DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's information disclosure statement filed on June 17, 2026 has been considered. Claims 1-8 and 17-20 are pending.
Priority
This applicants’ claims priority to provisional application 63/488,927 filed March 3, 2023. The effective filing date of applicants’ claims is determined to be March 3, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicants’ information disclosure statement filed June 17, 2023 has been considered and is determined to cite references which qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). While Rahman et al. was published within the 1 year grace period (December 24, 2026), the publication lists authors/inventors in addition to those listed as inventors of the instant application. It cannot be readily determined to what extent the additional inventor did or didn’t contribute to the claimed subject matter of the instant application. When a reference within the grace period lists one or more additional authors/inventors a rule 130a declaration may be presented to show sufficient facts in weight and character to establish that the potential prior art disclosure is an inventor-originated disclosure. To do so, the declaration must provide (i) an unequivocal statement from the inventors that they invented the potential prior art subject matter, AND (ii) a reasonable explanation of the presence of additional authors/inventors of the potential prior art subject matter. MPEP 717.01(a)(1)(B)(1).
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)(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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rahman et al. (Impact of binder on part densification: Enhancing binder jetting part properties through the fabrication of shelled geometries, Additive Manufacturing 62 Available Online December 24th, 2022 (12 pages))
Regarding applicants’ claim 1, Rahman et al. disclose a process of shell printing which is a binder jetting process where the shelled geometry is printed wherein only the shell region features binder and unbound, packed powders are trapped inside (Section 1.3 Shell Printing). A distinct variation can be observed in the pore microstructure between the bound and unbound regions (section 3.2 Pore morphology and distribution). With respect to grain size, residue from binder burnout in the bound region retarded grain growth, resulting in much smaller grain microstructures (42.82 µm on average; Fig. 8(a)) than those found in the unbound region (166.94 µm on average (section 3.3 Microstructure).
Applicants require the bound region to form an identifier. The term identifier does not convey any additional requirements beyond the presently claimed difference in porosity where the region of different porosity itself can serve as an identifier. Further because the unbound region defines an identifier the addition presence of a measurable first grain size and second grain size work together to collectively define a second identifier. While Rahman et al. do not appear to explicitly disclose specific motivation to form one or more identifiers, intent does not negate the presence of defined characteristics within the prior art.
Regarding applicants’ claims 2-3, the part of Rahman et al. is three-dimensional so it could be analyzed in two dimensions or three dimensions, the configuration is capable of being recognized by a machine and is therefore machine recognizable.
Regarding applicants’ claim 4, the bound members have a specific configuration and therefore form a three-dimensional identifier pattern which have first and second porosities as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding applicants’ claim 5, the pattern formed by the bound structure having a first porosity as discussed above has a configuration that falls within the scope of the claimed list. Applicants claimed patterns are broad as they are undefined broad categories of patterns. For example the bound structure of Rahman et al. has a pattern that could be a logo, trademark, unique security pattern, a security signature, encryption pattern or watermark.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding applicants’ claims 6 and 7, Rahman et al. do not appear to teach a second bound region encompassing a second unbound region. Further there is no motivation such that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention to modify the parts of Rahman et al. in order to include a second bound region encompassing a second unbound region
Regarding applicants’ claims 8 and 17-20, Rahman et al. do not teach a porosity of the bound region to comprise a unique stochastically-generated porosity. Further there is no motivation such that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention to modify the parts of Rahman et al. in order to include a porosity of the bound region that is a unique stochastically-generated porosity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM C KRUPICKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/Adam Krupicka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights