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 .
This office action is a response to the restriction requirement filed on 7/16/2025.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 7/16/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 7/16/2025.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: --METHOD OF FORMING A THREE-DIMENSIONAL PRINTED PART--.
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 1-14 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.
Re. claim 1: The phrase “prior to the drop of print material landing onto a surface” as recited in lines 5-6 renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to what the surface is indicated.
Re. claim 8: The phrase “prior to the one or more subsequent drops of print material landing onto a surface” as recited in lines 7-8 renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to what the surface is indicated. Is this surface the same surface as recited in line 6 of claim 1 or not.
Re. claim 9: The phrase “the subsequent drop” as recited in line 1 lacks antecedent basis.
Re. claim 11: The phrase “the surface is a top layer of the three-dimensional printed part” as recited in lines 1-2 renders the claim vague and indefinite. According to the preamble of claim 1, scope of the claimed invention is the process of forming the three-dimensional printed part. It appears to be that the three-dimensional printed part was already produced and the three-dimensional printed part is used during the manufacturing process. It is noted that the claim can be drafted to recite the intended working environment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barnett et al. (US PAT. 10,538,114).
Barnett et al. teach a process of forming a print object on a substrate, comprising steps of: ejecting a drop of print material (108) from an ejector (102) for a printing system (100) in a substantially vertical trajectory as shown in Fig. 1 (col. 5, lines 6-15); directing a stream of inert gas toward the drop of print material from a first direction (114) as shown in Fig. 1 (col. 5, line 59 to col. 6, line 14); and diverting the drop of print material from the substantially vertical trajectory prior to the drop of print material landing onto a surface (col. 5, line 59 to col. 6, line 31).
Re. claim 2: The drop of print material does not land onto the surface in a position that is along the substantially vertical trajectory as shown in Figs. 1 and 6.
Re. claim 3: A stream of inert gas is directed toward the drop of print material from a second direction. It is noted that the second direction can be the same as the first direction.
Re. claim 10: The surface is a substrate (110) of the printing system as shown in Fig. 1.
Re. claim 11: The surface can be a top layer of the three-dimensional printed part (see also 112, 2nd rejection as set forth above).
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.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnett et al.
Barnett et al. teach all limitations as set forth above, but silent argon gas for the inert gas. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the inert gas as recited in the claimed invention because Applicant has not disclosed that the inert gas as recited in the claimed invention provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with Barnett et al. because the inert gas as recited in the claimed invention would perform equally well such as changing the direction of the drops of the print material in Barnett et al. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the inert gas of Barnett et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnett et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (APA hereinafter).
Barnett et al. teach all limitations as set forth above, but silent a material of the printed material. APA teaches a process of 3D printing on a surface layer including printing or depositing a metal or metal alloy, such as a small drop of liquid aluminum alloy, upon a substrate to form a desired object (see paragraph [0002]). Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable rangers involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (il-A). Therefore, since such a modification would have been an obvious design consideration that is within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the well-known benefit of obtaining desirable printed object. One of ordinary skill in the art could easily select materials from the recited lists to result in the required differing compositions. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the material of the printed material of Barnett et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 13 and 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Knausdorf et al. (PGPub 2024/0173972 A1), Mu et al. (US PAT. 10,730,305), Hauf et al. (PGPub 2015/0373305 A1), and Barnett et al. (PGPub 2015/0375543 A1) are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to a process of forming a print object on a substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6:00 AM-2:00 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, Aneeta Yodichkas can be reached at 571-272-9773. 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.
/PAUL D KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729