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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 8 uses an “and/or” between (i) and (ii). This causes claim 8 to be interpreted in one of three ways:
Only (i) is required
Only (ii) is required
Both (i) and (ii) are required
The Examiner in the previous Office Action used interpretation b), and will continue in the instant action as well.
The last three lines of claim 8 finds its antecedent basis only within (i), thus if b) is the interpretation used, the last three lines are not included since they only exist when interpretation a) is selected.
Claim 13 also uses an “and/or” in the first two lines separating “locally defined removal of material” and “flow in the region around the depressions”.
“Locally defined removal of material” only has antecedent basis in (ii), and “flow in the region around the depressions” only has antecedent basis in (i).
The selection of this “and/or” depends on which interpretation of claim 8 was used. In the instant action interpretation (b) is used, therefore only the locally defined removal of material in claim 13 is selected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kumta et al (US 2023/0073429; herein Kumta, already of record). Regarding claim 8:
Kumta teaches spraying material to deposit material in the form of droplets, leveling the layer, and sintering the layer (Figure 1 and paragraph 0082). These three steps meets the requirements of the preamble, (ii), and (iii). Material is sprayed and hits the surface and melts in droplet form, the deposited material is smoothed, and sintered.
Kumta teaches that polymers may be used as the material being deposited (paragraphs 0045 and 0049).
Regarding claim 12:
Kumta teaches polymer combined with other materials can be used (paragraphs 0045 and 0049)
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.
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumta, in view of Mark (US PGPub 2017/0087632; already of record). Regarding claim 13, Kumta is silent to:
Wherein the locally defined removal of material and/or the flow in the region around the depressions is carried out in a controlled manner, a surface topography being detected with at least one optical sensor and influenced with spatially resolved height values, a deflection movement of the focal spot of the laser beam and/or a power density in the focal spot of the laser beam
In the same field of smoothing droplets to create layers, Mark teaches using a sensor feedback loop to determine if peaks need removed (paragraph 0064).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the feedback processing of Mark in the Kumta smoothing, since it helps to ensure a smooth, consistent part without accumulated errors (Mark: paragraph 0064)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark, in view Kumta and Mark, and in further view of Goldfine et al (U.S. PGPub 2018/0264590; herein Goldfine, already of record). Regarding claim 14:
Kumta and Mark are silent to the control required. However, in the same field of endeavor Goldfine teaches controlling the laser power and focus based on a sensed temperature (paragraph 0069).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use such control, since it helps limit errors.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the Kumta does not teach the preamble. The Examiner disagrees, as Kumta teaches such processing in Figure 1 and paragraph 0082 (as discussed above). Material (which can be polymer) is sprayed and hits the surface and melts in droplet form, the deposited material is smoothed, and sintered.
The Applicant argues that (i) in claim 8 is a requirement of the claim and that Kumta does not teach (i). The Examiner disagrees. As discussed in the Claim Interpretation section claim 8 uses and/or to separate (i) and (ii). Therefore (i) is not a requirement of claim 8 due to the and/or.
The Applicant argues that Kumta fails to teach (ii) and that the action is silent regarding this feature. The Examiner disagrees. Kumta (As shown in the previous and instant action) in Figure 1 machines the layer, thus there is locally defined removal of material as claimed, since the layer is smoothed it is below the resolution of the printer.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights