DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is a response to an amendment/arguments filed on 8/26/2026 which was in response to the office action mailed on 5/26/2026 (hereinafter the prior office action).
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-15 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 8 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are independent.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome prior Claim objection(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 8/26/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states in Pg. 5-6 in “Remarks” regarding claim 9 that Soucy and Horner do not teach witness lines providing a visual indicator as to whether AM component has met its target profile.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Soucy discloses in Fig. 1 and Para. 20 that a computer used to design an additive manufactured component, where component has a nominal, i.e. target, physical profile and the expected deflection, i.e. deformation, of target that is expected is predicted in model; further Para. 14 discloses that deformation is predicted. Further, it is Horner, and not Soucy, that teaches witness marks/lines (Para. 11), thus providing a visual indicator. Thus, it is the combination of Soucy and Horner, and neither art alone, that teaches the claimed limitations.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness 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).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horner et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0052946) (hereinafter “Horner”) in view of Soucy et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0271221) (hereinafter “Soucy”).
Regarding claim 9, Horner teaches an additive manufactured (AM) component (Fig. 1, Para. 20 - - computer used to design an additive manufactured component)
comprising: a target area expected to realize deformation during an AM build process; (Fig. 1, Para. 20 - - expected deflection, i.e. deformation, of target that is expected is predicted in model; Para. 14 - - deformation is predicted)
and a plurality of…lines formed in the target area, (Fig. 1, Para. 20 - - computer used to design an additive manufactured component, where component has a nominal, i.e. target, physical profile)
the plurality of…lines having a pre-deformed profile configured to undergo deformation in response to build process to form deformed…lines that match a target profile of target define…following deformation of the AM component. (Fig. 1, Para. 20 - - expected deflection, i.e. deformation, of target that is expected is predicted in model; Para. 14 - - deformation is predicted)
But Horner does not explicitly teach witness lines
However, Soucy teaches witness lines (Para. 11 - - witness mark/lines are formed during an additive manufacturing)
Horner and Soucy are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain additive manufacturing processes where parts of the manufactured object/component are identified.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Horner, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Soucy.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide a visual indicator to determine where parts are separated from other portion of the additive manufactured component, as suggested by Soucy (Para. 11).
Regarding claim 10, Horner teaches wherein the deformation of the AM component includes deformation of the target area. (Fig. 1, Para. 20 - - expected deflection, i.e. deformation, of target that is expected is predicted in model)
Regarding claim 11, Horner teaches wherein each of the pre-deformed witness lines includes layers of AM material deposited at a first target region of the target area which are separated by a space that excludes the AM material. (Fig. 3, 4 - - additive manufactured component includes areas where AM material is deposited, and space that excludes the AM material in order to build the AM material with a certain shape)
Regarding claim 12, Horner teaches wherein the AM material is a low- density material. (Para. 20 - - composite, i.e. low-density material, can be used)
Regarding claim 13, Horner teaches wherein the low-density material includes one or a combination of a thermoplastic material, polylactic acid, and a microsphere composite material. (Para. 20 - - composite material can be used)
Regarding claim 14, Horner teaches wherein the AM material is a high- density material. (Para. 20 - - metal, i.e. high-density material, can be used)
Regarding claim 15, Horner teaches wherein the high-density alloy material includes one or a combination of Incone1625(IN625), Incone1718 (IN718), Hastelloy X (Hast-X), a nickel-base (Ni-base) superalloy, 17-4PH stainless steel, and Titanium (Ti). (Para. 20 - - metal can be used)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are allowed.
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0238755 by Hovis et al., which discloses making and monitoring components with integral strain indicators (Title/Abstract).
U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0088881 by Kim et al., which discloses simulation-assisted additive manufacturing (Title/Abstract).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saad M. Kabir whose telephone number is 571-270-0608 (direct fax number is 571-270-9933). The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays to Fridays 9am to 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. 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.
/SAAD M KABIR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights