Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/635,762

BUILD MATERIAL ESCAPEMENT ASSEMBLY AND ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS INCLUDING SAME

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Apr 15, 2024
Examiner
NECKEL, ALEXA DOROSHENK
Art Unit
1700
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
General Electric Company
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
0%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
0%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 0% of cases
0%
Career Allow Rate
0 granted / 5 resolved
-65.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
4 currently pending
Career history
9
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
54.3%
+14.3% vs TC avg
§102
20.0%
-20.0% vs TC avg
§112
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 5 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 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 1-20 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. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “lateral direction” in claim 1 line 10 and claim 10 line 17 is used by the claim to mean “vertical direction,” while the accepted meaning is “horizontal direction.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The specification recites in ¶ 0061 “comparing a width W, W' of the exposed area 332, 332' of the diaphragm 330, 330' to a travel distance D of the retractable plate 350 (e.g., a distance that the retractable plate 350 moves in the +/- z-direction as depicted in the coordinate axes of FIGS. 5 – 6 and 7A - 7B)… When pressure is applied to and/or released from the cavity 370 (e.g., when the top plate 320 is actuated from the extended position to the retracted position, or vice versa) the retractable plate 350 actuates in the lateral direction and applies a force on the diaphragm 330, 330'. For example, when the retractable plate 350 moves upwardly (e.g., in the + z-direction as depicted in the coordinate axes of FIGS. 5 – 6 and 7A - 7B) due to increased pressure within the cavity 370, the upward movement of the retractable plate 350 stretches the diaphragm 330, 330'.” Therefore, it appears that the travel distance in a lateral direction is the vertical, or +/- z-direction. Further, the specification recites in ¶ 0077 “Referring still to FIG. 8, the recoat assembly positioning sensor 460 may be further connected to the actuator assembly 102, such that the position (e.g., the lateral position in the +/- X direction) of the recoat assembly 200”. Therefore, it appears that the lateral position definition for the recoater assembly movement is in agreement with the accepted meaning of “horizontal direction”, but the lateral position definition for the retractable plate is not in agreement with the accepted meaning. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret “lateral movement” to be a “linear movement”. However, clarification and correction is required. Claim 10 line 5 recites “a base member movable in a first lateral direction and a second lateral direction”. As noted above, it is unclear whether the lateral direction refers to a horizontal or vertical direction. Further, it is unclear whether the first and second lateral direction are the same or different from the lateral direction recited in line 17, since from the specification it appears that the base member comprising a recoating assembly moves in a lateral direction recognized as a horizontal movement, while the retractable plate moves in a lateral direction recognized as a vertical movement. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret the first and second lateral direction to be linear movements. However, clarification and correction is required. Claim 20 recites “a method of managing build material in an additive manufacturing process using the additive manufacturing system of claim 1” in line 1-2. However, claim 1 recites “a build material escapement assembly for an additive manufacturing system” in line 1 and claim 10 recites “an additive manufacturing system” in line 1. Further, the term “the base member of the build material escapement assembly” in line 4 does not have proper antecedent basis when claim 1 is incorporated into claim 20. It is also unclear how the base member is part of the build material escapement assembly, since claim 10 recites the additive manufacturing system comprises the base member rather than the build material escapement assembly comprising the base member (see claim 10 line). For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret claim 10 to be incorporated into claim 20 to provide proper antecedent basis for the base member, and will interpret the build material escapement assembly to be “of the additive manufacturing system”. However, clarification and correction is required. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art is Shi et al. (US20200238382). Shi teaches a build material escapement assembly (powder seal assembly 200; Figure 5 and Figure 6) for an additive manufacturing system (additive manufacturing system 100; Figure 3), the build material escapement assembly comprising: a retaining plate (table 110; Figure 3) for coupling the build material escapement assembly to the additive manufacturing system ([0062] planar build surface 130 defines a build opening 132 through which build chamber 134 may be accessed. More specifically, according to the illustrated embodiment, build chamber 134 is defined at least in part by vertical walls 136 and build platform 118; the powder seal assembly is placed on the build platform 118 as shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6), the retaining plate defining an outer perimeter and an inner perimeter ([0062] table 110 is a rigid structure defining a planar build surface 130. In addition, planar build surface 130 defines a build opening 132 through which build chamber 134 may be accessed); a retractable plate (build platform 118; Figure 5 and Figure 6); a top plate (powder support plate 202; Figure 5 and Figure 6) coupled to the retractable plate ([0081] powder support plate 202 may be mounted to mounting plate 180 or build platform 118 by one or more vertical support legs 216), the top plate including a top plate perimeter and being actuatable between a retracted position and an extended position ([0094] powder support plate 202 may move vertically along the build direction 138 with build platform 118); and a diaphragm (inflatable sealing element 220; Figure 5 and Figure 6) coupled to the top plate ([0083] powder seal assembly 200 includes an inflatable sealing element 220 that is operably coupled to powder support plate 202) and further including an exposed area (apertures 204; Figure 5 and Figure 6) extending between the inner perimeter of a built object and the top plate perimeter ([0083] clearance is provided between inflatable sealing element 220 and blades 70 (when not inflated)); wherein the retractable plate moves a travel distance in a linear direction as the top plate is moved from the retracted position to the extended position ([0094] powder support plate 202 may move vertically along the build direction 138 with build platform 118). While Shi fails to teach the exposed area extends between the inner perimeter of the retaining plate and the top plate perimeter, the build material escapement assembly of Shi could be modified such that the exposed area extends between the inner perimeter of the retaining plate and the top plate perimeter to allow or prevent material from escaping the sides of the build chamber 134 defined by the vertical walls 136. However, Shi fails to teach a width of the exposed area of the diaphragm is greater than the travel distance. Shi teaches a clearance gap on the order of 0.1 and 2 millimeters ([0080] clearance gap 210 may be between about 0.1 and 2 millimeters, between about 0.5 and 1.5 millimeters), and a vertical gap between the top plate and retractable plate of about 10 to 70 millimeters ([0090] vertical gap 240 may be between about 10 and 70 millimeters). Given that the vertical gap appears to be smaller than the built object 70, and that the retractable plate (i.e. the build plate) would move a travel distance extending the length of the built object, then the travel distance should be greater than the vertical gap size, and therefore, greater than the width of the exposed area of the diaphragm. PNG media_image1.png 509 719 media_image1.png Greyscale Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLA MACHNESS whose telephone number is (408)918-7587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30-2:30 PT. 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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. /ARIELLA MACHNESS/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 15, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent null
DYE-SENSITIZED PHOTOELECTRIC CONVERSION DEVICE
Granted
Patent null
DYNAMIC SOLAR TRACKING SYSTEM
Granted
Patent null
AQUEOUS BINDER SYSTEMS AND THEIR USE IN PRODUCING COATING COMPOSITIONS
Granted
Patent null
INHIBITION OF POLYMER SURFACE OXIDATION UTILIZING TWO PRIMARY ANTIOXIDANTS IN ACRYLIC POLYMERS
Granted
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 4 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
0%
Grant Probability
0%
With Interview (+0.0%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 5 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month