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 .
Response to Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-12 and 18-22, drawn to a method of printing an internal bridge in a three-dimensional object, in the reply filed February 5, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 13-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, Group II, drawn to a printing system, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-22 are pending and Claims 1-12 and 18-22 are considered in this office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an in contact with” should be “and in contact with” in line 7. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an in contact with” should be “and in contact with” in line 7. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the supported stepout. where n is an n'th anchor stepout.” should be “the supported stepout, where n is an n'th anchor stepout.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of Claim 7. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show:
a supported stepout onto an edge of a bridging layer (Fig. 2B refers to internal bridge 210 however feature 210 appears to be merely a channel wall with no bridge present; Fig. 3A-3C, bridging layer is not present or not labelled; Fig. 3A-3C, depiction of ‘stepout’ is unclear or absent)
an anchor layer adjacent to and in contact with a supported stepout (Fig. 3A-3C, anchor layer 304 does not contact supported stepout 300)
an unsupported stepout adjacent to and in contact with the supported stepout (Fig. 3A-3C, it appears that unsupported stepout 302 drops do not contact supported stepout 300; Fig. 3A-3C, depiction of ‘stepout’ in either supported stepout out or unsupported stepout is unclear or absent – stepout unclear from top down view).
Depiction of contact points between the unsupported and supported stepouts and between the anchor layer and supported stepouts, as well as the internal bridge feature comprising the above features and further depiction of the stepout features (overhangs) therein, are missing from the figures, due particularly from lack of any cross-sectional views.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claim 1, and dependent claims 2-12 and 18, and Claim 19, and dependent claims 20-22, internal bridge is interpreted as inclusive of a channel wall or an overhang (see Fig. 2A, internal bridge is depicted as channel wall).
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.
Claim 1, and dependent claims 2-12 and 18, and Claim 22, 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.
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear how the supported stepout is a stepout, and it is unclear if an overhang is required to be considered a stepout. The instant specification states “a supported stepout is defined as a series of drops, or droplets in full contact with and on top of the bridging layer or other support structure in a 3D object”; however, this appears to be mutually exclusive from an overhang which would not be in full contact with and on top of the layer underneath. Therefore it is unclear how a layer is a stepout but also not an overhang. The claims are interpreted that the supported stepout is a drop directly supported by a drop or structure (including substrate) underneath and wherein there is no overhang (stepout distance is 0).
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear what the anchor layer is, where it is located, and how it is configured in connection/contact with supported stepout drops and unsupported stepout drops. The claim recites “an anchor layer adjacent to and in contact with a supported stepout”, but also “an unsupported stepout adjacent to and in contact with the supported stepout”. It is unclear if all three types of stepout drops are in contact with each other in order to achieve this.
Dependent Claims 11-12 further recite wherein there may be no print material and no support material between the anchor layer and the substrate, and the specification similarly recites “an anchor layer is a series of drops within an overhang that has a larger drop spacing as compared to the bridging layer, supported stepout, or unsupported stepout, wherein no print material is deposited between the anchor layer and a substrate”.
Thus, while it appears that Claim 1 reads that the drops of the anchor layer are in contact with and therefore partially supported by the supported stepout drops (such that the supported stepout drops would therefore read on both print material and support material), the specification, the dependent claims and also the drawings (see Fig. 3A-3C wherein anchor layer 304 does not appear to contact supportive stepout 300) seem to contradict the claim language. It is therefore unclear how the claimed and intended configuration is either possible, and/or what it looks like. Examiner notes that the figures in the instant specification do not clarify the configuration as the figures only depict the top view whereas the specification and claims seem directed to cross-sectional view descriptions.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “depositing a plurality of drops of a printing material in a first direction to form a supported stepout” (line 2) and “depositing a plurality of drops of the printing material to form an anchor layer adjacent to and in contact with a supported stepout” (line 5). It is unclear if the two supported stepouts are different or the same supported stepout. The claim also recites “depositing a plurality of drops of the printing material to form an unsupported stepout adjacent to an in contact with the supported stepout (line 7). It is unclear which supported stepout ‘the supported stepout’ refers to (see above, line 2 and line 7).
Regarding Claim 1, the claims recite ‘an unsupported stepout’, but also wherein the unsupported stepout drops are deposited to contact the supported stepout. It is unclear how the drops are unsupported when they are contacting (essentially attached to and therefore supported by) the supported stepout drops.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites wherein each drop of the plurality of drops used to form the anchor layer is deposited in a second direction opposite the first direction (see Claim 1, “depositing a plurality of drops of a printing material in a first direction to form a supported stepout”); however, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that each drop of the instant disclosure are deposited vertically, and it is unclear how drops would be deposited opposite the vertical direction. Examiner interprets wherein the direction refers to the print/tool path, rather than the deposition direction of the drops (see para. [0034], wherein tool path is clockwise and counter-clockwise).
Regarding Claim 6, it is unclear what the line spacing is because there is no established range for ‘n’th’ unsupported stepout, and therefore the metes and bounds for 0.25*n is unclear. Additionally, it is unclear if n is a distance or a numerical value, or how to distinguish from one unsupported stepout to another. Therefore it is unclear what the meaning of n is. Further, the claim recites ‘a supported stepout’ in line 2, and it is unclear if this refers to one of the stepouts from Claim 1 or a different, other supported stepout. ’Examiner interprets the stepout to be the distance from one supported region to another supported region.
Regarding Claim 7 and Claim 18, it is unclear what the line spacing is because there is no established range for ‘n’th’ anchor stepout and is unclear what the anchor stepout is. Additionally, it is unclear if n is a distance or a numerical value, and therefore the metes and bounds for 0.25*n is unclear. Further, the claim recites ‘from the supported stepout’ and it is unclear which supported stepout the claim is referring to (see Claim 1, 112b rejections above).
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites depositing ‘a third plurality of drops of the printing material to form an anchor layer adjacent to and contact with a supported stepout at a third drop spacing’; however, Claim 1 already establishes ‘an anchor layer’ and ‘a supported stepout’. It is unclear if the same anchor layer a second, different anchor layer is being referred to, and which supported stepout is being referred to (see Claim 1 112b rejection above), or if another, different supported stepout is being referenced. Additionally, there does not appear to be language regarding a ‘second plurality of drops’, and it is unclear what ‘a third plurality of drops’ consequently refers to.
The claim further recites depositing a plurality of drops of the printing material to form an unsupported stepout adjacent to and in contact with ‘the anchor layer at a second drop spacing’. It is unclear if this is the anchor layer from Claim 1, which comprises a [the] second drop spacing, or a different anchor layer. Due to the repeated language ‘a second drop spacing’ (as opposed to ‘the second drop spacing’), it is unclear how many anchor layers there are and which are being referenced.
Regarding Claim 11 and Claim 12, the claim recites wherein there is no print material or support material between either the anchor layer, or the unsupported stepout, and a substrate; however, it is unclear how this is possible while still meeting the contact requirements of Claim 1 (see Claim 1 112b rejection above) and further, it is unclear if how an internal bridge is considered internal if located on the exterior of the printed object (i.e., no print material underneath; see also Fig. 2A wherein internal bridge which forms channel is built over print and supported material).
Regarding Claim 22, Claim 19 (from which Claim 22 depends from) recites “a number of unsupported stepout layers, n,” and Claim 22 recites both “wherein n is an n’th unsupported stepout” and “wherein n is an n’th anchor stepout”. The metes and bounds of n are unclear as n appears to represent multiple, different variables.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mantell947 (US 20210121947 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Mantell947 discloses a method of printing an internal bridge in a three-dimensional object (Fig. 7B), comprising:
depositing a plurality of drops of a printing material in a first direction to form a supported stepout onto an edge of a bridging layer (Fig. 7B, R1:C4, L1 on edge of 604 of layer L1; Fig. 6, path 606; see also Image 1 below);
depositing a plurality of drops of the printing material to form an anchor layer adjacent to and in contact with a supported stepout (Fig. 7B, 604 of layer L2 adjacent to and in contact with L1 of R1:C4; see also Image 1 below); and
depositing a plurality of drops of the printing material to form an unsupported stepout adjacent to and in contact with the supported stepout (Fig. 7B, R1:C4, L2 (drops 700); see also Image 1 below); and wherein
the internal bridge formed by the unsupported stepout and the anchor layer are disposed at an angle relative to the edge of the bridging layer of 0 degrees to about 30 degrees (para. [0062], theta as low as about 20 degrees).
PNG
media_image1.png
484
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1: Annotated Fig. 7B of Mantell947
Mantell947 discloses wherein the anchor layer is formed with a first drop spacing and the unsupported stepout is formed with a second drop spacing (see Fig. 9B, unsupported layer/ramp drop spacing of 902 is smaller than the drop spacing of the anchor (lateral) layers 602; see also Fig. 9A, overlap formed in anchor layer drops), as claimed,
Mantell947 further teaches that in order to form an offset from one layer to the next that mitigates separation from product layers, an offset distance (drop spacing) of 0.2-0.8 the mean target diameter is used (para. [0073]-[0074]; Fig. 14). While this offset is directed to a singular column, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate and could easily apply these parameters for other offsets desired and attached to product layers, including the offsets adjacent to anchor layers and/or supported layers used to form the unsupported stepout (see Fig. 7B and Fig. 9B wherein ramp/sloped edge of unsupported layer is formed by offsetting drops from L1 to L2, etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a drop spacing of 0.2-0.8 the diameters of the droplet for the unsupported layers which form an offset from the supported and bridge layers, as taught by Mantell947, in order to mitigate separation of the unsupported layers (see teaching above).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the anchor layer (and product/bridging layers) to comprise a 0% overlap (see Fig. 7B and Fig. 9B) and would therefore comprise a drop spacing equal to the mean target diameter. Thus, a layer with no overlap (drop spacing = target diameter), such as the anchor layer, would comprise a drop spacing which is 1.25-5 greater (inverse of 0.2-0.8 range) than a layer comprising an offset, i.e., the unsupported layer, which reads on the claimed range of 1.75-2.50.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 2, Mantell947 discloses a first drop spacing which is the target diameter, and wherein the target diameter may be up to about 700um, which reads on the claimed 0.7mm (para. [0066]; see Claim 1 reasoning above and Fig. 7B and 9B which depict anchor and support layers with no overlap and therefore drop spacing equaling the target diameter).
Regarding Claim 3, Mantell947 discloses wherein the target diameter may be up to about 700um (0.7mm), such that the second drop spacing for forming an offset is 0.2-0.8 that of 0.7mm, or 0.14-0.56mm, which overlaps and reads on the claimed 0.32mm (para. [0066]; para. [0073], see teaching and reasoning for offset above in Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Mantell947 discloses wherein each drop of the plurality of drops used to form the unsupported stepout is deposited in the first direction (Fig. 6B, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that all drops are deposited vertically; see also print path direction 606 in Fig. 6A which applies to unsupported stepout drops).
Regarding Claim 5, Mantell947 discloses wherein material forming pillars, the unsupported stepouts, and the supported stepout drop (see drops 600, 702, 700 – see Fig. 7B; see Image 1 above, wherein these drops comprise different hatching patterns than the print material forming the anchor layer) are formed using a one-way print path in order to allow cooling of each dot and therefore stable height which is also supportive due to cooling time (Fig. 6, path 606; para. [0058]).
Mantell947 further discloses wherein the product print material (and further, see Image 1 above for example, that which forms the anchor layer) may be printed along any desired print path as the material does not need to be completely cooled prior to additional drop deposition (para. [0058]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that any desired print path (first direction) is inclusive of a print path direction opposite of the print path of the pillars, unsupported stepouts and supported step out drops (second direction), and therefore the claim limitations have been met. Additionally, Applicant has not provided criticality to the second direction.
Regarding Claim 6, Mantell947 teaches wherein the unsupported stepout is formed at a line spacing equal to the 0.2-0.8 the target diameter from the supported stepout (see Claim 1 explanation above; distance between drops in the horizontal plane additionally reads on line spacing). Mantell947 further discloses wherein the target diameter may be up to 700um and wherein pillars (see Fig. 7B, C1:C4) are spaced within the range of 0.1-10mm (para. [0066]; para. [0073]). One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore appreciate that the unsupported stepout (distance of unsupported material between pillars) would be about 0.1-10mm.
Thus a line spacing for a target diameter of 700um (0.7mm) would be 0.14-0.56mm (0.2*0.7mm to 0.8*0.7mm), which overlaps and reads on the claimed 0.25*n mm, where n is the unsupported stepout (distance between pillars of 0.1-10mm), and 0.25*n is 0.025-2.5mm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 7 and Claim 18, Mantell947 discloses wherein the anchor layer and is formed at a line spacing equal to the target diameter (see Claim 1 explanation above; distance between drops in the horizontal plane additionally reads on line spacing). Mantell947 further discloses wherein the target diameter may be up to 700um, such as and one of ordinary skill in the art would also appreciate that the anchor layer is formed at a spacing which is a target diameter away with respect to the supported stepout drop location (see Fig. 7B and Image 1 above, anchor layer is one diameter spacing form supported droplet).
Mantell947 further discloses wherein pillars (see Fig. 7B, C1:C4) are spaced within the range of 0.1-10mm (para. [0066]; para. [0073]). One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore appreciate that the unsupported stepout and also the anchor step out which contacts the unsupported step out (distance of unsupported and anchor material between pillars) would be about 0.1-10mm.
Thus a line spacing for a target diameter of 700um (0.7mm) overlaps and reads on the claimed 0.25*n mm, where n is the anchor stepout (distance between pillars of 0.1-10mm), and 0.25*n+0.125mm is 0.150-2.625mm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 8, Mantell947 discloses repeating the steps of forming anchor layers and unsupported stepouts (see Fig. 9B, wherein stepouts are repeated between C3 and C2, and again between C2 and C1), which reads on claimed steps a)-c) which recite:
(a) depositing a third plurality of drops of the printing material to form an anchor layer adjacent to and in contact with a supported stepout at a third drop spacing;
(b) depositing a plurality of drops of the printing material to form an unsupported stepout adjacent to an in contact with the anchor layer at a second drop spacing; and
(c) repeating steps (b) and (c) until a required number of unsupported stepouts are deposited.
Regarding Claim 9, Mantell947 discloses increasing a temperature of an area surrounding the three-dimensional object (para. [0075]).
Regarding Claim 10, Mantell947 discloses comprising heating a portion of the internal bridge (para. [0075]).
Regarding Claim 11, Mantell947 discloses wherein no print material is deposited between the unsupported stepout or the anchor layer and a substrate (Fig. 7B, no print material is printed between drops 700 and substrate 100).
Regarding Claim 12, Mantell947 discloses wherein no support material is between the unsupported stepout or the anchor layer and a substrate (Fig. 7B, no material is present between drops 700 and substrate 100).
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mantell111 (US 20220234111 A1) in view of Sachs (US 5807437 A).
Regarding Claim 19, Mantell111 discloses a method of printing an internal bridge in a three-dimensional object (Abstract; para. [0001]; see Fig. 2A of instant specification, wherein channel wall (overhang) reads on internal bridge; see claim interpretation above), comprising:
calculating a number of unsupported stepout layers, n, in the internal bridge based on a lateral dimension of an overhang of the internal bridge divided by a line width (Fig. 1A, para. [0018]-[0020]; Fig. 1B; line width is total stepout distance; lateral dimension is stepout distance of single pass); and
depositing an anchor layer in a first direction at a first drop spacing and an unsupported stepout at a second drop spacing (para. [0020] and Fig. 1A, drop spacing for first stepout (unsupported) and drop spacing of second stepout (anchor) may be the same or different)).
Mantell111 fails to disclose depositing the unsupported stepout (first stepout) in a second direction which is opposite of the first direction (of anchor layer and second stepout).
Sachs teaches wherein a printhead prints droplets in a first direction (first pass) and then in an opposite direction (second pass) in order to control speed of the tool path and to control overlapping to produce a desired supply over a surface (Abstract; Fig. 6B). While Sachs is directed to droplet placement of binder, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the application to droplets of other material which require certain placements, supply amounts and overlapping of material to a surface in additive manufacturing.
Mantell111 further teaches wherein overlapping between stepouts may be required to distribute the weight of the overhang (para. [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed a first stepout pass (unsupported stepout) in a direction which is opposite of the direction of the second stepout pass (anchor layer), as taught by Sachs, for the invention disclosed by Mantell111, in order to control the speed of the tool path and to control overlapping to produce a desired supply over a surface and properly weighted stepouts for an overhang (see teachings above).
Regarding Claim 20, Mantell111 discloses wherein the line width is 0.25 mm (para. [0019], step out distance of 0.25mm, reads on line width).
Regarding Claim 21, Mantell111 teaches wherein drop spacing is correlated with step out distance required, which is determined empirically for a particular additive manufacturing setup. Thus, Mantell111 teaches wherein drop spacing is a result effective variable, the effect being the stepout distance. Further, Mantell111 teaches wherein a stepout distance may be split into multiple passes which may be unequal in order to distribute the weight of the drops (see para. [0021]), and teaches greater stepout distances may include overlap for the innermost stepouts for the same reason (para. [0022]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the stepout splicing parameters is also a result-effective variable, the effect being weight distribution of the overhang.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the drop spacing and thereby the stepout distance of the unsupported stepout (first drop spacing) and also the drop spacing and thereby the stepout distance of the anchor layer (second drop spacing) to be within the claimed drop spacing values in order to distribute the weight properly by splicing the stepouts and in order to comprise the proper overlap for a particular additive manufacturing setup and desired overhang, as taught by Mantell111. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.I. Further, Applicant has not provided criticality towards the claimed equation and has not established a range for the value ‘n’.
Regarding Claim 22, Mantell111 discloses forming an unsupported stepout from a supported stepout (para. [0019], fully supported drop at the end of an infill area adjacent to a first drop forming a step-out edge). Mantell111 teaches achieving a total desired stepout, which is larger than a maximum stepout, by using multiple passes, and by splicing the stepouts (using different line spacings) in order to obtain proper weight distribution from the supported perimeter (stepout) (para. [0020]-[0022]). Therefore Mantell111 teaches that the stepout splicing parameters (line spacing) is a result-effective variable, the effect being weight distribution of the overhang.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stepout distance splicing parameters, and therefore the line spacing (stepout distance) of the unsupported stepout and the anchor layer, to be within the claimed values in order to distribute the weight properly for a desired overhang, as taught by Mantell111. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.I. Further, Applicant has not provided criticality towards the claimed equation and has not established a range for the value ‘n’.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
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.
CATHERINE P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights