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
Claims 2 and 7 have been cancelled; Claims 1 and 10 have been amended; Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-10 remain for Examination, wherein Claim 1 is an independent claim. It is acknowledged of the Applicant’s “Terminal Disclaimer” filed on 12/18/2025, which has been approved on 12/18/2025.
Previous Rejections/Objections
Previous objection of Claim 1 because of the informalities is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 12/18/2025.
Previous rejection of Claims 1 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, 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of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 12/18/2025.
Previous rejection of Claims 2 and 7 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(US-PG-pub 2013/0112366 A1, listed in IDS filed on 3/13/2024, updated as US-patent 8,684,069 B2,thereafter PG’366) is withdrawn since these claims have been cancelled in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 12/18/2025.
Previous rejection of Claims 1-10 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-15 of copending application No. 18/359,352 (US-PG-pub 2024/0051027 A1) in view of PG’366 is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 12/18/2025 and the Applicant’s “Terminal Disclaimer” filed on 12/18/2025, which has been approved on 12/18/2025.
However, in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 12/18/2025, and reconsideration, a new ground rejection has listed as following:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected 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. In the instant case, the amended limitation of “a smallest gap between any point on the support structure is at most 100 microns” should be amended as “a smallest gap between any point on the support structure and the component is at most 100 microns” (according to par.[0012] of PG-pub 2024/0051026—corresponding to the specification of the instant application). Proper amendment and clarification is necessary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 8-10 is/are rejected 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).
PG’824 in view of PG’366 is applied of claims 1, 3-6, and 8-10 for the same reason as stated in the office action dated 9/18/2025.
Regarding amended features in the instant claim 1, 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. As pointed out in the previous office action dated 9/18/2025, 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
612
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
416
704
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding amended feature in the instant claim 10, which does not change the scope of the instant claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to the art rejection to Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-10 have been considered but they moot in view of the new ground rejection as stated above. Regarding the arguments related to the amended features in the instant claims, the Examiner’s position has been stated as above.
The Applicant’s arguments are summarized as following:
1, Regarding the rection of Claims 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), neither Tan (PG’824) nor Mottin et al (PG’366) discloses the “protruding arrowhead” as claimed in the instant claim 1.
2, there is not clear why to combine the cited reference. There is no apparent reason or motivation to modify Tan (PG’824) with the disclosure of Mottin et al (PG’366).
In response
Regarding the argument 1, as shown in the Fig.5 of PG’824, the recorded reference clearly teaches the claimed “protruding arrowhead”.
Regarding the argument 2, The Applicant’s arguments are against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, Tan (PG’824) in view of Mottin et al (PG’366) is applied to the instant claims 1, 3-6, and 8-10. As pointed out in the rejection above, 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 applying the proper gap and heat treatment for separating the part (abstract of PG’366) and releasing stresses (Par.[0033] of PG’366).
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.
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