DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that the present application has at least one (1) related foreign filings or publications in other countries. Applicant is reminded of the duty under 37 CFR 1.56(a) to disclose information material to patentability, such as (a) Office Actions and prior art related to the claimed invention which have been cited during prosecution of related filings, (b) prior foreign or domestic filings by Applicant(s) which are related to the claimed or disclosed invention and which constitute prior art, (c) related brochures, dissertations, or other research publications, including that which has been authored by one or more inventors listed under this application or by other individuals under which or along which one or more inventors may have been working, and (d) any other relevant prior art Applicant may be aware of, including since the filing of any previous information disclosure statement (IDS).
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 20 November 2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Remarks
Remarks submitted 20 November 2025 which remain applicable to rejections below are addressed in succession as follows:
Interview: At Rem. 5, it is indicated that an amendment to claim 17 “as presented herein” was discussed during the interview held 17 October 2025.
It is noted that the 20 November 2025 amendment to claim 17 differs at least in part from the proposed amendment discussed on 17 October 2025 as set forth for example in the Appendix included with the interview summary made of record 21 October 2025.
35 U.S.C. 102: At Rem. 6, it is indicated that the 20 November 2025 amendment to claim 17 was agreed during the 17 October 2025 interview to overcome all of the current § 102 rejections.
It is first noted that this argument fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) due to the general allegation without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the applied prior art.
Further, it is noted that as set forth above, the 20 November 2025 amendment to claim 17 differs from that discussed during the above-referenced interview. Upon examination of the amendment filed, a number of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) issues are found to exist, and the previously identified prior art, in addition to the previously cited patent to Yoo, are found to remain applicable as set forth below.
Upon review of the above responses, Applicant’s Representative is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly for further clarification on any outstanding issues, to discuss potential claim amendments that might help to advance prosecution, and/or to discuss what Applicant believes to be the crux of the claimed and/or disclosed invention as it is believed to distinguish over the prior art.
Claim Objections
Claims 17-21 and 23-33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In the 2nd to last line of claim 17, “print heads” should be changed to “printheads”.
It is believed that the term “of” after “for” at line 2 of claim 31 should be deleted.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 17-21 and 23-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In particular:
While the specification provides for printheads comprising optical assemblies and/or laser energy sources, and of a printhead assembly comprising one or more optical assemblies (lines 9-10 and lines 14-15, respectively, of [0021] at p. 4), whereby distinct optical assemblies of the printhead(s) are provided “adjacent” to one another (lines 2-3 of [0033] at p. 11), or whereby distinct laser energy sources of the printhead(s) are provided “adjacent” to one another (lines 1-2 of [0048] at p. 17), the specification as originally filed does not support the 20 November 2025 amendment to claim 17 specifying the provision of “adjacent printheads” as a whole, let alone adjacent printheads that are configured in the manner claimed.
While the specification provides for laser energy sources of printhead optical assemblies to each be configured to selectively deliver laser energy in the form of a pixel to an underlying associated portion of a build surface ([0031] at p. 10 lines 1-3), the specification as originally filed does not support the 20 November 2025 amendment to claim 17 specifying two or more adjacent printheads configured to form “one” or more pixels, in particular whereby more than one printhead may be configured to form a single “one” pixel on a build surface.
In relation to new matter issue (b), while the specification provides for the formation of a single pixel by a respective laser of a laser energy source of an optical assembly of a printhead, the specification as originally filed does not support the 20 November 2025 amendment to claim 17 whereby any one printhead, as a whole, is capable of forming as few as a single “one” pixel on a build surface.
While the specification provides for adjacent laser energy sources of a printhead optical assembly disposed offset from one another in a direction “transverse” to the direction of travel of a conveyor (lines 4-6 of [0048] at p. 17), in addition to the provision of pixels that are “spaced apart” relative to one another ([0043], [0044], [0066]), the specification as originally filed does not support the 20 November 2025 amendment to claim 17 specifying pixels offset specifically “in a transverse direction”.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment is required.
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.
Claims 17-21 and 23-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In particular:
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear in the 2nd to last line of claim 17 exactly what the recited “one or more pixels” are of and exactly what they are formed in on the build surface. Specifically, it is unclear if the claim requires formation of these one or more pixels in the previously recited material layer, in particular, or whether such formation may be construed as taking place distinct therefrom.
The claim 17 recitation of “pixels of adjacent print heads” subsequent to the recitation of “one or more pixels on the build surface” is confusing. It is unclear if or exactly how the subsequently recited print head pixels differ, if at all, from the previously recited pixel(s) on the build surface. If these refer to the same pixel(s), then the same or similar broad-narrow indefiniteness issue addressed under MPEP § 2173.05(c) would exist due to the initial reference to as few as “one” pixel with the latter reference being strictly to multiple “pixels”. If the latter pixels are intended to be distinct from those recited previously, then these would lack antecedent basis in view of the only previously recited pixels being those formed on the build surface. In either case, a fully supported clarifying amendment should be made.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear whether the “adjacent print heads” recited in the 2nd to last line of claim 17 in fact refer back to the same “adjacent printheads of the plurality of printheads” recited in the previous line, whether these may be construed as distinct adjacent printheads of the previously recited plurality of printheads, whether these are intended as all adjacent printheads of the plurality of printheads, or whether these may be construed as adjacent printheads entirely distinct from the plurality of printheads.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed to any previously recited component, it is unclear at the end of claim 17 exactly what the recited “transverse direction” is of.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear if or exactly how the claim 18-20 energy source arrays relate back to the printheads and/or adjacent printheads of claim 17, including for example whether the claim 18-20 arrays are intended to provide the one or more pixels and/or offset pixels of claim 17, or whether these may be construed as entirely distinct therefrom and/or as not necessarily forming and/or having said pixel(s).
This same or similar indefiniteness issue exists also for the claim 21 “one or more energy sources”. It is unclear how these relate to the claim 17 printheads, if at all, and whether these form or have the claim 17 pixels.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear if or exactly how the claim 19 optical assemblies relate back to the claim 17 printheads, including for example whether the printheads are necessarily comprised of the optical assemblies or whether the optical assemblies may be construed as distinct at least in part therefrom.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear whether the claim 30 pixels refer back to the “one or more” pixels of claim 17, or whether they may be construed as distinct at least in part therefrom. If these are the same, then it is noted further that: (1) claim 30 references multiple pixels without first further limiting the one or more pixels to the multiple pixels, which is confusing, and also that: (2) the claim 30 formation of such pixels by as few as one of the printheads conflicts in scope with the claim 17 formation thereof by multiple, adjacent printheads.
The claim 31 recitation of “additional” redundant printheads lacks antecedent basis due to no such “redundant” printheads being recited previously.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In particular:
The claim 30 reference back to as few as “one” or more printheads for pixel formation broadens and/or conflicts in scope with the claim 17 stipulation of pixel formation via “two” or more printheads.
Absent persuasive argument contesting this issue, appropriate correction by amendment is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Rejection 1
Claims 17, 18, 23-27, and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoo et al. (US 8,888,480).
As to claim 17, Yoo teaches a fig. 1 method in which build plates 10 are transported from first to second locations around conveyor 2, whereby printheads of printing system 4 are selectively activated in the manner claimed to selectively fuse one or more portions of a material layer deposited on a build surface of the build plate by layering system 3. Note that the claim term “printhead” is defined broadly by the instant specification as including one or more of an optical assembly, laser energy source, and/or binderjet array/assembly (spec. p. 4 [0021], etc.), with one or more of such components disclosed for example in the corresponding description of Yoo’s fig. 1 in addition to at least figs. 3-5, etc., with disclosure also being made of print “modules” which may be construed as printheads, and with an express disclosure of multiple printheads made for example at 16:31-3217:65, etc. It is noted that pixels of adjacent printheads would be inherently offset in the manner claimed and as represented for example by the fig. 4-5 depiction of offset groups of print modules which each can be construed as comprising module pixels (and with such modules again being construable as printheads as well due to the instant specification’s broad definition thereof). It is noted also that two or more adjacent printheads, regardless of how this term is construed in Yoo, form at least one or more pixels on the build surface in the manner claimed, in particular by way of the liquid material being deposited therefrom. See also the 10:38-42, 19:21-30, 30:30, etc. binding/adhering (i.e. fusing).
Yoo’s above-cited method also comprises the claim 18 directing energy (construed broadly as that inherently present in the falling material deposited by the above-cited printheads thereof) with a plurality of energy source arrays (construed broadly as the print modules of figs. 4-5), comprises the claim 23-26 conveyor and transporting (see the above citations), comprises the claim 27 height adjustment (3:29-30), comprises the claim 29 holding stationary (16:43-50), comprises what may be construed as the claim 31 redundant printheads in the form of the additional above-cited printheads, comprises the claim 32 use of a recoater (4:51-5:3), and comprises the claim 33 flowing gas via recovery system 11, with the gas provided through/from a space between the printheads and at least one of the above-cited build plates transported by the above-cited conveyor. While Yoo does not specify an exact pixel spacing, claim 30 provides for a spacing greater than 0.5 mm or less than 2.0 mm, which is inclusive of virtually any spacing and is in turn met by whatever spacing exists between Yoo’s pixels.
Rejection 2
Claims 17, 21, 23-29, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Houben et al. (US 10,987,868).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Houben as applied to at least claim 17.
As to claim 17, Houben teaches a method in which a build plate 2, 3, 22-24, 202, etc. is transported from a first to a second location, during which one or more printheads (disclosed as 8:62-65 light sources, LEDs, laser diodes, or mirrors, based on the instant specification’s broad definition of the term “printhead” as including one or more of an optical assembly and/or laser energy source (spec. p. 4 [0021], etc.)) are selectively activated as claimed (8:53-9:2) to provide the claimed fusing (note that the disclosed curing or solidification, either of the 8:18 liquid or 8:22 powder, constitutes fusing, with this term recited explicitly for example at 16:15). See also the fig. 3-7 embodiments and their corresponding description as relevant. It is noted that pixels of adjacent printheads, construed for example as individual ones of the above-cited LEDs, laser diodes, or mirrors, would be inherently offset to some extent in the manner claimed. It is noted also that two or more adjacent such printheads would form at least one or more pixels on the build surface in the manner claimed regardless of how irradiation takes place therefrom (e.g. whereby irradiation from adjacent LEDs, for example, overlap to form a single pixel, whereby the irradiation does not overlap thereby forming distinct pixels, and/or whereby irradiation continues during the above-cited transport so as to form multiple pixels regardless of whether irradiation from the adjacent LEDs overlaps).
Houben’s above-cited method is believed to comprise the claim 21 melting on account of the above-cited solidification/fusing, comprises use of the claim 23 conveyor (see at least the above citations), comprises the claim 24-25 transporting from the second to the first location using a closed loop conveyor (figs. 4-7), comprises the claim 26 transporting of a plurality of build plates (see at least the above citations), comprises the claim 27 height adjustment (see at least fig. 2 in addition to figs. 10 and 12-15 as relevant), comprises the claim 29 holding stationary (note, for example, description of a curing “station” 34), is believed to comprise the claim 31 operation of what may be construed as redundant printheads which would operate and to at least some extent compensate for a potential failure of one or more other of the above-cited printheads, and comprises the claim 32 component 4 which constitutes a recoater on account of its use to recoat previously deposited material with additional material for example in figs. 4-6.
Houben further teaches a shaping resolution lower than 1 micron or as high as 300 microns (8:66-9:2), which is believed to convey the ability to form pixels having a spacing falling into the alternative claim 30 range of less than 2.0 mm. Additionally/alternatively, it is noted that actual pixel spacing, as provided by Houben’s local/selective solidification/fusing, would depend on and/or be impacted by the size, shape, and/or configuration of article being manufactured. It is believed that the formation of pixels with a spacing which meets the claimed range could have been accomplished by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation utilizing Houben’s disclosure as a guide in accordance with MPEP 2144.05(II), for example to manufacture an article having a different, unique, or more complex size, shape, and/or configuration.
Claims 18-20 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houben as applied to at least claim 17 above, or in the alternative over Houben in view of either Erickson et al. (US 2018/0272601) or Hoganson et al. (WO 2021/138275).
Houben’s above-cited method additionally comprises the claim 18 energy direction, but discloses only a single energy source array (of the disclosed LEDs, laser diodes, or mirrors) as opposed to a plurality of such arrays. However, the claimed provision of multiple arrays is believed to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of one or more of the following interpretations:
(a) Duplication of prior art parts is considered generally obvious absent unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). In this case, duplication of Houben’s single array would yield the claimed multiple arrays, and it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Houben as such, for example to enable the irradiation of material arranged on multiple build plates simultaneously.
(b) In addition or in the alternative to interpretation (a), Houben teaches one or more embodiments in which multiple irradiation means are utilized (e.g. fig. 7 means 707-709). In addition to array 708, it would have been obvious to substitute one or more of 707 and 709 with another array such as that disclosed by Houben at 13:43-47 and/or 8:61-66, as art-recognized alternative irradiating means.
(c) In addition or in the alternative to interpretations (a)-(b), each of Erickson and Hoganson similarly discloses additive manufacturing, but with a plurality of energy source arrays. In Erickson, such arrays are disclosed in addition or in the alternative to one or more other energy sources which are similarly disclosed by Houben (see at least [0044]). In Hoganson, any number of sources and/or arrays may be provided (claim 2, [0026]) and may be scalable to accommodate structures of different sizes (abstract, [0017]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from either Erickson or Hoganson into Houben either as providing motivation to utilize more than one of Houben’s array, or as providing additional arrays so as to expedite or facilitate the manufacturing process, and/or to accommodate structures of different sizes.
The claim 19 use of a plurality of optical assemblies, in addition to the claim 20 use of a plurality of laser energy sources, are believed to be met by Houben and/or Houben in view of either Erickson or Hoganson as set forth under the rejection of claim 18 interpretations (1)-(3) above. See also Houben at figs. 3, 11, etc. for the claim 28 rotation.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houben as applied to at least claim 17 above, and further in view of either Uckelmann et al. (US 10,548,695) or Yoo et al. (US 8,888,480).
Houben is not believed to specify flowing the claim 33 gas. However, in a related method pertaining also to additive manufacturing, Uckelmann teaches providing an atmosphere in which a controlled and/or inert gas is provided (i.e. flowed) (see at least 6:24-34), with a flow of such gas believed to exist between apparatus components as claimed. Further, Yoo teaches a similar method in which gas is flowed via recovery system 11, with the gas provided through/from a space between printheads of print assembly 4 and at least one of build plates 10 being transported by conveyor 2 (see at least fig. 1 and its corresponding description). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the above teachings from Uckelmann into Houben as providing such a flow of controlled and/or inert gas, in particular within and/or across Houben’s manufacturing space, so as to improve product quality and/or preclude contamination and/or undesired interaction with the surrounding environment. Alternatively, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the above teachings from Yoo into Houben as providing such a flow of gas for helping to recover and reuse excess build material.
Rejection 3
It is noted that while not outlined herein for the sake of brevity, a rejection is also applicable over a number of additional references of record or hereby added to the record which likewise anticipate, or render obvious, one or more of the pending claims. For example:
US 10,384,436 is believed to anticipate at least claim 17 for the same or similar reasons set forth at Page 10 lines 7-9 of the Office action issued 21 August 2025. Due to how pixels are presently claimed, individual diodes disclosed thereby may be construed as the claimed offset pixels, with one or more pixels formed on the build surface by adjacent diodes, which may be construed as printheads based on how this term is defined by the instant specification as including, for example, optical assemblies.
This reference should be addressed in reply to this Office action via amendment and/or remarks.
Interview Request
Applicant’s Representative is again encouraged to contact the Examiner upon review of the instant Office action so as to discuss the claimed invention, the above prior art rejection and other applicable prior art, and how it is believed that the crux of the claimed and disclosed invention distinguishes over the prior art as a whole, particularly if it is believed that such a discussion will help to advance prosecution.
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 Atul P. Khare whose telephone number is (571)270-7608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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 A. 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.
/Atul P. Khare/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742