Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/450,846

LASER-ASSISTED CONTROLLED HEATING HOTSPOT MITIGATION FOR 3D PRINTING

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 16, 2023
Examiner
ROE, JESSEE RANDALL
Art Unit
1759
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Xerox Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
976 granted / 1279 resolved
+11.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
1328
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
50.9%
+10.9% vs TC avg
§102
9.8%
-30.2% vs TC avg
§112
27.4%
-12.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1279 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Status of the Claims Claims 1-20 are pending wherein claims 1-9 and 17-20 are currently under examination and claims 10-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected conductive liquid three-dimensional printing system. Applicant’s election of claims 1-9 and 17-20 was made in the Response filed on December 15, 2025. 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)). 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. Claims 1-2 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann et al. (US 2021/0162493). In regard to claim 1, Herrmann et al. (‘493) discloses a method of three-dimensional printing comprising: providing a molten material to a printhead of a three-dimensional printer [0026] and measuring an original temperature of the build surface [0022]. Herrmann et al. (‘493) further teaches that by targeting the build surface with a laser the temperature of the build surface may be controlled and raised to the level that produces an improved bond between the molten drop and the build surface compared to the bond that would otherwise occur if lower build surface temperatures employed [0023-0024]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to determine the original and desired build temperatures (and thus the differential) in order to increase to the optimum temperature of bonding the drop to the build surface to have better build quality and improved properties. MPEP 2144.05 II. Still regarding claim 1, Herrmann et al. (‘493) further discloses wherein there would be multiple lasers and hence multiple laser pulses may be provided [0045] and depositing the molten material on the build surface that was heated to a desired temperature to form a layer [0022]. In regard to claim 2, Herrmann et al. (‘493) further discloses heating a first and second portion of the build surface [0027]. Herrmann et al. (‘493) further discloses wherein there would be multiple lasers and hence multiple laser pulses may be provided on the multiple portions [0045]. In regard to claim 7, Herrmann et al. (‘493) discloses making aluminum parts [0060]. In regard to claims 8-9, Herrmann et al. (‘493) discloses wherein the irradiance of 2000 W/mm2 and wherein the laser pulses would be impinged onto a surface of 3 mm [0059]. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-6 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. In regard to claim 3, while Herrmann et al. (‘493) suggests using multiple lasers [0045] and multiple build surfaces [0027], Herrmann et al. (‘493) fails to specify determining the number of laser pulses to achieve the temperature difference; and calculating an increase in temperature needed during each of the laser pulses. In regard to claims 4-6, while Herrmann et al. (‘493) suggests using multiple lasers [0045] and multiple build surfaces [0027], Herrmann et al. (‘493) fails to specify one or more cooling periods in between each one or more heating time period when the laser pulse is turned off. Claims 17-20 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In regard to claim 17, Herrmann et al. (‘493) discloses a method of three-dimensional printing comprising: providing a molten material to a printhead of a three-dimensional printer [0026] and measuring an original temperature of the build surface [0022]. Herrmann et al. (‘493) further teaches that the by targeting the build surface with a laser the temperature of the build surface may be controlled and raised to the level that produces an improved bond between the molten drop and the build surface compared to the bond that would otherwise occur if lower build surface temperatures employed [0023-0024]. However, Herrmann et al. (‘493) fails to specify determining a number N of incremental steps to increase the original temperature on the build surface to the desired temperature of the build surface; calculating a temperature changed needed during each of the N incremental steps using a formula (1/(N-1)) multiplied by the calculated temperature difference; and heating the build surface for the determined number N of incremental steps using a laser. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Griffiths et al. (WO 2022/251490) discloses a tooling controller for controlling the thermal medium inside the chamber [0003]. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessee Roe whose telephone number is (571)272-5938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30 am to 4 pm. 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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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. /JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 16, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 07, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601035
High Temperature Titanium Alloys
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595521
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR PRODUCING DIRECT REDUCED METAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595535
CAST MAGNESIUM ALLOY WITH IMPROVED DUCTILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584196
HIGHLY CORROSION-RESISTANT ALUMINUM ALLOY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584194
LOW-OXYGEN ALSC ALLOY POWDERS AND METHOD FOR THE PRODUCTION THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+7.9%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1279 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month