DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/18/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-21 remain pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 8/28/2025. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 8/28/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the line spacing is decreased as the overhang moves farther from the overhang edge must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Applicant argues that these features are supported, for example, by FIG. 6, describing an experimental relationship between stepout distance and line spacing showing closer lines as the overhang size increases, (remarks, pages 7-8). This is not found convincing because FIG. 6 does not show where the “overhang edge” is in relation to the extended or central overhang. FIG. 6 uses the term “stepout distance.” Any relationship between stepout distance and the overhang edge is unclear. No new matter should be entered.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 13, 19, and 21 now recite “the line spacing is decreased as the overhang moves farther from the overhang edge.” The instant specification fails to provide support for “the line spacing is decreased as the overhang moves farther from the overhang edge.” Applicant argues that these features are supported, for example, by paragraphs [00025]-[00026] (definitions of "line spacing" and parallel deposition along the overhang edge), para. [00046] and FIG. 6, describing an experimental relationship between stepout distance and line spacing showing closer lines as the overhang size increases, and finally, in para. [00058], which discloses where the controller decreases line spacing as overhang printing proceeds to maintain a flat region and avoid droop/curl (remarks, pages 7-8). This is not found convincing because FIG. 6 does not show where the “overhang edge” is in relation to the extended or central overhang. FIG. 6 uses the term “stepout distance.” Claims 2-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected due to their dependence on the claims 1 and 19.
Claim 21 now recites “ejecting one or more drops of the print material at a second frequency and a first line spacing.” The instant specification fails to provide support for “ejecting one or more drops of the print material at a second frequency and a first line spacing.” The instant specification teaches that “ejecting one or more drops of the print material at a second frequency is done at the same time as ejecting one or more drops of the print material at a second line spacing” (paragraphs [0006], [0056], and claim 5).
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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, 13, 19, and 21 now recite “the line spacing is decreased as the overhang moves farther from the overhang edge.” It is unclear if “the overhang edge” is the edge closest to the main body or furthest from the main body. It is unclear where the overhang edge is located when the unsupported overhang is a central overhang. Claims 2-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected due to their dependence on the claims 1 and 19. The overhang edge is not labeled in the drawings.
Claims 8-9 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 8 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1 contains the limitation “the second line spacing is less than the first line spacing.” Claim 8 contains the limitation “the first line spacing is greater than the second line spacing.” This is simply a restatement of the limitation the second line spacing is less than the first line spacing from claim 1 and fails to further limit the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 9 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1 contains the limitation “the second line spacing is less than the first line spacing.” Claim 9 contains the limitation “the second line spacing is greater than the first line spacing.” This contradicts the limitation the second line spacing is less than the first line spacing from claim 1 and thus claim 9 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 15 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1 contains the limitation “a second line spacing is less than the first line spacing.” Claim 15 contains the limitation “the first line spacing is greater than the second line spacing.” This is simply a restatement of the limitation a second line spacing is less than the first line spacing from claim 1 and fails to further limit the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 16 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1 contains the limitation “a second line spacing is less than the first line spacing.” Claim 16 contains the limitation “the second line spacing is greater than the first line spacing.” This contradicts the limitation a second line spacing is less than the first line spacing from claim 1 and thus claim 16 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parenthesis. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
Claims 1, 6, 8-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Himmel et al. (US 20240091859 A1), previously cited.
Regarding claims 1, 6, 8-9, and 13, Himmel teaches “a method and an apparatus for manufacturing a component in layers, in particular by dropwise application of a liquid material using a printhead” (which reads upon “a method of forming a three-dimensional part, comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0001]). Himmel teaches “a hull-core strategy is used to build up an individual layer by the deposition of individual drops along calculated paths” (which reads upon “ejecting one or more drops of a print material at a first frequency to form a portion of a three-dimensional part; ejecting one or more drops of the print material at a first line spacing”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0022]). Himmel teaches that “since paths cannot be traversed at sufficiently high path speeds in regions of high local curvature due to the limited axis dynamics of the printhead 102 or the moving apparatus 104, lesser path speeds must be used in some circumstances, resulting in lower drop generation frequencies” (which reads upon “a first frequency”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0042]). Himmel teaches that “another advantage of the present invention is that the compensation of overhanging regions of the component makes possible that more complex components having such overhanging regions can be manufactured without the use of support structures” (which reads upon “creating an unsupported overhang onto the three-dimensional printed part”, as recited in the instant claim; which reads upon claim 6; paragraph [0012]). Himmel teaches that “the overhang can have a negative effect on the flatness of the layer, since the component can round off towards the overhang and sag” (paragraph [0038]). Himmel teaches that “it has been found that this can be counteracted by increasing the third spacing DBH between the outermost of the outer paths 24 of the hull and the contour 12 in the layer 14 in the region of the overhang 11 by a compensation spacing Δ” (which reads upon “ejecting one or more drops of the print material at a second line spacing when creating at least a portion of the unsupported overhang; and wherein: drops are ejected at a first drop spacing when ejected at the first line spacing or at the second line spacing”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0038] and FIGs. 4-5; spacing is widest between the outermost of the outer paths 24 of the hull and the contour 12 in the layer 14 in the region of the overhang 11, which reads on the line spacing is decreased as the overhang moves farther from the overhang edge such that the second line spacing is less than the first line spacing). Himmel teaches that “in FIG. 5 , dotted lines show the path 24′ without correction that would be used if there were no overhang, while the path 24 actually used is corrected so that it extends further inward, that is, toward the core region 18, by the compensation spacing Δ” (paragraph [0038]). Himmel FIG. 1 shows that the unsupported overhang is oriented at an angle of from 0 degrees to about 45 degrees relative to a print bed; and; and no portion of the unsupported overhang contacts the print bed (FIG.1; the bottom layer, i-3 is interpreted as the base, and not as a portion of the unsupported overhang). Himmel teaches that “the dropwise application of the liquid material 16 in the outer region 20 takes place along one or more outer paths 24 that extend parallel to the contour 12” (which reads upon “and during creating the unsupported overhang lines of print material drops are deposited parallel to an overhang edge”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 10, Himmel teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Himmel teaches that “one or more parameters relating to the spacing between paths to be traversed, the drop size, the spacing between successive drops, etc. is selected so that the layer (14) will have a thickness that is as uniform as possible” (abstract).
Regarding claim 11-12, Himmel teaches the method of claim 10 as stated above. Himmel teaches that “over the course of this, a position of the last droplet 41 on the outer path 24 before stopping of the application and, based thereon, a position of the first droplet 42 on the outer path after continuation of the application can further be determined so that a direct spacing f*DVS, hull between the two droplets is a predetermined spacing” (paragraph [0043]). Himmel teaches that “for example, this spacing can be 0.8 to 1.2 times the spacing DVS, hull between adjacent drops in sections of the outer path 24 in which the contour 12 does not include the region 13” (paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 19, Himmel teaches “a method and an apparatus for manufacturing a component in layers, in particular by dropwise application of a liquid material using a printhead” (which reads upon “a method of forming a three-dimensional part”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0001]). Himmel teaches “a hull-core strategy is used to build up an individual layer by the deposition of individual drops along calculated paths” (which reads upon “ejecting one or more drops of a print material to form a portion of a three-dimensional part; ejecting one or more drops of the print material at a first line spacing while forming the three-dimensional part”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0022]). Himmel teaches that “another advantage of the present invention is that the compensation of overhanging regions of the component makes possible that more complex components having such overhanging regions can be manufactured without the use of support structures” (which reads upon “creating an unsupported overhang onto the three-dimensional printed part”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0012]). Himmel teaches that “the overhang can have a negative effect on the flatness of the layer, since the component can round off towards the overhang and sag” (paragraph [0038]). Himmel teaches that “it has been found that this can be counteracted by increasing the third spacing DBH between the outermost of the outer paths 24 of the hull and the contour 12 in the layer 14 in the region of the overhang 11 by a compensation spacing Δ” (paragraph [0038] and FIGs. 4-5; spacing is widest between the outermost of the outer paths 24 of the hull and the contour 12 in the layer 14 in the region of the overhang 11, which reads on the line spacing is decreased as the overhang moves farther from the overhang edge such that the second line spacing is less than the first line spacing). Himmel teaches that “in FIG. 5 , dotted lines show the path 24′ without correction that would be used if there were no overhang, while the path 24 actually used is corrected so that it extends further inward, that is, toward the core region 18, by the compensation spacing Δ” (paragraph [0038]). Himmel FIG. 1 shows that the unsupported overhang is oriented at an angle of from 0 degrees to about 45 degrees relative to a print bed; and; and no portion of the unsupported overhang contacts the print bed (FIG.1; the bottom layer, i-3 is interpreted as the base, and not as a portion of the unsupported overhang). Himmel teaches that “the dropwise application of the liquid material 16 in the outer region 20 takes place along one or more outer paths 24 that extend parallel to the contour 12” (which reads upon “and during creating the unsupported overhang lines of print material drops are deposited parallel to an overhang edge”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 20, Himmel teaches the method of claim 19 as stated above. Himmel teaches that “the surface tension of the liquid material used, for example a metal, enables the manufacture of overhangs” (paragraph [0010]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 6, 8-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himmel et al. (US 20240091859 A1), previously cited), in view of Mantell et al. (US 20220234111 A1), previously cited.
Regarding claims 1, 6, 8-9, and 13, Himmel teaches “a method and an apparatus for manufacturing a component in layers, in particular by dropwise application of a liquid material using a printhead” (which reads upon “a method of forming a three-dimensional part, comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0001]). Himmel teaches “a hull-core strategy is used to build up an individual layer by the deposition of individual drops along calculated paths” (which reads upon “ejecting one or more drops of a print material at a first frequency to form a portion of a three-dimensional part; ejecting one or more drops of the print material at a first line spacing”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0022]). Himmel teaches that “since paths cannot be traversed at sufficiently high path speeds in regions of high local curvature due to the limited axis dynamics of the printhead 102 or the moving apparatus 104, lesser path speeds must be used in some circumstances, resulting in lower drop generation frequencies” (which reads upon “a first frequency”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0042]). Himmel teaches that “another advantage of the present invention is that the compensation of overhanging regions of the component makes possible that more complex components having such overhanging regions can be manufactured without the use of support structures” (which reads upon “creating an unsupported overhang onto the three-dimensional printed part”, as recited in the instant claim; which reads upon claim 6; paragraph [0012]). Himmel teaches that “the overhang can have a negative effect on the flatness of the layer, since the component can round off towards the overhang and sag” (paragraph [0038]). Himmel teaches that “it has been found that this can be counteracted by increasing the third spacing DBH between the outermost of the outer paths 24 of the hull and the contour 12 in the layer 14 in the region of the overhang 11 by a compensation spacing Δ” (which reads upon “ejecting one or more drops of the print material at a second line spacing when creating at least a portion of the unsupported overhang; and wherein: drops are ejected at a first drop spacing when ejected at the first line spacing or at the second line spacing”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0038] and FIGs. 4-5; spacing is widest between the outermost of the outer paths 24 of the hull and the contour 12 in the layer 14 in the region of the overhang 11, which reads on the line spacing is decreased as the overhang moves farther from the overhang edge such that the second line spacing is less than the first line spacing). Himmel teaches that “in FIG. 5 , dotted lines show the path 24′ without correction that would be used if there were no overhang, while the path 24 actually used is corrected so that it extends further inward, that is, toward the core region 18, by the compensation spacing Δ” (paragraph [0038]). Himmel FIG. 1 shows that the unsupported overhang is oriented at an angle of from 0 degrees to about 45 degrees relative to a print bed; and; and no portion of the unsupported overhang contacts the print bed (FIG.1; the bottom layer, i-3 is interpreted as the base, and not as a portion of the unsupported overhang). Himmel teaches that “the dropwise application of the liquid material 16 in the outer region 20 takes place along one or more outer paths 24 that extend parallel to the contour 12” (which reads upon “and during creating the unsupported overhang lines of print material drops are deposited parallel to an overhang edge”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0024]).
As stated above, it is the Office’s position that Himmel FIG. 1 reads on the limitation “wherein the unsupported overhang is oriented at an angle of from 0 degrees to about 45 degrees relative to a print bed”. However, if it is held that it does not, a further 103 rejection is presented. Himmel fails to explicitly state wherein the unsupported overhang is oriented at an angle of from 0 degrees to about 45 degrees relative to a print bed.
Mantell is similarly concerned with a method and apparatus for forming overhang structures with a metal drop ejecting three-dimensional (3d) object printer (title). Mantell teaches that “a new method of operating a 3D metal object printer can form angled surfaces greater than 45° without requiring the building of support structures” (paragraph [0005]). Mantell teaches “a modified controller to produce angled surfaces that deviate from the vertical by up to 45° and more” (which reads upon “wherein the unsupported overhang is oriented at an angle of from 0 degrees to about 45 degrees relative to a print bed”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0013]; angled surfaces that deviate from the vertical by up to 45° reads on an angle of from 0 degrees to about 45 degrees relative to a print bed; the print bed is 90° from vertical).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Himmel to use the modified controller, as taught by Mantell to produce angled surfaces that deviate from the vertical by up to 45° and more without requiring the building of support structures, which improved the surface finish of the part and reducing post processing requirements, such as support removal and polishing.
Regarding claim 10, modified Himmel teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Himmel teaches that “one or more parameters relating to the spacing between paths to be traversed, the drop size, the spacing between successive drops, etc. is selected so that the layer (14) will have a thickness that is as uniform as possible” (abstract).
Regarding claim 11-12, modified Himmel teaches the method of claim 10 as stated above. Himmel teaches that “over the course of this, a position of the last droplet 41 on the outer path 24 before stopping of the application and, based thereon, a position of the first droplet 42 on the outer path after continuation of the application can further be determined so that a direct spacing f*DVS, hull between the two droplets is a predetermined spacing” (paragraph [0043]). Himmel teaches that “for example, this spacing can be 0.8 to 1.2 times the spacing DVS, hull between adjacent drops in sections of the outer path 24 in which the contour 12 does not include the region 13” (paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Himmel teaches the method of claim 10 as stated above. Himmel teaches that “one or more parameters relating to the spacing between paths to be traversed, the drop size, the spacing between successive drops, etc. is selected so that the layer (14) will have a thickness that is as uniform as possible” (abstract). Himmel teaches that “over the course of this, a position of the last droplet 41 on the outer path 24 before stopping of the application and, based thereon, a position of the first droplet 42 on the outer path after continuation of the application can further be determined so that a direct spacing f*DVS, hull between the two droplets is a predetermined spacing” (paragraph [0043]). Himmel teaches that “for example, this spacing can be 0.8 to 1.2 times the spacing DVS, hull between adjacent drops in sections of the outer path 24 in which the contour 12 does not include the region 13” (paragraph [0043]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a second drop spacing when creating at least a portion of the unsupported overhang when the overhang has a contour.
Regarding claims 15-16, in light of the 112(d) rejections above, modified Himmel teaches the method of claim 14 as stated above. Himmel teaches that “it has been found that this can be counteracted by increasing the third spacing DBH between the outermost of the outer paths 24 of the hull and the contour 12 in the layer 14 in the region of the overhang 11 by a compensation spacing Δ” (paragraph [0038] and FIGs. 4-5; spacing is widest between the outermost of the outer paths 24 of the hull and the contour 12 in the layer 14 in the region of the overhang 11, which reads on the second line spacing is less than the first line spacing).
Regarding claim 17, modified Himmel teaches the method of claim 14 as stated above. Himmel teaches that “another advantage of the present invention is that the compensation of overhanging regions of the component makes possible that more complex components having such overhanging regions can be manufactured without the use of support structures” (paragraph [0012]). While the reference does not explicitly disclose the lateral dimension of the unsupported overhang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to change the lateral dimension of the unsupported overhang, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). The key factor in printing the overhang is the angle, not the lateral dimension, assuming the lateral dimension is within the capacity of the printer.
Regarding claim 19, Himmel teaches “a method and an apparatus for manufacturing a component in layers, in particular by dropwise application of a liquid material using a printhead” (which reads upon “a method of forming a three-dimensional part”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0001]). Himmel teaches “a hull-core strategy is used to build up an individual layer by the deposition of individual drops along calculated paths” (which reads upon “ejecting one or more drops of a print material to form a portion of a three-dimensional part; ejecting one or more drops of the print material at a first line spacing while forming the three-dimensional part”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0022]). Himmel teaches that “another advantage of the present invention is that the compensation of overhanging regions of the component makes possible that more complex components having such overhanging regions can be manufactured without the use of support structures” (which reads upon “creating an unsupported overhang onto the three-dimensional printed part”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0012]). Himmel teaches that “the overhang can have a negative effect on the flatness of the layer, since the component can round off towards the overhang and sag” (paragraph [0038]). Himmel teaches that “it has been found that this can be counteracted by increasing the third spacing DBH between the outermost of the outer paths 24 of the hull and the contour 12 in the layer 14 in the region of the overhang 11 by a compensation spacing Δ” (paragraph [0038] and FIGs. 4-5; spacing is widest between the outermost of the outer paths 24 of the hull and the contour 12 in the layer 14 in the region of the overhang 11, which reads on the line spacing is decreased as the overhang moves farther from the overhang edge such that the second line spacing is less than the first line spacing). Himmel teaches that “in FIG. 5 , dotted lines show the path 24′ without correction that would be used if there were no overhang, while the path 24 actually used is corrected so that it extends further inward, that is, toward the core region 18, by the compensation spacing Δ” (paragraph [0038]). Himmel FIG. 1 shows that the unsupported overhang is oriented at an angle of from 0 degrees to about 45 degrees relative to a print bed; and; and no portion of the unsupported overhang contacts the print bed (FIG.1; the bottom layer, i-3 is interpreted as the base, and not as a portion of the unsupported overhang). Himmel teaches that “the dropwise application of the liquid material 16 in the outer region 20 takes place along one or more outer paths 24 that extend parallel to the contour 12” (which reads upon “and during creating the unsupported overhang lines of print material drops are deposited parallel to an overhang edge”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0024]).
As stated above, it is the Office’s position that Himmel FIG. 1 reads on the limitation “wherein the unsupported overhang is oriented at an angle of from 0 degrees to about 45 degrees relative to a print bed”. However, if it is held that it does not, a further 103 rejection is presented. Himmel fails to explicitly state wherein the unsupported overhang is oriented at an angle of from 0 degrees to about 45 degrees relative to a print bed.
Mantell is similarly concerned with a method and apparatus for forming overhang structures with a metal drop ejecting three-dimensional (3d) object printer (title). Mantell teaches that “a new method of operating a 3D metal object printer can form angled surfaces greater than 45° without requiring the building of support structures” (paragraph [0005]). Mantell teaches “a modified controller to produce angled surfaces that deviate from the vertical by up to 45° and more” (which reads upon “wherein the unsupported overhang is oriented at an angle of from 0 degrees to about 45 degrees relative to a print bed”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0013]; angled surfaces that deviate from the vertical by up to 45° reads on an angle of from 0 degrees to about 45 degrees relative to a print bed; the print bed is 90° from vertical).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Himmel to use the modified controller, as taught by Mantell to produce angled surfaces that deviate from the vertical by up to 45° and more without requiring the building of support structures, which improved the surface finish of the part and reducing post processing requirements, such as support removal and polishing.
Regarding claim 20, modified Himmel teaches the method of claim 19 as stated above. Himmel teaches that “the surface tension of the liquid material used, for example a metal, enables the manufacture of overhangs” (paragraph [0010]).
Claims 2, 5, 7, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himmel et al. (US 20240091859 A1), previously cited, in view of Mantell et al. (US 20220234111 A1), previously cited, as applied to claims 1 and 10, and further in view of Mantell et al. (US 20200324486 A1), previously cited.
Regarding claims 2, 5, and 14, modified Himmel teaches the methods of claim 1 and 10 as stated above. Himmel teaches that “since paths cannot be traversed at sufficiently high path speeds in regions of high local curvature due to the limited axis dynamics of the printhead 102 or the moving apparatus 104, lesser path speeds must be used in some circumstances, resulting in lower drop generation frequencies” (paragraph [0042]; curvature, or contour, results in changes in path speeds). Himmel teaches that “the spacing of the droplets along the feed direction results from the speed of the printhead and the frequency of the trigger signal sent to the printhead actuator” (paragraph [0004]). Himmel teaches that “in accordance with the invention, it has been found that this can be counteracted by increasing the third spacing DBH between the outermost of the outer paths 24 of the hull and the contour 12 in the layer 14 in the region of the overhang 11 by a compensation spacing Δ, based on the first angle α, and that this is shown as an example in FIG. 5” (paragraph [0038] and FIG. 5; curvatures at overhangs are handled by changing line spacing).
Himmel is silent regarding ejecting one or more drops of the print material at a second frequency and wherein ejecting one or more drops of the print material at a second frequency is done at the same time as ejecting one or more drops of the print material at a second line spacing.
Mantell ‘486 is similarly concerned with liquid metal ejectors used in three-dimensional (3D) object printers and, more particularly, to operation of the ejectors to compensate for geometric and material property deviations in the object that occur during manufacture of the object (paragraph [0002]). Mantell ‘486 teaches that “during operation of such a printer, the volumes of the drops ejected from the ejector can vary from a nominal expected value” (paragraph [0006]). Mantell ‘486 teaches that “the drop spacings can be different under normal printing conditions for different portions of a part, such as, the interior, perimeters, overhangs, and bridges” (which reads on “ejecting one or more drops of the print material at a second drop spacing when creating at least a portion of the unsupported overhang” as in claim 14; paragraph [0006]). Mantell ‘486 teaches that “the G-code is modified to include an instruction: G1 F3000, which causes the controller to operate an actuator to move the printhead at a constant speed of 50 mm/sec or 3000 mm/min” (paragraph [0036]). Mantell ‘486 teaches that “this instruction is used instead of: PRINT_FREQUENCY=400, which causes the controller to operate the actuator to accelerate and decelerate the movement of the printhead during programmed moves as drop spacing changes to preserve the firing frequency” (paragraph [0036]). Mantell ‘486 teaches that “the reader should note that acceleration and deceleration cause firing frequency changes under normal circumstances so this instruction does not force constant firing frequency as much as it prevents exceeding the intended firing frequency” (which reads upon “ejecting one or more drops of the print material at a second frequency”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0036]; acceleration and deceleration cause changes in firing frequency). Mantell ‘486 teaches that “for sequential moves, the drop spacing between the last drop printed in the previous line printing and the first one for the next commanded G1 line printing instruction is a new drop spacing value regardless of the drop spacing identified in the previous G1 line printing instruction” (which reads upon “wherein ejecting one or more drops of the print material at a second frequency is done at the same time as ejecting one or more drops of the print material at a second line spacing”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0036]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Himmel to execute modified G-code instruction, as taught by Mantell ‘486 to prevent exceeding the intended firing frequency during acceleration and deceleration.
Regarding claim 7, modified Himmel teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Himmel teaches “as was already mentioned in the introduction, it is also possible to produce overhanging contours (also referred to as “downskin”)” (paragraph [0037]). Mantell ‘486 teaches that “the drop spacings can be different under normal printing conditions for different portions of a part, such as, the interior, perimeters, overhangs, and bridges” (paragraph [0006]). Mantell ‘486 teaches that “unsupported connections between features, known as bridges, can be extremely sensitive and may even break with improper printing” (paragraph [0051]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method of Himmel to form both overhangs and bridges, as taught by Mantell ‘486 in applications where unsupported connections between features are necessary or desired to avoid requiring the building of support structures, to improve the surface finish of the part and reduce post processing requirements, such as support removal and polishing.
Regarding claims 15-16, in light of the 112(d) rejections above, modified Himmel teaches the method of claim 14 as stated above. Himmel teaches that “it has been found that this can be counteracted by increasing the third spacing DBH between the outermost of the outer paths 24 of the hull and the contour 12 in the layer 14 in the region of the overhang 11 by a compensation spacing Δ” (paragraph [0038] and FIGs. 4-5; spacing is widest between the outermost of the outer paths 24 of the hull and the contour 12 in the layer 14 in the region of the overhang 11, which reads on the second line spacing is less than the first line spacing).
Regarding claim 17, modified Himmel teaches the method of claim 14 as stated above. Himmel teaches that “using the methods described above, the present invention makes it possible to obtain a layer thickness that is as uniform as possible within each layer 14, in particular even when an overhang is formed, without having to perform additional measurements or provide additional devices” (which reads upon “extended overhang”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0044]). Himmel is silent as to scale. Himmel teaches “beginning with a drop spacing of 0.35 mm drop spacing and ending with a drop spacing of 0.4 mm” (paragraph [0035] scale is in mm). Mantell ‘486 teaches “to operate an actuator to move the printhead at a constant speed of 50 mm/sec or 3000 mm/min” (paragraph [0036]; scale is in mm). While Himmel does not explicitly disclose the specific lateral dimension of the unsupported overhang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention create an unsupported overhang with a scale of mm, such as 3 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 18, modified Himmel teaches the method of claim 14 as stated above. Himmel teaches that “using the methods described above, the present invention makes it possible to obtain a layer thickness that is as uniform as possible within each layer 14, in particular even when an overhang is formed, without having to perform additional measurements or provide additional devices” (which reads upon “unsupported overhang”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0044]). Mantell ‘486 teaches that “the drop spacings can be different under normal printing conditions for different portions of a part, such as, the interior, perimeters, overhangs, and bridges” (paragraph [0006]). Mantell ‘486 teaches that “unsupported connections between features, known as bridges, can be extremely sensitive and may even break with improper printing” (paragraph [0051]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method of Himmel to form both overhangs and bridges, as taught by Mantell ‘486 in applications where unsupported connections between features are necessary or desired to avoid requiring the building of support structures, to improve the surface finish of the part and reduce post processing requirements, such as support removal and polishing. Himmel is silent as to scale. Himmel teaches “beginning with a drop spacing of 0.35 mm drop spacing and ending with a drop spacing of 0.4 mm” (paragraph [0035] scale is in mm). Mantell ‘486 teaches “to operate an actuator to move the printhead at a constant speed of 50 mm/sec or 3000 mm/min” (paragraph [0036]; scale is in mm). While Himmel does not explicitly disclose the specific lateral dimension of the unsupported overhang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention create an unsupported overhang with a scale of mm, such as 6 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himmel et al. (US 20240091859 A1), in view of Mantell et al. (US 20220234111 A1) and Mantell et al. (US 20200324486 A1), as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Chungbin et al. (US 20230278103 A1), previously cited.
Regarding claims 3-4, modified Himmel teaches the method of claim 2 as stated above. Himmel teaches that “the spacing of the droplets along the feed direction results from the speed of the printhead and the frequency of the trigger signal sent to the printhead actuator” (paragraph [0004]). Himmel is silent regarding the frequencies used. Specifically, Himmel is silent regarding wherein the first frequency is from about 1.5 to about 5 times the second frequency and wherein the first frequency is from about 200 Hz to about 400 Hz; and the second frequency is from about 50 Hz to about 300 Hz. Regarding the subject limitation, in order to carry out the invention of Himmel, it would have been necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for exemplary frequencies of the trigger signal sent to the printhead actuator used in three-dimensional (3D) object printers that eject melted metal drops to form objects. Chungbin provides this teaching. Chungbin teaches that this disclosure is directed to three-dimensional (3D) object printers that eject melted metal drops to form objects and, more particularly, to the formation of bridging layers with the ejected metal used to form objects in such printers (paragraph [0001]). Chungbin teaches to operate the ejector head at a first ejection frequency to eject melted metal drops to form the first line of spatially separated pillars; and operate the ejector head at a second ejection frequency that is different than the first ejection frequency to form the continuous metal line over the first line of spatially separated pillars (claim 4). Chungbin teaches wherein the first ejection frequency (reads on the second frequency) is about 100 Hz and the second ejection frequency (reads on the first frequency) is about 300 Hz (which reads upon “wherein the first frequency is from about 1.5 to about 5 times the second frequency and wherein: the first frequency is from about 200 Hz to about 400 Hz; and the second frequency is from about 50 Hz to about 300 Hz”, as recited in the instant claims; claim 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the three-dimensional part of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the frequencies of the trigger signal sent to the printhead actuator, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by Chungbin, motivated to form a conventional three-dimensional part using known and tested frequencies of the trigger signal sent to the printhead actuator predictably suitable for three-dimensional (3D) object printers that eject melted metal drops to form objects.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himmel et al. (US 20240091859 A1), in view of Mantell et al. (US 20220234111 A1) and Mantell et al. (US 20200324486 A1), and Chungbin et al. (US 20230278103 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Himmel teaches “a method and an apparatus for manufacturing a component in layers, in particular by dropwise application of a liquid material using a printhead” (which reads upon “a method of forming a three-dimensional part, comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0001]). Himmel teaches “a hull-core strategy is used to build up an individual layer by the deposition of individual drops along calculated paths” (which reads upon “ejecting one or more drops of a print material at a first frequency to form a portion of a three-dimensional part”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0022]). Himmel teaches that “since paths cannot be traversed at sufficiently high path speeds in regions of high local curvature due to the limited axis dynamics of the printhead 102 or the moving apparatus 104, lesser path speeds must be used in some circumstances, resulting in lower drop generation frequencies” (which reads upon “a first frequency”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0042]). Himmel teaches that “another advantage of the present invention is that the compensation of overhanging regions of the component makes possible that more complex components having such overhanging regions can be manufactured without the use of support structures” (which reads upon “creating an unsupported overhang onto the three-dimensional printed part”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0012]). Himmel teaches that “the overhang can have a negative effect on the flatness of the layer, since the component can round off towards the overhang and sag” (paragraph [0038]). Himmel teaches that “it has been found that this can be counteracted by increasing the third spacing DBH between the outermost of the outer paths 24 of the hull and the contour 12 in the layer 14 in the region of the overhang 11 by a compensation spacing Δ” (which reads upon “ejecting one or more drops of the print material at a second frequency and a first line spacing when creating at least a portion of the unsupported overhang”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0038] and FIGs. 4-5; spacing is widest between the outermost of the outer paths 24 of the hull and the contour 12 in the layer 14 in the region of the overhang 11, which reads on the line spacing is decreased as the overhang moves farther from the overhang edge such that the second line spacing is less than the first line spacing). Himmel teaches that “in FIG. 5, dotted lines show the path 24′ without correction that would be used if there were no overhang, while the path 24 actually used is corrected so that it extends further inward, that is, toward the core region 18, by the compensation spacing Δ” (paragraph [0038]). Himmel FIG. 1 shows that the unsupported overhang is oriented at an angle of from 0 degrees to about 45 degrees relative to a print bed; and; and no portion of the unsupported overhang contacts the print bed (FIG.1; the bottom layer, i-3 is interpreted as the base, and not as a portion of the unsupported overhang). Himmel teaches that “the dropwise application of the liquid material 16 in the outer region 20 takes place along one or more outer paths 24 that extend parallel to the contour 12” (which reads upon “and during creating the unsupported overhang lines of print material drops are deposited parallel to an overhang edge”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0024]).
Himmel is silent regarding ejecting one or more drops of the print material at a second frequency when creating at least a portion of the unsupported overhang. As stated above, it is the Office’s position that Himmel FIG. 1 reads on the limitation “wherein the unsupported overhang is oriented at an angle of from 0 degrees to about 45 degrees relative to a print bed”. However, if it is held that it does not, a further 103 rejection is presented. Himmel fails to explicitly state wherein the unsupported overhang is oriented at an angle of from 0 degrees to about 45 degrees relative to a print bed.
Mantell ‘486 is similarly concerned with liquid metal ejectors used in three-dimensional (3D) object printers and, more particularly, to operation of the ejectors to compensate for geometric and material property deviations in the object that occur during manufacture of the object (paragraph [0002]). Mantell ‘486 teaches that “during operation of such a printer, the volumes of the drops ejected from the ejector can vary from a nominal expected value” (paragraph [0006]). Mantell ‘486 teaches that “the drop spacings can be different under normal printing conditions for different portions of a part, such as, the interior, perimeters, overhangs, and bridges” (which reads upon “when creating at least a portion of the unsupported overhang” as in the instant claim; paragraph [0006]). Mantell ‘486 teaches that “the G-code is modified to include an instruction: G1 F3000, which causes the controller to operate an actuator to move the printhead at a constant speed of 50 mm/sec or 3000 mm/min” (paragraph [0036]). Mantell ‘486 teaches that “this instruction is used instead of: PRINT_FREQUENCY=400, which causes the controller to operate the actuator to accelerate and decelerate the movement of the printhead during programmed moves as drop spacing changes to preserve the firing frequency” (paragraph [0036]). Mantell ‘486 teaches that “the reader should note that acceleration and deceleration cause firing frequency changes under normal circumstances so this instruction does not force constant firing frequency as much as it prevents exceeding the intended firing frequency” (which reads upon “ejecting one or more drops of the print material at a second frequency”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0036]; acceleration and deceleration cause changes in firing frequency). Mantell ‘486 teaches that “for sequential moves, the drop spacing between the last drop printed in the previous line printing and the first one for the next commanded G1 line printing instruction is a new drop spacing value regardless of the drop spacing identified in the previous G1 line printing instruction” (which reads upon “ejecting one or more drops of the print material at a second frequency when creating at least a portion of the unsupported overhang”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0036]). Mantell teaches that “a new method of operating a 3D metal object printer can form angled surfaces greater than 45° without requiring the building of support structures” (paragraph [0005]). Mantell teaches “a modified controller to produce angled surfaces that deviate from the vertical by up to 45° and more” (which reads upon “wherein the unsupported overhang is oriented at an angle of from 0 degrees to about 45 degrees relative to a print bed”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0013]; angled surfaces that deviate from the vertical by up to 45° reads on an angle of from 0 degrees to about 45 degrees relative to a print bed; the print bed is 90° from vertical).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Himmel to execute modified G-code instruction, as taught by Mantell ‘486 to prevent exceeding the intended firing frequency during acceleration and deceleration. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Himmel to use the modified controller, as taught by Mantell to produce angled surfaces that deviate from the vertical by up to 45° and more without requiring the building of support structures, which improved the surface finish of the part and reducing post processing requirements, such as support removal and polishing.
Himmel teaches that “the spacing of the droplets along the feed direction results from the speed of the printhead and the frequency of the trigger signal sent to the printhead actuator” (paragraph [0004]). Himmel is silent regarding the frequencies used. Specifically, Himmel is silent regarding wherein the first frequency is higher than the second frequency. Regarding the subject limitation, in order to carry out the invention of Himmel, it would have been necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for exemplary frequencies of the trigger signal sent to the printhead actuator used in three-dimensional (3D) object printers that eject melted metal drops to form objects. Chungbin provides this teaching. Chungbin teaches that this disclosure is directed to three-dimensional (3D) object printers that eject melted metal drops to form objects and, more particularly, to the formation of bridging layers with the ejected metal used to form objects in such printers (paragraph [0001]). Chungbin teaches to operate the ejector head at a first ejection frequency to eject melted metal drops to form the first line of spatially separated pillars; and operate the ejector head at a second ejection frequency that is different than the first ejection frequency to form the continuous metal line over the first line of spatially separated pillars (claim 4). Chungbin teaches wherein the first ejection frequency (reads on the second frequency) is about 100 Hz and the second ejection frequency (reads on the first frequency) is about 300 Hz (which reads upon “wherein: the first frequency is higher than the second frequency”, as recited in the instant claim; claim 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the three-dimensional part of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the frequencies of the trigger signal sent to the printhead actuator, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by Chungbin, motivated to form a conventional three-dimensional part using known and tested frequencies of the trigger signal sent to the printhead actuator predictably suitable for three-dimensional (3D) object printers that eject melted metal drops to form objects.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the independent claims have been amended to require, during creation of the unsupported overhang, (i) depositing lines of print material drops parallel to an overhang edge and (ii) decreasing line spacing as the overhang extends farther from the overhang edge such that the second line spacing is less than the first line spacing (remarks, page 7). Applicant argues that Himmel does not disclose lines of print material drops that are deposited parallel to an overhang edge with a controller that progressively decreases the center-to-center spacing between adjacent printed lines as the overhang extends, nor does Himmel teach decreasing the first line spacing to a second line spacing during the creation of the unsupported overhang (remarks, page 8). This is not found convincing because Himmel teaches that “the dropwise application of the liquid material 16 in the outer region 20 takes place along one or more outer paths 24 that extend parallel to the contour 12” (which reads upon “and during creating the unsupported overhang lines of print material drops are deposited parallel to an overhang edge” paragraph [0024]). Himmel teaches that “it has been found that this can be counteracted by increasing the third spacing DBH between the outermost of the outer paths 24 of the hull and the contour 12 in the layer 14 in the region of the overhang 11 by a compensation spacing Δ” (paragraph [0038] and FIGs. 4-5; spacing is widest between the outermost of the outer paths 24 of the hull and the contour 12 in the layer 14 in the region of the overhang 11, which reads on the line spacing is decreased as the overhang moves farther from the overhang edge such that the second line spacing is less than the first line spacing). Accordingly, the art reads on the claims, as best understood.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q2: 3/30-4/3/26; Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733