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 without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 12 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected build module and method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12 August 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 17 September 2024 was considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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.
(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 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US20210060922A1 of Ryon.
Regarding Claim 1, Ryon teaches temperature control for additive manufacturing in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Ryon discloses beginning an additively manufactured build by depositing initial layers of the build (top portion formed on the first top surface of the bottom portion) on a build plate (bottom portion), Para[0004]. Ryon’s build plate contains a bottom surface (first bottom surface), Fig.[3], and a top surface (first top surface), Figs.[1,2]. Ryon teaches forming the temperature control channel with an inlet of the temperature control channel connected to a fluid inlet port defined in the build plate (first passage disposed between the first bottom surface and the first top surface), and forming the temperature control channel with an outlet of the temperature control channel connected to a fluid outlet port defined in the build plate (second passage disposed between the first bottom surface and the first top surface), Para[0006]. Ryon’s build contains a top surface (second top surface), Fig.[2], and a bottom surface (second bottom surface), Figs.[1,3]. Ryon also teaches forming the fluid channels (one or more channels)108 , 110 , 112 passing in a back and forth pattern between rows of the work pieces (located between the second bottom surface and second top surface), Para[0023]. Thus, Ryon anticipates all limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Ryon teaches that each of the fluid channels 108 , 110 , 112 fluidly connect with the temperature control system 114 through a respective fluid inlet port 116 and a respective fluid outlet port 118 , each defined in and through the build plate (one or more channels are fluidly connected to the first passage and the second passage), Para[0024]. Thus, Ryon anticipates all limitations of claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3, Ryon discloses that during the additive manufacturing of the build 104 (e.g. by selective laser melting or sintering) the fluid channels 108 , 110 , 112 are each built additively one layer at a time with the rest of the build 104 while additively manufacturing the build (the top portion is formed on the bottom portion using additive manufacturing), Para[0023]. Thus, Ryon anticipates all limitations of claim 3.
It is noted that Claim 3 is a product-by-process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process, see MPEP 2113.1. Claim 3 is interpreted such that the prior art need only contain a top portion formed on the bottom portion using any type of manufacturing.
Regarding Claim 6, Ryon’s build contains a top surface (second top surface), Fig.[2]. Ryon teaches selective laser melting/sintering and electron beam melting during the additive manufacture of the build (build area on which powdered metal is deposited for manufacturing), Para[0023]. Ryon teaches that each part or a subgroup of parts (one or more parts) on a build plate can have its/their own fluid inlet and outlet ports and associated temperature control channels and temperature control circuit to control the temperature of the part or group of parts during a build, Para[0026]. Thus, Ryon anticipates all limitations of claim 6.
It is noted that claim 6 is an apparatus claim. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, see MPEP 2114.II. Claim 6 is interpreted such that the prior art need only contain a second top surface with a build area on which powdered metal is deposited.
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.
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 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20210060922A1 of Ryon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20220062994A1 of Tachibana.
Regarding Claim 4, Ryon does not specifically teach that the bottom portion is made of a different material than the top portion.
Tachibana discloses a dissimilar joining product, base plate for additive manufacturing, additive manufacturing apparatus, and additive manufacturing method in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Tachibana teaches that in general, titanium-based metal materials have smaller Young's modulus and proof stress than those of ferrous metal materials, namely, pure iron or steel materials containing iron as the main component element, Para[0059], and that titanium-based metal materials are generally more expensive than ferrous metal materials. As a result, the cost of manufacturing base plates made of titanium-based metal materials is significantly higher than the cost of manufacturing base plates made of ferrous metal materials. To address this, in the base plate 7 according to some embodiments, the rigidity of the base plate is ensured by the substrate 71 made of a ferrous metal material (bottom portion made of first material). As a result, the joining strength between the cladding layer 73 and the additively manufactured layer 15 made of a titanium alloy (top portion is made of a second material that is different than the first material) and layered and fabricated by additive manufacturing on the cladding layer is ensured, Para[0060]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the bottom portion of the build plate a first material, such as a ferrous metal material as taught by Tachibana, and to make the top portion a different second material, such as titanium as taught by Tachibana, in the build plate of Ryon in order to reduce cost by using less titanium and to ensure the joining strength. Thus, Ryon in view of Tachibana covers all limitations of claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5, Ryon does not specifically teach that the bottom portion is made of a different material than the top portion or that the bottom portion has a higher strength than the top portion.
Tachibana discloses a dissimilar joining product, base plate for additive manufacturing, additive manufacturing apparatus, and additive manufacturing method in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Tachibana teaches that in general, titanium-based metal materials have smaller Young's modulus and proof stress than those of ferrous metal materials (first material has a higher strength than the second material), namely, pure iron or steel materials containing iron as the main component element, Para[0059], and that titanium-based metal materials are generally more expensive than ferrous metal materials. As a result, the cost of manufacturing base plates made of titanium-based metal materials is significantly higher than the cost of manufacturing base plates made of ferrous metal materials. To address this, in the base plate 7 according to some embodiments, the rigidity of the base plate is ensured by the substrate 71 made of a ferrous metal material (bottom portion made of first material). As a result, the joining strength between the cladding layer 73 and the additively manufactured layer 15 made of a titanium alloy (top portion is made of a second material that is different than the first material) and layered and fabricated by additive manufacturing on the cladding layer is ensured, Para[0060]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the bottom portion of the build plate a first material with higher strength, such as a ferrous metal material as taught by Tachibana, and to make the top portion a different second material with lower strength, such as titanium as taught by Tachibana, in the build plate of Ryon in order to reduce cost by using less titanium and to ensure the joining strength. Thus, Ryon in view of Tachibana covers all limitations of claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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 Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/VANESSA T. LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights