DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-29 are pending.
Claims 21-29 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 11 May 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 21-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 6, 8, 10-12 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pain et al. (US 2021/0090901).
Regarding claim 1, Pain discloses an electrochemical system (abstract) (= an assembly) comprising:
A printhead (200) [0060] (= a deposition head) comprising an anode array (201) [0060] (= comprising an array of anode pixels disposed on a proximal surface of the deposition head) wherein the anode array (201) comprises a plurality of insoluble anodes [0086] and a plurality of corresponding control devices (202) [0060] (= wherein the array of anode pixels comprises a plurality of inert electrodes and a plurality of control devices configured to supply current to selected one or more of the plurality of inert electrodes);
A gap measurement system including multiple current sensors that detect for example impedance to determine the location of the cathode/build plate relative to a known position as well as the distance between the anode/cathode [0062], [0073] (= a gap measurement system comprising one or more sensing elements, wherein the gap measurement system is configured to measure a distance between the proximal surface of the deposition head to a surface of a workpiece by measuring an impedance of a region between at least one sensing element of the one or more sensing elements and an underlying portion of the workpiece); and
A processor with power supply (221) which supplies current that flows through the deposition anode array to drive metal deposition on part (230) [0064] (= a controller connected to the deposition head and configured to cause supplying a current and/or a voltage to the array or supplying a potential difference between the workpiece and the array, thereby forming an electric field defined by one or more anode pixels).
Regarding claim 2, Pain discloses a mechanical positioning system (= an alignment system) comprising a plurality of actuators (224, 224a) attached to the deposition head (200), where the actuators are configured to position the anode array with a first gap distance to the surface of the substrate seed layer (1601a) (Figure 18) [0055], [0063], [0106], [0108].
Regarding claim 3, Pain discloses vertical (225), horizontal movement [0063], [0109] and motion of the anode array may have as many as six degrees of freedom (225a) [0108]. The arrows of Figure 18 depict rotation.
Regarding claim 6, Pain discloses wherein the sensors are connected with processor which communicate with each other [0062] and the power supply with circuits being connected with the processor [0064], [0113].
Regarding claim 8, Pain discloses wherein the processor is configured to supply the current and/or voltage in a manner that provides a deposited feature [0052], and wherein the deposited feature is deposited by a single anode or by a plurality of anodes [0096], [0099].
Regarding claims 10-11, Pain discloses applying a voltage or current and then reversing the power supply using switches so that the anode array temporarily acts as the cathode [0086]. The secondary anode being platinum or copper which is used for electrodeposition [0086].
Regarding claim 12, Pain discloses a feedback signal system with the processor and sensors communicating together and therefore discloses applying an input signal wave [0062]. Pain further discloses the use of alternating current to obtain measurements [0058] (= signal wave).
Regarding claims 16-17, Pain discloses a processor as described above to obtain measured distances. Pain discloses setting, modifying and maintaining a relative position and orientation between the anode and plate including maintaining a consistent gap [0106].
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.
Claim(s) 4-5, 7, 9, 13-15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pain et al. (US 2021/0090901).
Regarding claim 4, Pain discloses the alignment system as described above. Pain discloses multiple actuators (Figure 18). Pain does not explicitly disclose the actuator elements arranged in a triangle, however, the mere rearrangement of actuators is an obvious engineering design choice in order to carry out the movement of the printhead (MPEP § 2144.04 VI). A triangle configuration for example would provide actuators positioned along multiple x,y coordinate positions.
Regarding claim 5, Pain discloses incorporation of sensing elements into the fabrication of the anode array to enable continuous characterization of the current flowing through each deposition anode [0058]. The sensor therefore is obtaining sensing data from the anode array include the surface of the anode. The sensors of Pain therefore reasonably disclose one or more sensing elements disposed on the surface. Pain discloses multiple circuits including control circuit (203) and power circuit (204) and wherein the sensors are communicating (e.g. through electrical communication) with a processor for providing feedback signals [0062].
Regarding claim 7, Pain discloses the anode array formed of insoluble material [0086] and wherein the sensors are incorporated into the fabrication of the anode array [0058]. Therefore the sensing element of Pain reasonably reads on the claimed comprises one of the plurality of inert electrodes since they are incorporated together. Moreover, it would have been obvious that the sensing element and anode would be combined since the sensing element is measuring for example the current across the anode to determine the gap distance.
Regarding claim 9, as currently written the claim indicates “configured to” claim language to the claimed controller. The controller of Pain is capable of performing supply a current, voltage or potential difference. Regarding the claimed ‘a set of contiguous anode pixels’ given the anode array of Pain, a contiguous arrangement of anodes would have been an obvious engineering design choice. An array of anodes reads on bordering anodes.
Regarding claims 13-15, the instant claims are directed towards the manner of operating the claimed assembly and do not further structurally limit the claimed device. Pain for example discloses the use of alternating current to obtain measurements [0058].
Regarding claim 18, Pain discloses a processor that uses feedback signals of the sensing data and communication with the actuators to set a relative position and orientation. The processor of Pain includes a microcontroller, microprocessor, GPU, FPGA, SoC, single-board computer, laptop, notebook, server, etc. [0062]. Pain discloses the processor that analyzes an object model to construct a build plan [0062]. Given the feedback system and impedance measurements of Pain, the disclosure of Pain reasonably reads on the claimed empirical model since the device of Pain is observing sensor data and providing feedback to the processor to thereby actively controlling the deposition process.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pain et al. (US 2021/0090901) in view of Pain et al. (US 10,914,000).
Regarding claims 19-20, Pain discloses a plurality of insoluble anodes [0086]. Pain discloses the printhead formed of insulating layers [0060]. Pain additionally discloses metal to be electroplating onto the plurality of insoluble anodes from a secondary electrode and deplated from the plurality of insoluble anodes onto the workpiece [0086].
Pain fails to disclose the inert electrodes recessed within holes of an insulting workpiece.
Pain (‘000) discloses a device for electrochemical additive manufacturing comprising a printhead (abstract) and an anode array (102) including deposition anodes (513a, 513b) within holes of insulating regions (514a, 514b, 514c) (Figure 5) (Col. 14 line 66 – Col. 15 line 54). Pain discloses that the insulating layers provide protection from electrodeposition chemistry and deposition environment (Col. 15 line 46 – Col. 16 line 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce an assembly comprising inert electrodes recessed within holes of an insulting workpiece because Pain (‘000) discloses that insulating layers provide protection from electrodeposition chemistry and deposition environment (Col. 15 line 46 – Col. 16 line 2). Regarding the confinement of claim 20, the claimed statement does not further structurally limit the claimed assembly. The insulating layers with openings of Pain (‘000) would necessarily confine the location of any metal electroplated onto the anodes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 104593830 – impedance measurements
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANIE S WITTENBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am -4:00 pm EST.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/Stefanie S Wittenberg/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights