DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-9 and 21-31 are pending and currently under review.
Claims 10-20 are cancelled.
Claims 21-31 are newly added.
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
The amendment filed 1/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9 and newly submitted claim(s) 21-31 remain(s) pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/27/2025.
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.
Claims 1-9, 21-22, and 27 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. Claims 1 and 27 recite that “an initial layer of the component is formed by the granular media”, which is indefinite because it is unclear whether this requires either: 1) an initial layer of the component is formed by and includes the granular media (ie. granular media is integrated into the component), or 2) merely that an initial layer is shaped by and conforms to the granular media (ie. formed by contact with granular media). The examiner interprets the claim to be met by interpretation 2) as supported by the instant specification.
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) 1, 3, 6-7, 9, 21-23, 25, 27-29, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolen et al. (WO2020/072018) in view of Batchelder al. (US 2015/0097053), Gozdz (WO2014153535), and Bennet et al. (US 2017/0203515); and alternatively over the aforementioned prior art and further in view of Baker et al. (US 2020/0368815).
Regarding claims 1, 23, and 27, Dolen et al. discloses a metal 3D printer (ie. system and machine as claimed) which includes [p.3, fig.1]:
A extruder (3) which one of ordinary skill would readily understand to include a heating/melting element (ie. torch) and an external structure surrounding said heating/melting element (ie. housing coupled to torch)
A granular support material (12) beneath the extruder expanding over a printer area and forming a flat shape as depicted in [fig.1]
A filament material which is melted by the extruder onto the granular support material and accordingly conforms to the shape of said support material (ie. formed by the granular media) as depicted in [fig.1]
Dolen et al. does not expressly teach that the torch is partially within the housing as claimed, and Dolen et al. alternatively does not expressly teach a housing structure. Batchelder et al. discloses a fused filament additive manufacturing device [abstract, 0033, fig.1]; wherein it is known to provide an extruder device having a particular structure of a heater (20, 56a-b) (ie. torch) that is located partially within and coupled to a housing structure such as body (54) as shown in [fig.3-4]. This structure serves to desirably heat the filament material [0089-0091]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the printer of Dolen et al. by providing an extrusion head having the aforementioned structure of Batchelder et al. to achieve desired heating.
Dolen et al. does not expressly teach a sensor, support, and control system as claimed. Gozdz discloses for a three dimensional printer for metals [abstract, 0137]; wherein said printer includes a sensor (15) coupled to the outer housing of the nozzle (ie. support) and configured to measure the height of the nozzle in the z-axis (ie. sensor configured to measure first data of distance between nozzle and component/media) a controller (20) which communicates with sensors and corrects the z-axis height of the nozzle (ie. control system coupled to sensor and configured to send command to move torch in z-direction in response to data). The examiner notes that a first data “threshold” would naturally be present in the disclosure of Gozdz because “correcting” naturally requires an initial, pre-determined threshold value for comparison and correction. [0143-0144, fig.1]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the printer of Dolen et al. by including a sensor and control system for achieving the aforementioned control disclosed by Gozdz. Bennett et al. also discloses that it is known to calibrate a three dimensional printer by measuring the height of a print nozzle relative to the surface upon which printing is performed such that adjustment of the z-axis height of the nozzle can be performed during printing to compensate for variation in the nozzle-surface clearance (ie. component or media) [0018]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the controller of Gozdz by utilizing the calibration of Bennett et al. for the benefit of compensating for nozzle-surface variations. The examiner notes that the disclosure of a desired nozzle-surface clearance naturally requires a pre-determined threshold value for comparison and correction of said variances of Bennett et al.
Gozdz depicts the sensor (15) to be located on the extrusion head exterior (ie. housing). Although no support is expressly depicted, the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill and well-known in the art to couple a sensor to a housing by any desirable fastening means, wherein said fastening means meets the limitation of a support that is attached from and naturally extends away from said housing. Alternatively, Baker et al. discloses an additive manufacturing apparatus [abstract]; wherein it is known to mount and couple sensors (46) to deposition arm structures such that desired sensing can be performed [0032, fig.2]. Baker et al. further expressly depicts a supporting structure located between the sensor and deposition arm structure, which meets the limitation of a support coupled to and extending away from a housing as claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the printer of the aforementioned prior art above by mounting the sensor of Gozdz as depicted in the figures of Baker et al. for the aforementioned purpose. Alternatively, the examiner notes that all of the claimed features are disclosed in the prior art, although not necessarily in a single reference, wherein it would have been obvious to combine the features of the prior art of the particular 3d printer of the aforementioned prior art wherein the sensor can be mounted as depicted by Baker et al. for the predictable result of a 3d printer having sensors desirably placed in and detecting locations as desired. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The examiner further notes that the instant claim merely recites a particular placement of the sensor, which is prima facie obvious because the particular placement of a measuring device is held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(I) & MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claims 3 and 25, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system and machine of claims 1 and 23 (see previous). The examiner notes that a first deposited layer of Dolen can serve as an anchor which is within the cross-sectional area of the plate (ie. within the media), wherein further layers are deposited on top of said first layer (ie. material is layered on to the anchor to form the component).
Regarding claims 6 and 28, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system and machine of claims 1 and 23 (see previous). As stated above, Gozdz and Bennett et al. both disclose correcting the z-axis height of the nozzle in response to the sensors [0144 & 0018 respectively].
Regarding claims 7 and 29, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system and machine of claims 1 and 23 (see previous). Dolen et al. further teaches that the layers are formed to make a workpiece (6), which one of ordinary skill would understand to be a desired geometry [fig.1]. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill would also readily recognize that formation of a desired geometry from built-up melted layers is a common and basic, well-known principle of additive manufacturing.
Regarding claims 9, 21, and 31, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system and machine of claims 1 and 23 (see previous). The examiner notes that the “clearance” disclosed by Bennett et al. naturally refers to a minimum data threshold (ie. minimum variance from a desired distance between nozzle and surface) as recognized by one of ordinary skill. As stated above, Gozdz and Bennett et al. both disclose correcting the z-axis height of the nozzle in response to the sensors (ie. command to move the torch) [0144 & 0018 respectively].
Regarding claim 22, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the suggestion of the prior art combination results in a sensor that is mounted on an exterior housing and is therefore spaced away from the heating elements of Batchelder et al. as the housing is located between the sensor and heating elements (ie. torch). As stated previously, a support extending from the housing would have been commonly well-known and obvious or further obvious in view of Baker et al.
Claim(s) 2 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolen et al. (WO2020/072018) and others as applied to claims 1 and 23 above, and further in view of TOM (2021, InFiDEL).
Regarding claims 2 and 24, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system and machine of claims 1 and 23 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a second sensor configured to measure material diameter as claimed. TOM discloses that it is known to utilize filament diameter sensors to provide precise filament diameter readings in real-time during printing [“description” p.1]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the aforementioned prior art by including a filament diameter sensor for the above benefit of TOM. The examiner notes that inclusion of the filament diameter sensor of TOM would naturally result in connection and coupling of said sensor with the control system suggested by the aforementioned prior art. The examiner notes that Gozdz further teaches that it is known filament diameter is known to affect manufacturing parameters such as flow rate and properties [0139], such that the combination of the prior art suggests controlling the aforementioned parameters (as taught by Gozdz) based on measured filament diameter from the filament diameter sensor (disclosed by TOM).
Claim(s) 4 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolen et al. (WO2020/072018) and others as applied to claims 1 and 23 above, and further in view of Pucek (US 2018/0178304).
Regarding claims 4 and 26, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system and machine of claims 1 and 23 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach providing a hollow portion of the torch with an inert gas to form a shielding zone as claimed. Pucek discloses an apparatus for metal three dimensional printing [abstract]; wherein a hollow portion of a wire deposition nozzle is provided with an inert shielding gas that prevents oxidation of the wire [0037, 0043, fig.3]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the aforementioned prior art structure by providing a shielding gas within a hollow section of the nozzle for the aforementioned benefit. The examiner notes that any area affected by said shield gas can be considered as a shielding zone as claimed.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolen et al. (WO2020/072018) and others as applied to claims 1 and 23 above, and further in view of Maeda et al. (JP2020001302, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claim 5, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system and machine of claims 1 and 23 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach that the component deforms into a desired geometry as more material is layered onto the component as claimed. Maeda et al. discloses predicting deformation of an additively manufactured part to achieve ideal shapes [0089]. The disclosure of Maeda et al. includes determining an initially deformed part to be built, wherein said deformed part then further deforms as printing is completed such that said further deformation results in a convergence into an actual desired shape [0001-0002, 0005-0006, 0083-0086, fig.9a-e]. This initial deformation and convergence is considered to meet the claimed limitations of an initially deformed state and deforming and “reverse” deforming into a desired geometry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the suggested disclosure of the aforementioned prior art by including the control prediction of Maeda et al. for the aforementioned benefit.
Claim(s) 8 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolen et al. (WO2020/072018) and others as applied to claims 1 and 23 above, and further in view of Maeda et al. (JP2020001302, machine translation referred to herein) and Aoki et al. (JP2017222072, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claims 8 and 30, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system and machine of claims 1 and 23 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach that the media is topographically featured and changes based on a determined deformation of the component from simulation software. Aoki et al. discloses that it is known to provide a three-dimensional modeling apparatus with a deformation layer (42) on the surface of a table (41) (ie. build plate) [fig.7-8]. Said deformation layer is able to deform based on deformation of the component such that the component can deform without any undesirable peeling effects [0001, 0006-0007, 0044, fig.7-8]. Said deformation layer (42) is shown to be flat or to have topographical features (ie. slopes/curves) [fig.7-8]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the suggested machine of the aforementioned prior art by including the flat/topographical media of Aoki et al. for the aforementioned benefit.
The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach that said component deformation is from a simulation software as claimed. Maeda et al. discloses predicting deformation of an additively manufactured part based on simulation models to achieve ideal shapes [0089-0092]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the suggested disclosure of the aforementioned prior art by including the control prediction based on simulation software of Maeda et al. for the aforementioned benefit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 regarding the 102 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Although said 102 rejections are currently withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments, applicant’s arguments are still addressed to present a clear record.
Applicant argues that Gozdz does not teach a housing which is required in the claims. As expressly stated in the previous office action, one of ordinary skill would understand that 3d printers will inherently include some kind of housing structure based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “housing”. Since applicant does not refute this point with facts or evidence to the contrary, the examiner cannot concur.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim amendments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection above.
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 NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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 A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734