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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “105” has been used to designate both work surface and work plane. 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. 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.
Claims 1-9 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claims 1-9 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the plate" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the electromagnetic radiation beams" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the metal powders" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the optical deflection system" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “independent sources are scalable and modular”. It is not clear if the individual sources are scalable, such as a larger laser, or if the set of lasers is scalable and modular, as in adding more lasers to the set. There is no claimed structure to indicate how the sources are scalable and modular. It is also unclear what is meant by “multiple systems” as a system is not claimed. This could be seen as attempting to claim more than one invention if a device with a different structure is used in a different system.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the work area" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the work plan" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears “the work plan” is a different term used for “work surface.”
“Plan should also be plane”, according to the specification.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "said systems" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the metal powder" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “metals powders”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the residual stress" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the object produced" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the first molten layer" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the molded element" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites “capable of increasing the temperature of the surface layer…necessary to allow the reduction of the laser energy.” It is not clear what is meant by “necessary to allow the reduction of the laser energy.” What is necessary? The number of lasers? The increasing surface temperature? The system? It is also not clear what “system” the claim is referring to. It is assumed this limitation is not referring to the optical deflection system. No system is claimed in claim 1. The device may be used in a system, but this would be intended use and is not positively recited even if the dependency were changed to claim 2…which would result in antecedent basis issues.
Claim 1 already recites “UV laser sources”. Would the heat transfer device now be limited to 4 UV lasers? Are the 4 lasers, in claim 3, in addition to the set of UV lasers? Are all these limitations directed to systems outside of “a heat transfer device.”
Claim 3 could be considered a description of a system (“said systems are designed”) and not considered to claim any structure in the device.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the systems" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 7, no structure in the system is claimed. It is unclear how the system would emit a beam of electromagnetic radiation. It this beam the same beam claimed in claim 1, by the UV lasers? A set of lasers I claimed. Is only one beam being emitted in claim 7 by one of the lasers?
Claim 7 recites “pre-heating”, “additive manufacturing process”, “post process”. None of these are previously claimed as limitations. Is applicant attempting to claim a method of additive manufacturing with these limitations as the steps? It is unclear what is going on in this claim. Again, as “the systems” are not claimed, this could be considered a description of how something, outside of “A heat transfer device”, is supposed to operate with no limitations being claimed.
Claim 8 recites the term “necessary”. It is not clear what is necessary or what limitations this term is intended to impart on the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the application of additive manufacturing" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No application of additive manufacturing is claimed. Applicant is claiming an apparatus and discussing steps in an unclaimed method.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the application of additive manufacturing" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No application of additive manufacturing is claimed. Applicant is claiming an apparatus and discussing steps in an unclaimed method.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the irritation" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites an apparatus, no irradiation of the plate is specifically claimed. It appears applicant is attempting to claim a step in an unclaimed method or functional language where support is unclear.
Claim 9 recites “and/or an array of LEDs.” Claim 1 already claims the electromagnetic radiation comes from the lasers. By including the term “or” it is not clear if claim 9 is stating the radiation would only come from the LED array.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "an array of LEDs in the UV…" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The UV LED array is already recited in claim 1. Is applicant claiming an additional array?
Claim 9 recites “means of said independent sources”. It is not clear if applicant is attempting to use 112(f) an include limitations from the specification into the claims.
Claim 9 states “allows for additive manufacturing operations with”. This would imply a narrative description, rather than claim limitations, is being recited in claim 9.
Any claims not discussed are considered indefinite due to dependency on a rejected claim.
Given the number of 112 rejections, applicant should take care so as to not change the invention or add additional inventions, and be subject to an Election by Original Presentation.
At present, the only invention considered to be claimed is “A heat transfer device.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 6/18/2026
Prosecution Insights