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 .
Claim Status
An amendment, filed 4/10/2026, is acknowledged. Claim 1 is amended; Claim 6 is canceled. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are currently pending, claims 8-9 and 11-20 are withdrawn.
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 1-5, 7 and 10 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 1 recites “the second powder material including an additive configured to lower the melting temperature of the second powder material” then recites “wherein the additive depresses the melting temperature of the second powder.” The two limitations appear to recite a limitation having the same scope, but using slightly different terminology. It is unclear how the latter limitation narrows or modifies the scope of the first limitation. Claims 2-5, 7, and 10 are indefinite based on their dependency.
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 Fuwa et al. (WO 2008/146698 A1)(cited on IDS, including translation)(previously cited) in view of Crane (US 2022/0062996)(previously cited).
With respect to Claim 1, Fuwa teaches a part formed by a powder bed fusion additive manufacturing method, the part having an overhanging projection (i.e. an overhang feature) formed from one or more fused powder layers, wherein the projecting/overhanging layers are formed with a reduced thickness as compared to the non-overhanging layers below, with this arrangement tailored to reduce curl during solidification. (pgs. 3-5 of translation; Figs. 5-7). Fuwa teaches forming the part with a curved overhang feature “absent a downward facing surface feature,” the curve being as smooth as a layer-based additively manufacturing technique appears to allow and without downward facing defects, and thus, deemed to comprise an “overhang feature” having “a smooth underside.” (see Figs. 5-7). It is further noted that the claim, by reciting “in the absence of a downward facing surface feature…” makes optional the smooth underside of the overhang feature. “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.” MPEP 2111.04.
Fuwa further teaches “it is desirable to change the energy density of the irradiated light beam in accordance with the thickness of the powder material layer. Thus, Fuwa teaches the benefit of forming overhanging features with a lower energy density corresponding to the reduced thickness of the layers forming the overhanging feature. One of ordinary skill in the art would further recognize that a thinner additively manufactured layer would result in faster cooling due to the increased ratio of surface area to mass and the overall reduced mass relative to the thicker additively manufactured layers that do not comprise an overhanging feature.
Fuwa also teaches an embodiment wherein at least a first layer or a first portion of a layer is formed from a first metal powder material and a second layer or second portion of a layer is then additively formed from a second metal powder material. (pgs. 4-5 of translation). In particular, Fuwa teaches where “the plurality of sintered layers positioned at different heights are formed of different types of powder materials” and “it is preferable that the melting point of the powder material used in advance is higher than the melting point of the powder material used thereafter. As a result, it is possible to prevent the previously formed sintered layer from being re-melted before forming the later sintered layer, and as a result, it is possible to manufacture the three-dimensional shape molded object with high precision.” (pg. 4-5 of translation). Thus, Fuwa teaches forming first layers/portions of layers from a first powder material then subsequent layers/portions of layers with a second powder material having a lower melting point temperature than the first powder material.
One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the two embodiments of Fuwa, teaching utilizing thinner layers to form overhanging features, such layers requiring lower energy and resulting in faster cooling, and forming subsequent layers in a build using lower melting point temperature powder to prevent previous layers from melting to successively form an overhang feature with reduced curl (and thus comprising a smooth underside), further enhanced by the prevention of droop and/or defects formed by unwanted re-melting of previously layers. In other words, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a product comprising a first layer(s) of a first powder material and second layer(s) comprising an overhanging feature from a second powder material having a lower melting point, in order to further reduce the energy density required to melt the layer, enhance cooling, and reduce defects in view of the teachings of Fuwa.
In summary, Fuwa makes obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art a part having an overhang feature, the part comprising at least a first layer formed of a first powder material and a second layer formed from a second powder material, wherein the second powder material has a lower melting point temperature than the first material, and wherein an overhang feature formed from the second powder material includes a smooth underside in the absence of a downward facing surface feature. Fuwa is silent, however, as to the manner and/or composition of the second material providing it a lower melting point temperature (i.e. silent as to an additive configured to lower the melting temperature).
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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the additively manufactured part of Fuwa 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.
With respect to Claim 2, Fuwa in view of Crane teach wherein the first powder comprises a metal powder, for example, a nickel-based alloy. (see rejection of claim 1 above; pg. 9 of translation).
With respect to Claim 3, Fuwa teaches wherein the first powder material may comprise a nickel-based alloy powder. (see pg. 9 of translation).
With respect to Claim 4, Fuwa teaches wherein the first powder material may comprise a nickel or nickel-based alloy powder (see pg. of translation; rejection of claim 3) and Fuwa in view of Crane teach wherein the second powder material may comprise the first powder material with the addition of an additive/dopant selected to lower the melting point of the composition. (see rejection of claim 1 above). Thus, Fuwa in view of Crane teach wherein the second powder may comprise a nickel-based alloy.
With respect to Claims 5-6, Fuwa 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, Fuwa, 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 Fuwa 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.").
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuwa et al. (WO 2008/146698 A1)(cited on IDS) in view of Crane (US 2022/0062996), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Seleznev (US 11707781)(of record).
With respect to Claim 7, Fuwa in view of Crane teach wherein the second powder material may comprise a nickel-based alloy and a dopant sintering aid selected as a melting point depressant. (see rejection of claims 1-6 above, incorporated here by reference). The references are silent as to the specific dopant sintering aid.
Seleznev teaches an additively manufactured part formed from a metallic powder material further comprising one or more sintering aids selected from boron, phosphorus, and silicon, wherein the sintering aid improves the density of the part. (col. 1, ln. 58 to col. 2, ln. 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the part of Fuwa in view of Crane to select a known sintering aid for a part additively formed from a metal powder, including boron, phosphorus, and/or silicon, as taught by Seleznev, in order to enhance the density of the part.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Applicant incorporated the subject matter of claim 6 into claim 1, rendering claim 1 and its dependent claims indefinite. (see rejection above). Applicant’s arguments are drawn to canceling claim 6 and an amendment to claim 1 drawn to a different issue that is resolved with the amendment. Thus, Applicant’s arguments do not address the indefiniteness caused by the incorporation of the limitations of claim 6 into claim 1.
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant first restates portions of the references and rejection then Applicant argues that the rejection over Fuwa in view of Crane fails to teach or suggest a downward facing surface feature. Applicant also argues that Crane is drawn to a method of selectively depositing a liquid containing a dopant and that the combination would change the principle of operation of Fuwa and that the combination fails to teach a second powder material including an additive. These arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
Claim 1 is drawn to “A part having an overhang feature” and is therefore, drawn to a product. The claim further recites “a second layer formed from a second powder material, the second powder material including an additive configured to lower the melting temperature of the second powder material.” This limitation defines the product by the method in which it was formed and therefore, constitutes a product-by-process limitation. 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.”
Therefore, the manner in which the additive is added/incorporated into the second powder material is a product-by-process limitation that is not provided patentable weight. The combination of Fuwa in view of Crane results in a product part comprising a second layer formed of a second powder material comprising an additive that lowers/depresses the melting temperature of the second powder material and therefore, meets the instantly claimed limitations.
Further, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “downward facing surface feature” Remarks, p. 14) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 recites “an overhang feature…wherein the overhang feature includes a smooth underside in the absence of a downward facing surface feature.” The claim is interpreted to require an overhang, wherein the overhang comprises a smooth underside or a downward facing surface feature, not both.
Fuwa teaches an overhang feature (see, e.g., Fig. 5(d)) having a curved surface wherein curve is as smooth as a layer-based additively manufacturing technique appears to allow and without downward facing defects, and thus, deemed to comprise an “overhang feature” having “a smooth underside.” (see Figs. 5-7). The claim does not contain any specific measurements or structure limiting the scope of the term “smooth.” Therefore, to the degree Applicant disagrees that Fuwa teaches a smooth overhanging surface, further amendment or evidence would be required to overcome the rejection.
Also, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Finally, the combination of Fuwa in view of Crane would not change the principle of operation of Fuwa. Both Fuwa and Crane are drawn to powder bed fusion techniques of additive manufacturing wherein an energy beam (e.g. laser) selectively sinters or melts portions of a layer of powder to additively build up a structure. A combination with Crane incorporating an intermediate step of selectively introducing a dopant that lowers the melting temperature of a build material powder does not change the principle of operation of Fuwa. The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); MPEP § 716.01 and § 2145.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 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
Prosecution Insights