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 5/22/2026, is acknowledged. Claims 1, 11, and 18 are amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, claims 4, 8-9, 11-17, and 20 are withdrawn.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 18 each recite “wherein the laser heating system is configured to heat a plurality of regions surrounding the target portion while providing less laser heating at the target portion than at the plurality or regions.” The instant specification provides support for heating a target portion (see, e.g., abstract, “The 3D printer also includes a laser heating system to heat a target portion of the part”), provides support for laser heating with a non-gaussian beam profile, such as a lobed beam profile and thus having regions of differing beam intensity (see para. 21 of PG Pub.) and provides support for heating “in the vicinity of a newly added drop of build material” (para. 53 of PG Pub) but does not recite a laser heating system configured to heat a plurality of regions surrounding the target portion while also heating “a target portion” as required by the claims (see Claim 1, “a laser heating system to heat a target portion”). Therefore, the limitation is deemed to contain new matter. Claims 2-3, 5-7, 10, 19 are rejected based on their dependency.
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 1-3, 5-7, 10, 18-19 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.
Independent claims 1 and 18 each require a laser or laser heating system “to heat a target portion of the part” and also recite “wherein the laser heating system is configured to heat a plurality of regions surrounding the target portion while providing less laser heating at the target portion than at the plurality or regions.” As detailed with respect to the 112(a) rejection above, this limitation may be interpreted as requiring heating in more than one region/portion outside the target portion while also heating the target portion. Alternatively, the limitation may be interpreted such that a target portion is merely, for example, a center point, and the plurality of regions comprise a plurality of regions of differing beam intensity representing the beam profile centered on the target point/portion. As these interpretations lead to mutually exclusive or contradictory configurations/regions of heating by a laser heating system, the limitations are rendered indefinite. Claims 2-3, 5-7, 10, 19 are rejected based on their dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maeda (US 2022/0176630)(previously cited).
With respect to Claim 1, Maeda teaches a three-dimensional printer device/apparatus comprising, a platen having a surface to support a part during fabrication of the part, a nozzle to expel molten metal arranged above the surface of the platen (i.e. an ejector head), the ejector head configured to eject liquid build material in the form of droplets toward the surface of the platen to fabricate the part (i.e. toward a target portion), and a targeted laser heating system to heat a target portion of the part during the fabrication of the part to control the interfacial temperature thereby improving a bond/adhesion between the build material and the target portion of the part as well as improving build strength, porosity, and/or surface finish. (para. 40-45, 92; Figs. 1-6).
Maeda further teaches wherein the laser heating system may be configured to output a laser beam having a non-Gaussian beam profile, for example, a Top-Hat or multimode profile. (para. 55, 71). As Maeda teaches heating an area in and around a “target” portion having a non-Gaussian beam profile and thus, a plurality of regions having different beam intensity/heating, this laser heating system is deemed to comprise “a laser heating system to heat a target portion” and also “wherein the laser heating system is configured to heat a plurality of regions surrounding the target portion while providing less laser heating at the target portion than at the plurality or regions.”
Accordingly, Maeda is deemed to teach a 3D printer with sufficient specificity to anticipate the instant claim.
With respect to Claims 2-3, Maeda teaches wherein the ejector head is to heat the build material to a molten build material and the build material is a molten metal. (para. 6, 42; Figs. 1-3, 6).
With respect to claim 10, Maeda teaches wherein the non-Gaussian beam profile is adjustable during the fabrication of the part, that is, the 3D printer is capable of adjusting the beam profile during fabrication of the part. (para. 43-48, 70-71, 82).
With respect to Claim 18, Maeda teach a laser heating system for a 3D printer comprising a laser to heat a target portion of a part during fabrication of the part by the 3D printer to improve a bond between build material ejected by the 3D printer and the target portion of the part, wherein the laser outputs a laser beam having a non-Gaussian beam profile. (see rejection of claims 1-3 above, incorporated here by reference).
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) 1-3, 5-7, 10, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (US 2022/0176630) (previously cited) in view of Thomson (US 2021/0129426) (previously cited).
In the alternative to the above rejections of claims 1-3, 10, and 18, if claim 1 is interpreted such that Maeda does not teach “a plurality of regions surrounding the target portion,” Thomson teaches a laser beam system for scanning a laser beam across a working surface in an additive manufacturing process, wherein the laser beam is configured to output a laser beam having a non-Gaussian beam profile. (para. 1, 8-10, 17, 19). In particular, Thomson teaches wherein the beam profile is azimuthally variable and comprises a plurality of higher intensity portions surrounding the center having a lower light intensity compared to the highest light intensity, deemed to constitute a beam profile comprising a plurality of lobes (as required by claim 6). (para. 72; Figs. 10-11). The reference teaches that this non-Gaussian beam profile is desirable to reduce differential heating of build material across the profile, as a Gaussian profile may overheat build material portions exposed to the center of the beam profile. (para. 72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the 3D printer apparatus of Maeda comprising a laser beam heating system capable of outputting a non-Gaussian laser beam profile, to comprise a laser beam heating system to output a laser beam having a non-Gaussian beam profile that is azimuthally variable comprising a plurality of lobes and exhibiting a lower light intensity at a center point as compared to the highest light intensity of the laser beam (and thus, wherein the laser heating system is configured to heat a plurality of regions surrounding the target portion while providing less laser heating at the target portion than at the plurality or regions), as taught by Thomson, in order to reduce unwanted differential heating of the build material and thereby obtain more uniform heating and bonding of the build material and part.
With respect to Claims 5-7 and 19, Maeda teaches a 3D printer having a laser heating system that may be configured to output a laser beam having a non-Gaussian beam profile as in claims 1 and 18, such as a multimode beam profile (see para. 55, 71; rejection of claim 1 above); however, the reference is silent as to whether the multimode beam profile comprises an azimuthally variable beam profile (claims 5-6) and/or comprises a lower light intensity at a center point (claim 7).
Thomson teaches a laser beam system for scanning a laser beam across a working surface in an additive manufacturing process, wherein the laser beam is configured to output a laser beam having a non-Gaussian beam profile. (para. 1, 8-10, 17, 19). In particular, Thomson teaches wherein the beam profile is azimuthally variable and comprises a plurality of higher intensity portions surrounding the center having a lower light intensity compared to the highest light intensity, deemed to constitute a beam profile comprising a plurality of lobes (as required by claim 6). (para. 72; Figs. 10-11). The reference teaches that this non-Gaussian beam profile is desirable to reduce differential heating of build material across the profile, as a Gaussian profile may overheat build material portions exposed to the center of the beam profile. (para. 72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the 3D printer apparatus of Maeda comprising a laser beam heating system capable of outputting a non-Gaussian laser beam profile, to comprise a laser beam heating system to output a laser beam having a non-Gaussian beam profile that is azimuthally variable comprising a plurality of lobes and/or exhibiting a lower light intensity at a center point as compared to the highest light intensity of the laser beam, as taught by Thomson, in order to reduce unwanted differential heating of the build material and thereby obtain more uniform heating and bonding of the build material and part.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (US 2022/0176630) (previously cited) in view of Malinowski (US 2021/003103) (previously cited).
In the alternative to the above rejections of claims 1-3, 10, and 18, if claim 1 is interpreted such that Maeda does not teach “a plurality of regions surrounding the target portion,” Malinowski teaches a laser beam system for scanning a laser beam across a working surface, wherein the laser beam is configured to output a laser beam having a multimode non-Gaussian beam profile such as azimuthally variable beam profile comprising a plurality of lobes and/or exhibiting a lower light intensity at a center point as compared to the highest light intensity of the laser beam. (para. 38-39, 47, 48-62, 130; Fig. 2, 20). Malinowski teaches that it would be beneficial for an additive printing device (e.g. 3D printer) to have a laser system with the capability above-described, in order to allow for faster more uniform processing of larger areas. (para. 3). In other words, while a Gaussian beam profile is useful in a 3D printer to obtain small feature size (e.g. in a selective laser sintering device) a laser system utilized for more generalized heating, such as that Maeda, would benefit from the ability to alter the beam profile as taught by Malinowski.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the 3D printer of Maeda which comprises a laser heating system outputting a multimode laser beam profile, to output a multimode laser beam profile exhibiting an azimuthally variable beam profile comprising a plurality of lobes and exhibiting a lower light intensity at a center point as compared to the highest light intensity of the laser beam (and thus, wherein the laser heating system is configured to heat a plurality of regions surrounding the target portion while providing less laser heating at the target portion than at the plurality or regions), as taught by Malinowski, in order to more quickly and uniformly heat larger targeted portions of a part.
With respect to Claims 5-7 and 19, Maeda teaches a 3D printer having a laser heating system that may be configured to output a laser beam having a non-Gaussian beam profile as in claims 1 and 18, such as a multimode beam profile (see para. 55, 71; rejection of claim 1 above); however, the reference is silent as to whether the multimode beam profile comprises an azimuthally variable beam profile (claims 5-6) and/or comprises a lower light intensity at a center point (claim 7).
Malinowski teaches a laser beam system for scanning a laser beam across a working surface, wherein the laser beam is configured to output a laser beam having a multimode non-Gaussian beam profile such as azimuthally variable beam profile comprising a plurality of lobes and/or exhibiting a lower light intensity at a center point as compared to the highest light intensity of the laser beam. (para. 38-39, 47, 48-62, 130; Fig. 2, 20). Malinowski teaches that it would be beneficial for an additive printing device (e.g. 3D printer) to have a laser system with the capability above-described, in order to allow for faster more uniform processing of larger areas. (para. 3). In other words, while a Gaussian beam profile is useful in a 3D printer to obtain small feature size (e.g. in a selective laser sintering device) a laser system utilized for more generalized heating, such as that Maeda, would benefit from the ability to alter the beam profile as taught by Malinowski.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the 3D printer of Maeda which comprises a laser heating system outputting a multimode laser beam profile, to output a multimode laser beam profile exhibiting an azimuthally variable beam profile comprising a plurality of lobes and/or exhibiting a lower light intensity at a center point as compared to the highest light intensity of the laser beam, as taught by Malinowski, in order to more quickly and uniformly heat larger targeted portions of a part.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann (US 2021/0162493) (previously cited) in view of Thomson (US 2021/0129426) (previously cited).
With respect to Claims 1 and 5-6, Herrmann teaches a three-dimensional printer apparatus/system comprising, a platform (i.e. platen) having a surface to support a part during fabrication of the part, an ejector head arranged above the surface of the platen, the ejector had configured to eject liquid build material, in the form of droplets, toward the surface of the platen to fabricate the part (i.e. toward a target portion), and a laser beam system to heat the drop contact points on which each successive build material drop is deposited, including on previously fabricated portions of the part, in order to improve the bond strength and uniformity of the build material and target portion of the part and to improve part properties including lower porosity, higher yield strength, improved surface quality and appearance. (para. 2, 22-25, 29-32, 39-45, 49-52; Figs. 4, 6-7, 9). Thus, the reference teaches a laser heating system to heat a target portion of the part during the fabrication of the part to improve a bond between the build material and the target portion of the part, wherein the laser system includes a laser to output a laser beam. Herrmann is silent as to whether the laser system outputs a laser beam having a Gaussian or non-Gaussian beam profile.
Thomson teaches a laser beam system for scanning a laser beam across a working surface in an additive manufacturing process, wherein the laser beam is configured to output a laser beam having a non-Gaussian beam profile. (para. 1, 8-10, 17, 19). In particular, Thomson teaches wherein the beam profile is azimuthally variable and comprises a plurality of higher intensity portions surrounding the center having a lower light intensity compared to the highest light intensity, deemed to constitute a beam profile comprising a plurality of lobes (as required by claim 6). (para. 72; Figs. 10-11). The reference teaches that this non-Gaussian beam profile is desirable to reduce differential heating of build material across the profile, as a Gaussian profile may overheat build material portions exposed to the center of the beam profile. (para. 72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the three-dimensional printing apparatus/system of Herrmann comprising a laser beam heating system, to comprise a laser beam heating system to output a laser beam having a non-Gaussian beam profile, in particular, a non-Gaussian beam profile that is azimuthally variable comprising a plurality of lobes, as taught by Thomson, and thus, wherein the laser heating system is configured to heat a plurality of regions surrounding the target portion while providing less laser heating at the target portion than at the plurality or regions, in order to reduce unwanted differential heating of the build material and thereby obtain more uniform heating and bonding of the build material and part.
With respect to Claims 2-3, Herrmann teaches wherein the ejector head is to heat the build material to a molten build material and the build material is a molten metal. (para. 2, 22, 28-29, 32, 40-44, 49-52; Figs. 6-7).
With respect to Claim 7, Herrmann in view of Thompson teach wherein the non-Gaussian beam profile exhibits a lower light intensity at a center point of the laser beam compared to a high light intensity of the laser beam. (see Thompson, para. 72; Figs. 10-11; rejection of claims 1 and 5-6 above).
With respect to claim 10, Thompson teaches wherein the laser heating system may be dynamically adjusted during an additive fabrication process, for example, adjusting the focal length of the laser beam, the propagation distance of the laser beam to the working surface, or the power of the laser beam. (para. 16-17, 19-24). Thus, Thompson teaches wherein the non-Gaussian beam profile is adjustable during the fabrication of the part. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the 3D printer of Herrmann in view of Thompson to provide a laser heating system wherein the non-Gaussian beam profile is adjustable during the fabrication of the part, as taught by Thompson, in order to tailor the beam profile to the portion of the part being fabricated allowing for more precise control over the heating.
With respect to Claims 18-19, Herrmann in view of Thompson teach a laser heating system for a 3D printer comprising a laser to heat a target portion of a part during fabrication of the part by the 3D printer to improve a bond between build material ejected by the 3D printer and the target portion of the part, wherein the laser outputs a laser beam having a non-Gaussian beam profile, for example, an azimuthally variable beam profile. (see rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-6 above, incorporated here by reference).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 10, and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 12 of copending Application No. 19/236714 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: the instant and related claims are both drawn to a 3D printing device having a substrate/platen, ejector arranged above the substrate to eject a molten metal build material in the form of droplets toward a target portion, and an adjustable laser heating system to heat a targeted portion of a fabricated part, wherein the laser may have a non-Gaussian beam profile, including Top-Hat or multimode donut profile, or a combination thereof, deemed to constitute wherein the laser heating system is configured to heat a plurality of regions surrounding the target portion while providing less laser heating at the target portion than at the plurality or regions. The related claims differ in that they are drawn to a method, however, the claims clearly set forth an “additive manufacturing device” and its related structure and functions and thus, teach or render obvious the same structural and functional elements of the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Maeda fails to disclose the newly recited limitations that Applicant refers to as a spatial heating relationship. This argument is not found persuasive.
First, it is noted that the newly added limitation drawn to wherein the laser heating system is configured to heat a plurality of regions surrounding the target portion while providing less laser heating at the target portion than at the plurality or regions is deemed indefinite and constituting new matter. Second, as Maeda teaches heating an area in and around a “target” portion having a non-Gaussian beam profile and thus, a plurality of regions having different beam intensity/heating, this laser heating system is deemed to comprise “wherein the laser heating system is configured to heat a plurality of regions surrounding the target portion while providing less laser heating at the target portion than at the plurality or regions.” Under an alternative interpretation of the limitation, Maeda in view of Thomson and Maeda in view Malinowski teach forming laser beam profile with a plurality regions (e.g. lobes) meeting the claim limitation.
Applicant argues with respect to Claim 10 that “A capability to adjust laser power or to provide optics that shape a beam profile is not an express disclosure of adjusting the non-Gaussian beam profile during fabrication.” (Remarks, p. 7). This argument is not found persuasive. The claims are drawn to an apparatus, not a method, and the prior art teaches an apparatus meeting the claimed structure and capable of performing such a function. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114.
Applicant argues with respect to the rejection of Maeda in view of Thomson, that the rationale for combination fails to meet the amended claims. These arguments are not found persuasive. The limitation is not distinguished from a non-Gaussian profile, for example, that of previously rejected claims 1, 6, and 7. Applicant fails to provide sufficient evidence or argument to rebut the combination and 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.
Applicant argues with respect to the rejection of Maeda in view of Malinowski that the combination fails to teach the amended limitations, that Malinowski is not drawn to configuring a laser system in a droplet-ejection printer, and argue against the rationale of combining Maeda and Malinowski. (Remarks, p. 11-12). These arguments are not found persuasive. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a laser heating system for heating a target portion of a part and/or substrate would be applicable to a variety of applications and techniques. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the apparatus of Maeda would look to the art of laser heating systems, not restricted to merely to heating systems in droplet-ejection additive manufacturing systems, as a variety of systems address the same problem of obtaining improved control over heating a material by laser heating systems.
Applicant argues that Hermann in view of Thomson teach “heating drop contact points on which build material drops are deposited. Herrmann does not teach or suggest configuring the laser heating system to provide less laser heating at that target portion than at surrounding regions.” These arguments are not found persuasive. As detailed above, the instant disclosure fails to provide support for this interpretation of the limitations. Moreover, the argument ignores the combination made under 103. 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).
Applicant argues with respect to the rejection of Herrmann in view of Thomson, that the rationale for combination fails to meet the amended claims. These arguments are not found persuasive. The limitation is not distinguished from a non-Gaussian profile, for example, that of previously rejected claims 1, 6, and 7. Applicant fails to provide sufficient evidence or argument to rebut the combination and 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.
Finally, Applicant does not provide a specific articulated argument drawn to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection and therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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 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