Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/5/2026 has been entered.
Status of claims
Claims 2-4 and 7 have been cancelled; Claim 1 has been amended; Claims 1, 5-6 and 8-10 remain for examination, wherein claim 1 is an independent claim.
Previous Rejections/Objections
Previous rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 5/7/2026.
Previous rejection of Claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (US-PG-pub 2019/0030824 A1, listed in IDS filed on 3/13/2024, updated as US-patent 10,479,021 B2, thereafter PG’824) in view of Mottin et al (US-PG-pub 2013/0112366 A1, listed in IDS filed on 3/13/2024, updated as US-patent 8,684,069 B2,thereafter PG’366) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 5/7/2026.
However, in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 5/7/2026, and newly recorded reference(s), a new ground rejection has listed as following:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5-6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tan (US-PG-pub 2019/0030824 A1, listed in IDS filed on 3/13/2024, updated as US-patent 10,479,021 B2, thereafter PG’824) in view of Mottin et al (US-PG-pub 2013/0112366 A1, listed in IDS filed on 3/13/2024, updated as US-patent 8,684,069 B2,thereafter PG’366) and Mark (US-PG-pub 2018/0162062 A1, thereafter PG’062).
Regarding claim 1, PG’824 teaches a manufacturing process of producing a curved plate by additive layer manufacture (Title and abstract of PG’824), which reads on the claimed plate component as claimed in the instant claim. PG’824 specify applying powder bed ALM constructs components layer by layer by depositing powder on a machine bed or base/build plate and then selectively consolidating or fusing the powder using an energy beam such as a laser or an electron beam on a substrate (Figs and par.[0003] of PG’824), which reads on the claimed process of melting and fusing powder in layers from a build plate to form a component and a support structure. PG’824 specify that: “by adding sacrificial material in the form of the additions which continue the geometry of the plate rather than by providing supports or sacrificial material in the direction of distortion, it is possible to displace any distortions into the additions, where they are then removed from the final plate.” (par.[0012] of PG’824), which reads on the removing the support structure as claimed in the instant claim. The comparison between Fig.3 of the instant invention and the Fig.5 of PG’824 is listed as following. The protruding arrowhead support structures facing the component disclosed by PG’824 reads on the protruding arrowhead formed on the support surface to restrain distortion of the component. It is possible to displace any distortions into the additions, where they are then removed from the final plate.” (par.[0012] of PG’824), which reads on the removing the support structure as claimed in the instant claim. It is noted that PG’824 does not specify the claimed heat treatment and at least 10 mm gap between the component and substrate. PG’366 teaches “a method of fabricating a metal part by selectively melting a powder, the method including: building up layer by layer on a plate and simultaneously with the part, at least one holder and support element for the part, the element being spaced apart and distinct from the part and being separated therefrom by a gap filled with non-melted powder.” (Abstract of PG’366). PG’366 specify 50-500 mm gap (par.[0053] of PG’366) and applying heat treatment to the component (par.[0024]-[0027] and claims of PG’366), which reads on the heat treat process in the instant claim and the claimed gap of at least 10 mm as claimed in the instant claim and overlaps the claimed smallest gap range as claimed in the instant claim, which creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to applying heat treating to the formed component and including proper gap between the substrate and formed component from the disclosure of PG’366 for the component of PG’824 since both PG’366 and PG’824 teaches the same manufacturing process for plate component by additive layer manufacture as claimed throughout whole disclosing range and PG’366 teaches applying the proper gap and heat treatment for separating the part (abstract of PG’366) and releasing stresses (Par.[0033] of PG’366). PG’824 in view of PG’366 does not specify the claimed plurality of protruding arrowheads on the support surface and arrangement as claimed in the instant claim PG’062 teaches a method of reducing distortion in an additively manufactured part includes forming a shrinking platform of successive layers of composite, the composite including a metal particulate filler in a de-bindable matrix (Abstract, claims, par.[0005] of PG’062) and PG’062 indicates that a support structures may be printed with a small separation gap (5-100 microns) for the majority of the support structure. (par.[0093] of PG’062). The Fig.7 of PG’062 is listed as following, which included plurality of protruding arrowheads on the support surface and arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply plurality of protruding arrowheads on the support surface and arrangement as demonstrated by PG’062 in the process of PG’824 in view of PG’366 since all PG’062, PG’366 and PG’824 teach the same manufacturing process for plate component by additive layer manufacture as claimed throughout whole disclosing range and PG’062 teaches applying the proper arrangement to reduce distortion (Abstract, claims, and examples of PG’062).
PNG
media_image1.png
612
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
416
704
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
494
618
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, PG’824 teaches applying a protruding arrowhead support structures facing the component (Figs.2 and 5 and par.[0007] and [0030] of PG’824), which reads on the claimed limitation the corrugated surface facing the component with different orientation.
Regarding claim 6, PG’824 in view of PG’366 teaches arrowhead protrudes (Fig.2 and 5 of PG’824) with 50-500 mm gap (par.[0053] of PG’366), which reads on the claimed limitation as claimed in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 8, PG’366 teaches removing a large portion of the powder situated between the part and the element (par.[0027] and [0055] of PG’366).
Regarding claim 9, PG’824 provides supporting structure including opposing support surface (Fig.5 and par.[par.[0030] of PG’824), which reads on the claimed limitations in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 10, PG’824 provides supporting structure including hook structure with an elongated arm (Fig.5 and par.[par.[0030] of PG’824), which reads on the claimed limitations in the instant claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to the art rejection to Claims 1, 5-6, and 8-10 have been considered but they are moot in view of the new ground rejection as stated as above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP.
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 J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. 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.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights