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
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed October 21, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 2 are currently amended. Claims 7-11 remain withdrawn from further consideration. It is noted that the claim listing states that claim 12 is currently amended. However, there does not appear to be an amendment to the claim. Claims 1-6 and 12-15 are under examination.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ederer et al. (US 2017/0355137) in view of any one of Mansouri et al. (US 2022/0410492), Barnes et al. (US 2019/0039298), McMurtry et al. (US 2016/0136730), Lei et al. (US 2019/0160539), or Abbott et al. (WO 2016/048348).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5 and 12-14, Ederer et al. teach an additive manufacturing device (Abstract; Figures 1, 4, 5, and 8-13; paragraphs [0001], [0005], [0006] and [0020]-[0031]) comprising: a build platform for supporting successive, stacked layers of an object being formed (paragraphs [0026], [0038], [0041], [0042], [0064], [0105], [0180]); a spreader for spreading successive layers of build material on the build platform (paragraphs [0026], [0070], [0180]); a liquid dispenser for selectively dispensing a liquid fusing agent/absorber into an uppermost layer of build material in a pattern corresponding to a layer of the object being formed (paragraphs [0026], [0043], [0045]-[0047], [0070], [0073], [0089], [0097], [0098], [0141], [0142]); a carriage for moving the liquid dispenser over the build platform (paragraphs [0044], [0097], [0098], [0099], [0117], [0161], [0216], [0220], [0221]; Figures 1, 5, 8 and 12); a first irradiation source to irradiate the object being formed, having a first wavelength band, the first wavelength band being tuned for absorption by the fusing agent (paragraphs [0026], [0048], [0050]-[0056], [0070], [0080], [0106], [0108]-[0129], [0223]-[0227]); and a second irradiation source having a second wavelength band disposed above the build platform for heating the successive layers of build material on the build platform (paragraphs [0026], [0049]-[0056], [0070], [0090], [0091], [0106], [0108]-[0129], [0223]-[0227]); wherein the first wavelength band does not overlap the second wavelength band (paragraphs [0026], [0031], [0070], [0072], [0108]-[0129], [0226] and [0227]).
Further, Ederer et al. teach and suggest a plurality of irradiation modules comprising an irradiation source and having wavelengths tunes to a different fusing agent as claimed and that is capable of being tuned to the build materials (paragraphs [0045], [0050], [0051], [0053], [0090] [0106]-[0129], [0175], [0186], [0212]; Figures 9-13; the wavelengths of Ederer et al. are selected for heating both dry and wetted powders with the radiation; further the combination of a fusing agent/powder is also reasonably understood to be a build material to the extent required) wherein the irradiation modules are disposed on the carriage (Figure 12; elements (510) and (512) on the print head axle/carriage; paragraphs [0117], [0190], [0216], [0220]). Ederer et al. do not teach the carriage contains a socket as claimed.
However, each of Mansouri et al. (paragraph [0075], Figures 4B and 4D with the attachment mechanism forming a socket/cavity/recess), Barnes et al. (Figure 3 – attachment structure and reflector formed to hold the lights (306) to the structure are understood to form a socket on the structure, which in combination with Ederer et al. is the carriage), McMurtry et al. (paragraphs [0051], [0054], Figures 7A-7C, 8 and 9; plug-and-play and alignment structure), Lei et al. (paragraph [0045] – the ability to replace components in a modular system on the corresponding carriage reasonably suggests and renders prima facie obvious means such as sockets/cavities/plugs/clips to hold lamps) or Abbott et al. (Figures 15 and 19; paragraph [0037]-[0039]) teach a socket as claimed.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Ederer et al. and any one of the secondary references and to have utilized sockets as claimed in the device of Ederer et al., as suggested by any one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of facilitating alignment of the radiation emitters/lamps/lights, ease of replacement and modularity, for the provision good reflectivity in a well-supported manner or for facilitating application of the light in an art recognized manner.
As to claims 4 and 15, Mansouri et al. (paragraph [0058], [0065], [0075], [0076]), Lei et al. (paragraph [0086]), and Abbott et al. (paragraph [0023]) disclose light emitting diodes. Further, one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the suitability of utilizing light emitting diodes for providing the desired radiation in the structure of Ederer et al. It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized an LED radiation source in the device of Ederer et al., as suggested by the references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references of using an art recognized suitable source of radiation.
As to claim 6, Ederer et al. each the irradiation source is disposed on the carriage (Figure 12; elements (510) and (512) on the print head axle/carriage; paragraphs [0117], [0190], [0216], [0220]).
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ederer et al. (US 2017/0355137) in view of any one of Mansouri et al. (US 2022/0410492), Barnes et al. (US 2019/0039298), McMurtry et al. (US 2016/0136730), Lei et al. (US 2019/0160539), or Abbott et al. (WO 2016/048348), as applied to claims 1-6 and 12-15 above, and further in view of Veis (WO 2019/143324). Note: this is an alternative rejection of claims 4 and 15.
As to claims 4 and 15, the combination teaches the device set forth above. Alternatively, Veis et al. provide additional teaching wherein it is disclosed that LED radiation sources have a narrow spectral width/better controlled application than other devices (paragraph [0012] and [0013]).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Ederer et al. and Veis and to have utilized an LED radiation source in the device of Ederer et al., as suggested by Veis, for the purpose, as suggested by Veis, of providing a source of radiation with a narrow spectral band/better controlled application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed October 21, 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant cites paragraph [0026] of Ederer and concludes the teaching of Ederer does not read upon the claimed first irradiation source to irradiate the object with a fusing agent/absorber and a second irradiating step with a second irradiation source without a fusing agent/absorber. This argument is not persuasive. As an initial matter, it is noted that the claim does not necessarily exclude the presence of a fusing agent/absorber when the second irradiation source heats the successive layers. As such, this portion of the argument is not fully commensurate in scope with the claim. Further, the identifiers “first” and “second” in the claim and in Ederer do not need to correspond with each other. As such, the second heating/irradiating step of Ederer can be utilized to meet the “first” irradiation source in the claim and the “first” heating/irradiating step of Ederer can be utilize to meet the claimed “second” irradiating. Further still, the claims are directed to a device and not a method of operating a device. The device of Ederer is capable of being operated in the claimed manner. Further still, the arguments do not address the other portions of Ederer that are cited above and are understood to remain applicable regarding the argued missing teaching of Ederer. For each of these reasons, it is submitted that Ederer remains applicable against the argued limitations. The examiner notes his availability to discuss the application if the applicability of Ederer remains unclear.
Further, applicant argues that Mansouri is not combinable with Ederer because the socket of Mansouri is directed a UV irradiation source and not the same irradiation sources of Ederer. This argument is not persuasive. As an initial matter, it is noted that the irradiation sources of Ederer are not limited to the recited sources and that irradiating heating sources are generally applicable (paragraphs [0049] – “by suitable means”; [0052] – “source of radiation” [0053] – “source of radiation”; [0106] – “Various…irradiation devices”), including in the UV range if desired (paragraph [0131]) – “UV range”). Further, the relied upon teaching from Mansouri is reasonably understood to be applicable to only the structure for holding analogous irradiation sources for effective utilization in an irradiation system. Further still, depending on the materials utilized by Ederer, irradiation in the UV range is also reasonably in view and would be applicable (e.g. see the cited paragraphs above). For each of these reasons, the combination of Ederer with Mansouri is understood to remain applicable.
It is further noted that other references were utilized in the alternative to teach and suggest utilizing a socket in the apparatus of Ederer. These rejections have not been argued against. For the reasons set forth above, these alternative rejections are still understood to be applicable.
It is submitted that the claims would need to be further amended to overcome the art of record.
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 Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742