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 Amendment and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed June 25, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 1-2, 5-6 and 8-9 are amended. Claims 3-4 are cancelled. No new matter has been added.
Claims 12-14 and Claim 15 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, Group II, directed to a facility, and Group III, directed to a metal part, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely elected without traverse in the reply filed on February 24, 2026.
Claims 1-2 and 5-15 are pending and Claims 1-2 and 5-11 are currently considered in this office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, Claim 5 and Claim 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“metal part on a substrate” should be “metal part on a substrate” in line 1-2 of Claim 1 (please remove double space).
“plateswherein” should be “plates wherein” in line 11 of Claim 1.
“the distance between cooler and the last layer deposited” should be “the distance between the cooler and the last layer deposited” in Claim 5.
“deposited on a secondary substrate attached” (appears to have a double space between substrate and attached, please remove) in Claim 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 and 5-11, 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, the claim recites the limitation "the layer being deposited” in line 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites the limitation "the layer n" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites the limitation "the last layer deposited" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites the limitation "the layer n-1" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites the limitation "a last layer deposited n-1" in line 9. It is unclear if this is the same “last layer deposited” in line 5.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites the limitation "before a layer (n) being deposited” in lines 9-10. It is unclear if this is the same “ layer n” in line 5.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites the limitation "the layers deposited" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites the limitation "the plane of layers". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed October 5, 2023, US 20190184494 A1) and Hart (previously cited, US 20180200790 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Bennett discloses a method for the additive manufacturing of a metal part on a substrate (Abstract; Fig. 1), by adding at least one molten metal, layer by layer (para. [0017]), the method comprising the following steps:
step a: depositing the molten metal layer by layer, wherein a layer being deposited is a layer n and a last layer deposited is a layer n-1 (para. [0017]; para. [0021]),
step b: simultaneously with step a) od depositing, cooling, using a cooler that is movable relative to the substrate, a cooling zone located at least around the last layer deposited (n-1) and before the layer (n) is deposited (Fig. 1-2, cooling nozzle 26 (a single component and therefore one-piece as claimed; Fig. 3; para. [0019]; para. [0023]-[0026], cooling nozzle movable in any position and applied to workpiece during building; see also Fig. 1, cooling applied to previous layer(s) and before currently deposited layer).
Bennett discloses a single nozzle which is movable for cooling, which reads on a cooler which is one piece (Fig. 1-2, cooling nozzle 26 (a single component and therefore one-piece as claimed).
Bennett fails to disclose the distance between the cooler and the metal part and layer of the layers deposited.
Bennet teaches wherein the movable cooler may cool by forced convection, spray cooling (nozzle), or via material auxiliary to the build, such as a cooling plate (para. [0009]; para. [0023]; Fig. 1-2, cooling nozzle 26; para. [0010]).
Bennet teaches wherein a cooling plate specifically provides the ability to vary temperature spatially or temporally, applying different temperature profiles in space and time (para. [0010]; para. [0025]).
Hart teaches a cooler also comprising plates and which surround the built component in order to cool by forced convection (cooling elements), via material auxiliary (heat sinks) to the build, or further by cooling fluid such as air (Fig. 2, para. [0027], cooling side walls 230, 250 and 270; para. [0020]).
Hart teaches wherein the cooling plates may contact the metal part (reads on 0mm) or comprise a clearance (para. [0027]), and discloses clearance distances such as 0.05-5mm in order to effectively transfer heat, which further reads on the claimed range of 0-2mm (para. [0023]).
Hart teaches wherein these cooling plates allow for independent cooling paths to create zones within each cooling wall which may be independently controlled (para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have also used a cooler comprising multiple cooling plates which may contact the build piece (0mm clearance) or comprise a clearance distance of 0.05-5mm to the build piece, as taught by Hart, for the invention disclosed by Bennett, in order to tailor the cooling of different surface and zones surrounding the build through independently controlled cooling paths and zones within each cooling wall (see teaching by Hart), and the ability to vary the temperature spatially or temporally, applying different temperature profiles in space and time (see teaching by Bennet).
Regarding the distance between the cooler and the metal part, 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, Bennett discloses applying the cooler to the edge/side wall of the built up object, which reads on a cooling zone comprising at least two last layers deposited (n-1 and n-2) (Fig. 1, wherein cooler cools side portion of component and therefore previously formed layers forming the height (sidewall); see also Fig. 3 of instant invention wherein cooler also cools side portion of component).
Regarding Claim 5, Hart discloses wherein the distance between the cooler and the last layer deposited is adjusted to obtain a desired temperature for the last layer deposited (para. [0008], temperature control via vertical cooling structure; para. [0025]; para. [0023] and para. [0027] wherein distances and clearances of cooling plates are adjusted and cooling surfaces move relative to a fixed build surface; see also Abstract, para. [0024] and Fig. 2 of Bennett, wherein moveable cooling system maintains a desired temperature profile, and is moveable about track 32; one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate track 32 is curved and therefore adjustable towards or away from component – i.e., distance adjustable; see also para. [0020] and [0027]-[0028], wherein controller controls position of cooler to adjust cooling intensity).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed October 5, 2023, US 20190184494 A1) and Hart (previously cited, US 20180200790 A1), as applied to Claim 1, in further view of Huang (US 20220226943 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Bennett fails to discloses wherein the molten metal is deposited in a plane not parallel to the substrate.
Huang teaches a vertically orientated substrate comprising a secondary substrate (support layer) which is perpendicular to the substrate, wherein the workpiece layers are deposited perpendicularly to the substrate and are parallel to the secondary substrate, in order to form a 3D object without dripping or humping (para. [0005]-[0006]; Fig. 1 and Fig. 2C, substrate 10, layers Bw deposited perpendicularly to substrate 10 and parallel secondary substrate 15).
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 the substrate configuration and material deposition taught by Huang, including depositing material in a plane which is perpendicular to the substrate and parallel to a support substrate and wherein the support substrate is perpendicular to the substrate, for the invention disclosed by Bennett, in order to prevent humping and dripping (see teaching by Huang above). Depositing material in a plane which is perpendicular to the substrate reads on a plane which is not parallel, as claimed.
Regarding Claim 7, Huang discloses wherein the plane of the layers deposited form an angle substantially orthogonal to the substrate (Fig. 2c, layer Bw is perpendicularly to substrate 13).
Regarding Claim 8, Huang discloses wherein a first layer is deposited on a secondary substrate attached to the substrate, the first layer extending in a plane substantially parallel to a predefined axis (Fig. 2c, layer Bw is deposited on secondary substrate 15 which extends in a plane substantially parallel to layer Bw).
Regarding Claim 9, Bennet and Hart disclose wherein the cooler is movable relative to the substrate along an axis (X) parallel to the substrate (Bennet, para. [0027]-[0028], cooler position controlled relative to build (and therefore substrate); Fig. 1, see arrows of component which cooler 26 is mounted, movable along the length of the substrate (left and right) and therefore along an axis parallel to the substrate; Fig. 2, track 32 allows movement in X-direction; see also para. [0023], position controlled by independent motion or robotic system which would capable of multi-directional movement; see Hart, para. [0023]; [0025]; [0027]; Fig. 2-3).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed October 5, 2023, US 20190184494 A1) and Hart (previously cited, US 20180200790 A1), as applied to Claim 1, in further view of Steinberg (previously cited, US 20200306860 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Bennett discloses injecting shielding gas using a nozzle into an area comprising the metal component deposition layer during at least a portion of step a) and injecting inert gas using a nozzle to the cooling zone during at least a portion of step a) and step b) (para. [0009]; para. [0023]-[0024]; see Fig. 1 and para. [0007], gas injection for cooling occurs during building in step a) and cooling b); the language ‘some of the implementation’ is interpreted as any amount of implementation).
However, Bennet does not expressly disclose a diffuser or an inerting cell.
Steinberg teaches using inert shielding gas to prevent oxidation of the molten metal which could otherwise create voids, defects or discontinuities (para. [0045]). Steinberg teaches delivering (injecting) the inert shielding gas using a gas diffusing lens (diffuser) in order to create a relatively large area of slow-moving inert shielding gas that displaces oxygen around a portion of the metal component (para. [0046]). Steinberg further teaches using the gas diffusing lens with a bath of the inert shielding gas via a chamber which further surrounds the metal component, which reads on inerting cell (para. [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have injected an inert gas using a diffuser into an inerting cell which includes all of the metal component being built, as taught by Steinberg, and therefore including the cooling zone of Bennett during at least a portion of steps a) an b) as claimed, in order to ensure oxidation prevention of not only a relatively large area around at least a portion of the metal component but further the entire metal component via the inert cell (bath chamber) (see teaching above b Steinberg).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed October 5, 2023, US 20190184494 A1) and Hart (previously cited, US 20180200790 A1), as applied to Claim 1, in further view of Mellor (previously cited, US 20200001398 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Bennett discloses wherein the part is formed by deposition of layers on a first side of the substrate (Fig. 1), but fails to disclose wherein the part is also formed by deposition of layers on a second side of the substrate.
Mellor teaches wherein a substrate comprises multiple sides/surfaces and is rotatable in order to apply material onto each of the multiple surfaces/sides of the substrate as a means to provide a seed shape for the object being built (Fig. 11, para. [0020]; para. [0029]; para. [0045]). While Mellor is directed to melting foil for material deposition, the usage and teaching of the substrate would be compatible with other additive manufacturing systems that use different deposition processes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a part by deposition of layers on a first side and also a second side of a substrate, as taught by Mellor, for the invention disclosed by Bennett, in order to provide a seed shape for the object being built (see teaching above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 25, 2026, with respect to Claims 1-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Bennet, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Bennet in view of Hart, as detailed above.
Regarding Bennet:
Applicant argues that the claimed term “one-piece” refers to a monolithic structure forming the cooler, and argues that the cooler of structure does not comprise a plurality of walls forming plates surrounding the workpiece.
This argument is not found persuasive.
The cooling nozzle of Bennet is a single component and reads on the broadest most reasonable interpretation of “one-piece”. The claims also do not comprise the language wherein the one-piece comprises or means a monolithic structure, the specification does not provide an express definition for one-piece, and the claims do not comprise language wherein the cooler comprises a plurality of walls forming plates surrounding the workpiece.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (monolithic structure, plates surrounding the work piece, walls) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 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