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 and Status of Claims
Applicant’s election of Invention II, claims 8-11 in the reply filed on 1/15/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-7 and 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/15/26.
Claims 8-11 and 16-22 are examined in this office action as claims 1-7 and 12-15 were canceled, claim 8 was amended and claims 16-22 are new in the reply dated 1/16/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8-11 and 16-22 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 8 recites the limitation “ejecting a first binding agent onto a porous region and a non-porous region of the 3D printed object;” and “ejecting a second binding agent onto the non-porous region of the 3D printed object;” in lines 5-8. As claim 8 is a method of “forming slices of a three-dimensional (3D) printed object”, it is not clear how ejecting binding agents onto the “printed object” forms slices of said object. Further, it is not clear how the deposited powder build material relates to this claimed process. Claims 9-11 and 16-22 are also rejected as they depend from claim 8 and do not solve the above issue.
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.
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 8, 11, 16, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0332373 A1 of Kuhn.
As to claim 8, it is not clear how a binding agent can be ejected onto a porous region and a non-porous region of the 3D printed object to thereby form a slice of the 3D printed object, see 112(b) rejection above. For the purposes of applying prior art, this will be interpreted as ejecting a first binding agent and a second binding agent onto regions of the powder build material corresponding to the finished 3D printed object where this produces a porous and non-porous region in the part. Kuhn discloses a method of three-dimensionally printing an article comprising forming a layer of a build material powder where the build material powder has a first mean particle size diameter (Kuhn, claim 22) and Kuhn discloses where a layer forms a slice of the finished article (Kuhn, paragraph [0042]), meeting the limitation forming slices of a three-dimensional (3D) printed object with regions of differing porosity by depositing a powder build material. Kuhn discloses selectively printing by jet deposition on the layer at least one of a first binder fluid and a second binder fluid, wherein at least one of the first and second binder fluids contains a particulate matter having a second mean particle size diameter which is less than the first mean particle size diameter and is at least 0.5 microns and the first binder fluid is characteristically different from the second binder fluid (Kuhn, claim 22), meeting the limitation of ejecting a first binding agent and ejecting a second binding agent. As Kuhn discloses where the particulate matter selectively deposited with a binder fluid can be used to locally tailor the physical properties of the article, such as increasing densification (Kuhn, paragraph [0041]), this meets the limitation of where the second binding agent is ejected onto a non-porous region as the particulate matter in the binder can be used to modify the apparent density, apparent density is the inverse of porosity (Kuhn, paragraph [0025]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add particulate matter to increase the density and thereby reduce the porosity to create a non-porous section, thereby increasing strength and heat transfer characteristics of sections of the part.
Further, as Kuhn discloses where there is overlap printing of the two binder fluids (Kuhn, paragraph [0045] and Fig. 7), this meets the limitation where ejecting a first binding agent onto a porous region and a non-porous region of the 3D printed object.
Finally, Kuhn discloses where after printing, the part can be sintered to achieve densification (Kuhn, paragraph [0009]). As Kuhn also discloses the first binder fluid is characteristically different from the second binder fluid (Kuhn, claim 22), this means that the particles within them would have different melting temperatures and by sintering the part, the temperature would necessarily pass between melting temperatures of particles in the second and first binding agents otherwise if there was no melting of the particles, there would not be binding of the part.
As to claim 11, Kuhn discloses where the build material powder may be a metal, metal alloy and where the build material powder with tungsten particles coated with copper (Kuhn, paragraph [0027]), meeting the claim limitation where the powder build material is copper powder build material.
As to claim 16, Kuhn discloses where the first binder fluid is characteristically different from the second binder fluid (Kuhn, claim 22) and this means that these different components would melt at different temperatures, meeting the limitation of the second binding agent comprises a component that melts at a lower temperature than a component of the first binding agent.
As to claim 18, Kuhn discloses where the mean particle size diameter of the jetted-particulate matter may be less than 1 micron, even down to 1 nanometer (Kuhn, paragraph [0028]) meeting the limitation where wherein the second binding agent comprises a metallic nanoparticle agent.
As to claim 19, Kuhn discloses where after printing, the part can be sintered to achieve densification (Kuhn, paragraph [0009]) and Kuhn discloses where the particulate matter selectively deposited with a binder fluid acts as a local infiltrant or infiltrant barrier (Kuhn, paragraph [0041]). As an infiltrant is where a material becomes liquid to fill gaps in a porous structure and an infiltrant barrier would be solid to prevent liquid material from filling gaps, Kuhn meets the claim limitations of selecting sintering characteristics so as to melt particles in the second binding agent without melting particles in the first binding agent and a powder build material otherwise there would not be an infiltrant and a infiltrant barrier.
As to claim 20, Kuhn discloses where after printing, the part can be sintered to achieve densification (Kuhn, paragraph [0009]). As Kuhn discloses sintering, this necessarily comprises a sintering time and temperature, meeting the claim limitations.
As to claim 21, Kuhn discloses that the build material powder may be any desired particulate matter that is compatible with the three-dimensional printing process and the binder fluid that is to be used and the article that is to be built (Kuhn, paragraph [0027]). Kuhn also discloses that the apparent density of the printed part is essentially the same as the packing density the powder bed that is created during the three-dimensional printing process and such densities often are in the range of about 50 to 60% (Kuhn, paragraph [0009]), thus Kuhn is disclosing that the powder in the powder bed effects the apparent density and thereby the porosity, meeting the claim limitations.
As to claim 22, Kuhn discloses selectively jet-depositing a particle-bearing binder fluid upon successive layers of a build material powder such that the particles of the fluid increase the apparent density of the as-printed article and where the jetted-particulate matter is to be chosen to yield the desired properties in combination with the build material powder material during the processing of the article from the three-dimensional printing stage through any heat treatments and finishing operations (Kuhn, paragraphs [0025] and [[0028]), and as Kuhn is disclosing choosing the particles of the fluids based on the properties including density, this meets the claim limitation of selecting the first binding agent and the second binding agent based on a target porosity of the porous region.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0332373 A1 of Kuhn in view of US 2020/0147890 A1 of Torrington.
As to claim 9, Kuhn discloses a method of three-dimensionally printing an article (Kuhn, claim 22), however Kuhn does not disclose where the 3D printed object comprises a heat pipe; and the heat pipe comprises an outer tube forming the non-porous region lined with a wicking structure forming the porous region.
Torrington relates to the same filed of endeavor of additive manufacturing (Torrington, paragraph [0001]). Torrington teaches forming a heat pipe via additive manufacturing which includes a solid conducting outer structure and a porous wick structure lining the solid outer structure (Torrington, paragraph [0006] and Figure 2), meeting the limitations as a solid outer structure meets the limitation of a non-porous region which is then lined with a wicking structure forming the porous region. Torrington teaches that by additively manufacturing heat pipes with these porous wick structures allows for the imbedding of the heat pipes within the bulk of a solid structure and thereby prevents the thermal efficiency losses which are prevalent at the interface between the heat pipe and the thermal loads or sinks to which it is attached due to low conductivity interface materials or non-ideal mating surface roughness (Torrington, paragraph [0004]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the design of a heat pipe including a solid conducting outer structure and a porous wick structure lining the solid outer structure as taught by Torrington into the method of additive manufacturing disclosed in Kuhn, thereby creating imbedded heat pipes within the bulk of a solid structure and thereby preventing the thermal efficiency losses which are prevalent at the interface between the heat pipe and the thermal loads or sinks to which it is attached due to low conductivity interface materials or non-ideal mating surface roughness (Torrington, paragraph [0004]).
As to claim 10, while Torrington does not disclose where the 3D printed object is a vapor chamber comprising joined plates forming the non-porous region lined with a wicking structure forming the porous region, a vapor chamber is a form of a heat pipe and as Torrington already discloses a non-porous region lined with a porous wick structure (Torrington, paragraph [0006] and Figure 2) this is merely a difference in shape from the claim limitations and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the heat transfer device in the form of a vapor chamber with joined plates forming the non-porous region lined with a wicking structure forming the porous region. Further, the MPEP provides that changes in shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed configuration was significant, see MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B) citing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0332373 A1 of Kuhn in view of WO 2019/083515 A1 (cited on IDS dated 5/19/23) of Thomas.
As to claim 17, Kuhn discloses selectively printing by jet deposition on the layer at least one of a first binder fluid and a second binder fluid, wherein at least one of the first and second binder fluids contains a particulate matter having a second mean particle size diameter which is less than the first mean particle size diameter and is at least 0.5 microns and the first binder fluid is characteristically different from the second binder fluid (Kuhn, claim 22). However, Kuhn does not disclose where the binder fluid comprises copper nitrate.
Thomas relates to the same field of endeavor of additive printing processes (Thomas, paragraph [0001]). Thomas teaches that metal nanoparticles and activated metal salts are water-insoluble binder materials (Thomas, paragraph [0093]). Thomas teaches where these metal salt binders include copper nitrate (Thomas, paragraph [0093]). Thomas teaches that these binders have enough adhesive strength to hold the metallic particles together in the cured intermediate part (Thomas, paragraph [0094]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute copper nitrate as a binder as taught by Thomas into the method of additive manufacturing disclosed in Kuhn, thereby have enough adhesive strength to hold the metallic particles together in the cured intermediate part (Thomas, paragraph [0094]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua S Carpenter whose telephone number is (571)272-2724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/JOSHUA S CARPENTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JOPHY S. KOSHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733