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 application
This is a final rejection in response to the Applicant's remarks and amendment filed on 11/24/2025. Claim 1 is currently amended, claim 3-4, 6-7,11-18, 20, 22-41, 43-49 and 51-53 are cancelled, claims 2,5,9-10,19,42,50, 54-55 and 58-62 are previously presented, claims 8, 21 and 56-57 are withdrawn. Accordingly claims 1-2, 5, 9-10, 19, 42, 50, 54-55 and 58-62 are examined herein.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claims 1-2, 5, 9-10, 19, 42, 50, 54-55 and 58-62 are directed towards a method and that to be entitled to patentable weight in method claims, the recited structural limitations therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not amount to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure, Ex parte Pfeiffer, 135 USPQ 31. For processes (methods), the claim limitations will define steps or acts to be performed (See MPEP 2103C).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,5-6,9-10,19,42, 55 and 58-62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Packirisamya (WO 2018/145194 – of record ) in view of Melde (US 2017/0348907 – of record) and Gibson (US 2019/0375009).
Regarding claim 1, Packirisamya teaches a method of manufacturing a part (Abstract) comprising:
providing a plurality of transmitting elements (discretized elements (120,420)), each transmitting element of the plurality of transmitting elements generating a predetermined wave type directed into at least one of a build chamber (210,310,410) and a medium chamber (see Figs.1A, 2A-2C,Figs. 3A-3C and Fig. 4;[0080] and [0100]);
providing a build material within at least one of the build chamber and the medium chamber comprising at least one of a resin, a slurry, a colloidal solution and a powder (230,430) comprising coated particles (see Fig. 2A and Fig. 4; [0080]);
exciting a predetermined portion of the plurality of transmitting elements into predetermined states in order to generate a plurality of waves into the at least one of the build chamber (310) and the medium chamber (i.e. excitation of the discretized elements to generate the configurable fields as depicted in Figure 3B generates the formation of the portion (350) of the part (360); see Fig. 3A-3C;[0065] and [0069]). However, Packirisamya does not explicitly teach exciting a predetermined portion of the plurality of transmitting elements to generate a wave image; wherein the wave image generates an energy density of the waves which trigger a plurality of micro- reactors within the build material thereby solidifying a portion of the build material within the wave image; and the wave image relates to a predetermined portion of a part being manufactured.
In the same field of endeavor, method for manufacturing 3D component, Melde teaches a method of fabricating a component having three-dimensional geometry, wherein the shape of the component is obtained by utilizing an acoustic field (Abstract), comprises creating acoustic forces includes generating an acoustic interference pattern, exciting a predetermined portion of plurality of transmitting elements (21,22) to generate a wave image (5) (see Figs. 1-4;[0055-0057]), wherein the wave image generates an energy density of the waves which trigger plurality of micro- reactors (holograms(22)) within the build material thereby solidifying a portion of the build material within the wave image (5); and the wave image relates to a predetermined portion of a part being (1) manufactured (see Figs. 1-6;[0008], [0059-0061] and [0063]).
Melde further teaches that the generation of the acoustic interference image provides two key advantages. Firstly, the generation of the acoustic interference image does not require an acoustic resonator accommodating the working medium with the particles and the acoustic interference image is created independently of an inner shape of the container (see [0014] and [0069]). Secondly, compared with the conventional superposition of standing waves, essentially more degrees of freedom are offered by the acoustic interference image for constructing the shape to be obtained (see [0014]). Melde teaches using the transmission holograms have advantages in terms of the structure of the acoustic fabrication apparatus and the geometry of directing the acoustic interference image into the working medium (see [0020-0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method as taught by Packirisamya with exciting a predetermined portion of the plurality of transmitting elements to generate a wave image; wherein the wave image generates an energy density of the waves which trigger a plurality of micro- reactors within the build material thereby solidifying a portion of the build material within the wave image; and the wave image relates to a predetermined portion of a part being manufactured as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Melde above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would allow for the acoustic interference image is created independently of an inner shape of the container for the fabrication of components having different shapes (see [0014]) and to provide more degrees of freedom are offered by the acoustic interference image for constructing the shape to be obtained (see [0014-0015] of Melde).
Packirisamya in view of Melde does not teach at least one of:
each micro-reactor of the plurality of micro-reactors exhibits at least one of a rate of heating and a rate of cooling on a time scale of nanoseconds; each micro-reactor of the plurality of micro-reactors affects a region of the building material defined by a distance scale of nanometers.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing methods, Gibson teaches additive fabrication processes with materials that are sintered into a final part (Abstract), wherein the process comprises providing a build material (302) includes nano-particles in the nanometer range (micro-reactors) (see Fig.3; [0071]). Gibson teaches providing nanoparticles of the binder (414) can have a lower sintering temperature than the microparticles of the powder (410), and the distribution of nanoparticles throughout the microparticles in the powder bed (402) can facilitate formation of sinter necks in situ in a three-dimensional object (416) in the powder bed (see Fig. 4;[0129]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method as taught by Packirisamya in view of Melde with at least one of each micro-reactor of the plurality of micro-reactors exhibits at least one of a rate of heating and a rate of cooling on a time scale of nanoseconds; each micro-reactor of the plurality of micro-reactors affects a region of the building material defined by a distance scale of nanometers as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Gibson above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so to improve the rate of sintering (see [0075] of Gibson) and in order to facilitate formation of sinter necks in situ in a three-dimensional object (see [0129] of Gibson).
Regarding claim 2, Packirisamya in view of Melde and Gibson further teaches the method, wherein providing the plurality of transmitting elements comprises at least one of:
providing the plurality of transmitting elements (420) as part of at least one of a build chamber (410) and a medium chamber by at least one of:
attaching the plurality of transmitting elements to the at least one of the build chamber (410) and the medium chamber such that they are disposed upon a surface of the at least one of the build chamber and the medium chamber (see Fig. 4;[0076] of Packirisamya) (Figs. 1-2, Fig. 5 and [0068] of Melde also depicts the plurality of transmitting elements disposed upon a surface of the build chamber); attaching the plurality of transmitting elements to mounts such that the plurality of transmitting elements are disposed within the build material; providing a phase changing element disposed in a predetermined relationship in front of each transmitting element where each phase changing element is selected from the group comprising a hologram storing an image, a hologram storing multiple images, a static metamaterial, a phased array of elements, and a metamaterial comprised of a plurality of dynamically configurable metamaterial elements: and providing at least one of a planar source and a focused source as each transmitting element of the plurality of transmitting elements (see Figs. 2A-2C, Figs.3A-3C and Fig. 4;[0066] and [0076] of Packirisamya).
Regarding claim 5, Packirisamya in view of Melde and Gibson further teaches the method, wherein at least one of:
the wave image is a two-dimensional image such that the plurality of micro-reactors (22) are defined on a plane (see Figs.1-2 and Figs. 5-8;[0008] ,[0015]and [0019]); the wave image is a three-dimensional image such that the plurality of micro- reactors are defined within a volume (see Figs.1-2 and Figs. 5-8;[0008] and [0015]).
Regarding claim 9, Packirisamya in view of Melde and Gibson further teaches the method, wherein the build material is a matrix further comprising a body material and one or more additives selected from carbon nanotubes, metallic nanoparticles, electrically conductive nanoparticles, rheological particles and magnetic nanoparticles; and the predetermined portion of the part has at least one of a conductive portion and a magnetic portion (see [0077] of Packirisamya).
Regarding claim 10, Packirisamya in view of Melde and Gibson further teaches the method as discussed in claim 1 above.
Packirisamya in view of Melde does not teach wherein a porosity of the material generated as a result of the excitation of the plurality of micro- reactors is controllable; and at least one of a size of the pores and a distribution density of the pores is controllable in dependence upon at least one of a frequency and a power of the plurality of waves. However, Packirisamya teaches control of the porosity quality and quantity of the pores within the structure of the produced part by providing adjustable parameters of the AM process such as dynamically varying or statically defining the pressure of the work chamber and also the intensity of the applied field (see [0058]). Packirisamya further teaches that is beneficial to control the level of the porosity of the part structure, e.g. biological implantation piece-parts, micro-catalytic reactors, etc. (see [0069]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a porosity of the material generated as a result of the excitation of the plurality of micro- reactors is controllable; and at least one of a size of the pores and a distribution density of the pores is controllable in dependence upon at least one of a frequency and a power of the plurality of waves as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Packirisamya above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so to control the level of the porosity of the part structure, e.g. biological implantation piece-parts, micro-catalytic reactors (as recognized by Packirisamya at [0058]).
Regarding claim 19, Packirisamya in view of Melde and Gibson further teaches the method, further comprising exciting another predetermined portion of the plurality of transmitting elements (420) into predetermined states in order to generate a plurality of other waves into the at least one of the build chamber (410) and the medium chamber to generate another wave image (see Figs. 2A-2c,Figs. 3A-3C and Fig. 4;[0080] and [0100] of Packirisamya; and [0014-0016] and [0069] of Melde); wherein the plurality of other waves apply material post processing comprising at least a second processing step wherein at least one the predetermined portion of the part being manufactured and the part being manufactured is sintered (see [0009],[0026],[0060] and [0062] of Packirisamya).
Regarding claim 42, Packirisamya in view of Melde and Gibson further teaches the method, further comprising a wave front enhancer (acoustic interference image) disposed between the medium chamber (12) and the build chamber (10); the plurality of transmitting elements are coupled to the medium chamber; the build material is disposed within the build chamber; and the wave front enhancer acts to transition the waves from the medium chamber to the build chamber (see Fig. 3;[0058], [0064], [0066]) and [0068-0069] of Melde).
Regarding claim 55, Packirisamya in view of Melde and Gibson further teaches the method, further comprising a boundary between the build chamber (10) and the medium chamber (12), where the boundary is acoustically transparent and at least one of: optically non-transparent; at least one of electrically non-conductive or magnetically non-conductive; formed from one or more biological materials; formed from a series of layers where each layer of the series of layers is formed from a material having defined optical, biological, electrical or acoustical properties (see Fig. 3;[0058], [0064], [0066]) and [0068-0069] of Melde).
Regarding claim 58, Packirisamya in view of Melde and Gibson further teaches the method, wherein either: the build material comprises a powder comprising particles coated with a resin which is solidified by the plurality of micro-reactors to create a green part requiring subsequent thermal processing (see [0065],[0077] and [0087] of Packirisamya); or :the build material comprises a powder comprising at least one of metallic particles and ceramic particles coated with a resin which is solidified by the plurality of micro-reactors to create a green part requiring subsequent thermal processing to sinter the at least one of the metallic particles and the ceramic particles.
Regarding claim 59, Packirisamya in view of Melde and Gibson further teaches the method, wherein either: the build material comprises a powder of at least one of a ceramic, a metal and a glass dispersed in a resin matrix where the resin matrix is solidified by at least one of a chemical reaction and a physical reaction associated with the plurality of micro-reactors (see [0065],[0077] and [0087] of Packirisamya); or: the build material comprises a powder of particles dispersed in a resin matrix where the resin matrix is solidified by at least one of a chemical reaction and a physical reaction associated with the plurality of micro-reactors.
Regarding claim 60, Packirisamya in view of Melde and Gibson further teaches the method, wherein the build material comprises at least a powder coated with a resin which polymerizes via free radical polymerization and each micro-reactor of the plurality of microreactors triggers the free radical polymerization of the resin (see [0065],[0077] and [0087] of Packirisamya).
Regarding claim 61, Packirisamya in view of Melde and Gibson further teaches the method, wherein the plurality of waves are X-rays (see [0093] and [0095] of Packirisamya); either: each triggered micro-reactor of the plurality of micro-reactors (plurality of discretized elements) undergoes one or more chemical reactions thereby rapidly generating temperature and pressure increases locally to the triggered micro-reactor of the plurality of micro- reactors (see claims 8-9;[0061] and [0065-0067] of Packirisamya); or: each triggered micro-reactor of the plurality of micro-reactors undergoes one or more chemical reactions thereby rapidly generating temperature and pressure increases locally to the triggered micro-reactor of the plurality of micro- reactors which cause at least one of bond cleavage and bond formation within at least one of the build material proximate a shell of the triggered micro- reactor of the plurality of micro-reactors or within the shell of the triggered micro-reactor of the plurality of micro-reactors.
Regarding claim 62, Packirisamya in view of Melde and Gibson further teaches the method, wherein the triggered plurality of micro-reactors undergoes one or more chemical reactions thereby rapidly generating temperature and pressure increases locally to the triggered micro- reactor of the plurality of micro-reactors such that there is no distortion or enlargement of a feature size of the triggered plurality of micro-reactors after triggering relative to prior to being triggered (see claims 8-9;[0061] and [0065-0067] of Packirisamya).
Packirisamya in view of Melde and Gibson does not explicitly teach the minimum dimension of a portion of the part being manufactured is defined by the feature size of the triggered plurality of micro-reactors which is dependent upon a size of the plurality of micro-reactors. However, Melde teaches that the acoustic waveform can be changed after each fabrication step, thus, varying the frequency allows one to use a single printed hologram for shaping components with different sizes and the size of the component can be increased by reducing the frequency and vice versa (see [0025]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the minimum dimension of a portion of the part being manufactured is defined by the feature size of the triggered plurality of micro-reactors which is dependent upon a size of the plurality of micro-reactors as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Packirisamya above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so for shaping components with different sizes (as recognized by Melde at [0025]).
Claim(s) 50 and 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Packirisamya (Wo 2018/145194 – of record) in view of Melde (US 2017/0348907 – of record) and Gibson (US 2019/0375009) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matheu (US 2022/0025322 – of record).
Regarding claim 50, Packirisamya in view of Melde and Gibson teaches the method as discussed in claim 1 above.
Packirisamya further teaches wherein each micro-reactor of the plurality of micro-reactors (120,420) triggers a transition from liquid (110) to solid for the build material or a predetermined portion of the build material (see Fig.1A, Fig. 4;[0088]). However, Packirisamya does not explicitly teach that the plurality of micro-reactors triggers a transition from liquid to solid for the build material upon a time scale of nanoseconds over a distance of nanometers.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing methods, Matheu teaches a method for printing of three-dimensional structure (Abstract), comprises providing a plurality of holograms (micro-reactors) for directing energy beam as a 3D projection into the build chamber (see [0085]); wherein the holograms triggers a transition from liquid to solid for the build material or a predetermined portion of the build material upon a time scale of nanoseconds over a distance of nanometers (see [0100],[0106], [0128] and [0153]). Matheu discloses that two photon excitation pulses controlled such that excitation at a single spot occurs with pulses that are femto- to nanosecond range in length (dependent on laser tuning) while the timing between these photon packets is three to six orders of magnitude longer than the pulse width. This may allow for minimal cross-path interference of laser excitations making use of multiple lasers for simultaneous printing possible when using multiple laser lines in series (see [0153]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize that the plurality of micro-reactors triggers a transition from liquid to solid for the build material upon a time scale of nanoseconds over a distance of nanometers as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Matheu above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so to induce polymerization and/or cross-linking to form at least a portion of the 3D object. This may be used to form multiple layers of the 3D object at the same time. (as recognized by Matheu at [0084]).
Regarding claim 54, Packirisamya in view of Melde, Gibson and Matheu does not teach, wherein a final diameter of the micro-voids is established by at least one of a pressure generated by the build material solidifying around the micro-voids and a time constant of a solidification of the build material relative to a rate of collapse of the micro-voids under pressure generated by the build material. However, Packirisamya teaches controlling the porosity quality and quantity of the pores within the structure of the produced part by providing adjustable parameters of the additive manufacturing process such as dynamically varying or statically defining the pressure of the work chamber and also the intensity of the applied field (see [0059]). Packirisamya teaches further discloses that it is beneficial to control the level of the porosity of the part structure, e.g. biological implantation piece-parts, micro-catalytic reactors, etc.(see [0064]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a final diameter of the micro-voids is established by at least one of a pressure generated by the build material solidifying around the micro-voids and a time constant of a solidification of the build material relative to a rate of collapse of the micro-voids under pressure generated by the build material as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Packirisamya above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so to control of the porosity quality and quantity of the pores within the structure of the produced part by providing adjustable parameters of the AM process (as recognized by Packirisamya at [0058]).
Response to Arguments
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s) has/have overcome the claim rejection(s). Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Gibson (US 2019/0375009). Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 MOHAMED K AHMED ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-0347. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM-7:30 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/MOHAMED K AHMED ALI/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743