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 9/9/2026, is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 3-7 are amended. Claims 1-7 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 1-7 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 has been amended to require “a base area that is directly in contact with the stage, the first support area, and the second support area,” “modeling a second support structure in the second support area under a second modeling condition or forming a space without extruding the material, and modeling a base support structure in the base area under the first modeling condition,” “the second support structure directly contact the base support structure” and then also requires that “the second support structure is not modeled in the base area.” Thus, the claim appears to require a second support area in directly contact with a base area/structure wherein the second support area comprises a second support structure and thus, interpreted to require a second support structure in direct contact with a base area/structure, yet also appears to contradict this requirement by reciting that the second support structure is not modeled in the base area. It is unclear what structure is required by the second support area, second support structure, and how the phrase “is not modeled” modifies the other limitations. Additionally, if the phrase “is not modeled” is interpreted as synonymous with the limitation “forming a space without extruding the material,” the claim is indefinite for reciting a broader then narrower limitation in the same claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “modeling a second support structure in the second support area under a second modeling condition or forming a space without extruding the material,” and the claim also recites “the second support structure is not modeled in the base area” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 2-7 are indefinite based on their dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mark (US 20200114422)(previously cited).
With respect to Claim 1, Mark teaches a method of manufacturing a three-dimensional object, the method comprising steps of depositing (i.e. modeling) an object by extruding a composite material comprising metal onto a substrate (i.e. stage, wherein the stage may also be interpreted comprise additional structure/layers such as a release layer) to deposit layers, where in the stop of modeling the object also including modeling support structures to support the object with at least some of the support(s) located on a portion of the stage (i.e. a support area), wherein the support area may be divided into a plurality of areas including first, second and third areas and a base area in direct contact with the stage, first support area, second support area, and is located between the stage and the first support area and between the stage and the second support area, wherein the modeling of the support structures including modeling a first support structure in a first support area under a first modeling condition (e.g. location, layer, material), modeling a second support structure in a second support area under a second modeling condition or forming a space without extruding the material (and thus not modeled in the base area), modeling a base support structure in the base area under the first modeling condition, a step of separating the support structure from the object, wherein a third support area is located between the second support area and the object, and wherein the first modeling condition and the second modeling condition are different from each other. (para. 4-21, 71, 77, 83-84, 98-100, 109, 149, 164, 217; Figs. 2-9, 14-16, 18-20, 24-31, 33-34).
For example, Mark teaches embodiments such as those represented by Figs. 4, 6, 29, and 33 (see also Figs. 2-3, 5, 7-9, 24-28, 30-31, 33-34) wherein each portion of the structures, including vertical columns, horizontal structures, and/or spaces adjacent thereof of the overall supporting structures may be assigned as a separate support structure or base support structure in a respective support area or base area and parameters/conditions such as the specific location, layer, shape, length, material, and/or heating condition may be assigned as modeling conditions. Moreover, as the second support structure may be an empty “space,” such a selection would necessarily result in the first modeling condition and second modeling condition being different (that is, existence of a support vs. space/no support). One, non-limiting, embodiment of such teaching is represented in the marked-up figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
641
895
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, Mark is deemed to teach with sufficient specificity, first, second, and third support structures, in respective first, second, and third support areas, having first, second, and third modeling conditions as well as a base area and corresponding base support structure, anticipating the claim limitations.
With respect to Claim 2, Mark teaches, for example, in Fig. 29, wherein the modeling condition is a condition related to a type of the material (note, SH3 and SL2 comprising different materials) and also may be interpreted as wherein the modeling condition is different modeling pattern (e.g. the horizontal and vertical support pieces).
With respect to Claim 3, Mark teaches, for example, in Figs. 6 and 29, wherein the method comprising modeling a third support structure in the third support area, wherein a space is formed in the second support area.
With respect to Claim 4, Mark teaches modeling a third support in a third support area (e.g. third column, horizontal structure, or release material layer)(see Fig. 29), wherein the object contains a first metal, wherein one or more of the support structures comprise a metal, and a ceramic release material comprising part of the support structure may be assigned as the second support structure, and teaches before the step of removing the support, heating the object and the support structure to a sintering temperature of the object and support but lower than a sintering temperature of the ceramic, such that the ceramic material enables easier release/separation of the support structure from the object and teaches embodiments wherein the metal of the object and support structure are the same. (para. 15-21, 71, 77, 83-84, 98-100, 217). As the claim does not specify whether the first and second metal are different, the embodiment of Mark wherein the object metal and support structure metal are the same is deemed to anticipate the instant claim.
With respect to Claim 5, Mark teaches providing a support structure, including a base support structure, in particular, for portions of the object that comprise overhanging or cantilevered elements. (para. 93-95; Figs. 27-29). As Mark teaches a method of manufacturing a three-dimensional object with this structure and arrangement, and is therefore, deemed to implicitly teach a “determining” step meeting the instant claim.
With respect to Claim 6, Mark teaches a method comprising wherein the support area further includes a contact area that is in contact with the object at an upper side or lower side, and that is different from the body area. (see rejection of claim 1 above; Figs. 6 and 29).
With respect to Claim 7, Mark teaches embodiments, see for example Figs. 6 and 29, wherein in the first step a space is formed in the second support area, and a position of the object with respect to the stage is such that the second support area space extends along a vertical direction (e.g. vertical columns of space between stage and object (Figs. 6 and 29). As Mark teaches a method of manufacturing a three-dimensional object with this structure and arrangement, and is therefore, deemed to implicitly teach a “determining” step prior to modeling the first support structure, second support structure, and the base support structure, meeting the instant claim.
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) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark (US 20200114422)(previously cited).
With respect to Claim 1, Mark teaches a method of manufacturing a three-dimensional object, the method comprising steps of depositing (i.e. modeling) an object by extruding a composite material comprising metal onto a substrate (i.e. stage, wherein the stage may also be interpreted comprise additional structure/layers such as a release layer) to deposit layers, where in the stop of modeling the object also including modeling support structures to support the object with at least some of the support(s) located on a portion of the stage (i.e. a support area), wherein the support area may be divided into a plurality of areas including first, second and third areas and a base area in direct contact with the stage, first support area, second support area, and is located between the stage and the first support area and between the stage and the second support area, wherein the modeling of the support structures including modeling a first support structure in a first support area under a first modeling condition (e.g. location, layer, material), modeling a second support structure in a second support area under a second modeling condition or forming a space without extruding the material (and thus not modeled in the base area), modeling a base support structure in the base area under the first modeling condition, a step of separating the support structure from the object, wherein a third support area is located between the second support area and the object, and wherein the first modeling condition and the second modeling condition are different from each other. (para. 4-21, 71, 77, 83-84, 98-100, 109, 149, 164, 217; Figs. 2-3, 14-16, 18-20, 25, 27-30).
For example, Mark teaches embodiments such as those represented by Figs. 4, 6, 29, and 33 (see also Figs. 2-3, 5, 7-9, 24-28, 30-31, 33-34), wherein each portion of the structures, including vertical columns, horizontal structures, and/or spaces adjacent thereof of the overall supporting structures may be assigned as a separate support structure or base support structure in a respective support area or base area and parameters/conditions such as the specific location, layer, shape, length, material, and/or heating condition may be assigned as modeling conditions. Moreover, as the second support structure may be an empty “space,” such a selection would necessarily result in the first modeling condition and second modeling condition being different (that is, existence of a support vs. space/no support).
Thus, Mark is deemed to teach with sufficient specificity, first, second, and third support structures, in respective first, second, and third support areas, having first, second, and third modeling conditions as well as a base area and corresponding base support structure, anticipating the claim limitations.
In the alternative, Mark teaches a method of manufacturing a three-dimensional object, comprising extruding a metal-containing material to additively form an object, and comprising steps of providing a plurality of support structures, each support structure in a respective support area, the support structures that may comprise a metal and/or a ceramic release material, including structures having spaces, a plurality of support columns and horizontal portions, wherein the support structures selected to support the object, for example, overhanging features to prevent sagging during debinding and/or sintering processes, and one or more steps of removing support structures. (para. 4-21, 71, 77, 83-84, 98-100, 109, 149, 164, 217; Figs. 2-3, 14-16, 18-20, 25, 27-30).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on a desired object to be formed, to form three or more individual support elements (i.e. first, second, third etc. support structures) in respective support areas, wherein each individual support structure/element has unique modeling conditions, including one or more of dimensions, location, orientation, material or lack thereof, in order to sufficiently support the object during processing while minimizing waste and also for enabling easier support structure separation. See also MPEP 2144.05; Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.").
With respect to Claim 2, Mark teaches, for example, in Fig. 29, wherein the modeling condition is a condition related to a type of the material (note, SH3 and SL2 comprising different materials) and also may be interpreted as wherein the modeling condition is different modeling pattern (e.g. the horizontal and vertical support pieces).
With respect to Claim 3, Mark teaches, for example, in Figs. 6 and 29, wherein the method comprising modeling a third support structure in the third support area, wherein a space is formed in the second support area.
With respect to Claim 4, Mark teaches modeling a third support in a third support area (e.g. third column, horizontal structure, or release material layer)(see Fig. 29), wherein the object contains a first metal, wherein one or more of the support structures comprise a metal, and a ceramic release material comprising part of the support structure may be assigned as the second support structure, and teaches before the step of removing the support, heating the object and the support structure to a sintering temperature of the object and support but lower than a sintering temperature of the ceramic, such that the ceramic material enables easier release/separation of the support structure from the object and teaches embodiments wherein the metal of the object and support structure are the same. (para. 15-21, 71, 77, 83-84, 98-100, 217). As the claim does not specify whether the first and second metal are different, the embodiment of Mark wherein the object metal and support structure metal are the same is deemed to anticipate the instant claim.
In the alternative, Mark teaches embodiments wherein portions of a support structure may be made of a different material. (see, e.g., para. 149). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the support from a second metal material, having substantially similar density and/or shrinking characteristics, but lower cost, in order to more economically build an object from a desired first metal and a suitable support structure from a second, less expensive, metal material.
With respect to Claim 5, Mark teaches providing a support structure, including a base support structure, in particular, for portions of the object that comprise overhanging or cantilevered elements. (para. 93-95; Figs. 27-29). As Mark teaches a method of manufacturing a three-dimensional object with this structure and arrangement, and is therefore, deemed to implicitly teach a “determining” step meeting the instant claim. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to, before forming the object and supports, determine the need for a support structure, based on the object features such as overhanging portions, and provide one or more support structures in one or more support areas, including a “second support area,” in order to manufacture an object without unwanted sag or deformation during debinding and/or sintering. (see, e.g., para. 109).
With respect to Claim 6, Mark teaches a method comprising wherein the support area further includes a contact area that is in contact with the object at an upper side or lower side, and that is different from the body area. (see rejection of claim 1 above; Figs. 6 and 29).
With respect to Claim 7, Mark teaches embodiments, see for example Figs. 6 and 29, wherein in the first step a space is formed in the second support area, and a position of the object with respect to the stage is such that the second support area space extends along a vertical direction (e.g. vertical columns of space between stage and object (Figs. 6 and 29). As Mark teaches a method of manufacturing a three-dimensional object with this structure and arrangement, and is therefore, deemed to implicitly teach a “determining” step prior to modeling the first support structure, second support structure, and the base support structure, meeting the instant claim. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of teachings of Mark, to determine the number of support structure columns and intermediate spaces needed to support an object, for example the overhanging object element in Fig. 29, and select/determine a position of the object, base, stage, and space such that space extends in a vertical direction, in order to form an object while preventing unwanted sag during sintering, with a predictable result of success. (see also rejections of claims 1-6 above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant's arguments filed 9/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that one embodiment of Mark (Fig. 29) includes routing channels and such channels result in that the structure fails to disclose a base support modeled under a first modeling condition that is the same condition for the first support structure in a base area that is directly in contact with ethe stage, the first support area, and the second support area and is located at least between the stage and the first support area and between the stage and the second support area. (Remarks, pgs. 7-8). Applicant also argues that Mark fails to disclose wherein the modeling of the support structure is performed such that the first support structure and the second support structure directly contact the base support structure, and the second support structure is not modeled in the abse area. (Remarks, pg. 8). These arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
Applicant too narrowly interprets the instant limitations and mischaracterizes the teaching of the prior art. The instant claims provide no limiting scope to what constitutes a “first modeling condition.” As described in the previous Office Action and the rejection above, any feature such as composition, position, heating temperature, rate, etc. may be interpreted as a first modeling condition. Additionally, a combination of structures, features, and/or materials may be interpreted as representing a “modeling condition” and corresponding support and/or base structure(s). Moreover, as the claims require more than one structure having the same modeling condition, the claims do not exclude such structures being contiguous/integral such that arbitrary portions may be assigned as base, first support, etc. Furthermore, as detailed in the above rejection a variety of specific structures could reasonably be considered first, second, and third support areas, base area, and corresponding structures and the reference is not limited to those structures selected by Applicant in the arguments. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments fail to distinguish the prior art.
Applicant also argues that there is no apparent reason based on evidence in the record scientific reasoning to modify the teachings of Mark to arrive at the claimed method. These arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
Applicant makes conclusory statements that ignore the detailed reasoning and motivations detailed in the rejection. Therefore, as Applicant fails to provide arguments drawn to specifically addressing such reasoning/motivations, Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive.
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
