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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 05/20/2026. Claims 1-21, 23 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 12, 15, 17-18, 20-21 have been amended; claim 22 cancelled; claims 1-11 have been withdrawn; claim 23 has been newly added.
With respect to Specification Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Specification filed on 05/20/2026 have overcome the Specification Objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 02/24/2026.
With respect to Claim Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 05/20/2026 have overcome the Claim Objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 02/24/2026.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 05/20/2026 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 02/24/2026. However, Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 05/20/2026 have created another 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections, see details below in the 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections section.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 Claim Rejections: Applicant(s)’ arguments filed on 05/20/2026 have been fully considered. In view of the amendments filed on 05/20/2026, claims 12-21 and 23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph set forth in this Office action. See details below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“control system sensing dielectric or thermal properties of the target object during fusing and adapting plasma energy accordingly to achieve uniform fusing” in claim 12 (lines 7-8). This limitation uses generic placeholder “system” (Prong A); the term “system” is modified by functional language “sensing dielectric or thermal properties of the target object during fusing and adapting plasma energy accordingly to achieve uniform fusing” (Prong B); and the term “system” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “control system” will be interpreted as “controller and voltage-current sensing” or equivalents, as indicated by Pars.0038 & 0043 of the Specification of the Instant Application. Specifically, Par.0038 of the Specification of the Instant Application describes that “as the target object is heated and fused with plasma energy, the material of the target object dielectric constant and other properties will change. A control system is therefore implemented that senses these changes and adapts to them.”, and Par.0043 of the Specification of the Instant Application describes that “The controller 128 also includes executable code to control the plasma energy discharged by the discharge device in synchronization with the fusing process using voltage-current sensing.”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-21 and 23 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 12 recites the limitation “the control system sensing dielectric or thermal properties of the target object during fusing and adapting plasma energy accordingly to achieve uniform fusing” in lines 6-8. However, this limitation lacks adequate written-description support in the Specification or in the Drawings of the Instant Application. Par.0038 of the Specification of the Instant Application describes that “as the target object is heated and fused with plasma energy, the material of the target object dielectric constant and other properties will change. A control system is therefore implemented that senses these changes and adapts to them.”. Par.0038 of the Specification of the Instant Application further describes that “the control system monitors voltage and current through a plasma generator electronics package to observe loading and coupling of a stream of the plasma relative to the target object”. However, Par.0038 does not describe that the control system senses “thermal properties” of the target object, nor does it disclose that the control system adapts the plasma energy in response to the sensed dielectric or thermal properties for the purpose of achieving uniform fusing, as required by amended claim 12. The disclosure that the target object is “heated” does not, by itself, disclose sensing a thermal properly of the target object. Further, although Par.0037 of the Specification of the Instant Application separately describes that “The emitters of the present disclosure also “self-level” so that plasma density is uniform across a fusing area”, this disclosure does not state that such uniformity is achieved by the control system adapting plasma energy in response to sensed dielectric or thermal properties of the target object. Likewise, Par.0039 of the Specification of the Instant Application describes that “The emitters of the present disclosure may comprise many small plasma cells 80 defining an image array to control uniformity”, but does not disclose that the control system achieves such uniformity by sensing dielectric or thermal properties of the target object and adapting plasma energy accordingly. Thus, the originally filed Specification separately discloses (i) changes in the dielectric constant and other properties of the target object, (ii) a control system that senses and adapts to such changes, and (iii) self-leveling/control of uniformity. However, the originally filed disclosure does not describe sensing “thermal properties” of the target object during fusing, and the originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convey possession of the presently claimed relationship in which “the control system sensing dielectric or thermal properties of the target object during fusing and adapting plasma energy accordingly to achieve uniform fusing”. Accordingly, claim 12 is 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the plasma discharge device achieves self-leveling plasma density across the fusing area via dielectric coupling with the target object” in lines 9-10. However, this limitation was not described in the Specification or in the Drawings of the Instant Application. Specifically, while Par.0037 of the Specification of the Instant Application describes: “This is applicable whether the plasma emitter is a DBD or an SDBD arrangement. The emitters of the present disclosure also “self-level” so that plasma density is uniform across a fusing area”, the original filed Specification does not describe that such self-leveling or uniform plasma density is achieved “via dielectric coupling with the target object”. Although Par.0038 of the Specification of the Instant Application separately describes that the dielectric constant or other properties of the target object may change during heating and fusing and that a control system monitors voltage and current through a plasma generator electronics package to observe loading and coupling of a stream of the plasma relative to the target object, the Specification does not describe or otherwise establish that the self-leveling plasma density of Par.0037 is achieved via dielectric coupling with the target object, as required by claim 12. Par.0039 of the Specification of the Instant Application describes an array of plasma cells to control uniformity, likewise does not describe or establish the self-leveling plasma density of Par.0037 is achieved via dielectric coupling with the target object. Accordingly, the originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant was in possession of the presently claimed relationship in which self-leveling plasma density across the fusing area is achieved via dielectric coupling with the target object. Rather, the amendment introduces a causal relationship between the self-leveling plasma density and dielectric coupling with the target object that is not disclosed in the application as originally filed. Therefore, claim 12 is 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.
Claims 13-21 and 23 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 12.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-21 and 23 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 12 recites the limitation “the control system” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no “control system” recited previously.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the fusing area” in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no “fusing area” recited previously.
Claims 13-21 and 23 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-21 and 23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 12, the closest prior art Ramaswamy et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0203364 A1, previously cited) discloses a process for plasma fusing of a target object, comprising: disposing the target object on a support bed with an applicator; discharging plasma from a plasma discharge device defining an emitter or an emitter array; and altering the target object with the discharged plasma. Ramaswamy also discloses controlling operating parameters of the plasma source. Specifically, Ramaswamy discloses applying a higher-frequency RF drive voltage to control plasma flux/density and applying a lower-frequency RF bias voltage to platen to control the energy of ions incident upon the feed material. Therefore, Ramaswamy recognizes that the plasma density/flux and ion energy can be controlled through adjustment of respective RF drive and bias parameters. Furthermore, Ramaswamy discloses a control system can be used to control the gas delivery system to adjust a gas flow rate or gas composition entering a gas inlet of the conduit and can be used to adjust the voltage applied to the electrodes and/or the platen. Such adjustments can be made in conjunction with a position (x-y position) of the laser beam on a particular layer (Z position) of feed material to vary the desired chemical composition of the fabricated part. However, Ramaswamy does not explicitly discloses the plasma discharge device is operated under real-time feedback control, the control system sensing dielectric or thermal properties of the target object during fusing and adapting plasma energy accordingly to achieve uniform fusing, and wherein the plasma discharge device achieves self-leveling plasma density across the fusing area via dielectric coupling with the target object, as recited in claim 12.
Additionally, the prior art Stempfer et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0318130 A1, previously cited) discloses a process for plasma fusing of a target object, comprising: disposing the target object on a support bed with an applicator; discharging plasma from a plasma discharge device defining an emitter or an emitter array; and altering the target object with the discharged plasma. Stempfer further discloses a control system configured to monitor and adjust temperature and regulate plasma power to maintain the desired molten pool.
The prior art Sweeney et al. (WO 2018213718 A1, previously cited) discloses a process for plasma fusing of a target object, comprising: disposing the target object on a support bed with an applicator; discharging plasma from a plasma discharge device defining an emitter or an emitter array; and altering the target object with the discharged plasma. Sweeney further discloses a control system may also modify the frequency, voltage, current, and waveform shape of the plasma.
Moreover, the prior art Fang et al. (CN 109317793 A, Translation is attached, newly cited) discloses a process for plasma fusing of a target object, comprising: a plasma discharge device is operated under real-time feedback control, the control system sensing dielectric or thermal properties of the target object during fusing and adapting plasma energy accordingly to achieve uniform fusing. However, Fang does not disclose wherein the plasma discharge device achieves self-leveling plasma density across the fusing area via dielectric coupling with the target object.
Furthermore, Sohn (U.S. Patent No. 9,117,616 B2, newly cited) discloses dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) plasma generation and recognizes that dielectric barrier discharge may provide a relatively uniform plasma discharge. In particular, Sohn discloses that electrons accumulate on a dielectric surface and that streamers are distributed over the dielectric surface, thereby inducing a uniform discharge. Sohn further teaches a mesh-type DBD structure in which the concentration of electrons in the plasma is uniformly distributed due to electric-field enhancement and the geometrical structure of the mesh electrode, thereby providing improved plasma uniformity and efficiency. However, Sohn does not disclose or suggest the plasma discharge device achieves self-leveling plasma density across the fusing area via dielectric coupling with the target object, as recited in claim 12. Rather, the dielectric disclosed by Sohn forms part of the plasma generating electrode structure, wherein at least one of two parallel electrode is coated with a dielectric layer. Thus, although Sohn discloses uniformity associated with a dielectric barrier discharge, the uniformity disclosed by Sohn results from charge accumulation on the dielectric barrier, distribution of streamers, electric-field enhancement, and/or electrode geometry, and is not disclosed as resulting from dielectric coupling between the plasma discharge device and the target object.
Further still, Schultz et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0197732 A1, newly cited) discloses a plasma generating system. Schultz further discloses a self-tuning dielectric barrier discharge plasma and formation of a uniform diffuse glow-like discharge. However, Schultz’s self-tunning mechanism concerns adjustment of plasma impedance relative to the plasma generating system and does not disclose or suggest that the plasma discharge device achieves self-leveling plasma density across the fusing area via dielectric coupling with the target object.
Accordingly, when consider Applicant(s)’ claimed invention as a whole, Applicant(s)’ claim 12 encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. More specifically, Applicant recites: “the plasma discharge device achieves self-leveling plasma density across the fusing area via dielectric coupling with the target object”.
Within the context of Applicant(s)’ claimed invention as a whole, these limitations do not appear to be disclosed, taught, nor otherwise rendered obvious by the prior art, alone or in combination.
Accordingly, claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph set forth in this Office action.
Claims 13-21 and 23 would be allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 12 if claim 12 is rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Ljungblad et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,064,671 B2) discloses a plasma electron source apparatus, wherein the plasma electron source apparatus is used for forming a three dimensional article through successive fusion of parts of at least one layer of a powder bed provided on a work table, which parts correspond to successive cross sections of the three-dimensional article.
Swaminathan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0375491 A1) discloses an additive manufacturing system having a plasma source. Swaminathan discloses that the use of plasma allows characteristics of the fused feed material to be easily controlled. For example, the layer of feed material can be doped by selectively implanting ions from the plasma. The doping concentration can be varied layer by layer. The implantation of ions can help release or induce point stress in the layer of feed material.
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 THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 08/21/2026
Prosecution Insights