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 confirmation of the election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-6, in the reply filed 06/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Newly submitted claims 27-34 are directed to an invention that lacks unity with the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: even though the invention of claim 27 requires the technical feature of the printer of claim 1 except for the newly added last limitation of amended claim 1, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Sealy et al., US 20210187832 A1, in view of Anderson, US 6923877 B1. Sealy in view of Anderson renders obvious the shared technical feature as set forth in the previous Office Action and as shown below in the rejection of claim 1.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 27-34 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-6 and 21-34 are pending. Claims 7-20 are canceled. Claims 21-34 are new. Claims 27-34 are withdrawn.
In view of the amendment, filed 06/02/2026, the following objections and rejections are withdrawn from the previous Office Action mailed 02/12/2026:
Claim objections
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Prior art rejections are updated in view of claim amendments.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 21-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claim 1 recites, in the last two lines, “one or more of the laser or the first energy source are configured to extend through the one or more conduits.” The full scope of the limitation is not adequately supported by the original disclosure, which does not describe at least “the first energy source” being “configured to extend through the one or more conduits” of the platform. The disclosure encompasses the “laser” extending through a conduit of the platform (note that the disclosure uses the terms “laser” and “laser beam” interchangeably, and a “laser” 112, which appears to indicate a laser beam, extends through conduit 106a in Fig. 4B, filed specification [0055]-[0056]). This conduit 106a is also in communication with the “supplier” ([0049]-[0050], [0054]). The other “conduit” 106b/106b’ of the platform 102/102’ serves as a vacuum pump connection (Figs. 3-5, [0051], [0063]). There is no description or depiction of an additional first energy source configured to extend through the one or more conduits of the platform.
New claim 26 recites “the first energy source, the applier, the one or more transparent materials, and the laser are contained within an inner perimeter of the platform when the printer is in use.” As set forth above, the original disclosure does not include the first energy source being part of or contained within the platform. As such, the full scope of the new limitation does not have adequate written description support.
The indicated dependent claims are rejected for the reasons provided above.
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(s) 6 is/are 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.
Amended claim 6 recites the limitation "a second energy source" in lines 2-3. The limitation is unclear as to whether it refers to the previously claimed “laser” or an additional energy source. Based on the claimed function, the “source” appears to correspond to the previously claimed “laser,” therefore the introduction of a new/additional element with a different name renders the intended scope of the claim unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 21-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sealy et al., US 20210187832 A1, in view of Anderson, US 6923877 B1 (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Sealy discloses a printer (AM system 102, Fig. 1A – see below, [0019]) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
954
1542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A vessel (powder distribution source 118, Fig. 1A, [0024]) configured to supply one or more layers of a substance onto a build plate (for dispensing powder to print bed on top of an underlying layer, Fig. 1A, [0024]), the substance comprising at least one of one or more powders or one or more wires (powder, [0022]);
A first energy source (sintering energy source 104, Fig. 1A, [0021]) configured to at least one of melt or fuse the one or more layers of the substance to form a printed part (performs laser powder bed fusion by laser melting, [0021]);
One or more transparent materials (confining layer 132 being water or glass, Fig. 1A, [0029]) configured to be disposed above deposited opaque materials to form a transparent overlay (disposed above opaque ablative material 126, Fig. 1A, [0029]); and
A laser (surface treatment source 106 being a pulsed laser for laser peening, Fig. 1A, [0029]), the laser being configured to irradiate at least a portion of at least one of the one or more deposited opaque materials that form the opaque overlay or the one or more transparent materials that form the transparent overlay (Fig. 1A, [0029], these materials being irradiated by laser beam 107).
Sealy further discloses the laser sources may be moved by an automated system relative to the workpiece ([0033]) and the system can include a positioning apparatus for aligning the energy sources 104, 106 and powder distribution source with respect to the workpiece 110 ([0034]). Sealy is silent as to a platform, an applier for the opaque materials, and the conduit configuration as presently claimed.
In the analogous art of laser peening a workpiece (Abstract), Anderson discloses an apparatus for improving properties of a metallic workpiece by imparting stress to the material (col. 1, lines 5-10).
PNG
media_image2.png
982
1470
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Anderson discloses a configuration including a platform (tool head 8, Fig. 1 above) having one or more conduits formed therein (hoses/guides 30, 32, 36, arrangement for attached modules including laser head 10, water nozzle 12, printer head 14, air nozzle 16, Fig. 1); an applier (print head 14 with ink supply pipe 34, Fig. 1) configured to deposit one or more opaque materials on one or more melted or fused layers of the workpiece to form an opaque overlay (arranged to deposit a film of ink to provide an opaque overlay 18 on the surface 24 of the workpiece 2, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 56-62), the one or more opaque materials comprising energy-absorbing particles suspended in a liquid (note that a composition of the materials intended to be deposited by the applier is not limiting; still, Anderson discloses the ink readily absorbing energy of the laser beam and typically containing carbon black, col. 4, line 64 – col. 6, line 1); one or more transparent materials configured to be disposed above the deposited opaque materials to form a transparent overlay (film 20 providing a transparent overlay on top of the opaque overlay 18, Fig. 1, col. 6, lines 8-12); and a laser (laser from oscillator 9 to laser head 10, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 37-55) in communication with at least one conduit of the one or more conduits (Fig. 1), the laser being configured to irradiate at least a portion of at least one of the one or more deposited opaque materials that form the opaque overlay or the one or more transparent materials that form the transparent overlay (Fig. 1, configured to irradiate one or both of the materials 18, 20), wherein at least one conduit of the one or more conduits is configured to be in communication with a cleaning system (conduit 36 / head 8 is connected to air nozzle 16, Fig. 1) configured to remove at least a portion of residue from at least one of the one or more opaque materials or the one or more transparent materials, the removed portion not necessarily being the irradiated portion (the air nozzle 16 being for removing dirt or debris at the workpiece surface, col. 6, line 64 – col. 7, line 14), wherein at least the laser is configured to extend through the one or more conduits (the laser/beam from laser oscillator 9 travels through light guide 30 to laser head 10 to be directed against the underlying workpiece, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 37-55). Anderson teaches the apparatus is more integrated than the conventional apparatus for laser shock peening by utilizing the common tool head/platform and is overall simpler and more efficient (col. 3, lines 12-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser peening configuration of Sealy to use the laser peening configuration of Anderson including the above elements in order to perform the laser peening surface treatment on the printed workpiece as desired by Sealy utilizing an integrated, simple, and efficient laser peening configuration as taught by Anderson.
Regarding claim 6, modified Sealy discloses the printer of claim 1, and the combination discloses the platform is configured to translate relative to the one or more melted or fused layers of the printed part (Sealy: translation relative to the workpiece, [0033]; Anderson: the tool head 8 is configured to move over the workpiece, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 10-27) such that a second energy source (the claimed laser) is configured to irradiate at least a portion of at least one of the one or more deposited opaque materials that form the opaque overlay or the one or more transparent materials that form the transparent overlay at a plurality of positions (Sealy: laser movement across workpiece/layers, [0033]; Anderson: the laser is configured to irradiate the workpiece at a plurality of positions via the relative movement capability, col. 4, lines 10-27, 37-55).
Regarding new claim 21, modified Sealy discloses the printer of claim 1, wherein the one or more conduits extends through the platform from a proximal end to a distal end of the platform (Anderson: the conduits extend from a top to bottom end of the tool head assembly, Fig. 1, which meets a proximal to distal end without further definition of what these ends are proximal/distal relative to).
Regarding new claim 22, modified Sealy discloses the printer of claim 1, wherein two or more of the first energy source, the applier, the laser, and the cleaning system are configured to operate at substantially the same time (Sealy: Fig. 1A, at least the first energy source 104 and the peening laser 106 being operated at the same time, “dual process flow,” [0032]).
Regarding new claim 23, modified Sealy discloses the printer of claim 1, wherein the applier is configured to deliver the opaque material substantially uniformly over one or more of the printed part or the surface of the platform (Anderson: printer head deposits a laminar film of ink to provide the opaque overlay, col. 4, lines 56-62).
Regarding new claim 24, modified Sealy discloses the printer of claim 1, wherein the applier extends through the platform (Anderson: Fig. 1, printer head 14 extends through the assembly of the common tool head).
Regarding new claim 25, modified Sealy discloses the printer of claim 24, wherein the applier is configured to deliver the opaque material into an interior of the platform (ink is flowed through flexible pipe 34 to printer head 14, col. 4, line 63 – col. 5, line 1, Fig. 1, which includes delivery through an interior of the tool head assembly).
Regarding new claim 26, modified Sealy discloses the printer of claim 1, wherein the applier, the one or more transparent materials, and the laser are contained within an inner perimeter of the platform when the printer is in use (per the combination of claim 1, each of the structures are part of the assembly of the common tool head and thus are contained within an inner perimeter of the assembly). The combination does not specifically disclose the first energy source is also contained within the inner perimeter of the platform; however, Sealy discloses the first energy source being moved with the laser peening configuration (Fig. 1A) for the dual process flow and describes the laser sources 104 and 106 being moved using an automated system with respect to the workpiece ([0032]-[0033]). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include the first energy source within the inner perimeter of the movable platform to achieve coordinated movement of the first energy source with the surface treatment structures as depicted by Sealy.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sealy et al., US 20210187832 A1, in view of Anderson, US 6923877 B1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Clauer et al., US 20020008087 A1.
Regarding claim 2, modified Sealy discloses the printer of claim 1. The combination does not disclose the cleaning system in communication with at least one conduit of the one or more conduits, the cleaning system being configured to collect the portion of residue.
In the analogous art, Clauer discloses a system for providing a substantially debris-free laser beam path for laser shock processing (Abstract). Clauer discloses that laser shock processing can cause debris generated from transparent and opaque overlays to scatter around the workpiece and interfere with subsequent laser processing ([0006]-[0008], [0039], [0048]). Accordingly, Clauer teaches providing a means for clearing the laser beam pathway ([0041]) such as a gas knife that removes debris from the laser beam path, the gas knife including an exhaust port 16 connected to a vacuum source ([0049]-[0051]). Clauer therefore teaches a cleaning system configured to collect the portion of residue.
Anderson as set forth above teaches mounting all of the tools involved in laser shock processing on the common tool head/platform in communication with corresponding conduits for the benefit of convenience, efficiency, and reduced complexity (col. 8, lines 15-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the printer of Sealy to include a cleaning system in communication with a corresponding conduit of the platform, the cleaning system being configured to collect the portion of residue in order to remove debris generated from the laser peening out of the laser beam pathway to thereby improve the laser processing as taught by Clauer while maintaining the simple and efficient platform mounting of the tools as taught by Anderson.
Regarding claim 3, modified Sealy discloses the printer of claim 2. A composition of the residue of irradiation produced during use of the laser does not further limit the structure of the printer. Still, Clauer discloses that debris caused by irradiation during laser peening typically includes constituents of the opaque layer and transparent layer (e.g., [0006], [0048]), in line with at least i), ii), iv), and v).
Regarding claim 4, modified Sealy discloses the printer of claim 2, and the combination discloses the cleaning system (the cleaning system recited in claim 2) further comprises one or more of a vacuum system, or a system configured to one or more of wipe, sweep, or use adhesive tapes to remove the residue (Clauer: at least a vacuum system, [0049]-[0051]; note that Clauer also describes a sweeper, e.g., [0058]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sealy et al., US 20210187832 A1, in view of Anderson, US 6923877 B1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Milshtein et al., US 20180154443 A1.
Regarding claim 5, modified Sealy discloses the printer of claim 1. The combination is silent as to a diameter of the platform being approximately in the range of about 15 to about 150 millimeters.
In the analogous art of 3D printing (Abstract), Milshtein teaches a printer for powder bed fusion (Fig. 1) including a plurality of processing devices disposed within a processing chamber (e.g., material dispensing/leveling mechanisms 116-118, Fig. 1), wherein a typical processing chamber size ranges from about 50 mm to 5 m ([0113], the processing chamber corresponding to the interior of the chamber). Accordingly, any supporting device or movable platform supporting the processing devices would be sized less than or equal to the interior of the build chamber in which it is located, i.e., less than or equal to the range of 50 mm to 5 m. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the platform is within at least the overlapping portion of the ranges in order to provide a suitably sized platform for the processing devices in accordance with known processing chamber sizes, as taught by Milshtein.
Note that it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In this case, the platform for supporting a number of processing devices involved in laser peening would not have been expected to perform differently based on a diameter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments/remarks filed 06/02/2026 have been fully considered. Regarding claim amendments and prior art rejections, Applicant remarks (pp. 6-8) that agreement was reached during the previous interview that the newly added subject matter overcomes the 103 rejections and would be independently allowable. The examiner respectfully notes that no such agreements were reached with respect to the prior art rejections and it was communicated that further consideration would be required, as indicated in the previously recorded interview summary dated 05/21/2026.
The presently claimed subject matter has been addressed in the updated rejections over Sealy in view of Anderson as set forth above.
Conclusion
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 JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/FARAH TAUFIQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights