, the ejection means [0137 – 0139]. This meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the processor (i.e. the data processing unit) being configured to control the movement of the ejection nozzles.
Lastly, applicant states that Stucker does not teach using a heated solution and does not teach or suggest using the volatile component of the heating solution as a cooling agent. This is not persuasive to distinguish the claims. Stucker was not relied upon for this teaching. Dubois teaches/notes that the material deposited is capable of evaporation [0071] and is a dispersion [0109, 007] and the system is capable of regulating its temperature [0188], meeting the structure of the claimed limitation of heated solution. The use of the volatile component as a cooling agent when operating the system 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)”.
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