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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 30, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 13 and 15-27 are pending. Claim 14 has been canceled. Claims 13 and 26 have been amended. Claim 27 is new. Claims 18-24 have been withdrawn. The rejections are revised in view of the amendment.
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) 13, 15, 25, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Brule (US 2022/0403206).
Regarding claim 13, Brule discloses a method of manufacturing a 3-dimensional model object by a powder bed fusion method with a resin granular material ([0038-41]), wherein the resin granular material comprises a resin powder (A) (polymer powder, abstract) and a flow aid (B) ([0188]), a sphericity of the resin powder (A) is 90 or more and 100 or less ([0106]), the resin powder (A) has a D80 particle size of 55 μm or less (D90 of 50 μm, [0097]; an overlapping range is also taught, 50-150 μm; See MPEP 2144.05), a D20 particle size of 1 μm or more (D10 of at least 10 μm, [0095]), and a D50 particle size of 1 μm or more and 40 μm or less (25 μm, [0094] [0101]; an overlapping range is also taught, 25-60 μm; See MPEP 2144.05), a BET specific surface area of the resin powder (A) is 5m2/g or less (0.5-1 m2/g, [0109-11]), the flow aid (B) is contained at an amount of more than 0.01 part by mass and less than 5 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the resin powder (A) (1% of flow aid by weight is within this range, [0188]), and steps (a) to (c) are repeatedly performed in this order: (a) a stage of a vessel for forming the 3-dimensional model object is lowered by an amount in a range of 0.01 mm or more and less than 0.10 mm (lowering by a layer thickness of 60 μm, [0041]; layer thickness is 60 μm, [0131] [0168]), (b) the resin granular material is supplied to the vessel for forming the 3-dimensional model object to layer the resin granular material ([0039]), and (c) a thermal energy is imparted to the resin granular material layered at a layering height of 0.01 mm or more and less than 0.10 mm (layer thickness of 60 μm, [0041]; layer thickness is 60 μm, [0131] [0168]) to selectively melt and sinter the resin granular material ([0040]).
Regarding claim 15, Brule discloses wherein the resin granular material contains 10 parts by mass or more and 200 parts by mass or less of an inorganic reinforcing material (C) with respect to 100 parts by mass of the resin powder (A) (3 wt.% of glass fibers as reinforcing material, [0142]).
Regarding claim 25, Brule discloses wherein the inorganic reinforcing material (C) comprises glass fibers or carbon fibers ([0142]).
Regarding claim 27, Brule discloses wherein the stage of the vessel for forming the 3-dimensional model object is lowered by an amount in a range less than 0.06 mm (lowering by a layer thickness of 60 μm, [0041]; layer thickness is 60 μm, [0131] [0168]).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brule (US 2022/0403206) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Snyder (Understanding Laser Powder Bed Fusion Surface Roughness).
Regarding claim 16, Brule discloses wherein the thermal energy is a laser energy ([0040] [0050]), and the laser energy is imparted to the resin granular material (sufficient energy to cause particles to coalise (coalesce) and solidify, [0135]). Brule teaches a method substantially as claimed. It is not clear from Brule that the the laser energy is 0.2 J/cm2 or more and less than 2.0 J/cm2 per unit area imparted to the resin granular material.
However, in the same field of endeavor of powder bed fusion (title), Snyder teaches wherein the laser energy is 0.2 J/cm2 or more and less than 2.0 J/cm2 per unit area imparted to the resin granular material (laser power is a result effective variable that can tune surface roughness, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to tune the energy imparted, 071003-4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method of Brule to tune the energy imparted because 071003-4 of Snyder teaches that the energy imparted is a result effective variable for surface roughness of the resulting object. With the other limitations met, it would have been obvious for such tuning to fall within the recited range.
Regarding claim 17, Brule does not disclose the surface roughness of resulting objects. Brule teaches a method substantially as claimed. Brule does not disclose wherein a surface roughness of a 3-dimensional model object to be obtained in a plane direction in which the resin granular material is layered is 20 μm or less, and a surface roughness of the model object in a height direction in which the resin granular material is layered is 20 μm or less.
However, in the same field of endeavor of powder bed fusion (title), Snyder teaches wherein a surface roughness of a 3-dimensional model object to be obtained in a plane direction in which the resin granular material is layered is 20 μm or less, and a surface roughness of the model object in a height direction in which the resin granular material is layered is 20 μm or less (laser power is a result effective variable that can tune surface roughness, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to tune the energy imparted and the resulting surface roughness, 071003-4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Brule to tune the surface roughness and energy imparted because 071003-4 of Snyder teaches that the energy imparted is a result effective variable for surface roughness of the resulting object. With the other limitations met, it would have been obvious for such tuning to fall within the recited range.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brule (US 2022/0403206) and optionally in view of Hu (US 2021/0071020) and Snyder (Understanding Laser Powder Bed Fusion Surface Roughness).
Regarding claim 26, Brule discloses a method of manufacturing a 3-dimensional model object by a powder bed fusion method with a resin granular material ([0038-41]), wherein after performing a step for producing the resin granular material by dry blending a flow aid (B) at an amount of more than 0.01 part by mass and less than 5 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of a resin powder (A) (polymer powder, abstract; 1% of flow aid by weight is within this range and is dry blended by context because it is in powder form, [0188]) having a sphericity of 90 or more and 100 or less ([0106]), a D80 particle size of 55 μm or less (D90 of 50 μm, [0097]; an overlapping range is also taught, 50-150 μm; See MPEP 2144.05), a D20 particle size of 1 μm or more (D10 of at least 10 μm, [0095]), a D50 particle size of 1 μm or more and 40 μm or less (25 μm, [0094] [0101]; an overlapping range is also taught, 25-60 μm; See MPEP 2144.05) and a BET specific surface area of 5 m2/g or less (0.5-1 m2/g, [0109-11]), steps (a) to (c) are repeatedly performed in this order:(a) a stage of a vessel for forming the 3-dimensional model object is lowered by an amount in a range of 0.01 mm or more and less than 0.10 mm (lowering by a layer thickness of 60 μm, [0041]; layer thickness is 60 μm, [0131] [0168]), (b) the resin granular material is supplied to the vessel for forming the 3-dimensional model object to layer the resin granular material ([0039]), and (c) a thermal energy is imparted to the resin granular material layered at a layering height of 0.01 mm or more and less than 0.10 mm (layer thickness of 60 μm, [0041]; layer thickness is 60 μm, [0131] [0168]) to selectively melt and sinter the resin granular material ([0040]), and (d) forming a 3-dimensional model object ([0002]).
Brule teaches a method substantially as claimed. It appears from context that the addition of the flow aid is by dry blending because the material would be in a powder form before and after the addition.
However, for the sake of compact prosecution, in the same field of endeavor of preparing powders for powder bed fusion, (abstract), Hu teaches dry blending a flow aid (B) with a resin powder (A) ([0079]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Brule to dry blend the polymer powder and the flow aid because [0079] of Hu teaches that an additional component to a polymer powder (thermoplastic particulate) can be mixed by dry blending techniques.
Bruhle in view of Hu teaches a method substantially as claimed. Bruhle is not explicit as to a surface roughness of 20 μm or less in a height direction in which the resin granular material is layered.
Brule does not disclose the surface roughness of resulting objects. Brule teaches a method substantially as claimed. Brule does not disclose a surface roughness of 20 μm or less in a height direction in which the resin granular material is layered.
However, in the same field of endeavor of powder bed fusion (title), Snyder teaches (d) a surface roughness of 20 μm or less in a height direction in which the resin granular material is layered (laser power is a result effective variable that can tune surface roughness, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to tune the energy imparted and the resulting surface roughness, 071003-4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Brule to tune the surface roughness and energy imparted because 071003-4 of Snyder teaches that the energy imparted is a result effective variable for surface roughness of the resulting object. With the other limitations met, it would have been obvious for such tuning to fall within the recited range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that using small-particle-size resin particles with a vessel stage lowered by less than 0.10 mm as taught by Brule would not have avoided poor flowability and a rough surface without the includes of a flow aid. This argument is not persuasive because [0188] of Bruhle teaches the inclusion of a flow aid.
Applicant next argues that embodiments of Bruhle teach double applied layer thickness of 120 μm. This argument is not persuasive because [0131] of Bruhle teaches a range of 60-120 μm, with [0168] teaching embodiments with a layer of 60 μm (double layer of 30 μm). Accordingly, Applicant’s argument that Bruhle does not teach the recited layer thickness is rebutted by these citations to Bruhle. Applicant’s remaining arguments regarding Bruhle focus on other embodiments that are outside the recited range. This argument does not rebut the teachings of embodiments within the recited ranges.
Next, Applicant argues that Snyder does not teach recited surface roughness by using a resin powder with the recited particle size range. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because 071003-4 of Snyder teaches that laser power is a result effective variable that can tune surface roughness, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to tune the energy imparted and the resulting surface roughness. Applicant’s argument that the alleged specific combination of particle teachings of Bruhle with the recited tuned surface roughness is simply an explication of 071003-4 of Snyder that that laser power was a previously known result effective variable for surface roughness.
Applicant’s last argument is that the teachings of Snyder for metal powders are not combinable with methods related to resins. In doing so, Applicant argues that laser irradiation of metal powders and resin powders are so materially different that teachings for one cannot be applied to the others. Notably, Applicant does not argue that surface roughness when using a resin powder cannot be tuned by laser powder. Accordingly, on the present evidence, Snyder’s teachings regarding irradiation of a metal powder are also true of irradiation of a resin powder. Applicant cannot therefore sustain an argument that laser irradiation of metal powders and resin powders are so materially different that teachings for one cannot be applied to the others. Snyder is not cited for a specific power level, but for the teaching that power level is a result effective variable for surface roughness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/ Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744