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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/21/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
An amendment, filed 7/21/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 1 is amended; Claims 2-4 and 7 are canceled. Claims 1, 5 and 8-20 are currently pending, claims 8-9 and 11-20 are withdrawn.
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, 5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulier (US 2022/0388065) in view of Crane (US 2022/0062996)(previously cited).
With respect to Claim 1, Coulier teaches an additively manufactured part, and a method of making thereof, the part comprising a plurality of layers formed from powder material and comprising an overhang feature, wherein the overhang feature may exhibit, for example, a curved underside in the absence of a downward facing surface feature, deemed to constitute a “smooth” underside. (para. 5-8, 15-16, 27, 207; Figs. 6, 10, 16-17, 20-21, 29-31, 58, 62, 64, 66, 74). In particular, Coulier teaches optimizing the manufacturing parameters of the plurality of layers forming the overhang, including optimizing the geometry, layer thickness, temperature, reflectivity profile, energy source power, and composition of the powder material layers. (para. 8-12, 15-32, 189, 237-238, 241-242). For example, the reference teaches in paragraph 189:
“In some embodiments, the material composition of at least two of a plurality of layers in the material bed is different. In some embodiments, the material composition of at least two of a plurality of layers in the material bed is (e.g., substantially) the same. The material composition of at least one layer within the material bed may differ from the material composition within at least one other layer in the material bed. The material composition of at least one layer within the 3D object may differ from the material composition within at least one other layer in the 3D object. The difference (e.g., variation) may comprise difference in grain (e.g., crystal) structure. The variation may comprise variation in grain orientation, material density, degree of compound segregation to grain boundaries, degree of element segregation to grain boundaries, material phase, metallurgical phase, material porosity, crystal phase, crystal structure, or material type. The microstructure of the printed object may comprise planar structure, cellular structure, columnar dendritic structure, or equiaxed dendritic structure.
Coulier also teaches wherein two or more energy beams having different parameters may be used and wherein the overhang may comprise a bottom skin formed from a powder material (i.e. a second layer forming an overhang) differing from adjacent portions (i.e. first layer). (para. 237-238, 242-243; Fig. 31). In addition, the reference teaches wherein the respective powder layers, which may comprise different compositions (see passage above), may comprise a titanium-based alloy or aluminum-based alloy. (para. 193-194, 197-199).
Thus, Coulier teaches a part having an overhang feature comprising a first layer formed from a first powder material that may be selected from a titanium-based alloy or aluminum-based alloy, a second layer formed from a different composition powder that may comprise a titanium-based alloy or an aluminum-based alloy, wherein the processing parameters including composition, temperature, energy power are controlled in order to obtain an overhang feature with a smooth curved underside comprising the second powder material. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an optimum or workable alloy powder material for forming the second layer/bottom skin of the overhang feature, in order to obtain desired structure and properties, including shape and surface quality. Coulier recognizes varying the composition of respective layers in the part, but does not specifically teach an additive selected to depress the melting temperature of the second powder.
Crane teaches a part formed by powder bed fusion additive manufacturing process, wherein a part is formed of a metal powder material and wherein at least portions of the part comprise the powder material with an additive/dopant comprising a sintering aid that lowers the melting point temperature of the powder material and improved densification. (para. 8-10, 93, 104). Thus, Crane teaches the utility of providing a sintering aid in a metal powder for additive manufacturing to control its melting properties and thereby, allow for enhanced control in a range of additive manufacturing processes/techniques.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the additively manufactured part of Coulier to form the second powder material comprising a dopant added to the first powder material, the dopant comprising a sintering aid that lowers (i.e. depresses) the melting point of the second powder material, as taught by Crane, in order to enable precise control over the composition and resulting melting point temperature of the additively manufactured layers forming the part in conjunction with the lower energy beam taught by Coulier, and thereby, improve the quality of the overhang feature and its second layer/bottom skin.
With respect to Claim 5, Coulier in view of Crane teach wherein the additive is configured to dope the second powder such that the second powder is melted and fused at a lower melting point temperature and at a lower energy level than the first powder. (see rejection of claim 1 above). It is further noted that claim 5, in particular, includes limitation drawn to the process (e.g. laser energy level) of how the part is formed and thus, such limitations represent product-by-process limitations.
According to MPEP § 2113, "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”
With respect to Claim 10, Coulier, as detailed with respect to Claim 1, teaches a product wherein layers comprising an overhanging feature may be formed of a second powder material and layers not comprising an overhanging feature may be formed of a first powder material. As further layers formed above those comprising an overhanging feature would not comprise an overhanging feature, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a part having additional layer (i.e. top layer) above an overhanging feature formed of a first powder material. Moreover, the claim does not require any particular shape or structure of the top layer and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the part of Coulier in view of Crane, formed by multi-material additive manufacturing technique is capable of forming an arbitrary arrangement of layers and thus, selecting any number of layers and their respective compositions would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05; Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.").
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Fuwa in view of Crane and claim 7 further in view of Seleznev have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Specifically, prior art Fuwa is silent as to first and second powders meeting the amended composition. (see also Advisory Action, dated 7/28/2026). Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Coulier in view of Crane.
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Finally, it is noted that for the purpose of compact prosecution, the withdrawn process claims (e.g. claim 11) do not include all of the limitations of the claimed product of claim 1. Therefore, should claim 1 subsequently be placed in condition for allowance, the withdrawn process claims would not be subject to rejoinder.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A HEVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JOHN A HEVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
