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 .
Response to Election/Restrictions and Status of Claims
Applicant’s election of Group II, drawn to a method of forming a physical object, in the reply filed on May 15, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, Group I, drawn to a hybrid manufacturing system, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-21 are pending and Claims 11-21 are currently considered in this office action.
Priority
Applicant’s claim to priority in provisional application no. 62/395,289 and no. 62/407,318, filed September 15, 2016 and October 12, 2016, are acknowledged. Applicant’s claim to priority in application no. 15/705,548, filed September 15, 2017, is also acknowledged.
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.
Claims 16-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim recites “removing a defective layer comprising the defect” and also “depositing the removed layer”. It is unclear how the removed layer is both removed and then deposited. It is unclear if the removed layer is recycled to be redeposited, or if new material is deposited, or if the removed layer is repositioned after removal. Examiner interprets wherein the defective layer is removed and material is deposited wherein the layer was removed.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim recites ‘an adhesive interface layer’. It is unclear if this layer is the same or different than the adhesive layer recited in independent Claim 11. Examiner interprets wherein the interface layer is an adhesive interface layer.
Regarding Claim 18, the claim recites ‘the adhesive interface layer’. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim recites wherein the D50 particle size of the infiltrant particle is 2-10um, and wherein the scaffold particles are 10-20um. However, the claim from which Claim 21 depends from, Claim 20, also recite wherein the D50 particle size of the infiltrant particle is less than 25% of the D50 particle size of the scaffold particle. In order to satisfy the Claim 20 requirements, it is unclear how the infiltrant particle size could be 5um (or larger) while also satisfying a 10-20um range for the scaffold particle size. Therefore, it is unclear what scaffold particle sizes are allowed for a infiltrant particle which is 5-10um, as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-12 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mok (cited by Applicant in IDS filed April 2, 2024, US 20020129485 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Mok disclose a method for forming a physical object from a virtual model (Abstract; para. [0081]), comprising, within a build volume (para. [0092]; Fig. 2):
providing a build plate comprising an interface layer (Fig. 2a-2b, see prototype base plate; first deposited layer of material reads on interface layer and is an interface between the base plate and the second layer of deposited material;
fabricating an object precursor, comprising a geometry corresponding to the virtual model, on the interface layer (para. [0081]; additional object layers are built on first layer which is the interface layer),
wherein fabricating the object precursor comprises iteratively (para. [0123]):
depositing a build layer on a build plat (para. [0114];
machining the build layer, wherein the build plate retains the build material layer during build machining (para. [0120]); and
contemporaneously with fabricating the object precursor, monitoring the build material layers for defects, wherein when a defect is detected the defect is fixed (para. [0122], thickness correction step, reads on monitoring for defect (incorrect thickness or required flatness) and fixing the defect (correcting the thickness/flatness)).
Regarding Claim 12, Mok discloses wherein defects comprise incorrect geometries (para. [0122], incorrect thickness and flatness read on incorrect geometries).
Regarding Claim 16, Mok discloses wherein fixing the defect comprises removing a defective layer, and depositing further material on the are the defective layer was previously removed (Claim 33; para. [0122], removal by milling to acquire desired thickness/flatness; chip-free surface for subsequent deposition of build material – see claim interpretation in 112b rejection above).
Regarding Claim 17, Mok discloses depositing a first layer of build material on the build plate (see Fig. 2a-2b; para. [0014]), which reads on interface layer because this layer is between the build plate and the subsequent layers of the prototype object. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that this layer would adhere to both the build plate (to prevent movement during machining) and to the subsequent layer deposition (see also para. [0015], adhesion control between the instantaneous and previous build materials; para. [0127] and para. [202], adhesion between layers), and therefore reads on the claimed adhesive interface layer which retains the build material layer during build material machining, as claimed.
Regarding Claim 18, Mok discloses depositing a first layer of build material on the build plate (see Fig. 2a-2b; para. [0014]), which reads on interface layer because this layer is between the build plate and the subsequent layers of the prototype object. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that this layer would adhere to both the build plate (to prevent movement during machining) and to the subsequent layer deposition (see also para. [0015], adhesion control between the instantaneous and previous build materials; para. [0127] and para. [202], adhesion between layers), and therefore reads on the claimed adhesive interface layer.
Mok further discloses wherein each layer, including the first layer and therefore the adhesive interface material, is milled to a desired thickness and flatness (level face) and wherein build material is subsequently deposited on the milled surface (level face), which reads on the claimed limitations.
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.
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 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mok (cited by Applicant in IDS filed April 2, 2024, US 20020129485 A1), as applied to Claim 11 above, in further view of Cheverton (US 20150165683 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Mok fails to disclose wherein monitoring the build layers for defects (see para. [0122], one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that correcting for thickness/flatness reads on monitoring), but fails to disclose recording and analyzing an image of the build layer.
Cheverton discloses a method of monitoring the building of a three-dimensional object using an imaging system, wherein images are captured and evaluated for defects, including dimensional errors, distortion, malfunctioning planarizers, poor layer surface finish, delamination, misplacement, and excess or absence of build material (Abstract; para. [0026]; one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate these to include topological flaws). Cheverton teaches wherein this method provides the ability to correct flaws, stop a build process to fix a problem, or to start a new build, and further to reduce manufacturing times by finding flaws earlier in a long build process, thereby also reducing wasted materials (para. [0024]-[0025]).
Cheverton teaches wherein the imaging system is able to monitor build quality in the individual layer in real-time, including monitoring for dimensions, textures and composition, and assessing distortions, deviations and/or other flaws, while making to comparisons to CAD specifications (para. [0032]; one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate textures and distortions to be topological analysis; see also above in para. [0026], flaws detected through imaging system; comparison to CAD specification additionally reads on object recognition).
Cheverton further teaches detecting variations in reflected light which is imaged by cameras to identify rough textures and for example, issues with planers (para. [0038]-[0039]; para. [0041]; detecting variations in reflected light and from different or multiple light sources reads on differential illumination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have monitored the build material layers for defects used the image system outlined by Cheverton for defect monitoring and detection, including recording an image of each build material layer and analyzing the image to identify defects, using analysis techniques such as topological analysis and CAD comparison (object recognition), or further by using reflected light variations for defect detection in recorded images (differential illumination), as taught by Cheverton, for the invention disclosed by Mok. One would be motivated to do this in order to identify defects (such as dimension, texture, distortion, deviations in material deposition amounts, etc.) in an individual layer in real-time, thereby allowing for the ability to correct flaws, stop of a build process to fix a problem such as issues with planers, or to start a new build, allowing for reduce manufacturing times and reduced material waste (see teaching above).
Regarding Claim 14, Cheverton discloses wherein analyzing the image comprises at least one of object recognition and topology analysis (para. [0032]; [0026] see Claim 13 teachings above).
Regarding Claim 15, Cheverton discloses differentially illuminating the each layer of the build material layer while recording the image, wherein the differential illumination facilitates analyzing the image ([0038]-[0039]; para. [0041]; detecting variations in reflected light and from different or multiple light sources reads on differential illumination; see Claim 13 teachings above).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mok (cited by Applicant in IDS filed April 2, 2024, US 20020129485 A1), as applied to Claim 11 above, in further view of Morishita (cited by Applicant in IDS filed April 2, 2024, US 4596746 A) and Kamakura (US 20160271696 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Mok discloses wherein the build material comprises a sinterable paste comprising metal particles and a binder (para. [0088]), but fails to disclose the amount of binder and fails to disclose a solvent.
Morishita teaches a sinterable composition comprising metal powder, solvent and a binder, wherein the binder comprises 1-6wt% in order to form a sheet layer which avoids the adverse effects of porosity and insufficient adhesion after sintering, while balancing for brittleness (Col. 3, lines 40-55; sheet reads on layer). Morishita teaches wherein the solvent suitable allows for kneading the composition into a slip (Col. 3, 50-56).
Kamakura also discloses a metal paste composition for sintering including a powder of one or more metals, a solvent and binder, wherein the solvent acts as a dispersion medium and improves fluidity of the binder (para. [0058]-[0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have limited the binder of Mok to 1-6wt%, as taught by Morishita, and to have included a solvent, as taught by Morishita and Kamakura, for the invention disclosed by Mok. One would be motivated to limit the binder content in order to prevent adverse effects of porosity and insufficient adhesion in the layer after sintering, while balancing for brittleness, and one would be motivated to include a solvent in order to improve dispersion and the fluidity of the binder, and because solvent suitably allows for the formation of a slip (see teachings above).
Regarding Claim 20, Mok is silent towards particle size.
Morishita teaches forming a paste with a mixture of large, 150 mesh or smaller particles, and further, ultra-fine powders with an average size less than 1 micron, in order to carry out the sintering process at a lower temperature (Abstract; Col. 2, lines 65-66; Col. 3, lines 3-10; see also Col. 4, line 50; average particle size reads on d50). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the ultra-fine particles read on infiltrant particles (see Col. 2, 10-11, wherein ultra-fine particles function as binder, and Col. 5, lines 22-25, wherein ultra-fine grains are found between (infiltrating) the large grains of the metal powder). A particle size of less than 1um is less than 25% the particle size of 150mesh size particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a particle mixture comprising large particles with an average size of 150 mesh or smaller (metal scaffold particles) and ultra-fine particles with an average size of less than 1 micron (metal infiltrant particles), and therefore comprised infiltrant particles with a d50 particle size less than 25% the d50 particle size of the scaffold particles, as claimed, as taught by Morishita, for the invention disclosed by Mok, in order to lower sintering temperatures (see teaching above).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mok (cited by Applicant in IDS filed April 2, 2024, US 20020129485 A1) in view of Morishita (cited by Applicant in IDS filed April 2, 2024, US 4596746 A) and Kamakura (US 20160271696 A1), as applied to Claim 19 above, in further view of Moussa (cited by Applicant in IDS filed April 2, 2024, US 20020176793 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Mok is silent towards particle size.
Moussa teaches using a bimodal or trimodal particle size mixture including finer particles and larger particles, wherein a ratio of average particle diameter size is on the order of 1:5 to 1:10, preferably 1:7, such that finer particles are positioned in voids left by larger particles, thereby increasing the maximum volumetric concentration of the powder and in order to improve densification control (para. [0024]-[0025]; para. [0041]-[0044]; average particle size reads on d50 particle size; finer particles read on infiltrant particles and larger particles read on scaffold particles – see also para. [0043], wherein composition choice facilitates infiltration of a low melting point metal). A 1:5 to 1:10 particle ratio equates to an infiltrant particle size of 10-20% that of the metal scaffold (larger) particles..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a bimodal or trimodal particle size mixture including finer infiltrant particles and larger scaffold particles, and an average particle diameter (d50) size ratio of 1:5 to 1:10, as taught by Moussa, for the invention disclosed by Mok, in order to increase the maximum volumetric concentration of the powder and to improve densification control (see teaching above). A 1:5 to 1:10 particle ratio equates to 10-20%, which reads on the claimed 25% or less.
Regarding Claim 21, Moussa discloses preferable blends comprising metal scaffold particles with an average particle size of about 20um, and infiltrant metal particles with an average size of about 5um and about 2.5um (para. [0044]). Moussa teaches wherein these blends, such as for stainless steel scaffold particles and infiltrant particles of NiB, NiP and/or Fe, promotes grain boundary sliding and rapid densification due to the liquid wetting of the infiltrant particles during sintering, assisting in pore removal and final densification (para. [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised an average particle size (d50) of the metal scaffold particles of 20um, which reads on the claimed 10-20um, and an average particle size (d50) of the metal infiltrant scaffold particles of 5um and/or 2.5 um, which reads on the claimed range of 2-10um, as taught by Moussa, for the invention disclosed by Mok, in order to achieve rapid densification by grain boundary sliding and liquid wetting during sintering, and thereby pore removal and final densification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)-272-3458. 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.
CATHERINE P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights