Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-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
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on 06/11/26 has been entered. Claim 19 remains pending and its amendment finds support in at least [0110]. Claims 21 – 22 are newly added and find support in at least [0007] and [0108]
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §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)(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 19 and 21 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jangam (WO2024/085863).
This WIPO document designates the US and has an effective filing date earlier than the application and as such is available under 102(a)(2).
Regarding claim 19, Jangam teaches a method of additively manufacturing a component [0018]. Jangam teaches that the component has an internal feature/space (meeting the claimed limitation of a cavity) [Fig 1]. The internal area [“14” in Fig 1] has two openings [“12” in Fig 1, 2A], meeting the claimed limitation of an opening from the internal space/cavity to the outside of the object. Jangam shows an embodiment in which the component is formed in two parts [Fig 2A, 2B] in which the main component has a large opening in the top [Fig 2A], meeting the claimed functional limitation of a powder removal opening.
Jangam discloses forming the component in two parts in which one part is fitted into the opening [Fig 2A, 2B; 0024], meeting the claimed limitation of forming a modeled object and forming a sealing member for sealing the powder removal opening.
The method further includes removing non-patterned, unbound build material [0022]. Jangam further makes clear that the two-part design [Fig 2A, 2B] is utilized as opposed to a one-part design [Fig 1] in order to make the powder removal easier/more efficient [0022, 0023]. As such, the top opening in Fig 2A is a powder removal opening and Jangam meeting the limitation of removing powder through the powder removal opening.
Lastly, the components are fitted together [0024, 0025] and subjected to sintering such that diffusion bonding of the parts occurs [0020], meeting the claimed limitation of sintering the object and during the sintering the sealing member is bonded to an outer edge portion of the powder removal opening.
Regarding claim 21, Jangam teaches the invention as applied in claim 19. Jangam teaches that the internal feature/space has a gyroid shape [0021], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 22, Jangam teaches the invention as applied in claim 19. Jangam shows that the top opening for removing powder from the internal feature [Fig 2A, 2B, “20”; 0022, 0023] has a larger opening than the other openings [“12” in Fig 1 – 2A], meeting the claimed limitation.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yahagi (US2023/0302537)
Regarding claim 19, Yahagi teaches a method of additive manufacturing [Title] a component with an internal space (meeting the claimed limitation of a cavity) [Abstract]. The internal space has an opening portion that communicates with the outside [Abstract] and Yahagi shows a particular embodiment/example in which multiple openings are present [Fig 2], wherein one opening is interpreted as the “powder removing opening” and another opening interpreted as the claimed “opening connecting the cavity and an outside of the modeled object”
Yahagi teaches that the method [Fig 1] includes forming a plug configured to be assembled with the opening portion [Abstract], meeting the claimed limitation of a sealing member for sealing the powder removal opening.
Following formation of the object (referred to as the “precursor” in Yahagi) and the plug (interpreted as the claimed sealing member), unsolidified powder is removed from the internal space from the opening portion [Abstract], meeting the claimed limitation of removing excess powder and that the excess powder in the internal space is removed through the powder removal opening.
The plug (i.e., sealing member) is assembled into the opening portion and sintering is performed [Abstract, Fig 3, 4]. Yahagi teaches that the two components are bonded [0028]. This meets the claimed limitations of sintering the modeled object and the sealing member is bonded to an outer edge portion of the powder removing opening.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §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.
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.
Claims 21 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yahagi (US2023/0302537), as applied to claim 19 above.
Regarding claims 21 – 22, Yahagi teaches the invention as applied in claim 19. Yahagi does not explicitly teach or limit the shape of the internal space nor does Yahagi discuss or limit the size of the openings relative to each other. However, changes to/differences in size, shape, and/or proportion are considered prima facie obviousness in the absence of evidence of criticality, unexpected results, or other secondary considerations (See MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments thereto have overcome the previous rejections. The examiner agrees that Mark (WO2018209029) alone, or in combination, does not teach or suggest providing a sealing member that is then bonded to the outer edge portion of a powder removal opening during sintering. The rejections are withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new rejection(s) is made of:
Claims 19 and 21 – 22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jangam (WO2024/085863).
Claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yahagi (US2023/0302537)
Claims 21 – 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yahagi (US2023/0302537) as applied to claim 19.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,654,484 – Forming binder jet component with openings to improve depowdering as well as a plug to seal the opening during sintering.
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 Austin M Pollock whose telephone number is (571)272-5602. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (11 - 8 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/AUSTIN POLLOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights