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 of Group I (i.e., claim(s) 1-9) with traverse in the reply filed on 01/15/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the basis that a search and examination of all claims would place no burden on the examiner. This is found not to be persuasive because:
Applicant fails to provide evidence that there is not an undue burden;
the groups are directed to distinct inventions having different classifications which is which evidence of search burden (See CTRS dated 11/29/2025);
examination on the merits of method claims differs from that of apparatus claims; and
there is nothing to indicate that the search and examination would be coextensive.
For at least the reasons set forth above, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made final. As the result, claim(s) 10-14 are/remain withdrawn as being drawn to nonelected Groups II and III. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-9 is/are examined herein.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, “using at least one processor:” should be changed to --using at least one processor configured for:--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed “adjustable springs to control a pressure exerted by the powder deposition device”, “a high-resolution camera”, and “one or more sensors configured to monitor powder behavior during a recoating process” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Figures. 2A-2D should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g) and [0012, 0027-0032] of Applicant’s published application.
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“powder deposition device to arrange a first layer” in claim 1 with corresponding structure disclosed at least in [0022] and [0035] of Applicant’s published application.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krol (US 20190168304).
Regarding claim 1, Krol discloses a method of operating an additive fabrication device to fabricate a three-dimensional object (P0001), the method comprising:
using at least one processor (implicit disclosure of a processor based on the disclosed manner of controlling the additive fabrication device: P0027, 0033, 0055, 0071; See prior art of record):
operating a powder deposition device (the taught group of powder application devices 20 reads on the claimed powder deposition device) to arrange a first layer (lowermost layer) of powder over a build platform (12) of the additive fabrication device (P0057, 0059, 0063, Fig. 1a);
scanning a laser beam (scanning rightmost laser beam B) to consolidate portions of the first layer of powder along a path of the laser beam, wherein the laser beam's path corresponds to a cross-section of an object being fabricated (P0002, 0057, 0067-0069, Fig. 1a); and
prior to completing the scanning of the laser beam on the first layer of powder, operating the powder deposition device to deposit powder on top of at least part of the first layer of powder (P0023, 0040, 0063, Fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 2, Krol further discloses wherein the powder deposited on top of at least part of the first layer of powder is a portion of a second layer of powder, and wherein the method further comprises continuing to operate the powder deposition device to completely deposit the second layer of powder over the first layer of powder (P0023, 0040, 0063).
Regarding claim 6, Krol further implicitly discloses prior to moving the powder deposition device, determining, by the at least one processor, that moving the powder deposition device over the first layer of powder would not interfere with the scanning of the laser beam on the first layer of powder (P0068-0071).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (US 20150283761) in view of Takenami (JP 3724437B2 with English machine translation – of record).
Regarding claim 1, Maeda discloses a method of operating an additive fabrication device to fabricate a three-dimensional object (P0001-0002, Figs. 1), the method comprising:
using at least one processor (using control part 5 configured for processing data and controlling the additive fabrication device based on processing data: P0002, 0017-0022, Figs. 1-2; thus, 5 reads on the claimed processor):
operating a powder deposition device (3) to arrange a first layer of powder (M) over a build platform (23) of the additive fabrication device (P0002, 0019, 0021, Figs. 1-2);
scanning a laser beam (L) to consolidate portions of the first layer of powder along a path of the laser beam, wherein the laser beam's path corresponds to a cross-section (F) of an object being fabricated (P0020, 0022, Figs. 1-2).
Maeda fails to explicitly disclose prior to completing the scanning of the laser beam on the first layer of powder, operating the powder deposition device to deposit powder on top of at least part of the first layer of powder.
In the same field of endeavor, methods of operating additive fabrication devices (P0001, 0008, Fig. 1), Takenami discloses the technique of prior to completing the scanning of a laser beam (L) on a first layer of powder, operating a powder deposition device (2) to deposit powder on top of at least part (V) of the first layer of powder (P0009, 0048, annotated Figs. 1 and 13c) for the benefit(s) of shortening fabrication time and/or increasing the production efficiency (P0008).
PNG
media_image1.png
372
539
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
345
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Since Maeda further discloses to execute at least partially the powder layer formation and scanning simultaneously to shorten fabrication time (P0030), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Maeda in view of Takenami by configuring the at least one processor for operating the powder deposition device to deposit powder on top of at least part of the first layer of powder prior to completing the scanning of the laser beam on the first layer of powder for yielding the predictable result(s)/benefit(s) of shortening fabrication time and/or increasing the production efficiency as suggested by Takenami. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Regarding claim 2, Takenami further discloses wherein the powder deposited on top of at least part of the first layer of powder is a portion of a second layer of powder, and wherein the method further comprises continuing to operate the powder deposition device to completely deposit the second layer of powder over the first layer of powder (P0009, 0048, annotated Figs. 1 and 13c).
Regarding claim 3, Maede further discloses/suggests lowering the build platform to position the second layer of powder for scanning of the laser beam to consolidate portions of the second layer of powder subsequent to completely depositing the second layer of powder (P0021, 0030). Takenami further discloses/suggests lowering the build platform to position the second layer of powder for scanning of the laser beam to consolidate portions of the second layer of powder subsequent to completely depositing the second layer of powder (P0048, Figs. 9a-c).
Regarding claim 4, since Maede further discloses that the technique of scanning the laser beam to consolidate portions of a layer of powder in response to the powder deposition device completing depositing the layer of powder on the build platform is known in the art for the benefit(s) of executing formation of the powder layer and scanning of the powder layer at different times (P0004) while Takenami further discloses/suggests the technique of scanning the laser beam to consolidate portions of a layer of powder after the powder deposition device completes depositing the layer of powder on the build platform (Figs. 9a-c), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further have modified the method of Maeda by scanning the laser beam to consolidate portions of the second layer of powder in response to the powder deposition device completing depositing the layer second layer of powder on the build platform for yielding the predictable result(s)/benefit(s) of executing formation of the second powder layer and scanning of the second powder layer at different/subsequent times. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C and 2144.04 IV C.
Regarding claim 5, Takenami further discloses prior to completing the scanning of the laser beam on the second layer of powder, operating the powder deposition device to deposit powder over at least part of the second layer of powder (repeating the taught powder deposition and irradiating steps: P0009, annotated Figs. 1 and 13c).
Regarding claim 6, Maede further discloses/suggests prior to moving the powder deposition device, determining, by the at least one processor, that moving the powder deposition device over the first layer of powder would not interfere with the scanning of the laser beam on the first layer of powder (P0022-0023). Takenami further discloses/suggests further discloses/suggests prior to moving the powder deposition device, determining, by the at least one processor, that moving the powder deposition device over the first layer of powder would not interfere with the scanning of the laser beam on the first layer of powder (P0009, 0048, annotated Figs. 1 and 13c).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krol (US 20190168304) as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claims 3-4, Krol further discloses subsequent to completely depositing the second layer of powder on the build platform by the powder deposition device, lowering the build platform to position the second layer of powder at a suitable height position (P0074-0076, Fig. 1b).
However, Krol fails to disclose to position the second layer of powder for scanning of the laser beam to consolidate portions of the second layer of powder and scanning the laser beam to consolidate portions of the second layer of powder subsequent to completely depositing the second layer of powder.
However, as evidenced the prior art of record (e.g., [0027-0032] of Applicant’s published application), the technique of lowering the build platform to position the second layer of powder for scanning of the laser beam to consolidate portions of the second layer of powder and scanning the laser beam to consolidate portions of the second layer of powder subsequent to completely depositing the second layer of powder is well-known in the art and desirable when using only one laser beam.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Krol in view of ordinary knowledge in the art by configuring the at least one processor to lower the build platform to position the second layer of powder for scanning of the laser beam to consolidate portions of the second layer of powder and to scan the laser beam to consolidate portions of the second layer of powder subsequent to completely depositing the second layer of powder for yielding the predictable result(s)/benefit(s) of allowing use of single laser beam and decreasing the cost/complexity of the device of Krol. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C and/or 2144 II. In addition, since it has been held that the changes in the order of steps is obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results/criticality, the proposed modification is deemed obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV C.
Regarding claim 5, Krol further discloses prior to completing the scanning of the laser beam on the second layer of powder, operating the powder deposition device to deposit powder over at least part of the second layer of powder (P0023, 0040, 0063, Fig. 1a).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krol (US 20190168304) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Safai (US 20210356404) and/or Colosimo (US 20220016709).
Regarding claim 7, Krol fails to explicitly disclose that in response to completing the scanning of the laser beam on the first layer of powder, determining, by the at least one processor, whether or not the first layer comprises any defects based on image data generated by a high-resolution camera.
In the same field of endeavor, methods of operating additive fabrication devices, Safai discloses the technique of including a processor (140) configured for determining whether or not the first/latest manufactured layer comprises any defects based on image data generated by a high-resolution camera (130) for the benefit(s) of eliminating defects in the manufactured/printed layer during the additive fabrication and/or enhancing printing quality (P0033-0036, 0039-0043).
In the same field of endeavor, methods of operating additive fabrication devices, Colosimo discloses the technique of determining whether or not the first/latest printed layer comprises any defects based on image data generated by a high-resolution camera after completing the scanning of the laser beam on the first/latest layer of powder (P0049, 0063, 0071-0079, 0091, Fig. 4) for the benefit(s) of detecting/eliminating defects in the printed layer during the additive fabrication and/or enhancing printing quality (P0001, 0098).
Since Krol further discloses to detect errors/defect on the first/previous layer of powder based on camera sensors in order to correct the errors/defect in-situ (P0031), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Krol in view Safai and/or Colosimo by configuring the at least one processor to determine whether or not the first layer comprises any defects based on image data generated by a high-resolution camera in response to completing the scanning of the laser beam on the first layer of powder for yielding the predictable results of for the benefit(s) of detecting/eliminating defects in the printed layer during the additive fabrication and/or enhancing printing quality as suggested by Safai and/or Colosimo. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krol (US 20190168304) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (CN 206652972U with English machine translation - attached) and/or Schmidbauer (US 20200114424).
Regarding claim 8, Krol fails to disclose wherein the powder deposition device includes adjustable springs to control a pressure exerted by the powder deposition device against the first layer of powder.
In the same field of endeavor, methods of operating additive fabrication devices, Wang discloses the technique of including in a powder deposition device adjustable springs (springs 4: Fig. 1) to control a pressure exerted by the powder deposition device against the layer of powder for the benefit(s) of enhancing powder deposition (abstract, pages 1-3 of translation).
In the same field of endeavor, methods of operating additive fabrication devices, Schmidbauer discloses the technique of including in the powder deposition device adjustable springs (9) to control a pressure exerted by the powder deposition device against the layer of powder (P0012-0013, 0023-0024, 0044-0046, Fig. 2) for the benefit(s) of enhancing powder deposition (P0005, 0048).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Krol in view Wang and/or Schmidbauer by including/incorporating in the powder deposition device adjustable springs to control a pressure exerted by the powder deposition device against the layer of powder for the benefit(s) of improving powder deposition as suggested by Wang and Schmidbauer. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krol (US 20190168304) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shi (US 20200238613).
Regarding claim 9, Krol fails to disclose wherein the powder deposition device includes one or more sensors configured to monitor powder behavior during a recoating process.
In the same field of endeavor, methods of operating additive fabrication devices, Shi discloses the technique of including on the powder deposition device (200) one or more sensors (252) configured to monitor powder behavior during a recoating process for the benefit of improving powder deposition control and accuracy (P0053-0056, Fig. 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Krol in view Shi by including/incorporating in the powder deposition device one or more sensors configured to monitor powder behavior during a recoating process for the benefit(s) of improving powder deposition control and accuracy as suggested by Shi. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Conclusion
Additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered to be pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure.
Torrealba (US 20240286355) discloses a relevant method (Claims 22-28).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0625. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00-10:00 PM PT.
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.
JERZI H. MORENO HERNANDEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743