CTFR 18/476,717 CTFR 92434 The arguments and amendments submitted 02/04/2026 have been fully considered. In light of amendments made, all prior USC § 112(b) rejections are hereby withdrawn. The merits of the claims, however, remain unpatentable over the prior art as set forth below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10-11, 14-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El Naga (US PG Pub 2019/0337056) in view of Butcher (US PG Pub 2017/0197362) . Regarding presently amended claim 1 and the new features added to the other independent claims 8 and 15 as indicated by underlining below , El Naga teaches a method for capturing trapped powder from a part during an additive manufacturing process (para. 0010), the method comprising: defining parameters for the part (implicit since printing is based on a preprogrammed design per para. 0036), the part defining an interior passageway defined by interior sidewalls (passageway 106 as shown in Fig. 1B and per para. 0044); defining parameters for a powder removal cap (implicit since printing is based on a preprogrammed design per para. 0036), the powder removal cap (103 in Fig. 1B and para. 0044) comprising a body portion (body of 103 not including membrane 110) and a radial membrane susceptible to fracture connected to the interior sidewalls of the part (“In some embodiments, the region 110 where the co-printed cap 102 interfaces with the AM part 104 can be additively manufactured to include properties that encourage bond failure, such as are low material density” per para. 0043 wherein region 110 is a type of membrane which is a thin region per para. 0044 and is implicitly radial since hole 106 has a cylindrical shape per Fig. 1B); simultaneously creating the part and the powder removal cap via additive manufacturing (co-printing of the part and powder removal cap per paras. 0038-0039 and 0061), wherein the powder removal cap is created within the interior passageway (as shown in Fig. 1B) and, upon completion of the creation of the part and the powder removal cap, the powder removal cap traps excess powder within the interior passageway (paras. 0041-0042); removing the powder removal cap from the interior passageway by breaking the radial membrane from the interior sidewalls to permit access to the interior passageway (paras. 0042, 0044; and claim 24) capturing the excess powder within the interior passageway (paras. 0010, step 906 in Fig. 9, and claim 24). El Naga does not teach the cap embodiment shown in Fig. 1B has a body portion which defines a socket. However, El Naga does teach another cap embodiment wherein the body portion defines a socket having a hexagonal shape for tool engagement (as shown in Fig. 2 for socket 204 and per paras. 0044-0045). El Naga also does not explicitly teach engaging a tool with the socket and twisting the powder removal cap until the radial membrane breaks relative to the interior sidewalls to permit access to the interior passageway. However, Butcher teaches a method for capturing trapped powder from a part during an additive manufacturing process (paras. 0006 and 0035): wherein the cap body portion (feature 20 in para. 0031) defines a socket (paras. 0031 and 0080), engaging a hex key tool having a hexagonal shape (hex drive of para. 0031 is a type of hex key tool), and comprising a step of removing the powder removal cap from the interior passageway by engaging a tool with the socket and twisting the powder removal cap until the radial membrane breaks relative to the interior sidewalls to permit access to the interior passageway (paras. 0031, 0035, and 0075). Butcher teaches that this feature facilitates convenient, direct, and fast removal of powder from the passageway (para. 0006). The courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2143.I (rationale A) and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). In view of Butcher’s teachings and/or KSR rationale A, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Butcher’s socket and steps of tool engagement with the socket and twisting of the cap to predictably facilitate more convenient, direct, and fast removal of powder from the passageway. Regarding claims 3-4, El Naga teaches the part is for a vehicle which is an automobile (para. 0036). Regarding claim 7, El Naga teaches the part and the powder removal cap are formed from the same material (paras. 0038-0039 and 0061) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El Naga in view of Butcher, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Ovaere (US PG Pub 2021/0016498) . Regarding claim 5, El Naga and Butcher do not explicitly teach this feature. However, Ovaere teaches a method for capturing trapped powder from a part during an additive manufacturing process (paras. 0063, 0080) wherein the radial membrane (support 60 with cellular elements S1 and S2 is a type of radial membrane) on the powder removal cap (support 66 is a type of cap) includes a notch (as shown in Fig. 10 and per paras. 0077 and 0078), which facilitates easier shear breakage of the membrane (paras. 0080-0081). In view of Ovaere’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the membrane of El Naga in view of Butcher with Ovaere’s notch to predictably obtain this benefit. Regarding claim 6, El Naga and Butcher do not explicitly teach this feature. However, Ovaere teaches a method for capturing trapped powder from a part during an additive manufacturing process (paras. 0063, 0080) wherein the radial membrane (support 60 with cellular elements S1 and S2 is a type of radial membrane) on the powder removal cap (support 66 is a type of cap) includes a perforation (mesh or lattice feature of para. 0063 has multiple perforations), which facilitates easier membrane removal and consumes less powder (para. 0063). In view of Ovaere’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the membrane of El Naga in view of Butcher with Ovaere’s perforations to predictably obtain this benefit. Regarding claim 8, El Naga teaches a method for capturing trapped powder from a part during an additive manufacturing process (para. 0010), the method comprising: defining parameters for the part (implicit since printing is based on a preprogrammed design per para. 0036), the part defining an interior passageway defined by interior sidewalls (passageway 106 as shown in Fig. 1B and per para. 0044); defining parameters for a powder removal cap (implicit since printing is based on a preprogrammed design per para. 0036), the powder removal cap (103 in Fig. 1B and para. 0044) comprising a body portion (body of 103 not including membrane 110) and a thin radial membrane connected to the interior sidewalls of the part (“In some embodiments, the region 110 where the co-printed cap 102 interfaces with the AM part 104 can be additively manufactured to include properties that encourage bond failure, such as are low material density” per para. 0043 wherein region 110 is a type of membrane which is a thin region per para. 0044 and is implicitly radial since hole 106 has a cylindrical shape per Fig. 1B); simultaneously creating the part and the powder removal cap via additive manufacturing (co-printing of the part and powder removal cap per paras. 0038-0039 and 0061), wherein the powder removal cap is created within the interior passageway (as shown in Fig. 1B) and, upon completion of the creation of the part and the powder removal cap, the powder removal cap traps excess powder within the interior passageway (paras. 0041-0042); removing the powder removal cap from the interior passageway by breaking the radial membrane from the interior sidewalls to permit access to the interior passageway (paras. 0042, 0044; and claim 24) capturing the excess powder within the interior passageway (paras. 0010, step 906 in Fig. 9, and claim 24). Regarding claims 10-11, El Naga teaches the part is for a vehicle which is an automobile (para. 0036). Regarding claim 14, El Naga teaches the part and the powder removal cap are formed from the same material (paras. 0038-0039 and 0061). Regarding claim 15, El Naga teaches a method for capturing trapped powder from a part during an additive manufacturing process (para. 0010), the method comprising: defining parameters for the part (implicit since printing is based on a preprogrammed design per para. 0036), the part defining an interior passageway (passageway 106 as shown in Fig. 1B and per para. 0044); defining parameters for a powder removal cap (implicit since printing is based on a preprogrammed design per para. 0036), the powder removal cap (103 in Fig. 1B and para. 0044) comprising a thin radial membrane (“In some embodiments, the region 110 where the co-printed cap 102 interfaces with the AM part 104 can be additively manufactured to include properties that encourage bond failure, such as are low material density” per para. 0043 wherein region 110 is a type of membrane which is a thin region per para. 0044 and is implicitly radial since hole 106 has a cylindrical shape per Fig. 1B) disposed within the interior passageway of the part (as shown in Fig. 1B); simultaneously creating the part and the powder removal cap via additive manufacturing (co-printing of the part and powder removal cap per paras. 0038-0039 and 0061), wherein, upon completion of the creation of the part and the powder removal cap, the powder removal cap traps excess powder within the interior passageway (paras. 0041-0042); removing the powder removal cap from the interior passageway by breaking the radial membrane to permit access to the interior passageway (paras. 0042, 0044; and claim 24) capturing the excess powder within the interior passageway (paras. 0010, step 906 in Fig. 9, and claim 24). Regarding claims 17-18, El Naga teaches the part is for a vehicle which is an automobile (para. 0036) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El Naga in view of Butcher, as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Ovaere (US PG Pub 2021/0016498) . Regarding claim 12, El Naga and Butcher do not explicitly teach this feature. However, Ovaere teaches a method for capturing trapped powder from a part during an additive manufacturing process (paras. 0063, 0080) wherein the radial membrane (support 60 with cellular elements S1 and S2 is a type of radial membrane) on the powder removal cap (support 66 is a type of cap) includes a notch (as shown in Fig. 10 and per paras. 0077 and 0078), which facilitates easier shear breakage of the membrane (paras. 0080-0081). In view of Ovaere’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the membrane of El Naga with Ovaere’s notch to predictably obtain this benefit. Regarding claim 13, El Naga and Butcher do not explicitly teach this feature. However, Ovaere teaches a method for capturing trapped powder from a part during an additive manufacturing process (paras. 0063, 0080) wherein the radial membrane (support 60 with cellular elements S1 and S2 is a type of radial membrane) on the powder removal cap (support 66 is a type of cap) includes a perforation (mesh or lattice feature of para. 0063 has multiple perforations), which facilitates easier membrane removal and consumes less powder (para. 0063). In view of Ovaere’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the membrane of El Naga with Ovaere’s perforations to predictably obtain this benefit . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El Naga, as applied to claim 15 above, in view of Ovaere (US PG Pub 2021/0016498) . Regarding claim 19, El Naga and Butcher do not explicitly teach this feature. However, Ovaere teaches a method for capturing trapped powder from a part during an additive manufacturing process (paras. 0063, 0080) wherein the radial membrane (support 60 with cellular elements S1 and S2 is a type of radial membrane) on the powder removal cap (support 66 is a type of cap) includes a notch (as shown in Fig. 10 and per paras. 0077 and 0078), which facilitates easier shear breakage of the membrane (paras. 0080-0081). In view of Ovaere’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the membrane of El Naga with Ovaere’s notch to predictably obtain this benefit. Regarding claim 20, El Naga and Butcher do not explicitly teach this feature. However, Ovaere teaches a method for capturing trapped powder from a part during an additive manufacturing process (paras. 0063, 0080) wherein the radial membrane (support 60 with cellular elements S1 and S2 is a type of radial membrane) on the powder removal cap (support 66 is a type of cap) includes a perforation (mesh or lattice feature of para. 0063 has multiple perforations), which facilitates easier membrane removal and consumes less powder (para. 0063). In view of Ovaere’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the membrane of El Naga with Ovaere’s perforations to predictably obtain this benefit. Response to Arguments Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Applicant presents an argument contending that Butcher fails to teach a hex key engaging with the socket. However, this argument is not persuasive because it fails to consider the BRI of the term “hex key” and Butcher’s teachings of a hex key engaging with the socket. Furthermore, this argument fails to consider the obviousness of combining Butcher’s teachings with El Naga’s to predictably provide means for twisting and breaking off El Naga’s powder removal cap, as described in the rejections above. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM R SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9-6 MST. 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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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. /JRS/ Examiner Art Unit 1745 /GEORGE R KOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745 Application/Control Number: 18/476,717 Page 2 Art Unit: 1745 Application/Control Number: 18/476,717 Page 3 Art Unit: 1745 Application/Control Number: 18/476,717 Page 4 Art Unit: 1745 Application/Control Number: 18/476,717 Page 5 Art Unit: 1745
Prosecution Insights