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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 (and new claim 40) in the reply filed on 24 November 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-39 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-13 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buller (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0304894 A1), in view of Waldfried et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0198788 A1; cited in the IDS filed 12 March 2024; hereinafter known as “Waldfried”). It is noted that while Waldfried shares an inventor with the present application, it is not readily apparent that it is an inventor-originated disclosure. See MPEP 2153.01(a); the present application names fewer joint inventors than the publication.
Regarding claim 1, Buller discloses a method for forming an article (Abstract) comprising: forming a three-dimensional (3D) article by additive manufacturing to obtain an additive manufactured 3D article ([0002]-[0007]; [0025]-[0026]; [0030]; [0081]-[0084]), wherein the additive manufactured 3D article comprises a magnesium component ([0091]-[0092]; [0097]). Buller fails to disclose exposing the additive manufactured 3D article to a reactive gas phase to form a passivation layer, wherein the reactive gas phase comprises a fluorine component, wherein the fluorine component reacts with the magnesium component to form magnesium fluoride at and below a surface of the additive manufactured 3D article. Waldfried discloses a method for forming an article comprising exposing an article containing a magnesium component to a reactive gas phase to form a passivation layer, wherein the reactive gas phase comprises a fluorine component, wherein the fluorine component reacts with the magnesium component to form magnesium fluoride at and below a surface of the article, in order to provide inertness and resist degradation ([0006]-[0011]; [0029]). 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 invention of Buller by exposing the article to such a reactive gas phase to form a passivation layer of magnesium fluoride, as taught by Waldfried, in order to provide inertness and resist degradation.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Buller and Waldfried discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Buller further discloses dispensing a 3D printable material from a 3D printer to form the additive manufactured 3D article ([0023]; [0081]-[0084]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Buller and Waldfried discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Buller further discloses that the magnesium component comprises at least one of a magnesium-containing metal alloy, a magnesium ion, a magnesium-containing metal oxide, elemental magnesium, or any combination thereof ([0091]-[0092]; [0097]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Buller and Waldfried discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Buller further discloses that the additive manufactured 3D article has a monolithic structure that is not capable of construction by machining ([0025]-[0026]; [0070]; [0075]-[0076]; [0109]; [0148]; [0188]; such structures are taken to not be capable of construction by machining).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Buller and Waldfried discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Buller further discloses that the additive manufactured 3D article is an article of unitary construction ([0081]; [0088]; [0214]-[0215]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Buller and Waldfried discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Buller further discloses that the additive manufactured 3D article comprises at least one of a plenum, a trench, a structure defining a hole, a structure defining a channel, a structure defining a cavity, or any combination thereof ([0070]; [0075]-[0076]; [0109]; [0148]; [0188]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Buller and Waldfried discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and further discloses that the additive manufactured 3D article has an aspect ratio of 2:1 to 1000:1, wherein the aspect ratio is a ratio of two of a width, a depth, a height, or a diameter (Buller: Fig. 2, [0076]; Waldfried: [0009]).
Regarding claims 8-10, the combination of Buller and Waldfried discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Buller further discloses that the additive manufactured 3D article does not comprise seams, braze joints, or weld joints (Buller teaches no seams or brazing or joints; Buller teaches a monolithic or unitary structure; while Buller does teach an embodiment that uses welding, this is only to connect two separate objects or materials, so the embodiments that only use a single object/material do not involve welding).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Buller and Waldfried discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Waldfried further discloses that the reactive gas phase comprises at least one of CF4, C2F4, C3F6, C4Fs, CHF3, C2H2F2, C2F6, HF, CH3F, or any combination thereof ([0037]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Buller and Waldfried discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Waldfried further discloses that the reactive gas phase is derived from at least one of polymerized perfluoroalkylethylene having a C1-C10 perfluoroalkyl group; polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE); tetrafluoroethylene/perfluoro(alkyl vinyl ether) copolymer (PFA); tetrafluoroethylene/hexafluoropropylene copolymer (FEP); tetrafluoroethylene/perfluoro(alkyl vinyl ether)/hexafluoropropylene copolymer (EPA); polyhexafluoropropylene; ethylene/tetrafluoroethylene copolymer (ETFE); poly trifluoroethylene; polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF); polyvinyl fluoride (PVF); polychlorotrifluoroethylene (PCTFE); ethylene/chlorotrifluoroethylene copolymer (ECTFE); or any combination thereof ([0040]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Buller and Waldfried discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Waldfried further discloses that the magnesium fluoride covers at least 90% of gas-exposed surfaces of the additive manufactured 3D article ([0034]; [0043]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Buller and Waldfried discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Buller further discloses that the article is a medical device ([0085]; [0100]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS B COX whose telephone number is (571)270-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Jason M. Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/THADDEUS B COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791