DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on October 9, 2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of claim 1-10 in the reply filed on October 9, 2025 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that
nothing in the record supports the Examiner’s assertion that using a slurry instead of powder would involve a materially different process;
Groups I and II are connected in each of design, operation and effect, in view of which they are not distinct;
the Office Action appears to overlook other claims in Group I that recite such characteristics. For instance, claim 2 recites that at least one of the steps has “disparate surface textures,” and claim 3 recites at least one of the steps having “disparate surface materials”;
Applicant submits that having one less component does not support the conclusion that the utility is “separate,” as the mere exclusion of one component does not change the utility of the other limitations, which overlap as noted above;
the Office Action has concluded that the apparatus of Group III is “materially” different from the method claims in Group II because the apparatus does not include a further imaging component, which fails to address overlapping limitations including those noted above with regard to the restriction between Groups I and II and corresponding limitations in Group III. The Office Action has offered no rationale that would explain that skipping the imaging step using the apparatus of claim 20 would result in a process that one of skill in the art would find “materially” different.
This is not found persuasive because
A slurry is interpreted as being different than a powder due to the differences in composition. Therefore the difference between materials is considered sufficient to show the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and material different process of holding, spreading and imaging the slurry.
Search both groups I and II will result in a plethora of inventions that are set forth as evidenced by the classification of inventions and the search area(s) would not necessarily overlap such that the myriad of search areas and coverage thereto would place an undue burden on the Examiner already limited in search/examination time.
Argued features are found in dependent claims, therefore not persuasive.
The groups having different components or different combination of elements, represents possibility of different/differing inventive features. The search for the inventions would be different and the examination of all the differing inventions together would place an undue burden on the Examiner already substantially limited in examination time.
The groups having different components and steps represents possibility of different/differing inventive features. The search for the inventions would be different and the examination of all the differing inventions together would place an undue burden on the Examiner already substantially limited in examination time.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colson (US 2021/0187845).
In regards to claim 1, Colson teaches additive manufacturing system (10, powder deposition apparatus) comprising:
a powder bed (14) including sidewalls (12) where a build plate (16) and the sidewalls form an enclosure to hold powder (fig. 1; para. 14-15); and
a recoater (22, powder spreader) comprising a pin array (30, blade) connected where the moving mechanism (not shown/labeled, actuator) moves the recoater across an upper surface of the powder bed to spread the powder within the powder bed (fig. 1; para. 16, 19-20);
a sensor (34, imaging apparatus) comprising a light scanner (camera) images the powder within the powder bed and is capable of providing an output indicative of surface profile (spreading characteristics) of the powder (fig. 1; para. 16, 18, 21-22).
Colson does not explicitly teach a stepped substrate having respective steps at different thicknesses relative to the other steps.
However, the particular type of substrate or processing materials used is a process/method limitation rather than an apparatus limitation, and the recitation of a particular type of substrate or processing materials do not limit an apparatus claim (MPEP2115).
Furthermore, it has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP2114).
As Colson teaches the structural limitations of the claim, one would be capable of placing a stepped substrate onto the build plate, allowing powder to be spread across the top of the surfaces and using the sensor to evaluate the surface profile after the recoater is moved across the top surface, thus fulfilling the limitations of the claim.
In regards to claims 2-4, Colson teaches the sensor evaluates the surface profile images the powder within the powder bed (fig. 1; para. 21-22, 32, 46). The apparatus of Colson is capable of providing the steps that have a plurality of disparate surface textures/material/characteristics, and the sensor which provides the output indicative of different spreading characteristics of the powder for each of the disparate surface textures/material/characteristics as the stepped substrate is capable of being placed onto the build plate of Colson.
In regards to claims 5-6, Colson teaches the pin array comprises a plurality of pins (36) which are individually moved by actuators (26), where the pins are moved to adjust for elevated portions (fig. 1-3; para. 25-28, 34) and the sensor to evaluates the surface profile after the recoater is moved across the top surface (fig 1, 4; para. 16, 21-22).
The apparatus of Colson is capable of the having the recoater with different surface characteristics, and the sensor provides the output indicative of different spreading characteristics of regions of the powder respectively corresponding to one of the unequal surface characteristics.
In regards to claims 7-8, Colson teaches the pin array comprises the plurality of pins (36) which are individually moved by actuators (26), where the pins are moved to adjust for elevated portions (fig. 1-3; para. 25-28, 34) where the movement of the pins results in the plurality of pins having a different shape.
In regards to claims 9-10, Colson teaches the plurality of pins are moved based powder profile on the powder bed provide by the sensor (para 16, 21-22). Colson is capable of the process of the imaging apparatus is configured to provide the output based on denudation of the powder in the powder bed, with regions not exhibiting denudation being indicative of desirable powder spreadability and he imaging apparatus is configured to provide the output based on denudation of the powder in the powder bed relative to characteristics of the stepped substrate selected from the group of: thickness, texture, material type, roughness, and a combination thereof.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717