DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 12/02/2025, claims 1-18 and 27 are pending. Claims 2-13 and 15-18 are currently amended. Claims 19-26 and 28-35 are canceled. No claim is newly added. Claims 1-18 and 27 are considered in this Office 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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses phrases that can be implied ("Embodiments herein relate to", "In an embodiment").
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11, 14-15, 17, and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should be corrected to “the part material” (lines 5, 7, and 8, respectively).
Claim 2 should be corrected to “[[the]] an X-Y plane” (line 2).
Claim 3 should be corrected to “a portion of [[the]] a flow vector of the part material” (line 2).
Claim 4 should be corrected to “[[the]] an aggregate of the printed part material at [[the]] an edge of the regions has a volume substantially equal to [[the]] a volume of the gap” (lines 1-3).
Claim 6 should be corrected to “the part material” (lines 2-3 and 3, respectively),
Claim 7 should be corrected to “[[the]] an average width of the gap” (lines 1-2).
Claim 9 should be corrected to “[[the]] an average width of the gap” (lines 1-2).
Claim 11 should be corrected to “the part material” (line 2),
Claim 14 should be corrected to “the part material” (lines 5, 7, and 8, respectively).
Claim 15 should be corrected to “[[a]] the Z-direction” (line 2).
Claim 17 should be corrected to “[[the]] an aggregate of the part material” (line 2).
Claim 27 should be corrected “the part material” (lines 5, 8, 9, respectively), “the deposited part material” (line 7), “the application of the heat and the pressure” (line 11).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10,12-13, and 17 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 10 recites the limitation “the build surface” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as “a build surface.”
Claims 12 and 13 recite the limitation “the gaps” in line 1, respectively. It is unclear whether the limitation means (1) the same as “a gap” (claim 1 line 8), so as to require one gap at most, or (2) a plurality of the gap, so as to require at least two gaps. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as “the gap includes a plurality of the gap, and the gaps” are uniform (for claim 12) or non-uniform (for claim 13).
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the gap filling layers” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitations would be interpreted as “gap filling layers.”
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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.
(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 1-3 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Batchelder (US 20190202125 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Batchelder teaches a method for printing an article using a selective toner electrophotographic process (abstract, fig. 1), the method comprising:
successively depositing multiple layers of part material, the layers deposited substantially parallel to a first plane ([0057-0059, 0067, 0102]; figs. 1-2, 4A-B, 6); wherein:
a) the multiple layers of part material extending in a direction perpendicular to the first plane ([0057-0059, 0067]; figs. 1-2, 4A-B); and
b) at least some regions of part material being separated from each other in the first plane to form a gap between areas of part material within a layer ([0103]: the part is porous with pores 202 between particles 204 or groups of particles at the most recently transferred layer; figs. 7-8); and
application of heat and pressure to the part material such that a portion of the part material flows into and at least partially fills the gap between the part material ([0102-0103] The developed stack is then transfused to the build platform 28 or the previously printed layers 22 in step 162, as previously discussed using heat and pressure, where heat is imparted into the stack during transfusion with heat from the previously printed layer(s); fusion of the layers might be termed a sedimentary process, and fracturing the part under construction in the X-Z plane shows that, in some processes, the part is porous at the most recently transferred layer, becoming fully fused some 10 to 20 layers into the part; figs. 7-8).
Batchelder also teaches that the first plane is an X-Y plane and the multilayers of the part material extend in a Z-direction (see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, Batchelder teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first plane comprises the X-Y plane (see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Batchelder teaches the method of claim 1 or 14, wherein at least a portion of the flow vector of the part material within the gap includes a component outside of the first plane or the X-Y plane ([0102-0103] and figs. 7-8: e.g., from another layer such as a previous layer or an upcoming layer of the upper most layer, thus, a portion of a flow vector from the layers of the part material includes a Z-direction vector as the layers are not disposed in the same X-Y plane of the upper most layer).
Regarding claim 10, Batchelder teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising reheating, compressing, and recooling the build surface so as to cause the gap to diminish ([0078]: by the pre-transfusion heater 74; [0072-077]: by pressing component 70 or a planishing roller 108; [0080]: by post-transfusion cooler 76; [0102-0104]: pores to be diminished; figs. 1-2, 4A-4B, 7-8).
Regarding claim 11, Batchelder teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the successive areas of part material are offset from one another (as shown in fig. 8).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Batchelder teaches the method of claim 1,, wherein the gaps are uniform or non-uniform (as shown in fig. 8, some of the gaps are uniform, and some of the gaps are not uniform).
Regarding claim 15, Batchelder teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the part material flows upward in a Z-direction with a component normal to the X-Y plane within the gap ([0102-0103] and figs. 7-8: e.g., from another layer such as a previous layer or an upcoming layer of the upper most layer, thus, a portion of a flow vector from the layers of the part material includes a Z-direction vector as the layers are not disposed in the same X-Y plane of the upper most layer; [0072-077]: by pressing component 70 or a planishing roller 108 compacting a layer to reduce voids).
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.
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.
Claims 5-6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batchelder (US 20190202125 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Batchelder teaches the method of claim 1 or 14, wherein an additional gap-filling layer is deposited on average every second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, or tenth layer ([0102-0103] and figs. 7-8). Here, although Batchelder is silent about an additional gap-filling layer, when a successive group of layers are to be stacked and printed as a sedimentary process by filling a void at the most recently transferred layer, it would be obvious that respective layer would function as a part-forming layer, a gap-filling layer, or both. Thus, the additional gap-filling layer would be considered to be deposited on average every second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, or tenth layer.
Regarding claim 6, Batchelder teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising deposit of a gap filing layer between at least some of the multiple layers of part material; the gap filling layer comprising a layer of part material selectively printed adjacent to the gap of a previous layer ([0102-0103] and figs. 7-8). Here, although Batchelder is silent about an additional gap-filling layer, when successive group of layers are to be stacked and printed as a sedimentary process by filling a void at the most recently transferred layer, it would be obvious that respective layer would function as a part-forming layer of an instant layer, a gap-filling layer of a previous layer, or both.
.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 27 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection(s), set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 27, Batchelder (US 20190202125 A1), the closest prior art of record, teaches all the claimed limitations (see above, the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1 or 14) but does not specifically teach the limitation “the mass of the part material is higher adjacent to the gap than distant from the gap prior to application prior to application of heat and pressure” as pores 202 between particles 204 in a layer become sedimentarily compacted upon fusion of the particles over layers without a distinction of the mass of the particles around the pores (see Batchelder: [0102-0103]; figs. 7-8). Thus, claim 27 would be allowable.
Claims 4, 7, 9, and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and/or the objection(s), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Frauens (US 20170299973 A1) teaches an additive manufacturing method producing a 3D part utilizing electrophotography-based additive manufacturing and molding processes (abstract, figs. 1-4).
Kemmochi (US 20130089349 A1) teaches an image forming apparatus (abstract, [0211-0212]: gap filling between layers by squashing and melting process).
Batchelder (WO 2021067450 A1) teaches a method for printing an article using a selective toner electrophotographic process (abstract). However, the Examiner acknowledges that this reference is not qualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as the exceptions under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)/(b)(2) applies, respectively.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INJA SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1605. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached at (571)270-5343. 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.
/INJA SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1744