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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 4/3/23 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9-10, 13, and 15-16 in the reply filed on 10/2/25 is acknowledged. The Examiner notes that unity of invention is not present if the groups of claims do not share a special technical feature, regardless of whether the groups are to two separate processes or to a process and an apparatus. Here, these claims do not share a special technical feature, see the 102 rejections of claim 1, below.
Claims 3,5-6,8,11-12,14 and 17-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species or group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/2/25.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The instant abstract is a single run on sentence, rather than in narrative form. The instant abstract begins using a phrase which can be implied “The invention is directed to”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “for example” is repeated in line 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9-10, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 2, 4, 7, 9-10, 13, and 15-16 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "on this" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what “this” is referring to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fischer et al. (US 20200198006 A1), previously cited.
Regarding claim 1, Fischer teaches “a simple, flexible and economical process for the additive manufacture of a metallic and/or vitreous and/or ceramic component” (which reads on “an additive manufacturing process for building up an end product”; paragraph [0004]). Fischer teaches “producing a shaped part wherein a layer of substrate particles and binder being produced and the binder being selectively melted by means of electromagnetic radiation to produce a shaped part layer, and at least one further layer of substrate particles and binder being produced and the binder being selectively melted by means of the electromagnetic radiation to produce at least one further shaped part layer” (which reads on “layer by layer, in particular in the form of a powder-bed process, wherein grains of a powder are fused to one another by using a binder characterized in that the binder used is an adhesive that can be cured under the influence of heat or an adhesive that can be melted under the influence of heat and that solidifies during subsequent cooling”; paragraph [0005]). Fischer teaches that “the binder comprises: a thermoplastic polymer” (which reads on “a binder characterized in that the binder used is an adhesive that can be cured under the influence of heat or an adhesive that can be melted under the influence of heat and that solidifies during subsequent cooling”; paragraph [0005]). Fischer teaches that “a homogeneous mixture of the substrate particles and the binder is provided” (which reads on “which is not applied selectively but layer by layer”; paragraph [0007]). Fischer teaches that “to produce the shaped part, the binder of the composite particles is selectively melted layerwise by means of the electromagnetic radiation” (which reads on “after the application of every layer, is selectively activated and cured or selectively melted and cured during cooling, and thereby fuses respectively adjacent grains of the powder”; paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 4, Fischer teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Fischer teaches that “the selective melting is carried out by means of electromagnetic radiation R, in particular by mean of laser radiation” (paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 7, Fischer teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Fischer teaches that “the electromagnetic radiation R melts the binder 4, so that the binder 4 spreads between the substrate particles 3 and on solidification forms the solid first shaped part layer F1” (paragraph [0056]). Fischer teaches that “the binder comprises: a thermoplastic polymer” (paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claims 15-16, Fischer teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Fischer teaches that “the component 1 is, dependent on the use of metallic and/or vitreous and/or ceramic substrate particles 3, composed of metal and/or glass and/or ceramic” (paragraph [0064]).
Claims 1-2, 4, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bromberg et al. (US 20220314329 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bromberg teaches “additive manufacturing apparatuses and methods for using the same” (which reads upon “an additive manufacturing process for building up an end product a workpiece”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0002]). Bromberg teaches that “this sequence of steps is repeated multiple times to build an object on the build platform 20 in a layer-wise manner” (which reads upon “layer by layer”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0200]). Bromberg teaches that “the build material generally comprises a powder material that is spreadable or flowable” (which reads upon “in particular in the form of a powder-bed process”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0246]). Bromberg teaches that “the print head 150 may deposit the binder material 500 on a layer of build material 400 distributed on the build platform 120 through an array of nozzles 172 located on the underside of the print head 150 (i.e., the surface of the print head 150 facing the build platform 120)” (which reads upon “wherein grains of a powder are fused to one another by using a binder”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0227]). Bromberg teaches that “the binder material may comprise a material which is radiant-energy curable and which is capable of adhering or binding together the build material when the binder material is in the cured state” (which reads upon “characterized in that the binder used is an adhesive that can be cured under the influence of heat or an adhesive that can be melted under the influence of heat and that solidifies during subsequent cooling”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0250]). Bromberg teaches that “the print head 150 may blanket deposit binder material on the build material and the projector projects a cure pattern of energy on to the binder material to selectively cure the binder material” (which reads upon “which is not applied selectively but layer by layer and, after the application of every layer, is selectively activated and cured or selectively melted and cured during cooling, and thereby fuses respectively adjacent grains of the powder”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0227]).
Regarding claim 2, Bromberg teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Bromberg teaches that “the projector projects a cure pattern of energy on to the binder material to selectively cure the binder material” (paragraph [0227]).
Regarding claim 4, Bromberg teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Bromberg teaches that “examples of energy sources may include, without limitation, infrared heaters, ultraviolet lamps, laser light sources, and the like, and that in embodiments, the energy source may emit a wavelength or a range of wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation suitable for curing (or at least initiating the curing) of the binder material 500 deposited on the build material 400 distributed on the build platform” (paragraph [0226]).
Regarding claim 13, Bromberg teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Bromberg teaches “a recoat head for distributing build material; a print head for depositing binder material” (paragraph [0005]). Bromberg teaches that “the print head 150 may deposit the binder material 500 on a layer of build material 400 distributed on the build platform 120 through an array of nozzles 172 located on the underside of the print head 150 (i.e., the surface of the print head 150 facing the build platform 120)” (which reads upon “after applying a powder layer on this, a binder”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0227]). Bromberg teaches that “the nozzles 172 may be spray nozzles” (which reads upon “a binder (9) in liquid form is sprayed on”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0227]; spray reads on liquid).
Regarding claims 15-16, Bromberg teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Bromberg teaches that “the build material may be an inorganic powder material including, for example and without limitation, ceramic powders, metal powders, glass powders, carbon powder, sand, cement, calcium phosphate powder, and various combinations thereof” (paragraph [0246]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer et al. (US 20200198006 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jang et al. (US 6401002 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Fischer teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above.
Fischer is silent regarding that the energy input in/on the heat-curable adhesive or the hot-melt adhesive takes place by means of one or more masks and/or apertures, in particular by means of an unfocused beam, whereby, through the masks and/or apertures for each layer, a region of the uppermost powder layer is selectively masked out.
Jang is similarly concerned with an improved process and apparatus for building a three-dimensional object in a layer-by-layer fashion (column 1, lines 5-9). Jang teaches that “Stereo Lithography and Solid Ground Curing (SGC) rely on ultraviolet (UV) light induced curing of photo-curable polymers such as acrylate and epoxy resins” (column 3, lines 27-56). Jang teaches that “the SGC system uses UV-curable acrylate photo polymer and a photo-masking technique” (column 3, lines 27-56). Jang teaches that “a strong UV light is allowed to pass through the transparent portions of the mask to selectively cure the polymer in these desired regions” (which reads upon “the energy input in/on the heat-curable adhesive or the hot-melt adhesive takes place by means of one or more masks and/or apertures, in particular by means of an unfocused beam, whereby, through the masks and/or apertures for each layer, a region of the uppermost powder layer is selectively masked out”, as recited in the instant claim; column 3, lines 27-56).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fischer to use a UV-curable acrylate photo polymer and a photo-masking technique, as taught by Jang. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143.A.). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Further, one would have a reasonable expectation of success by using a UV-curable acrylate photo polymer and a photo-masking technique as taught by Jang, as Jang teaches that this method is known in the art as a suitable method for selectively shaping layers for building a three-dimensional object in a layer-by-layer fashion.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer et al. (US 20200198006 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 3M, Bonding and Assembly, PUR Adhesives, https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/bonding-and-assembly-us/structural-adhesives/pur-adhesives/, available 3/31/2019, last accessed October 29, 2025.
Regarding claims 9-10, Fischer teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Fischer teaches that “the binder comprises: a thermoplastic polymer” (paragraph [0005]).
Fischer is silent regarding that a reactive hot-melt adhesive is used as the heat-curable adhesive and that the heat-curable adhesive is selected from the group consisting of polyurethane (PUR), epoxy and polysiloxanes (SI) as well as mixtures thereof.
3M is similarly concerned with structural adhesives (page 1). 3M teaches that “Polyurethane reactive adhesives (PUR adhesives; also called reactive hot melts, reactive polyurethanes or RPU adhesives) are one-part formulations that combine the initial speed of a hot melt adhesive with the strength of a structural adhesive” (pages 1-2). 3M teaches that “the bond forms in two stages: when the adhesive cools back down and solidifies like a hot melt it reaches holding strength, then the moisture-curing reaction proceeds over the next 24-48 hours to reach final structural strength” (page 2) 3M teaches that “these adhesives are resistant to temperature extremes and flexible to provide vibration and impact resistance” (page 2). 3M teaches that “the combination of no-mix one-part application, rapid handling strength and high final strength makes PUR adhesives excellent candidates to help improve throughput and reduce processing time” (page 2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the thermoplastic polymer of Fischer with PUR, as taught by 3M to help improve throughput and reduce processing time while increasing final structural strength. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q1: 1/5-1/9/26; Q2: 3/30-4/3/26; Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
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.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733