DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendments to claim 1, the prior art rejections have been modified. These changes were necessitated by these amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over EP 3984669 (EP ‘669).
In regards to independent claim 1, EP ‘669 is directed to a method of regenerating a build plate used in additive manufacturing wherein a surface of the build plate has become at least partially non-planar during use. (Abstract) Due to the nature of the product being a build plate, it would be expected that it would be able to counteract tensile stresses as set forth in the instant claims.
The method of regenerating the build plate comprises applying a metal coating to the surface. (¶13) The existing build plate corresponds to the claimed support region while the metal coating corresponds to the claimed top region. This allows for the restoration of the planar surface of the build plate by applying the layer of coating, which eliminates the need to replace the build plate since the process of coating can be repeated several times. (¶13)
During use, after a part is separated from a build plate, the planar surface of a build plate may have degraded, forming a non-planar surface. (¶37) This is due to the partial sintering of the component onto the surface of the build plate. (¶37) Figure 3 is a rough schematic view of the surface after regenerating. (¶23) This figure shows that the coating covers the defects that makes the surface non-planar, thereby providing for a new, planar surface on the build plate. (¶38)
PNG
media_image1.png
160
216
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 is a rough schematic view of the thermal spraying process. (¶23) A spray gun (24) and a feeder (26) supplied metal powder to the torch through conduits. (¶38 ) Molten or plastically deformed particles are deposited onto the non-planar surface (21) of the building plate (19). (¶38) A layer of metallic coating (2) that covers any surface imperfections and has a planar surface (23) is then formed on the surface of the build plate. (¶38)
PNG
media_image2.png
320
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The coating deposition method is cold spraying. (¶17) This method employs low temperatures compared to other spraying techniques and allows to keep the depositing powder in a solid state. (¶17) This is advantageous as the powder is not molten and therefore can retain its primary properties during and after deposition. (¶17) It also allows for depositing dissimilar materials, where there is a need for creating a composite coating made up from materials with notably different properties. (¶17)
The instant application sets forth the use of cold spraying as the coating deposition method. (¶22 of instant specification) The use of a cold spraying to apply the top region on the support region induces a compressive stress in the top region. (¶23 of instant application) The method of cold spraying therefore is the cause of the claimed compressive stress in the top region. Therefore, since the prior art sets forth a cold spraying method, it would likewise be expected that the resulting coating would have compressive stress as set forth in the instant claims.
As to claim 2, the metal coating may have a composition that is the same as the build plate. (¶19)
As to claim 3, the bulk of the build plate (19) may be made from a different material to the component with a surface coating of a material that is the same material as the component to be manufactured. (¶33) This would result in the two being made from different materials.
As to claims 6 and 7, the surface area of the support region depends on the topography of the build plate. As set forth in the prior art, the coating provides a flat surface upon a rough surface. This would result in a surface area smaller in the metal coating that is smaller than the surface area of the build plate. Additionally, the metal coating can be provided on the build plate to provide the affinity for the component being manufactured. This would result in a surface area that is the same as the build plate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3984669 (EP ‘669).
As to claim 4, the metal coating can comprise any of titanium, copper, aluminum, steel, or stainless steel. (¶20) The build plate may be made from steel or titanium alloy. (¶38) It is possible to combine two or more materials with different thermal conductivity in order to distribute heat more evenly while the coating allows for affinity of the surface with the part to be manufactured. (¶20) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected steel and titanium for the respective build plate and metal coating. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the desire and expectation of selecting from a finite list of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, including selecting a build plate composition that provides for the heat distribution or other such properties while having a coating that provides for affinity for the surface with the part to be manufactured.
As to claim 5, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (MPEP 2144.04,IV,A) It is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. See MPEP 2144.05, Sec. II. In the present case, the prior art sets forth a coating that functions as a build plate material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected an appropriate thickness for the coating in order for the metallic coating to perform this function, including providing sufficient affinity for the component to be manufactured.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant amended claim 1 to recite “that the top region is under a compressive stress selected to counteract tensile stresses induced by thermal loading incurred during a PDF-L build process.” Applicant argues that EP ‘669 does not teach anything at all about compressive stresses induced in the PBF-L build plate or for it to counteract the tensile stresses.
This argument is not found to be persuasive.
As set forth in the previous Office Action and above, the prior art sets forth a cold spraying method. The instant application sets forth using cold spraying and that the use of a cold spraying to apply the top region on the support region induces a compressive stress in the top region. (¶22-¶23 of the instant application) Therefore, the product of the prior art would be expected to have compressive stress.
Additionally, the instant claim requires the compressive stress is “selected to counteract tensile stresses” but set forth no measurement or determination as to how much counteraction is necessary. Even a small amount of counteracting would meet this claimed limitation.
Further, the instant application sets forth that the method of preparing the build plates induces compressive stresses that counteract the tensile stresses. (¶13 of instant application) The method sets forth cold spraying. (¶22 of instant application) The cold spraying induces the compressive stress. (¶23 of instant application) Accordingly, since the prior art sets forth the method of cold spraying and the instant application sets forth that cold spraying induces the claimed compressive stresses as set forth in the instant claims, the prior art would be expected to meet this particular limitation.
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 Daniel Schleis whose telephone number is (571)270-5636. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM to 4 PM Monday through Friday.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
Daniel J. Schleis
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/Daniel J. Schleis/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights