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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/13/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “sheet dropping” of claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 is seen as vague and indefinite since the metes and bounds of “sheet dropping” are unknown. The phrase does not appear to be a term of art and is not found anywhere is sufficient disclosure to ascertain its meaning. Additionally, the instant disclosure provides nothing that would allow a skilled artisan to understand the meaning. Finally, if the interface material is to be molten, per claim 1, then how can a sheet of interface material be dropped, per claim 9. Sheet dropping will be interpreted as if the process creates a sheet of interface material in the desired location.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 11 is already claimed in its entirety in claim 1, thus claim 11 does not further limit claim 1.
Claim 12 is already claimed in its entirety in both claims 11 and 1, thus claim 122 does not further limit claims 11 or 1.
Claim 13 is already claimed in its entirety in claim 1, thus claim 11 does not further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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 1 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giller et al (U.S. PGPub 2019/0193335; herein Giller, already of record), in view of Drewnowski et al (U.S. PGPub 2018/0237329; herein Drewnowski). Regarding claim 1:
Giller teaches printing an article material, a support material, and an interface material as claimed, in Figures 4A-5 and paragraphs 0007, 0056, and 0057. The polymer used by Giller, which can be used in both the article and support, can contain potassium chloride (a salt), paragraph 0048.
However, Giller is silent to maintaining the temperature as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor Drewnowski teaches maintaining an elevated temperature during the printing process (paragraph 0030).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to use the heat treatment of Drewnowski, since it helps prevent the formation of internal stresses in the part (Drewnowski: paragraph 0030).
Regarding claims 7 and 13:
The polymer used by Giller, which can be used in both the article and support, can contain potassium chloride (a salt), paragraph 0048.
Regarding claim 8:
Giller teaches ejecting the material, as seen in Figure 3.
Regarding claim 9:
Since no description of sheet dropping can be found in the specification or drawings and based on a search it is not a term of art, therefore the fact that Giller creates a sheet of interface material in Figures 4C and 5, means Giller teaches sheet dropping of the interfacial material.
Regarding claim 10:
Since Giller teaches depositing the interface material between the article and support materials, removal would be as claimed.
Regarding claims 11 and 12:
See remarks regarding claim 1 and the teaching of Drewnowski.
Claims 1, 5-8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myerberg et al (U.S. PGPub 2017/0297098; herein Myerberg; already of record), in view of Drewnowski. Regarding claim 1:
Myerberg, throughout the disclosure, teaches printing an article material, a support material, and an interfacial material as claimed. Myerberg specifically states that the interface material is a polymer in binder form, which means it is a liquid, i.e. molten (paragraphs 0007, 0038, 0046, 0126, 0172, 0180). However, Giller is silent to maintaining the temperature as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor Drewnowski teaches maintaining an elevated temperature during the printing process (paragraph 0030).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to use the heat treatment of Drewnowski, since it helps prevent the formation of internal stresses in the part (Drewnowski: paragraph 0030).
Regarding claims 5 and 6:
Myerberg teaches printing the article from metals including aluminum, paragraph 0065.
Regarding claim 7:
Myerberg teaches that the article material can include glass (paragraph 0061) or salt (paragraph 0060).
Regarding claim 8:
Myerberg teaches ejecting the interfacial material (paragraphs 0027, 0084, 0088, 0090)
Regarding claim 10:
Since Myerberg teaches depositing the interface material between the article and support materials, removal would be as claimed.
Regarding claims 11 and 12:
See remarks regarding claim 1 and the teaching of Drewnowski.
Regarding claim 13:
Myerberg teaches that the support material can include glass (paragraph 0061) or salt (paragraph 0060).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giller or Myerberg, in view of Jaker et al (U.S. PGPub 2016/0122541; herein Jaker, already of record). Regarding claims 2-4:
Giller or Myerberg do not teach the claimed interfacial materials.
In the same field of endeavor Jaker teaches using PEI as a support material (paragraph 0143), and that PEI, PAEK, and PEEK are equivalents for the same purpose (paragraph 0122), and that such supports are removable (paragraph 0037). Since the interface material also supports the article, then the materials of Jaker could also act as an interfacial material.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the needed interfacial material, since Jaker shows that the claimed materials are capable of being used as support materials and are easily removed from the part. It has been held that substituting equivalents for the same purpose is obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II) and that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/18/2025, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
It is noted that in the remarks the Applicant repeatedly states that the claims are for making an inorganic part. It is noted that the claims use “comprises” (not consisting of) when claiming a metal, a glass, a salt, or combinations thereof. The Applicant is directed to MPEP 2111.03. Since the claims use comprises, the printing material can also include other materials. Thus Giller is still able to be used as art, since the polymer used by Giller, which can be used in both the article and support, can contain potassium chloride (a salt), paragraph 0048.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm..
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743