Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/938,145

LAMINATE SHAPING METHOD

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Oct 05, 2022
Examiner
KERR, ELIZABETH M
Art Unit
3761
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Yamazaki Mazak Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
175 granted / 274 resolved
-6.1% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+31.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
306
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
50.2%
+10.2% vs TC avg
§102
14.1%
-25.9% vs TC avg
§112
28.5%
-11.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 274 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Status of the Claims Claim 5 has been cancelled. Claims 1 and 4 have been amended. Claims 2 and 3 are as previously presented. Therefore, claims 1 – 4 are currently pending and have been considered below. Response to Amendment The amendment filed on 1/28/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendment overcomes the objection to claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. Claims 1 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schudeleit et al. (US 2022/0364471) in view of Coates et al. (US 2017/0129180) and Ramabhadran et al. (US 2022/0059272). Regarding claim 1, Schudeleit discloses a laminate shaping method of shaping a three-dimensional object formed by sequentially laminating of metal layers (described below), the method comprising: repeatedly performing a unit step to form the object in a shape extending in a first direction in which the metal layers are laminated (described below), the unit step comprising: a step of forming a laminate shaped portion by laminating metal layers formed of weld beads (Figs. 1-4 show laminate shaped portion comprising layers / segments 110, 120 [0032]; additional layers 130, 140, can be formed on layer 120 [0050]; layer 110 can be formed by additive manufacturing [0045]; the additive manufacturing may be performed with a metal build material, such as a “nickel-based alloy” [0057] in powder or wire form [0057], fused by thermal energy from a laser beam, electron beam, electric arc, or plasma arc [0058]; the fused material is considered to be a weld bead); and a step of forming a processed side surface by cutting a shaped portion side surface of the laminate shaped portion that faces a second direction intersecting the first direction (Fig. 2, shaped portion side surface is formed by cutting away the portion of 110 shown with dotted lines; “a side portion of the first rotor blade segment 110 may be removed, whereby the first platform portion 111 remains on the radially outward end portion 114 of the first rotor blade segment 110” [0045]; see annotated Fig. 1 showing first and second directions), wherein the step of forming the processed side surface comprises: cutting the shaped portion side surface so that a receiving portion, projecting in the second direction with respect to the processed side surface (Fig. 2, receiving portion projecting in the second direction is first platform portion 111), is formed at an uppermost layer of the laminate shaped portion in the first direction (Fig. 2), and the step of forming the laminate shaped portion comprises laminating a new metal layer so as to overlap an upper surface of the receiving portion in the first direction (Fig. 3, new metal layer 120 overlaps an upper surface of receiving portion 111; “forming, by additive manufacturing, a second rotor blade segment 120 radially outwardly on the first platform portion 111” [0048]). Schudeleit does not expressly disclose wherein the object is formed in a cylindrical shape centered on an axis extending in the first direction in which the metal layers are laminated, cutting the shaped portion side surface in a flow direction of fluid that flows through an inside of the object, and forming a side surface of the object facing toward an inside in a radial direction. Coates is directed to material processing methods comprising both additive manufacturing and material removal [Abstract]. Coates discloses additively forming cylindrically-shaped layers as shown in Fig. 19a, then processing both the outer side surface and the inner side surface of the of the cylindrically-shaped layers: “FIGS. 19a-19b are used to exemplify a further example of the process outlined in relation to FIG. 16. Here a first processing head is used to deposit a series of substantially annular layers 900a-d. Each of the layers are shown and thus the interface between each of the layers is visible in the figure. The skilled person will appreciate that this interface between layers 900a-d will be present both on the outside of the annulus of each layer and also on the inside of each layer. Here the second processing head used in step 606 is a material removal head, such as a milling machine, or the like. However, the material removal is not only used to smooth the outside surface of the layers, as shown at 902 but also to smooth the inside of the annulus in a similar manner” [0327]-[0328]. Ramabhadran is directed to a method of forming a component using additive manufacturing. Fig. 1 shows a cylindrical component 100, capable of allowing a fluid to flow through an inside of the cylindrical component, that is additively formed: “body 125 can include a wall 130 that includes an exterior or outboard surface 132. In one non-limiting example, the outboard surface 132 can include at least an outer circumferential surface of a generally cylindrical or toroidal component 100” [0026]; “component 100 can be printed according to example aspects of the present disclosure. In example aspects, the body 125 can be printed layer-by-layer perpendicular to the centerline 127 through the axial bore 123” [0027]. Given Ramabhadran’s disclosure of additively manufacturing a cylindrically-shape object centered on an axis, and given Coates’ disclosure of forming a processed interior side surface of a quasi-cylindrically-shaped object, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the object is formed in a cylindrical shape centered on an axis extending in the first direction in which the metal layers are laminated, cutting the shaped portion side surface in a flow direction of fluid that flows through an inside of the object, and forming a side surface of the object facing toward an inside in a radial direction. This is a known method of utilizing additive and subtractive manufacturing, applied to another known method of additive and subtractive manufacturing, to predictably create a desired final shape. PNG media_image1.png 456 873 media_image1.png Greyscale Figs. 1 and 2 of Schudeleit, annotated PNG media_image2.png 412 763 media_image2.png Greyscale Figs. 3 and 4 of Schudeleit, annotated Regarding claim 2, Schudeleit discloses wherein a thickness of the receiving portion in the first direction is equal to or larger than a penetration dimension of the weld beads into the receiving portion (“the focused thermal energy leads to a heat-impacted zone on the antecedent rotor blade segment. The heat-impacted zone can lead to thermal distortion and therefore inaccuracies. The platform portion serves as a support and locally separates the antecedent rotor blade segment from the heat-impacted zone or in other words, heat is largely distributed throughout the entire platform portion, thus avoiding thermal distortion to the antecedent rotor blade segment” [0061]; the platform portion refers to platform portion 111 / the receiving portion; since thermal distortion to the antecedent rotor blade segment (e.g. segment 110 during the unit step) is avoided, this indicates that the thickness of receiving portion 111 is equal to or larger than a penetration dimension of the weld beads). Regarding claim 3, Schudeleit discloses wherein the receiving portion (Fig. 2, receiving portion / first platform portion 111) is formed to leave the shaped portion side surface at least partially in the first direction (see annotated Figs. 1 and 2). Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schudeleit et al. (US 2022/0364471) in view of Coates et al. (US 2017/0129180) and Ramabhadran et al. (US 2022/0059272), further in view of Sakai et al. (US 2019/0134732). Regarding claim 4, Schudeleit does not expressly disclose wherein the step of forming the laminate shaped portion comprises: cooling one of the metal layers forming the uppermost layer in the first direction by supplying a cooling medium to a surface of that metal layer; and laminating the new metal layer on the surface of the cooled metal layer. Sakai is directed to a metal laminating method [Abstract]. Sakai discloses wherein a step of forming a laminate shaped portion comprises: cooling one of metal layers forming an uppermost layer in a first direction by supplying a cooling medium to a surface of that metal layer; and laminating a new metal layer on the surface of the cooled metal layer (“the method may include a cooling process of cooling the metal layer by supplying a coolant to the surface of the metal layer as the uppermost layer laminated in the metal layer laminating process, wherein, when the unit process is repeated, the metal layer laminating process is performed again such that a new metal layer is formed on the surface of the metal layer cooled in the cooling process” [0016]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the step of forming the laminate shaped portion comprises: cooling one of the metal layers forming the uppermost layer in the first direction by supplying a cooling medium to a surface of that metal layer; and laminating the new metal layer on the surface of the cooled metal layer. Advantageously, “lamination of a new metal layer on the metal layer in a state in which the temperature is high can be prevented” [0017], as recognized by Sakai. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 1/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 12, Applicant states, “neither Ramabhadran nor Coates teaches cutting of the interior side surface of a cylindrically-shape object in a flow direction of the fluid flowing through the inside of the object.” However, Ramabhadran discloses additively manufacturing a cylindrically-shaped object centered on an axis, and Coates discloses cutting an interior side surface of a quasi-cylindrically-shaped object. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Also on page 12, Applicant states, “there is no rationale that would have led a POSITA to modify the cited references so as to arrive at the aforementioned limitations without relying on the present disclosure as a roadmap.” However, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). 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 ELIZABETH KERR whose telephone number is (571)272-3073. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:30 AM - 4:30 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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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. /ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 05, 2022
Application Filed
Oct 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 28, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 18, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604370
HIGH VOLTAGE CERAMIC ELECTRIC HEATING ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599267
Air circulating roaster
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601502
COOKING APPLIANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594615
WIRE ELECTRIC DISCHARGE MACHINING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583045
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DYNAMIC ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING WELDING PROGRAM PLANNING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+31.7%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 274 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month