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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 14-15, 19 and 21, 24-29 are pending. Claims 14-15, 19 and 21, 24 are presented for this examination. Claims 25-29 are withdrawn. Claims 16-18, 20 and 22-23 are cancelled.
Status of Previous Rejection
All art rejections are maintained in view of amendment of claim 14.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim interpretation
Instant claim 14 comprising is inclusive open transitional term which does not exclude (emphasis added) other unrecited steps such as melting of the binder.
Instant claim 14 required step c) is inherent due to irradiation of laser on the base material and binder.
Third, instant claim4 amended “in the form of carbon powder” is interpreted as physical state or form in which a quantity of carbon is present.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-15, 19 and 21, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Instant claim 14 recites “adding a hardening agent to a base material of a material layer by a movable dispensing apparatus locally in a predetermined proportion that is specifiable and locally adjustable so as to adjust a concentration gradient for the hardening agent with a plane defined by the material layer” is unclear. What does it mean by “predetermined proportion that is specifiable and locally adjustable”? if the added proportion of the hardening agent is predetermined , how can it also be locally adjustable? Does it mean the added proportion of the hardening agent is selectively specifiable through locally adjustable addition to the base material or something else?
As a result of rejected claim 14, all dependable claims are also rejected under the same statue.
Claim Interpretation
Instant claim 14 amended “adding a hardening agent to a base material of a material layer by a movable dispensing apparatus locally in a predetermined locally adjustable proportion so as to adjust a concentration gradient for the hardening agent with a plane defined by the material layer” is interpreted as “the addition of the hardening agent is adjustable to the extent that it is specifiable how much hardening agent is added to the material layer of the base material at a selectable site on the surface”. Hence, if prior art discloses a drop on demand ink jet head which printhead dispenses the binder only when needed, it reads on amended limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14-15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sachs (US 5,204,055) and evidenced by Bourell (NPL document “Sintering in Laser Sintering”) and JP’344 (JP03205344A).
As for claim 14, Sachs discloses 3D printing technique using SLS (selective laser sintering) which uses the optical energy supplied by a laser to manufacture a tooling (Col 1 line 5-10) . Due to the term “tooling” suggests a machine component and a powder material for laser sintering is a metallic (Claim 3 line 2), Sachs discloses a process for additive manufacturing of a metallic machine component as required by instant claim. The process for making the metallic machine component comprises: (Claim 1)
Depositing a layer of the powder material, which reads on claimed step a)
Applying a binder to one or more selected region of said layer of the powder material to become bonded at said one or more selected region, which reads on claimed adding a hardening agent. Since hardening occurs at the time the binder is deposited and the binder can be deposited by a binder deposition head 15 (Figure 1) and the binder deposition head 15 is moved by a suitable linear stepping motor assembly 18 as illustrated in Figure 1 (Col 3 lines 45-50), instant claimed step b) is met because the binder deposition head 15 reads on claimed movable dispensing apparatus. Since drop on demand ink jet mechanism is used to dispense the binder from the binder deposition head, it supports instant claimed in predetermined locally adjustable proportion. Hence, instant claimed “so as to adjust a concentration gradient for the hardening agent within a plane defined by the material layer” is expected.
Sachs does not expressly disclose claimed step c) locally melting the powder material such that the binder is locally embedded in the base material layer. However, it should be noted instant claimed “locally melting the base material layer” is inherently present as a result of laser irradiation on the base material layer and the binder.
Since Sachs’s selective laser sintering is a process used to produce objects from powdered material using one or more lasers to selectively fuse or melt the particles at the surface, layer upon layer in an enclosed chamber as evidenced by Bourell (Page 885 Col 1 Introduction paragraph lines 1-5) according to ASTM definition such that SLS process typically involves full or partial melting of the base material layer,
Hence, Sachs’s SLS process is expected to meet instant claimed step c).
Sachs also discloses repeating the step of deposition and applying (Claim 1) which suggest claimed steps d) and e).
Regarding amendment, Sachs discloses organic binder such as polycarbosilazane (Col 7 line 35) which is in the form of carbon according to claim interpretation above. It is in powder form as evidenced by JP’344 (Abstract line 4)
As for claim 15, the fact Sachs discloses the melted binder penetrates and bonds with the powder particles together (Col 11 lines 10-15) suggests instant claimed wherein clause.
As for claim 24, Sachs discloses a variety of thermally activated chemical reaction or applying infra-red energy or microwave energy (Col 8 lines 15-20) can be used to harden the binder suggests instant claimed hardening the machine component through exposure to thermal energy.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sachs, Bourell and JP’344 as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Gibson (NPL document “Additive Manufacturing Technologies”).
As for claim 19, Sachs discloses the powder material is metallic (paragraph [0034]) but does not disclose the metallic component made of Fe, Mn or Ni alloy.
Gibson discloses a wide range of metal such as steel, Ti alloy, Ni base alloy are all well know commercially available for use as metallic substrate for additive manufacturing. (Page 129 Section 5.2.2)
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, to apply well known metallic such as Fe, Mn or Ni alloy as suggested by Gibson, in the process of Sachs with expected success.
As for claim 20, Gibson discloses in Figure 5.1 a typical schematic of the selective laser sintering process in which X-Y scanning mirrors are used to adjust the intensity of the laser beam.
Response to Argument
In response to argument filed on 09/16/2025 that Sachs disclose the binder is melted and not the powder particles, argument is not persuasive because Sachs’ SLS process is expected to have the based material layer locally melted as a result of laser irradiation. Second, applicant’s argument that instant invention melts the base material and not the binder is incommensurate in scope of claimed invention which does not exclude melting of the binder due to open inclusive term “comprising”. Comprising is an open transitional inclusive term which does not (emphasis added) exclude unrecited step according to MPEP 2111.03 I Comprising.
In response to argument that based material is melted but without a second material in Bourell and base material is polymer while based material is plastic powder in Sachs. Argument is completely incommensurate in scope of current rejection which does not rely on Bourel at all. Bourel is merely used as evidential reference to demonstrate local melting of base material is inherent in SLS. Second, whether based material is plastic powder or polymer is incommensurate in scope of claim 14 rejection which does not rely on Bourel at all.
In response to argument that instant invention differs from SLS where only a plastic is melted without a second material while in Sachs only a binder is melted and not the base material, argument is not persuasive because no evidence in Sachs suggests base material is not melted. Sachs’s SLS process is expected to melt the base material along with the binder due to laser irradiation. Second, claim 14 does not exclude melting of the second material at all.
In response to argument that carbon powder is not a binder or adhesive and if carbon melts at over 3000 degree C, base metal will have long since melted or evaporated, argument is incommensurate in scope of claim 14 which does not exclude presence of a binder nor adhesive. Second, claim 14 merely requires “in the form of carbon powder” which is given the broadest and reasonable interpretation. In other words, claim 14 does not require hardening agent consisting of carbon powder. The phrase "in the form of carbon powder" does not necessarily suggest "all carbon". It merely requires the physical state or form in which a quantity of carbon is present, not the entire quantity is carbon. Third, whether the carbon melts at over 3000 degree C is incommensurate in scope of claim 14 which does not (emphasis added) require melting temperature of the carbon powder at all. Fourth, whether carbon powder stick when heated is incommensurate in scope of claim 14 which does not exclude such powder gluing or bonding. Nor claim 14 require a reaction at the atomic level as alleged by applicant.
In response to argument that steps c) and d) are two consecutive laser or heat treatment steps that Sachs never show, argument is incommensurate in scope of claim 14 which does not require two consecutive laser or heat treatment steps at all. In other words, where is the steps of first and second laser treatment or heat treatment recited in claim 14 ? The answer is NONE.
In response to argument that present invention is distinguished by “the absence of an adhesive or a binder”, “melting of the base material not the added agent” and “ second laser treatment or heat treatment”, argument is completely incommensurate in scope of claim 14 which does not require (emphasis added) “the absence of an adhesive or a binder”, “melting of the base material not the added agent” and “ second laser treatment or heat treatment”.
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 Jenny Wu whose telephone number is (571)270-5515. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5:30pm Monday through Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNY R WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733