DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10 June 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 10 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Remarks submitted 10 June 2026 pertaining to the 10 March 2026 Office action are considered moot in view of new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 18, 19, 21, 28, and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
It is believed that “fusing” in claims 18 and 29 and “melting” in claim 21 should each be changed to “melting and fusing”.
Absent persuasive argument contesting this issue, appropriate correction by amendment is required.
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.
Claims 17-19, 21, and 23-34 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:
The difference in number between the “one or more” claim 17 selectively melted and fused portions (i.e. as few as one selectively melted and fused portion) and the recited “pixels” (i.e. a plurality of pixels) is confusing. It is additionally unclear, since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, exactly how the pixels relate back to the selectively melted and fused portion(s). Since these are believed to correspond to one another, it is unclear how multiple pixels could be formed with as few as one melted or fused portion. See MPEP § 2173.05(c) regarding broad-narrow indefiniteness issues.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear if or exactly how the claim 17 line 6 “energy sources” (in the recitation of “wherein energy sources of two or more adjacent optical assemblies…”) relates back to the energy sources first recited at line 3 of the claim. A suggested correction appears under issue (d) below.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear in claim 17 exactly what the recited “pixels” are formed of and exactly what they are formed in on the build surface. Specifically, it is unclear if the claim requires pixel formation 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 “respective pixels of adjacent optical assemblies” is confusing and raises numerous indefiniteness issues as follows:
Antecedent basis is not clearly provided back to the previously recited “respective pixels”, thereby raising a question as to if or exactly how the subsequently recited pixels relate back to the previously recited pixels.
If the subsequently recited pixels correspond to the previously recited pixels, then reference thereto as being “of adjacent optical assemblies” is further confusing due to previously recited energy sources (not optical assemblies) being specified as forming the respective pixels.
Recitation of pixels being “of” the optical assemblies is also confusing in that the pixels are previously recited as formed “by”, not “of” the energy sources.
If the subsequently recited pixels are related to the previously recited pixels, then the line 6-8 recitation that energy sources are merely “configured” to form respective pixels is confusing and raises antecedent basis issues. Specifically, a configuration to form pixels does not necessarily result in said formation.
These (and other) issues might be addressed at least by changing the claimed wherein clauses for example to “wherein respective ones of the energy sources of two or more adjacent optical assemblies of the plurality of optical assemblies form respective pixels on the build surface offset from one another in a direction transverse to a direction of said transport of the build plate”.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear if or exactly how the claim 17 and claim 34 “direction of transport” relates back to the claim 17 step of transporting, in particular whether the transporting takes place in the direction of the transport, or whether the direction of transport may be construed as distinct therefrom. This issue may be addressed by changing “a direction of transport” to “a direction of the transporting”, or by adding “in a direction of transport” to the claim 17 transporting step.
It is unclear why claims 18, 21, and 29 refer back strictly to melting or fusing, as opposed to both melting as fusing as added to claim 17 by the 10 June 2026 amendment. A suggested correction appears under objection (a) above.
The claim 21 recitation of “the one or more energy sources of the adjacent optical assemblies” lacks antecedent basis, in particular since “one or more” is only utilized previously to describe selectively activated energy sources as opposed to a total number thereof. That is, the only previous recitation of adjacent optical assemblies refers to energy sources (plural) as opposed to as few as “one” such energy source.
The claim 30 recitation of “the one or more of the plurality of optical assemblies” lacks antecedent basis, in particular since “one or more” of the plurality of optical assemblies is not recited previously.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear if or exactly how the “one or more redundant optical assemblies” of claim 31 relate to or differ from “the plurality of optical assemblies”, including for example whether the one or more is selected from or should be construed as distinct therefrom.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment is required.
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 17-19, 21, 23-27, 29-30, and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dallarosa et al. (US 2017/0021455, made of record via IDS on 13 June 2023) in view of Houben et al. (US 10,384,436).
As to claim 17, Dallarosa teaches a method in which one of numerous optical assembly embodiments may be utilized, one of which is disclosed for example in fig. 3 as comprising a two-dimensional multiple beam optical head including a two-dimensional array of optical fiber outputs coupled to respective light/energy sources (see the corresponding description of fig. 3). According to a first interpretation, respective rows/columns of the array may each be construed as one of the claimed plurality of optical assemblies; according to a second interpretation, each module of the [0077] modular configuration may be construed as one of the claimed plurality of optical assemblies. The energy sources are selectively activated to selectively melt and fuse one or more portions of a material layer on a build surface of a build plate in the manner claimed, with respective pixels of adjacent optical assemblies offset from one another in a direction transverse to a direction in which the optical assemblies scan over the build surface (see the fig. 10 offset pixel pattern 1033, in addition to the fig. 10 arrow indicating scan direction).
Dallarosa differs from claim 17 in that the optical assemblies scan, as indicated above, by moving over the build plate as opposed to transporting the build plate in the manner claimed. However, Houben discloses a similar technique in which additive manufacturing is likewise performed, in particular with build material that may also be subjected to selective melting/fusing (see the 5:67-6:1 particle melting, in addition for example to the sintering referenced for example at 1:49, 1:54, and 1:58) or otherwise subjected to a corresponding build operation, whereby a production line may be utilized in which numerous build plates/platforms may be subjected to distinct processing steps simultaneously, each carrying respective build/construction material and in turn forming distinct additively manufactured articles simultaneously, thereby increasing throughput as compared with a system more closely resembling that of Dallarosa as described for example at 1:51-65 of Houben (see, for example, the corresponding description of Houben’s fig. 2 in which construction material is deposited over one build plate while another build plate is transported by a conveyor to optical device 15 where build material held on yet another build plate is subjected to energy provided therefrom, etc., said optical device likewise provided with optical assemblies and/or energy sources in the form for example of lasers and/or diodes). See also such transporting as depicted for example in Houben’s fig. 7 embodiment as well. Among other benefits, Houben’s configuration providing for build plate transport via conveyor further allows for manufacturing numerous products having a different shape simultaneously (4:18-20). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Houben into Dallarosa, in particular so as to provide transport of Dallarosa’s build plate instead of and/or in addition to Dallarosa’s disclosed scanning, so as to provide these same or similar above-cited benefits to the Dallarosa method as well, namely increased throughput via additive manufacture of numerous products simultaneously, including those having different shapes, through the ability to subject numerous build plates conveying through a production line to different processing steps simultaneously.
Dallarosa’s above method provides for the claim 18-19 array and the claim 21 selective melting. Houben’s above teachings, as incorporated into Dallarosa as set forth under the rejection of claim 17 above, provide for the claim 23-26 transporting of numerous build plates from first to second locations and back to the first location with a closed loop conveyor. The claim 27 height adjustment is disclosed both by Dallarosa (see powder bed support system 110) and Houben (fig. 3, etc.). The combination of Houben with Dallarosa is believed to provide, or be capable of providing the stationary claim 29 configuration in light not only of movement of device 15 not being disclosed in Houben, but also of the production line movement disclosed as taking place relative thereto; note also the combination of Houben with Dallarosa being based at least in part on the above-cited movement of the build plate(s) instead of optical assemblies. Dallarosa is further believed to teach a pixel spacing that meets or renders obvious the claim 30 range (see at least [0068] in addition to MPEP § 2144.05(I) regarding obviousness of overlapping ranges), with Dallarosa’s disclosure otherwise believed to provide motivation for one skilled in the art to reach the claimed spacing through routine optimization (see MPEP § 2144.05(II) regarding optimization in this regard, in addition to at least the above teachings as relevant). The claim 32 recoater is further disclosed by each of Dallarosa (fig. 1) and Houben (fig. 2), with Dallarosa further teaching the claim 33 gas (fig. 1) and the claim 34 lateral disposition (see at least fig. 10, in addition to figs. 8A-B, 5A-B, 7A-E, and 9 as relevant).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dallarosa in view of Houben ’436 as applied above, and further in view of Houben et al. (US 10,987,868).
Dallarosa teaches rotation of one or more optical components (see at least the final sentence of [0048]), but is not believed to disclose the claim 28 build plate rotation. However, Houben ’868 is recognized for similarly disclosing additive manufacture with a build platform being transported on a conveyor (abstract, figs. 1, 4-7, etc.), whereby explicit disclosure is made of build platform rotation allowing for better positioning of an article during manufacture (4:39-48, figs. 3, 11, etc.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate this ability for build platform rotation from Houben ’868 into (modified) Dallarosa so that the same or similar improvement and/or customization of positioning may be performed, which would in turn have facilitated manufacture of more complex architectures and/or distinct, unique articles.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dallarosa in view of Houben as applied above, or in the alternative over Dallarosa in view of Houben, and further in view of Bromberg et al. (WO 2020/237143).
It is believed that the redundant claim 31 optical assemblies may be construed broadly as any number of Dallarosa’s above-cited rows, columns, and/or modules during their respective operation. In the alternative that it is ultimately determined that the claimed redundancy in not in fact met as such, then Bromberg is recognized for similarly disclosing additive manufacture (abstract), whereby explicit disclosure is made of redundant components such as energy sources being provided in the event of failure (see at least [0063] and [00178]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Bromberg into (modified) Dallarosa as providing motivation for such redundancy for similarly mitigating the potential for component failure.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights