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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 03/17/2026 has been entered. New “claim 15” has been added. However, the Examiner notes that claim 15 was cancelled and new claim 15 should instead read “claim 21”. See Claim Objections below. As a courtesy, the Examiner has examined the improperly marked claim set, rather than returning it to Applicant for correction. New “claim 15” will be referred to as claim 21 in this Office action. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-2, 4-13, and 21 remain pending in the application. Claims 3 and 14-20 have been canceled.
Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(a) rejections previously set forth in the Final Rejection mailed 10/23/2025. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome some of the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Final Rejection mailed 10/23/2025, with the exception of those in this Office action. The 112(d) rejections previously set forth in the Final Rejection mailed 10/23/2025 are maintained and included in this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 15 is included as both a cancelled claim and a new claim. Applicant is reminded of 37 C.F.R. 1.121 and MPEP § 714 II C which states that: (A) Status Identifiers: The current status of all of the claims in the application, including any previously canceled or withdrawn claims, must be given. Status is indicated in a parenthetical expression following the claim number by one of the following status identifiers: (original), (currently amended), (previously presented), (canceled), (withdrawn), (new), or (not entered). In this case, since claim 15 is cancelled, the new claim must be claim 21 instead “claim 15” as currently recited. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding the claimed width and mean particle size of claims 1-2, 4-5, and 11, in view of the 112(a), 112(b) and 112(d) rejections in this Office action, any gap width having any size powder within will be understood as reading on the claimed limitation since one of ordinary skill in the art understands any powder which includes more than one powder particle will inherently have a “particle size distribution” and a “mean particle size”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “filled with non-melted particles of the powder”. The instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “filled with non-melted particles of the powder”. The terms “non-melted” and potential synonyms, such as “unmelted”, do not appear anywhere in the instant specification. Claims 2, 4-13, and 21 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 1.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “wherein the first vehicle component and the second vehicle component are each end-use components of a component block, without constructing any non-contacting thermal support for the first and second vehicle components”. The instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “wherein the first vehicle component and the second vehicle component are each end-use components of a component block, without constructing any non-contacting thermal support for the first and second vehicle components”. The terms “end-use” and “non-contacting thermal support” do not appear anywhere in the instant specification. Regarding the claimed “non-contacting thermal support”, the instant specification recites “the manufacturing process does not require a supporting structure as an independent geometry” ([0007]) and “as no supporting structures have to be removed subsequently, the costs for post-processing the additively manufactured component also are reduced” ([0035]). However, this is not sufficient support for the claimed “non-contacting thermal support” since the instant specification recites a “supporting structure” instead.
Claims 1-2, 4-13, and 21 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein a width s of the component gap g is defined by a particle size distribution of the particles of the powder”. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “width s of the component gap g” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “particle size distribution of the particles of the powder” while the accepted meaning of a “width”, according to Oxford Languages is “the measurement or extent of something from side to side”, accordingly, the term “width” “of the component gap” is commonly understood to mean the distance from one edge of the gap to the opposing edge. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the width of the component gap g defines a mean distance between the first vehicle component and the second vehicle component”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear whether the width of the component gap is treated as “equivalent” to a “mean distance”. It is further unclear what the term “mean distance” entails. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “width of the component gap g” in claim 2 appears to be used by the claim to mean “mean distance” while the accepted meaning of a “width”, according to Oxford Languages is “the measurement or extent of something from side to side”, accordingly, the term “width” “of the component gap” is commonly understood to mean the distance from one edge of the gap to the opposing edge. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. In this case, a “mean distance” implies the average obtained from more than one distance while the claimed width is commonly understood as a single distance between two points or edges.
Claims 4 and 11 recite the limitations “the mean particle size of the particles in the component gap g corresponds to a value of the particle size distribution of the powder wherein the particle size distribution of the powder is between d90 and d100 + 10%” and “the mean particle size of the particles in the component gap g corresponds to a particle size distribution of the powder, wherein the particle size distribution ranges between d90 and d95” respectively. The term “corresponds” in these limitations render the claims indefinite since it is unclear what the relationship is between the claimed mean particle size and the claimed particle size distribution.
Claims 4 and 11 recite the limitations “the mean particle size of the particles in the component gap g corresponds to a value of the particle size distribution of the powder wherein the particle size distribution of the powder is between d90 and d100 + 10%” and “the mean particle size of the particles in the component gap g corresponds to a particle size distribution of the powder, wherein the particle size distribution ranges between d90 and d95” respectively. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “mean particle size of the particles in the gap” of claims 4 and 11 is used by the claim to mean “a particle size distribution in the powder ranging between d90 and d100 + 10%” or “between d90 or d95” respectively, while the accepted meaning of a “mean particle size” is an average particle size, which would read on to a d50 value in a particle size distribution and not to a value of d90, d95, or d100+10%. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “each are spaced apart from the first vehicle component by a respective component gap having width s predefined using the particle size distribution”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the “particle size distribution” is used to “predefine” the “respective component gap having width s” and therefore, it is unclear what the component gap width must be to meet this limitation.
Claim 11 does not resolve the aforementioned issues, and is thereby also indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the layer thickness corresponds to a maximum height of the first and second vehicle components”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear whether the claimed “layer thickness” refers to the claimed “first component layer”, “second component layer”, a print or powder “layer” in additive manufacturing, the claimed “sinter bridge layer”, or a different layer.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "within the second component layer" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim since claim 1 only introduces a first component layer and “a second component layer” is introduced in either claim 6 or claim 7.
Claims 12-13 depend on claim 10, do not resolve the aforementioned issues, and are thereby also indefinite.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “forming a sinter bridge layer on the first and second vehicle components”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite. The instant specification recites “a sinter bridge layer is formed between the components of a first and a second component layer” ([0013]). However, the instant claim merely recites forming “a sinter bridge layer” on the components and does not recite whether those components are being connected via the “sinter bridge layer” as recited in the specification. It is unclear what type of structure would satisfy the claimed “forming a sinter bridge layer on the first and second vehicle components”.
Claim 13, which depends on claim 12, appears to resolve this issue by forming a sinter bridge layer connecting the first and second vehicle component to “further” vehicle components and is thereby not indefinite.
Claims 2, 4, 10, and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the width of the component gap g defines a mean distance between the first vehicle component and the second vehicle component”. However, claim 1 recites “wherein a width s of the component gap g is defined by a particle size distribution of the particles of the powder such that the particles present in the component gap g provide support against relative displacement of the first and second vehicle components”. Since the width is already defined by a particle size distribution in claim 1, the width cannot be redefined to a mean distance of claim 2. Claim 2 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends since it is attempting to redefine the claimed width s of the component gap g of claim 1.
Claims 4 and 11 recite the limitations “the mean particle size of the particles in the component gap g corresponds to a value of the particle size distribution of the powder wherein the particle size distribution of the powder is between d90 and d100 + 10%” and “the mean particle size of the particles in the component gap g corresponds to a particle size distribution of the powder, wherein the particle size distribution ranges between d90 and d95” respectively. Because claims 4 and 11 recite a limitation based on particle size distribution values that do not meet the definition of “mean particle size”, claims 4 and 11 do not further limit claims 1 and 5.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “providing arrestment against displacement of the first vehicle component within the first component layer via the particles in the component gap g; and providing arrestment against displacement of the second vehicle component within the second compartment layer via the particles in the component gap g”. Since claim 1 recites “particles present in the component gap g provide support against relative displacement of the first and second vehicle components during the additive manufacturing process”, the claimed vehicle components are already under “arrestment against displacement” in claim 1. Claim 10 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1 on which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2013/0112366 A1 of Mottin (as cited in prior Office action).
Regarding claim 1, Mottin teaches a method of fabricating a metal part by selectively melting a powder (Abstract).
Mottin teaches firstly, the bottom of the reservoir (1, Fig. 1) is moved upwards so that a certain quantity of powder (2, Fig. 1) is situated above the horizontal plane (A, Fig. 1) ([0043]). Mottin teaches the scraper (8, Fig. 1) is then moved from left to right so as to scrape said layer of powder from the reservoir 1 and bring it into the vessel (5, Fig. 1) ([0043]). Mottin teaches the quantity of powder and the position of the plate (6, Fig. 1) are determined so as to form a layer (12, Fig. 1) of powder presenting thickness that is selected and constant ([0043]). Mottin teaches a laser beam (11, Fig. 1) then scans a determined zone of the layer formed in the vessel so as to melt the powder locally in the scanned zone ([0044], melting the powder locally reads on the claimed at least locally melting the particles). Mottin teaches the melted zones solidify so as to form a first layer (13, Fig. 1) of the part that is to be fabricated, this layer presenting thickness lying in the range 10-100 μm, for example ([0044]). Mottin teaches the plate (6, Fig. 1) is then lowered, and in the same manner as before, a second layer of powder is moved onto the first layer of powder ([0045]). Mottin teaches by controlled movement of the beam, a second layer of the metal part is formed on the first layer and these operations are repeated until the part has been made completely ([0045]-[0046]).
Mottin teaches forming vanes (17, Fig. 3, vane reads on the claimed first component and second component since there are multiple vanes as shown in Fig. 3; vanes are well-known components used in vehicles and therefore also read on the claimed vehicle components) and two additional elements (21 and 22, Fig. 3, also read on the claimed second component) for each vane, which elements are disposed on either side thereof, said elements (21 and 22, Fig. 3) being spaced apart from the corresponding vane and separated therefrom by a gap (23, Fig. 3, gap reads on the claimed component gap wherein the component gap g is filled with non-melted particles of the powder and wherein a width s of the component gap g is defined by a particle size distribution of the particles of the powder) filled with non-melted powder ([0052], the vane and elements read on a plurality of components; these components are extending along a manufacturing plane and the first component is adjacent to the second component as seen in Fig. 3; since the gap is filled with non-melted powder, the gap of Mottin reads on the claimed width s of the component gap g). Mottin teaches the vanes and the elements are not rigidly or mechanically connected together by any spacers or the like ([0052], vanes read on the claimed end-use components without constructing any non-contacting thermal support for the first and second vehicle components of claim 21). Mottin teaches powder (2, Fig. 3, reads on claimed non-melted powder) remaining in the gap (23, reads on claimed gap) between the vanes (17, reads on claimed first and second vehicle components) ([0055]). As seen in Fig. 3, Mottin also teaches powder fills the larger gap between the multiple vanes. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that if a gap is filled with non-melted powder, the components around it will hold their position as the gap is filled and will not allow displacement and that the powder will inherently have a particle size distribution and mean particle size despite the size of this gap not being explicitly disclosed by Mottin.
Mottin teaches for each layer, the elements (21 and 22, Fig. 3, elements further read on a second component) and the corresponding vanes (17, Fig. 3, vane reads on a first and second vehicle components) are thus made simultaneously, the gap (23, Fig. 3) between said elements (21, 22, Fig. 3) and the vane (17, Fig. 3) lying in the range 50 μm to 500 μm ([0053]). Mottin teaches when the part is built up layer by layer by selectively melting the powder with the help of a laser beam, the powder presents mean grain size lying in the range 10 μm to 50 μm ([0047]).
Mottin therefore reads on the limitation a method of manufacturing a plurality of vehicle components to be manufactured during an additive manufacturing process by means of a powder including particles, the method comprising: at least locally melting the particles to form the plurality of components; forming a first component layer extending along a manufacturing plane, in which a first vehicle component of the plurality of components is present at least in a spatial direction along the manufacturing plane and adjacent to a second vehicle component of the plurality of components, wherein the first and second vehicle components of the plurality of components disposed in the first component layer are spaced apart by a component gap g, wherein the component gap g is filled with non-melted particles of the powder, and wherein a width s of the component gap g is defined by a particle size distribution of the particles of the powder such that the particles present in the component gap g provide support against relative displacement of the first and second vehicle components during the additive manufacturing process of claim 1.
Since the gap width of Mottin includes a value related to the mean grain size ranges, the gap width of Mottin is predefined using a particle size distribution of the particles in the powder. Furthermore, since Mottin lists 50 μm as an upper limit of the mean grain size and as a lower limit of the gap width, the gap width of Mottin reads on at least a mean particle size of the particles in the powder. For the gap between vanes, the powder will inherently have a particle size distribution and mean particle size despite the size of this gap not being explicitly disclosed by Mottin.
Mottin therefore reads on the limitation wherein a width s of the component gap g is defined by a particle size distribution of the particles of the powder of claim 1, wherein the width of the gap g defines a mean distance between the first vehicle component and the second vehicle component of claim 2, wherein the mean particle size of the particles in the component gap g corresponds to a value of the particle size distribution of the powder, wherein the particle size distribution of the powder is between d90 and d100 + 10% of claim 4, and wherein the mean particle size of the particles in the component gap g corresponds to a particle size distribution, wherein the particle size distribution ranges between d90 or d95 of claim 11.
Mottin therefore reads on all the limitations of claims 1-2, 4 and 11.
Regarding claim 5, Mottin teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Mottin teaches forming vanes (17, Fig. 3, vanes reads on claimed first and second vehicle components) and two additional elements (21 and 22, Fig. 3, elements further read on claimed second component) for each vane, which elements are disposed on either side thereof, said elements (21 and 22, Fig. 3) being spaced apart from the corresponding vane and separated therefrom by a gap (23, Fig. 3, gap reads on the claimed gap and determines the space between a first and second component) filled with non-melted powder ([0052], the vanes and elements read on a plurality of components; these components are present in two mutually perpendicular directions along a manufacturing plane and the first component is adjacent to the second component as seen in Fig. 3).
Mottin therefore reads on the limitation wherein the first vehicle component of the plurality of vehicle components is present in two mutually perpendicular spatial directions along the manufacturing plane adjacent to second vehicle components of the plurality of vehicle components, each are spaced apart from the first vehicle component by a respective component gap having width s predefined using the particle size distribution of claim 5.
Regarding claim 9, Mottin teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Mottin teaches a method of fabricating a metal part by selectively melting a powder with the help of a laser beam, such a method also being known under the terms direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) ([0001]).
Mottin therefore reads on the limitation wherein the forming step is effected by additive laser melting of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Mottin teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Mottin teaches the part is held in position by the support element throughout its fabrication and further held because of the layer of powder between the part and the element ([0017], the layer of powder refers to the one contained in the gap which reads on the claimed gap; held in position reads on the claimed arrestment against displacement of the components).
Mottin therefore reads on the limitation further comprising: providing arrestment against displacement of the first vehicle component within the first component layer via the particles in the component gap g; and providing arrestment against displacement of the second vehicle component within the second compartment layer via the particles in the component gap g of claim 10.
Regarding claim 21, Mottin teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Mottin teaches the vanes and the elements are not rigidly or mechanically connected together by any spacers or the like ([0052], vanes read on the claimed end-use components without constructing any non-contacting thermal support for the first and second vehicle components of claim 21).
Mottin therefore reads on the limitation wherein the first vehicle component and the second vehicle component are each end-use components of a component block, without constructing any non-contacting thermal support for the first and second vehicle components of claim 21.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 9-13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0244040 A1 of Oshima in view of “Betatype demonstrates optimised high-volume metal AM for the automotive industry” of Betatype and further in view of US 2013/0112366 A1 of Mottin (as cited in prior Office action).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, and 11, Oshima teaches a three-dimensional shaping method includes forming a combination to be each level of a three-dimensional shaped object and also forming a combination to be each level of a shaped object support member in each of a plurality of powder material layers having an uncured powder material in accordance with hierarchical shape data corresponding to each of the powder material layers (Abstract, reads on claimed method of manufacturing). Oshima teaches a plurality of stacked components with multiple objects in one layer and multiple objects in the layer above (Figs. 5A, 5B, 5C, 6A, 6B, 7, [0054]-[0057]; objects 12, 22, 32 of Fig. 7 read on the claimed plurality of components). Oshima teaches uncured or unbound powder material 101 is removed to expose the shaped objects 12, 22, 32, 42 ([0057]-[0058], uncured or unbound powder material reads on claimed non-melted particles of the powder). One of ordinary skill in the art understands the uncured powder material between the objects forms a component gap which provides support against relative displacement of the components during the additive manufacturing process. A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. See MPEP § 2164.01.
Oshima therefore reads on the limitation a method of manufacturing a plurality of components to be manufactured during an additive manufacturing process by means of a powder including particles, the method comprising: forming a first component layer extending along a manufacturing plane, in which a first component of the plurality of components is present at least in a spatial direction along the manufacturing plane and adjacent to a second component of the plurality of components, wherein the first and second components of the plurality of components disposed in the first component layer are spaced apart by a component gap g, wherein the component gap g is filled with non-melted particles of the powder, and wherein a width s of the component gap g is such that the particles present in the component gap g provide support against relative displacement of the first and second vehicle components during the additive manufacturing process of claim 1.
However, Oshima does not teach manufacturing vehicle components of claim 1, at least locally melting the particles to form the plurality of components, and wherein a width s of the component gap g is defined by a particle size distribution of the particles of the powder of claim 1.
Betatype teaches an optimized high-volume metal AM for the automotive industry (Title). Betatype and Oshima are considered analogous art since they are similarly concerned with the problem of additive manufacturing multiple components at once using powdered materials.
Betatype teaches a stacked build of 384 LED heatsinks on a build plate (Image and Caption of page 1, heatsinks reads on claimed vehicle components). Betatype teaches using Laser Powder Bed Fusion (LBPF) and stacked configurations to combine the geometric capabilities of additive manufacturing with increased production volumes of cost-effective parts (pages 1-2, one of ordinary skill in the art understands LBPF at least locally melts particles to form components). Betatype teaches the specific geometry for these metal parts makes them ideal for LPBF production consolidating multiple manufacturing processes in one (page 2). Betatype teaches designing the stack structure by nesting the components together to reduce thermal stresses to minimize thermal distortion and to maximize build volume (page 2). Betatype teaches adjusting LBPF parameters to control melting (page 3). Betatype teaches the stacked configuration enhances build speed and reduces build time (page 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Oshima to manufacture the stacked vehicle components of Betatype using laser bed powder fusion to enhance build speed, reduce build time, maximize build volume, and minimize thermal distortion, as taught by Betatype.
Modified Oshima therefore reads on the limitation vehicle components of claim 1, and at least locally melting the particles to form the plurality of components of claim 1.
Regarding the particle size distribution of the gap of claim 1, it would have been necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for exemplary component gap widths used in additive manufacturing of multiple components. Mottin provides this teaching showing a method of fabricating a metal part by selectively melting a powder (Abstract). Mottin and Oshima are considered analogous art since they are similarly concerned with the problem of manufacturing a plurality of component using powdered materials and additive manufacturing.
Mottin teaches for each layer, the elements (21 and 22, Fig. 3, elements further read on a second component) and the corresponding vanes (17, Fig. 3, vane reads on a first and second vehicle components) are thus made simultaneously, the gap (23, Fig. 3) between said elements (21, 22, Fig. 3) and the vane (17, Fig. 3) lying in the range 50 μm to 500 μm ([0053]). Mottin teaches when the part is built up layer by layer by selectively melting the powder with the help of a laser beam, the powder presents mean grain size lying in the range 10 μm to 50 μm ([0047]).
Since the gap width of Mottin includes a value related to the mean grain size ranges, the gap width of Mottin is predefined using a particle size distribution of the particles in the powder. Furthermore, since Mottin lists 50 μm as an upper limit of the mean grain size and as a lower limit of the gap width, the gap width of Mottin reads on at least a mean particle size of the particles in the powder. For the gap between vanes, the powder will inherently have a particle size distribution and mean particle size despite the size of this gap not being explicitly disclosed by Mottin.
Modifed Oshima therefore reads on the limitation wherein a width s of the component gap g is defined by a particle size distribution of the particles of the powder of claim 1, wherein the width of the gap g defines a mean distance between the first vehicle component and the second vehicle component of claim 2, wherein the mean particle size of the particles in the component gap g corresponds to a value of the particle size distribution of the powder, wherein the particle size distribution of the powder is between d90 and d100 + 10% of claim 4, and wherein the mean particle size of the particles in the component gap g corresponds to a particle size distribution, wherein the particle size distribution ranges between d90 or d95 of claim 11.
Modified Oshima therefore reads on all the limitations of claims 1-2, 4 and 11.
Regarding claim 5, modified Oshima teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
As seen in Fig. 7, Oshima teaches a plurality of components present in two mutually perpendicular spatial direction along the manufacturing plane adjacent to second vehicle components of the plurality of components which are spaced by a component gap. Similarly, Betatype teaches a plurality of vehicle components present in two mutually perpendicular spatial directions along the manufacturing plane adjacent to second vehicle components of the plurality of vehicle components each spaced by a component gap as seen in the image of page 1.
Modified Oshima therefore reads on the limitation wherein the first vehicle component of the plurality of vehicle components is present in two mutually perpendicular spatial directions along the manufacturing plane adjacent to second vehicle components of the plurality of vehicle components, each are spaced apart from the first vehicle component by a respective component gap having width s predefined by using the particle size distribution of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, modified Oshima teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
As seen in Fig. 7, Oshima teaches a plurality of components (objects 12) in one layer and a plurality of components in a layer above (objects 22). Oshima teaches subsequent layers (objects 32, 42).
Modified Oshima therefore reads on the limitation wherein the first and second vehicle components form part of the first component layer of a component block, the first component layer extends parallel to a second component layer of the component block for further components to be formed from the powder.
Regarding claim 9, modified Oshima teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Betatype teaches using Laser Bed Powder Fusion (page 1).
Modified Oshima therefore reads on the limitation wherein the forming step is effected by additive laser melting.
Regarding claim 10, modified Oshima teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Oshima, Betatype, and Mottin all have unmelted powder in gaps between the components which provide “arrestment against displacement” of the components, as described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Modified Oshima therefore reads on the limitation further comprising: providing arrestment against displacement of the first vehicle component within the first component layer via the particles in the component gap g; and providing arrestment against displacement of the second vehicle component within the second component layer via the particles in the component gap g of claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, modified Oshima teaches the method of claim 10 as described above.
Oshima teaches tray bodies 13, 23, and 33 formed as one in a powder material stacked on the stage and the upper side of shaped object 12 is covered by the tray body 13 ([0057], Fig. 7, tray body reads on claimed sinter bridge layer on the first and second components). Additionally, or alternatively, Oshima teaches links 15, 25, 35, and 45 supporting objects 12, 22, 32, and 42 ([0115], links read on claimed sinter bridge layer)
Modified Oshima therefore reads on the limitation further comprising: forming a sinter bridge layer on the first and second vehicle components of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, modified Oshima teaches the method of claim 12 as described above.
Oshima teaches tray bodies 13, 23, and 33 formed as one in a powder material stacked on the stage and the upper side of shaped object 12 is covered by the tray body 13 ([0057], Fig. 7, tray body reads on claimed sinter bridge layer on the first and second components). The tray bodies connect the components in the first layer to those above, as seen in Fig. 7.
Modified Oshima therefore reads on the limitation wherein the forming the sinter bridge layer connects the first and second vehicle components to further vehicle components of a second component layer of the component block, the second component layer extending parallel to the manufacturing plane of the first and second vehicle components of claim 13.
Regarding claim 21, modified Oshima teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Betatype teaches printing LED heatsinks as automobile components without the need of additional supports (pages 1-3, Image of page 1).
Modified Oshima therefore reads on the limitation wherein the first vehicle component and the second vehicle component are each end-use components of a component block, without constructing any non-contacting thermal support for the first and second vehicle components.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0244040 A1 of Oshima in view of “Betatype demonstrates optimised high-volume metal AM for the automotive industry” of Betatype.
Regarding claim 7, Oshima teaches a three-dimensional shaping method includes forming a combination to be each level of a three-dimensional shaped object and also forming a combination to be each level of a shaped object support member in each of a plurality of powder material layers having an uncured powder material in accordance with hierarchical shape data corresponding to each of the powder material layers (Abstract, reads on claimed method of manufacturing). Oshima teaches a plurality of stacked components with multiple objects in one layer and multiple objects in the layer above (Figs. 5A, 5B, 5C, 6A, 6B, 7, [0054]-[0057]; objects 12, 22, 32 of Fig. 7 read on the claimed plurality of components with at least two component layers extending parallel to each other). Oshima teaches tray bodies 13, 23, and 33 formed as one in a powder material stacked on the stage and the upper side of shaped object 12 is covered by the tray body 13 ([0057], Fig. 7, tray body reads on claimed sinter bridge layer on the first and second components).
Oshima therefore reads on the limitation a method for manufacturing a plurality of components during an additive manufacturing process by means of a powder including particles, the method comprising: forming a plurality of vehicle components one on top of the other to form at least two component layers extending parallel to each other, so that a first component of the plurality of components disposed in a first component layer are formed above second components disposed adjacent to each other in a second component layer; and fixing, during the additive manufacturing process, the first and second components of the plurality of vehicle components disposed in the first and second component layers to each other by forming a sinter bridge layer between the first and second vehicle components of the plurality of vehicle components of claim 7.
However, Oshima does not teach manufacturing vehicle components of claim 7, and at least locally melting the particles of claim 7.
Betatype teaches an optimized high-volume metal AM for the automotive industry (Title). Betatype and Oshima are considered analogous art since they are similarly concerned with the problem of additive manufacturing multiple components at once using powdered materials.
Betatype teaches a stacked build of 384 LED heatsinks on a build plate (Image and Caption of page 1, heatsinks reads on claimed vehicle components). Betatype teaches using Laser Powder Bed Fusion (LBPF) and stacked configurations to combine the geometric capabilities of additive manufacturing with increased production volumes of cost-effective parts (pages 1-2, one of ordinary skill in the art understands LBPF at least locally melts particles to form components). Betatype teaches the specific geometry for these metal parts makes them ideal for LPBF production consolidating multiple manufacturing processes in one (page 2). Betatype teaches designing the stack structure by nesting the components together to reduce thermal stresses to minimize thermal distortion and to maximize build volume (page 2). Betatype teaches adjusting LBPF parameters to control melting (page 3). Betatype teaches the stacked configuration enhances build speed and reduces build time (page 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Oshima to manufacture the stacked vehicle components of Betatype using laser bed powder fusion to enhance build speed, reduce build time, maximize build volume, and minimize thermal distortion, as taught by Betatype.
Modified Oshima therefore reads on the limitation vehicle components of claim 7 and at least locally melting the particles of claim 7.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0244040 A1 of Oshima in view of “Betatype demonstrates optimised high-volume metal AM for the automotive industry” of Betatype, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US 2012/0018115 A1 of Hövel (as cited in prior Office action).
Regarding claim 8, modified Oshima teaches the method of claim 7 as described above.
However, Oshima does not explicitly disclose a thickness for the sinter bridge layer.
Hövel teaches a process produces a 3-dimensional component by selective laser melting, in which the component is formed on a foundation with a surface (Abstract). Hövel and Oshima are considered analogous art since they are similarly concerned with solving the problem of additive manufacturing multiple components.
Hövel teaches a separating layer (11, Fig. 8, separating layer reads on a sinter bridge layer) is initially applied to the surface of the platform (10, Fig. 8) which separating layer should make possible and in particular simplify the subsequent separation of the component made of a first metal powder to be produced from the platform ([0044]).
Hövel teaches a component (16, Fig. 8, component 16 reads on a first component) is produced in layers by successively melting thin layers of the first metal powder ([0048]) and once the first component is finished, further components can be produced in a particularly simple manner, where the first component (16, Fig. 8) which has already been finished, includes the surface and serves as the foundation instead of the platform, and a second separating layer (17, Fig. 8) which is formed of the same material and is produced in the same way as the first separating layer (11, Fig. 8) is applied to the free top side surface of the first component ([0050], Hövel teaches a separating layer has a thickness between 30 and 300 μm in order to make reliable separation of the components possible with the smallest possible outlay ([0045], claim 19). Hövel teaches the embodiments were chosen and described in order to explain the principles of the invention and its practical application to enable one skilled in the art to utilize the invention in various embodiments as are suited to the particular use contemplated ([0072]).
One of ordinary skill in the art understands that the process of Hövel can be applied to manufacturing any type of component, including the vehicle components of Oshima as modified by Betatype.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sinter bridge layer of Oshima with the separating layer thickness of Hövel to make reliable separation of the components possible with the smallest possible outlay, as taught by Hövel.
While Hövel does not disclose the component height to compare it to the separating layer thickness, it can be appreciated that the separating layers (17 and 19, Fig. 8, where layer 17 reads on a sinter bridge layer between a first and second component) are a small fraction of the thickness of the components (16, 18, and 20, Fig. 8, where component 16 reads on a first component and components 18 and 20 reads on a second and third component respectively) as seen in Fig. 8 since the separating layers are smaller than the component height.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art understands applying the separating layer of 30 μm to the stacking configuration of heatsinks of Betatype results in a separating layer thickness well below 1/10 the maximum height of the LED heatsink.
In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
Modified Oshima therefore reads on the limitation wherein the fixing of the first and second vehicle components to each other includes forming the sinter bridge layer with a thickness which amounts to maximally 1/10 of a layer thickness of each one of the first and second component layers, wherein the layer thickness corresponds to a maximum height of the first and second vehicle components of claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 112(b) and 112(d) rejections of claims 4 and 11, Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Applicant has revised the dependent claims to recite the particle-size-distribution values directly as further limitations of the gap width, rather than by redefining “mean particle size” (remarks, page 7).
In response, claims 4 and 11 continue to recite the term “mean particle size” and attempts to relate “mean particle size” to the claimed “particle size distribution” values rather than limit the gap size itself independently of “mean particle size”. Claim 4 recites “the mean particle size of the particles in the component gap g corresponds to a value of the particle size distribution of the powder, wherein the particle size distribution of the powder is between d90 and d100+10%”. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that a mean particle size is not equivalent to a particle size distribution or to d90, d100+10% or a different value. The rejections are therefore maintained in this Office action.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection over Mottin, Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Mottin is not a disclosure that the powder-filled gap is deliberately dimensioned to provide the claimed in-process arrestment against displacement (remarks, page 9).
In response, Mottin teaches a gap filled with non-melted powder ([0052]). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that if a gap is filled with non-melted powder, the components around it will hold their position as the gap is filled and will not allow displacement. Mottin further teaches the gap (23, Fig. 3) between said elements (21, 22, Fig. 3) and the vane (17, Fig. 3) is lying in the range 50 μm to 500 μm ([0053]). Mottin teaches when the part is built up layer by layer by selectively melting the powder with the help of a laser beam, the powder presents mean grain size lying in the range 10 μm to 50 μm ([0047]). Therefore, the gap of Mottin is implicitly defined by a particle size distribution since a gap of 50 μm, for example, corresponds to a mean grain size of 50 μm. Additionally, or alternatively, a new ground of rejection is presented over Oshima in view of Betatype and Mottin.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-14, filed 03/17/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections of claims 1-5 and 9-11 over Doherty, claim 6 over Doherty in view of Chou, claims 7-8 over Hövel, claims 12-13 over Doherty in view of Flögel, and claims 12-13 over Doherty in view of Miller have been fully considered and are persuasive. Doherty teaches a component and a non-contacting thermal support and therefore does not teach a first vehicle component adjacent to a second vehicle component of the plurality of components and spaced apart by a component gap g of claim 1. Hövel teaches forming components in a vertical direction and not adjacent horizontally and therefore does not teach a first vehicle component of the plurality of vehicle components disposed in a first component layer are formed above second vehicle components disposed adjacent to each other in a second component layer of claim 7. Therefore, the 103 rejections of claims 1-5 and 9-11 over Doherty, claim 6 over Doherty in view of Chou, claims 7-8 over Hövel, claims 12-13 over Doherty in view of Flögel, and claims 12-13 over Doherty in view of Miller have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made over Oshima in view of Betatype and Mottin and Oshima in view of Betatype and Hövel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYELA ALDAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday: 10 am - 7 pm and alternate Friday: 10 am - 6 pm.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (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 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.
/M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights