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 Status
An amendment, filed 8/26/2026, is acknowledged. Claims 1, 10, and 13 are amended; claim 2 is canceled; Claims 1 and 3-20 are currently pending.
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 and 3-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the sacrificial supports are designed to deform during binder removal and sintering.” It is unclear if the phrase “designed to deform” requires a step of sacrificial support deformation during both bind removal and sintering or whether such supports are merely designed to be capable of deformation during said steps, for example, under certain stress, weight, or temperature conditions, rendering a step of deformation optional. Claims 3-20 are indefinite based on their dependency.
Claims 10 and 13 each recite “wherein a length of the sacrificial support varies across the sacrificial support such that the length of the sacrificial support has a slope.” The term “length” is interpreted as a single measurement of a distance, such as the longest dimension of an object. Therefore, the term “length” cannot include an angle, curve, or other feature defining a “slope.” As a result, it is unclear what variation in length is being claimed and what is required by the claimed terms length and slope. A sacrificial support having a slope could be considered, for example, to have varying height along its length forming a slope; however, such a structure is not claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3-5, 9, 11-12, 14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark (US 2018/0154437)(previously cited).
With respect to Claim 1, Mark teaches a method of binder jetting additive manufacturing a metal or ceramic part, the method comprising repeated steps of depositing a layer or powder metal or ceramic feedstock, selectively depositing a binder onto the powder feedstock to bind the powder feedstock, wherein the method comprises additively manufacturing a green metal or ceramic body and sacrificial support structure(s) attached to one or more surfaces of the body, debinding the green body to form a brown body, sintering the brown body, wherein the sacrificial supports are positioned to support the brown body, and removing the sacrificial supports. (para. 2, 19-20, 57-58, 98, 104; Fig. 7).
With respect to the step of “curing,” Mark teaches selectively depositing a binder to bind powder feedstock and therefore, as the step results in a bound green part, it is deemed to constitute a curing step. Additionally, Mark further teaches embodiments that may comprise optical or UV curing. (para. 100, 228, 262). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, in view of the disclosure of Mark, to select a binder requiring, for example, optical or UV curing, in order to obtain enhanced control over the selective binding of the powder feedstock.
With respect to the step of placing the green body into a heating chamber and heating, Mark teaches a debinding step that may comprise placing the green body into a chamber and subjecting the green body to a thermal debinding step. (para. 125, 151, 161, 164, 168). Thus, Mark teaches a method comprising placing the green body into a heating chamber wherein the sacrificial supports are positioned to support the green metal or ceramic body and heating to remove the binder, forming a brown body.
Finally, Claim 1 recites “wherein the sacrificial supports are designed to deform during binder removal and sintering.” This limitation may be interpreted as drawn to a conditional step related to a functional property of the sacrificial supports rather than a positive method step, rendering the limitation as optional. Furthermore, no specific structural change or type of deformation is claimed. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.” MPEP 2111.04. Finally, even assuming arguendo that a step of deformation is required by the limitation, as no specific type of deformation or structural change is claimed, any predetermined change in change of the sacrificial supports during binder removal and sintering that alters its structure from its initial structure is deemed to meet the limitation “wherein the sacrificial supports are designed to deform during binder removal and sintering.”
Mark teaches wherein the sacrificial supports are configured to shrink during sintering (para. 17-28, 104) and thus, constitutes a predetermined change to the structure of sacrificial supports upon heating. Alternatively, Mark teaches wherein the support structures may be configured with a binder that is removed during the debinding process, and thus, would comprise steps of deformation and disintegration during such debinding. (para. 98). In other words, a sacrificial support removed during heating/debinding, as taught by Mark, would not comprise the binder being removed from the support structure instantaneously and thus, the support would necessarily deform as its mechanical integrity weakens as the binder is removed. Therefore, Mark is deemed to teach “wherein the sacrificial supports are designed to deform during binder removal and sintering.”
With respect to Claims 3-5, Mark teaches wherein the sacrificial supports comprise a plurality of attachment points having thin bodies with each support comprising approximately the same length and thickness, deemed to constitute wherein the sacrificial supports a plurality of integrally formed pins meeting claims 3, 4, and 5, respectively. (see, e.g., Figs. 6-7; para. 142).
With respect to Claims 9 and 12, Mark teaches wherein the sacrificial sintering supports have a plurality of at least partially interconnecting structures, including honeycomb or lattice structures (see Figs. 6-7; para. 259) deemed to constitute a lattice structure and/or broken lattice structure. Mark also teaches secondary supports having a lattice/honeycomb structure. (Figs. 6-7; para. 133). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form sacrificial supports having fully interconnected or not fully interconnected (broken) lattice structures, in view of the teachings of Mark, in order to sufficiently support the additively manufactured body while minimizing material use.
With respect to Claims 11 and 14, Mark teaches embodiments wherein the supports have a tapered shape, and thus, “wherein a thickness of the sacrificial support varies across the sacrificial support.” (see Figs. 6-7).
With respect to Claims 17-18, Mark teaches a support structure connecting support pins/struts termed a densification linking platform, wherein the densification linking platform has a thickness of 0.5-10 mm, and wherein based on the disclosed Figures, the support pins/struts would have thicknesses and lengths on the order of the thickness of densification linking platform (i.e. approx. 0.5-10 mm). Thus, Mark is deemed to teach ranges of support thickness and length overlapping the claimed ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
Furthermore, the selection of any reasonable support dimensions including thickness and length would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. That is, the suitable dimensions of support structures depends on the size, weight, and shape of the body being manufactured. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select optimum or workable sacrificial support dimensions, including those claimed, in order to support during sintering an additively manufactured body of applicable size, weight, and/or shape with a predictable result of success.
With respect to Claim 19, Mark teaches wherein the sacrificial supports are configured to break away from the metal or ceramic body. (para. 98, 112, 142).
Claim(s) 5-8, 10, 13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark (US 2018/0154437) as applied to claim 1 above (with respect to claims 15-18 and 20), claim 3 above (with respect to claim 6), claim 9 (with respect to claims 10-11), and claim 12 (with respect to claims 13-14) in view of Cole (US 2024/0140043)(previously cited).
In the alternative to the above rejection of claim 5, Mark depicts embodiments wherein the respective supports have the same shape and thus, may be interpreted as having the same thickness (see, e.g. Figs. 6-7); however, as this embodiment depicts supports having a tapered shape they may alternatively be interpreted as having varying thickness.
Cole teaches a method of optimizing support structures in additively manufactured bodies, wherein the supports may have the same length and thickness. (see, e.g., Fig. 6A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Mark, to select an arrangement of support structures having the same length and thickness, as taught by Cole, in order to provide uniform support for an additively manufactured body having, for example, substantially uniform weight, size, and/or thickness across the length of the supports.
With respect to claims 6-7, Mark is silent as to wherein the sacrificial supports having first and second lengths.
Cole teaches a method of optimizing support structures in additively manufactured bodies, wherein the supports may comprise supports having a first length and additional supports may comprise a second length, the first length greater than the second length, wherein the first and second lengths correspond to different heights of additively manufactured layers of a body, for example, greater length support for supporting an overhanging structure. (Fig. 3C; para. 83-84).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Mark, to select an arrangement of support structures having a portion comprising a first length and a second portion comprising a second length, wherein the first length is greater than the second length, as taught by Cole, in order to provide support for an additively manufactured body having features at different heights relative to the substrate/platform, thereby, enabling additively manufactured bodies with more complex features such as overhangs. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide supports, as taught by Mark in view of Cole, wherein an integrally formed pin of the first portion of integrally formed pins is adjacent to at least one integrally formed pin of the second portion of integrally formed pins, as taught by Cole, in order to provide support for an additively manufactured body having adjacent portions with different dimensions. (see, e.g., Figs. 3C and 3D of Cole).
With respect to 8, Mark recognizes that an additively manufactured body of metal or ceramic may shrink during sintering and this may cause support structures to deform. (see, e.g., para. 220-221). As Mark in view of Cole teach a method comprising first supports having a longer first length, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the longer supports to experience to be subject to higher relative stress(es) than the shorter second length supports, and therefore, expect the supports having the first length to deform before the supports having the second length.
With respect to claims 10, and 13, Mark is silent as to wherein the sacrificial supports comprise varying length such that it comprises a slope.
Cole teaches a method of optimizing support structures in additively manufactured bodies, wherein the supports may comprise supports having a first length and additional supports may comprise a second length, the first length greater than the second length, wherein the first and second lengths correspond to different heights of additively manufactured layers of a body, for example, greater length support for supporting an overhanging structure. (Fig. 3C; para. 83-84). Cole further teaches a support structure having varying height/length such that is forms a slope corresponding to a shape of the additively manufactured layers. (see Figs. 9A, 9B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Mark, to select an arrangement of support structures having a varying heights/lengths such that it forms a slope, as taught by Cole, in order to provide support for an additively manufactured body having features at different heights relative to the substrate/platform, thereby, enabling additively manufactured bodies with more desired structures/features.
With respect to Claim 15, the claim does not specify whether the “tip” of the support is the portion of the support contacting the body or a portion of the support contacting a substrate/platform. As a result, the term “tip” is interpreted as comprising a portion of the support contacting the body or the substrate. Mark is silent as to wherein the supports have rounded tips.
Cole teaches a method of optimizing support structures in additively manufactured bodies, wherein the supports may have rounded tips. (see, e.g., Fig. 3A-E).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Mark, to form supports having rounded tips, as taught by Cole, in order to enhance the bonding/attachment strength of the supports to the body by providing additional surface area for bonding.
With respect to Claim 16, the claim and specification do not provide a definition for a “stress riser” and therefore, the term may be interpreted as a point at which stress is expected to form.
Cole teaches a method of optimizing support structures in additively manufactured bodies, wherein the supports may comprise predetermined weakened regions, for example, thinned portions, deemed to constitute a stress riser. (Fig. 8D-E; para. 162).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Mark, to form supports comprising predetermined weakened regions (i.e. stress risers), as taught by Cole, in order to more easily break the support structure for removal.
In the alternative to the above rejection of Claims 17-18, Mark does not specifically teach the thickness and length of the sacrificial supports.
Cole teaches forming supports with thickness/diameters such as 0.5-10 mm and lengths and heights of support structures including structures with lengths ranging from 1-50 mm. (para. 69, 72, 80, 84, 90, 125-127). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Mark, to select support structure thickness of 0.5-10 mm and lengths of 1-50 mm, as taught by Cole, in order to form support structures with sufficient strength to support the additively manufactured body during processing. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claim 20, Mark is silent as to a step of finishing the surface of the metal or ceramic body from which the sacrificial supports have been removed.
Cole teaches wherein the additively formed body may be polished (i.e. finished) to improve the finish in areas from which sacrificial supports have been removed. (para. 95, 138, 168-169).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Mark to include a step of finishing the surface of the metal or ceramic body from which the sacrificial supports have been removed, in order to improve the surface finish/quality of the final body.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that prior art Mark fails to teach the amended claim 1, in particular, that Mark fails to teach sacrificial supports designed to deform during binder removal and sintering. Applicant argues that the teachings of Mark, such as sacrificial support shrinkage, does not constitute deformation under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation. These arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the sacrificial supports are designed to deform during binder removal and sintering.” This limitation may be interpreted as drawn to a conditional step related to a functional property of the sacrificial supports rather than a positive method step, rendering the limitation as optional. Furthermore, no specific structural change or type of deformation is claimed. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.” MPEP 2111.04.
Assuming arguendo that a step of deformation is required by the limitation, as no specific type of deformation or structural change is claimed, any predetermined change in change of the sacrificial supports during binder removal and sintering that alters its structure from its initial structure is deemed to meet the limitation “wherein the sacrificial supports are designed to deform during binder removal and sintering.” Applicant fails to point to any evidence in the record that defines or limits the scope of the term “deform.”
Mark teaches wherein the sacrificial supports are configured to shrink during sintering (para. 17-28, 104) and thus, constitutes a predetermined change to the structure of sacrificial supports upon heating. A structure that shrinks from its original shape is fairly characterized as having been deformed from its original shape and Applicant fails to provide sufficient evidence to rebut this interpretation.
Alternatively, Mark teaches wherein the support structures may be configured with a binder that is removed during the debinding process, and thus, would comprise steps of deformation and disintegration during such debinding. (para. 98). In other words, a sacrificial support removed during heating/debinding, as taught by Mark, would not comprise the binder being removed from the support structure instantaneously and thus, the support would necessarily deform as its mechanical integrity weakens as the binder is removed. Therefore, Mark is deemed to teach “wherein the sacrificial supports are designed to deform during binder removal and 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 JOHN A HEVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JOHN A HEVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights