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. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 04 March 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) set forth on pages 1-2 of the reply. This has been found persuasive and the restriction requirement is withdrawn. Drawings The drawings are objected to because numeral “110” does not appear to be in any of the figures. 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. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph [0030], “tensile stress 110’ does not appear to be shown in any of the figures. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. Claim (s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kritchman et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0054039 A1) in combination with Stewart et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0128709 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Kritchman et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0001], [0033] and [0114]) teaches a process (see paragraphs [0001] (method for printing three-dimensional objects) and [0033] (removal of printed object from a printing tray) of Kritchman et al), including (a) generating a shock wave in at least one of the additively manufactured component and a substrate upon which the additively manufactured component is built (see paragraph [0033] (removal of a printed object from a printing tray (i.e., a substrate upon which the object is printed) includes exposing the printing tray to shock waves) of Kritchman et al). The generation and application of a shock wave in the process of Kritchman et al results in separation of a printed object from a printing tray, but Kritchman et al does not teach (b) applying a tensile stress at the interface between the additively manufactured component and the substrate to separate at least a portion of the additively manufactured component from the substrate along the interface in response to the tensile stress. Stewart et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0001], [0024], [0025], [0027], [0032] and [0033]; Figures 1(a)-1(g) and 2(a)) teaches a process (see paragraph [0001] (process of inspecting the structural integrity of a structure) of Stewart et al), including applying a tensile stress at the interface between the additively manufactured component and the substrate to separate at least a portion of the additively manufactured component from the substrate along the interface in response to the tensile stress (see Figures 1(a)-1(g), paragraphs [0025] (structure 20 includes layers 22, 24), [0027] (compression shock wave 40 from a front surface 23 to a back surface 25, and compression shock wave 40 reflects off back surface 25 as a tension shock wave 50) and [0033] (separation of layers 22, 24 resulting in disbond 6 0 ) of Stewart et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a tensile stress at the interface between the additively manufactured component and the substrate to separate at least a portion of the additively manufactured component from the substrate along the interface in response to the tensile stress in the process of Kritchman et al in view of Stewart et al in order to determine separation between two materials. Regarding claims 2-5, see Figures 1(a)-1(g), paragraphs [0025] (structure 20 includes layers 22, 24), [0027] (compression shock wave 40 from a front surface 23 to a back surface 25, and compression shock wave 40 reflects off back surface 25 as a tension shock wave 50) and [0033] (separation of layers 22, 24 resulting in disbond 6) of Stewart et al . Regarding claim 6, see Figure 2(a), paragraph [0032] (ablative layer 28) of Stewart et al. Regarding claim 7, see paragraph [0024] (laser-generating tool) of Stewart et al. Claim (s) 9, 11, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kritchman et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0054039 A1) in combination with Stewart et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0128709 A1) . Regarding claim 9, Kritchman et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0001], [0033], [0045] , [0074] and [0114]; Figures 1 and 2B-2E) teaches a process (see paragraph [0001] (method for printing a three-dimensional object) of Kritchman et al), including (a) building the additively manufactured component layer-by-layer on a substrate (see Figures 2B-2E, paragraph [0045] (method of three-dimensional printing) of Kritchman et al); and (b) generating a shock wave in at least one of the additively manufactured component and the substrate (see paragraph [0033] (removal of a printed object from a printing tray (i.e., a substrate upon which the object is printed) includes exposing the printing tray to shock waves) of Kritchman et al). The generation and application of a shock wave in the process of Kritchman et al results in separation of a printed object from a printing tray, but Kritchman et al does not teach (c) applying a tensile stress at an interface between the additively manufactured component and the substrate to separate at least a portion of the additively manufactured component from the substrate along the interface in response to the tensile stress. Stewart et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0001], [0024], [0025], [0027] and [0033]; Figures 1(a)-1(g)) teaches a process (see paragraph [0001] (process of inspecting the structural integrity of a structure) of Stewart et al), including applying a tensile stress at an interface between the additively manufactured component and the substrate to separate at least a portion of the additively manufactured component from the substrate along the interface in response to the tensile stress (see Figures 1(a)-1(g), paragraphs [0025] (structure 20 includes layers 22, 24), [0027] (compression shock wave 40 from a front surface 23 to a back surface 25, and compression shock wave 40 reflects off back surface 25 as a tension shock wave 50) and [0033] (separation of layers 22, 24 resulting in disbond 6 0 ) of Stewart et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a tensile stress at an interface between the additively manufactured component and the substrate to separate at least a portion of the additively manufactured component from the substrate along the interface in response to the tensile stress in the process of Kritchman et al in view of Stewart et al in order to determine separation between two materials. Regarding claim 11, see Figure 1, paragraph [0074] (printing tray 170) of Kritchman et al. Regarding claim 13, see Figures 1(a)-1(g), paragraphs [0025] (structure 20 includes layers 22, 24), [0027] (compression shock wave 40 from a front surface 23 to a back surface 25, and compression shock wave 40 reflects off back surface 25 as a tension shock wave 50) and [0033] (separation of layers 22, 24 resulting in disbond 60) of Stewart et al . Regarding claim 14, see paragraph [0024] (laser-generating tool) of Stewart et al. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kritchman et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0054039 A1) in combination with Stewart et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0128709 A1) as applied to claim s 9, 11, 13 and 14 above, and further in view of Bredt (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0126157 A1) . Regarding claim 10, Kritchman et al (in combination with Stewart et al) teaches an additive manufacturing process, but does not teach any of the recited additive manufacturing processes. Bredt (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0002] and [0046]; Figure 1) teaches a process (see paragraph [0002] (rapid prototyping (i.e., additive manufacturing) techniques, including extracting finished articles from a rapid prototyping machine) of Bredt), including binder jet additive manufacturing (see Figure 1, paragraph [0046] (three-dimensional printer 3 deposits a binder solution from ink jets onto successive layers of powder material) of Bredt), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the additive manufacturing process of Bredt for the additive manufacturing process of Kritchman et al (in combination with Stewart et al) because the substitution of one known additive manufacturing technique for another known manufacturing technique would have yielded predictable results (e.g., the manufacture of a three-dimensional object) to one of ordinary skill in the art. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kritchman et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0054039 A1) in combination with Stewart et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0128709 A1) as applied to claim s 9, 11, 13 and 14 above, and further in view of Hess et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0065343 A1) . Regarding claim 12, Kritchman et al (in combination with Stewart et al) does not teach (1) a contoured substrate. Hess et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0001] and [0040]; Figure 4b) teaches a process (see paragraph [0001] (method for producing a component) of Hess et al), including a contoured substrate (see Figure 4b, paragraph [0040] (non-planar support platform 40) of Hess et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a contoured support in the process of Kritchman et al (in combination with Stewart et al) in view of Hess et al in order to form a component having a non-planar surface (see paragraph [0040] of Hess et al). Claim (s) 16, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kritchman et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0054039 A1) in combination with Stewart et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0128709 A1) . Regarding claim 16, Kritchman et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0001], [0033], [0074] and [0114]; Figure 1) teaches an apparatus (see paragraph s [0001] (apparatus for printing three-dimensional objects) and [0033] (removal of a printed object from a printing tray) of Kritchman et al), including (a) a substrate upon which an additively manufactured component is built (see Figure 1, paragraph [0074] (printing tray 170 (i.e., substrate upon which the object is printed)) of Kritchman et al); and (b) a shock wave generator configured to generate a shock wave in at least one of the additively manufactured component and the substrate (see paragraph [0033] (removal of a printed object from a printing tray includes exposing the tray to shock waves (i.e., the shock waves are generated from a device capable of generating shock waves)) of Kritchman et al). Kritchman et al does not teach (1) wherein the shock wave results in a tensile stress at an interface between the additively manufactured component and the substrate, and (2 ) wherein at least a portion of the additively manufactured component separates from the substrate along the interface in response to the tensile stress. Stewart et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0015], [0024], [0025], [0027] , [0032] and [0033]; Figures 1(a)-1(g) and 2(a) ) teaches an apparatus (see paragraph [0015] ( apparatus for bond testing and determining disbands) of Stewart et al), wherein the shock wave results in a tensile stress at an interface between the additively manufactured component and the substrate, and wherein at least a portion of the additively manufactured component separates from the substrate along the interface in response to the tensile stress (see Figures 1(a)-1(g), paragraphs [0025] (structure 20 includes layers 22, 24), [0027] (compression shock wave 40 from a front surface 23 to a back surface 25, and compression shock wave 40 reflects off back surface 25 as a tension shock wave 50) and [0033] (separation of layers 22, 24 resulting in disbond 60) of Stewart et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a shock wave such that the shock wave results in a tensile stress at an interface between the additively manufactured component and the substrate, and wherein at least a portion of the additively manufactured component separates from the substrate along the interface in response to the tensile stress in the apparatus of Kritchman et al in view of Stewart et al in order to determine separation between two materials. Regarding claim 17, see Figure 1, paragraph [0074] (printing tray 170) of Kritchman et al. Regarding claim 19, see Figures 1(a)-1(g), paragraphs [0025] (structure 20 includes layers 22, 24), [0027] (compression shock wave 40 from a front surface 23 to a back surface 25, and compression shock wave 40 reflects off back surface 25 as a tension shock wave 50) and [0033] (separation of layers 22, 24 resulting in disbond 60) of Stewart et al. Regarding claim 20, see Figure 2(a), paragraph [0032] (ablative material 28) of Stewart et al. Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kritchman et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0054039 A1) in combination with Stewart et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0128709 A1) as applied to claim s 16, 17, 19 and 20 above, and further in view of Hess et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0065343 A1) . Regarding claim 18, Kritchman et al (in combination with Stewart et al) does not teach (1) a contoured substrate. Hess et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0001] and [0040]; Figure 4b) teaches an apparatus (see paragraph [0001] (apparatus for producing a component) of Hess et al), including a contoured substrate (see Figure 4b, paragraph [0040] (non-planar support platform 40) of Hess et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a contoured substrate in the apparatus of Kritchman et al (in combination with Stewart et al) in view of Hess et al in order to form a component having a non-planar surface (see paragraph [0040] of Hess et al). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8 and 15 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LEO B. TENTONI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1209 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:30-4:00 ET M-F . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Christina A. Johnson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1176 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT LEO B. TENTONI Primary Examiner Art Unit 1742 /LEO B TENTONI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742