DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I: claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 5/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/29/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 6, “a powder particles” should read –powder particles–.
In claim 5, “method of claim 1” should read –method of claim 1, –.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7-8 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yap et al. (US 2022/0297233), as cited in the IDS dated 1/24/2024, hereinafter “Yap.”
Regarding claim 1, Yap teaches a method for making an article, comprising inputting a digital model of the article (Figs. 2A and 2B, [0037]-[0038], [0062]) into an additive manufacturing apparatus or system comprising an energy source (Figs. 1A-1E, [0007], [0042], claims 1-2 and 8), wherein the energy source is a ring laser having a beam size ([0008], Fig. 2A, [0066]-[0070], claims 4 and 7, [0074]-[0075]), and repeatedly applying energy from the ring laser to successively applied incremental quantities of powder particles to fuse the powder particles to form the article corresponding to a digital model (Figs. 2A and 2B, [0066]-[0070]), wherein applying the energy includes passing the energy from the ring laser through an optical system (Figs. 7A-7C with focusing lens, claims 5 and 7, [0099]-[0103]) to narrowing a width of the beam size to create a smaller beam size before the energy reaches the powder particles.
Regarding claim 2, Yap teaches wherein the energy source melts or fluidizes at least a portion of the powder particles (Fig. 1, [0042]).
As to claim 3, Yap teaches wherein the powder particles include a metal ([0042]).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Yap teaches wherein the optical system is configured to reduce a spot size below a minimum spot size of the ring laser and wherein the optical system includes a reverse zoom optic (Fig. 7A, [0099]-[0103]).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yap (US 2022/0297233) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Nelson et al. (US 2017/0182595), as cited in the IDS dated 8/22/2025, hereinafter “Nelson.”
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Yap teaches the features recited in claims 1 and 3, as detailed above. Yap further teaches wherein the powder particles may contain metal powder or alloy ([0005], [0042]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the metal comprises aluminum, titanium, copper, or nickel alloy, and wherein the powder particles include a ceramic. However, in the same field of endeavor, Nelson teaches that precursor powder comprising aluminum alloy and grain refiners such as titanium carbide, which reads on a ceramic, may be used in a powder bed fusion process in order to produce aerospace and defense structures (Abstract, [0002]-[0003], [0076], [0081]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use aluminum alloy precursor containing titanium carbide grain refiner in the process of Yap in order to produce aerospace and defense structures, as taught by Nelson.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 6 and 9, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest a method having the limitations as recited. In particular, the closest prior art, Yap (US 2022/0297233), teaches a method for making an article, comprising inputting a digital model of the article (Figs. 2A and 2B, [0037]-[0038], [0062]) into an additive manufacturing apparatus or system comprising an energy source (Figs. 1A-1E, [0007], [0042], claims 1-2 and 8), wherein the energy source is a ring laser having a beam size ([0008], Fig. 2A, [0066]-[0070], claims 4 and 7, [0074]-[0075]), and repeatedly applying energy from the ring laser to successively applied incremental quantities of powder particles to fuse the powder particles to form the article corresponding to a digital model (Figs. 2A and 2B, [0066]-[0070]), wherein applying the energy includes passing the energy from the ring laser through an optical system (Figs. 7A-7C with focusing lens, claims 5 and 7, [0099]-[0103]) to narrowing a width of the beam size to create a smaller beam size before the energy reaches the powder particles. Additionally, Yap modified by Nelson (US 2017/0182595) renders obvious the use of powder particles including a ceramic in a method reading on claim 1. However, neither Yap nor Yap modified by Nelson teaches or adequately suggests the method of claim 5, wherein powder particles include silicon carbide, silicon nitride, hafnium, aluminum nitride, or aluminum oxide, as required by claim 6. Furthermore, neither Yap nor Yap modified by Nelson teaches or adequately suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the optical system includes an offset scanner, as required by claim 9. Thus, claims 6 and 9 are distinct over the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY M LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0483. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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 Johnson can be reached at (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 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.
/ANTHONY M LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights