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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 06 August 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is a de minimis search and examination burden in addressing each of the grouped inventions. This is not found persuasive because the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter. For example, Group II, claim 15 claims electric discharge machining, electrochemical machining, and shaped tube electric machining. This subject matter is not included in any of the claims of Group I. Therefore, Group I and Group II contain divergent subject matter resulting in a serious search burden between the two groups.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06 August 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08 May 2024 and 19 September 2025 were considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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 6 and 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 6 claims a constant rate of porosity change from the upper surface of the surface layer to the lower surface of the surface layer.
Claim 7 claims stepped-porosity layers having pores of stepped, different volumes.
It is unclear how the constant rate of porosity change of claim 6 differs from the stepped-porosity of claim 7. It is unclear by how much the porosity must vary or by what thickness it must vary across in order to be considered a stepped change and not a constant rate of change. The specification does not provide clarity and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the claim.
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 1, 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220266344A1 of Socha in view of EP4166260A1 of Ramiro.
Regarding Claim 1, the preamble limitation “for a metal additive manufacturing process” is not given patentable weight as it does not impart structure to the product. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction, see MPEP 2111.02.
Socha teaches a build plate with thermally decomposing top surface for facile release of 3D printed objects in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Socha discloses a build plate with a layer of a metal or metal alloy applied on its top surface, Para[0052]. Socha teaches that the solidus temperature of the layer is lower than both the material comprising the build plate and a material used to form the 3D printed object, Para[0052]. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the layer must be of a different metal than that of the build plate in order for them to have different solidus temperatures. Thus, Socha covers the base and surface layer limitations of claim 1. Socha does not teach graded porosity within the surface layer.
Ramiro discloses an additive manufacturing process comprising directed-energy deposition and pre-depositing interface metal layers in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Ramiro discloses that the deposition head -1- in the process of the invention, is further used to provide at least one interface metal layer between an underlying target surface portion and a successive layer -7- of deposited metal material, by applying a reduced specific energy generated by the thermal source -2- when generating the interface metal layer from the feedstock -3- and an increased density of the metal feedstock -3-, to provide thereby at each time successive melting pools in which the metal material of the interface metal layer does at the most only partially fuse with said target surface portion -5a- of the metal base substrate -5-, to obtain a bonding having a reduced bonding strength between the metal interface metal layer and the target surface portion -5a- of the substrate -5-, and to confer to the interface metal layer a higher porosity and brittleness than those of the underlying surface portion -5a- and that of the successive layer -7- of deposited metal material, and a decreased bonding to the underlying surface -5-due to the specific higher porosity and lack of fusion with the substrate obtained with the interface metal layer, Para[0039]. Ramiro also discloses that the fact that the interface metal layer has both higher porosity and lack of fusion, results in higher brittleness than those of the underlying target surface portion and that of the successive layer of deposited metal material, provide fracture areas which allow easy separation of the metal article from the substrate by having to apply little force, Para[0014]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use graded porosity taught by Ramiro while printing the product of Socha as it will make the product achieve increased brittleness in the surface layer and decreased bonding to the underlying build plate resulting in easier separation of the article form the build plate. Thus, Socha in view of Ramiro covers all limitations of claim 1.
Claim 2 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the surface layer has a thickness of at least 0.2 millimeters.
Socha discloses that the layer has a thickness between 100 μm and 13 mm, Para[0008]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Socha teaches the additional limitation of claim 2. Thus, Socha in view of Ramiro covers all limitations of claim 2.
Claim 5 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the first metal includes a single chemical element or an alloy and the second metal includes a different alloy of two or more chemical elements.
Socha discloses a build plate with a layer of a metal or metal alloy applied on its top surface, Para[0052]. Socha teaches that the solidus temperature of the layer is lower than both the material comprising the build plate and a material used to form the 3D printed object, Para[0052]. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the layer must be of a different metal than that of the build plate in order for them to have different solidus temperatures. Socha specifically teaches that the layer 110 of thermally decomposable material may be a solid metal or metal alloy, Para[0052] Therefore, Socha covers the additional limitation of claim 5. Thus, Socha in view of Ramiro covers all limitations of claim 5.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220266344A1 of Socha in view of EP4166260A1 of Ramiro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20240092024A1 of Buller.
Claim 3 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the surface layer covers the upper surface of the base except at an exposed portion of the upper surface surrounding the surface layer, the exposed portion having a width in a range of 1.2 to 1.8 millimeters.
Figs. 1A and 1C of Socha disclose a surface layer covering the build plate except for an exposed portion of the build plate which surrounds the surface layer, Figs. [1A,1C]. Socha does not disclose a specific width of the exposed portion.
Buller teaches arrays of optical components in three-dimensional printing in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Buller discloses that the build module may accommodate a build platform having an FLS (e.g., diameter or width) of at least about 100 millimeters (mm), 200 mm, 300 mm, 400 mm, 500 mm, 600 mm, 700 mm, 800 mm, 900 mm, 1000 mm, 1500 mm, or 2000 mm, 2500 mm, 3000 mm, 3500 mm, or 4000 mm, Para[0167], and that The FLS of the material bed accommodated by the build module may have a FLS value between any of the aforementioned values (e.g., from about 100 mm to about 4500 mm, from about 100 mm to about 2000 mm, from about 100 mm to about 700 mm, or from about 300 mm to about 4000 mm), Para[0167]. Therefore, Buller teaches a build platform ranging from 100 to 4000 mm and a material bed (equivalent to the claimed surface layer) ranging from 100 to 4500 mm. This means that the build platform could extend further than the material bed by anywhere from 0 to 3900 mm. This overlaps with the claimed range of 1.2 to 1.8 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Buller discloses that an aspect disclosed herein is a 3D printing system including a build platform sufficient to accommodate 3D object(s) during a print cycle, Para[0007]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the ranges for the width of the build platform, and width of the layer on top of the build platform, as taught by Buller, would be typical values for a 3D printing system which includes a build platform sufficient to accommodate 3D objects during a print cycle. Thus, one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to include the widths taught by Buller in the product disclosed by Socha in order to sufficiently accommodate the 3D object during the print cycle. Therefore, Socha in view of Ramiro and Buller covers all limitations of claim 3.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220266344A1 of Socha in view of EP4166260A1 of Ramiro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20170284206A1 of Roberts.
Claim 4 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the most-dense region has a porosity in a range of 0% to 4.9% and the least-dense region has a porosity in a range of 5% to 25%.
Socha and Ramiro do not teach specific porosity percentages.
Roberts teaches a high porosity material and method of making thereof in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Roberts teaches that the present invention relates to a ceramic or metallic component including a first region having a first porosity ranging between 1 and 30%, Para[0005], and that the present invention relates to a turbine blade, the turbine blade includes a second region comprising no porosity or a porosity less than the first region, Para[0007].The component includes at least one graded transition between the first and second regions, Para[0005]. Roberts range for the first region overlaps with the claimed range for the least dense region and Roberts teaching of no porosity in the second region would fall within the claimed range of 0 to 4.9%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Roberts discloses that the selective porosity provides useful properties in cooling components of jet aircraft engines, e.g., turbine blades, through transpiration, Para[0001]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the regions of porosity taught by Roberts in the product of Socha and Ramiro in order to provide useful cooling properties to the component. Thus, Socha in view of Ramiro and Roberts covers all limitations of claim 4.
Claim 6 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the graded porosity between the upper surface of the surface layer and the lower surface of the surface layer includes a constant rate of porosity change from the upper surface of the surface layer to the lower surface of the surface layer in a range of 1% to 4% per millimeter.
Socha discloses that the layer has a thickness between 100 μm and 13 mm, Para[0008]. Socha and Ramiro do not teach specific porosity percentages.
Roberts teaches a high porosity material and method of making thereof in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Roberts teaches that the present invention relates to a ceramic or metallic component including a first region having a first porosity ranging between 1 and 30%, Para[0005], and that the present invention relates to a turbine blade, the turbine blade includes a second region comprising no porosity or a porosity less than the first region, Para[0007].The component includes at least one graded transition between the first and second regions, Para[0005]. Roberts discloses that the term “graded transition” includes a continuous graded transition as shown in FIG. 5., Para[0035], and that the continuous graded transition is created by continuous variation in the powder composition in a powder bed either within a single layer or between successive layers. In the case of successive layers, a continuous transition denotes one where step-wise material changes are so gradual that it is impossible to detect a stepped grade in the material, Para[0036]. Roberts also teaches that the selective porosity provides useful properties in cooling components of jet aircraft engines, e.g., turbine blades, through transpiration, Para[0001]. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to use a thickness of the surface layer as disclosed by Socha, such as 12 mm, and apply Roberts’s porous region with a porosity of 1 to 30% as well as Roberts dense region with no porosity. This would result in a continuous graded change in porosity of 30% over the thickness of 12 mm, corresponding to a rate of porosity change of 2.5% per mm. This falls within the claimed range of 1 to 4% per mm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the continuous porosity change of Roberts to the product of Socha and Ramiro in order to provide useful cooling properties to the component. Thus, Socha in view of Ramiro and Roberts covers all limitations of claim 6.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220266344A1 of Socha in view of EP4166260A1 of Ramiro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20170284206A1 of Roberts and DE102021105991A1 (machinge translation) of Laher.
Claim 7 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the graded porosity between the upper surface of the surface layer and the lower surface of the surface layer includes a plurality of stepped-porosity layers having pores of stepped, different volumes from the upper surface of the surface layer to the lower surface of the surface layer, wherein the pores have diameter in a range of 0.028 to 0.036 millimeters (mm) below the upper surface of the surface layer and in a range of 1.8 to 2.2 mm adjacent the lower surface of the surface layer.
Socha and Ramiro do not teach specific porosity percentages.
Roberts teaches that the porosity of the present invention therefore ranges from 0.025 to 0.8, Para[0029]. This overlaps with the claimed range for the upper surface. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Roberts also teaches that the selective porosity provides useful properties in cooling components of jet aircraft engines, e.g., turbine blades, through transpiration, Para[0001].
Laher discloses a method for producing a three-dimensional component in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Laher teaches that The Feret diameters of the pores 3 can have a value between 5 µm and 2000 µm, Para[0032]. This overlaps with the claimed range for the lower surface. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Laher teaches that the present invention is based on the objective of reducing the manufacturing costs of three-dimensional (metallic) components using an additive manufacturing process, Para[0005].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the pore diameter of Roberts to the upper surface, and the pore diameter of Laher to the lower surface in order to provide useful cooling properties to the component and reduce the manufacturing costs. Thus, Socha in view of Ramiro, Roberts, and Laher covers all limitations of claim 7.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220266344A1 of Socha in view of EP4166260A1 of Ramiro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP5189953B2 (machine translation on file as of 19 September 2025) of Abe.
Claim 8 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the graded porosity between the upper surface of the surface layer and the lower surface of the surface layer includes a plurality of open columns in solid material, the plurality of open columns extending from the upper surface of the surface layer to the lower surface of the surface layer, wherein each open column as a narrower upper portion adjacent but under the upper surface of the surface layer and a wider lower portion adjacent the lower surface of the surface layer.
Socha and Ramiro do not teach open columns in the graded porosity.
Abe discloses a method for producing three-dimensionally shaped object in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Abe teaches a recess 60 is provided in the region 21 a where the formed object is formed. The shape of the recess 60 is not particularly limited, but as shown in FIG. 9, a cylindrical shape (FIG. 9 (a)), a polygonal prism shape (eg, a quadrangular prism shape (FIG. 9 (b)), a conical shape (FIG. 9 (c)), a truncated cone shape (FIG. 9 (d) and FIG. 9 (e)), etc. From the viewpoint of easy processing, a cylinder as shown in FIG. 9, Para[0028], Fig.[9]. Abe teaches that in addition, in order to obtain the shape accuracy of the three-dimensional shaped object in the prior art, it is necessary to design in advance phenomena such as “curvature” and “peel”, but in the present invention, it is possible to form the shape accuracy can be substantially achieved by simply providing a recess in the member supporting the object. That is, the present invention is also very useful in that a design that takes into consideration such a specifically difficult phenomenon can be omitted by a simple means, Para[0017]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the recess of Abe in the product of Socha and Ramiro in order to increase the shape accuracy of the part. Thus, Socha in view of Ramiro and Abe covers all limitations of claim 8.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220266344A1 of Socha in view of EP4166260A1 of Ramiro and JP5189953B2 (machine translation on file as of 19 September 2025) of Abe, as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of US20160221269A1 of Okamoto.
Claim 9 further limits claim 8 by claiming that each open column has a lower width at the lower surface of the surface layer in a range of 0.5-2.0 millimeters (mm), an upper width below the upper surface of the surface layer in a range of 0.05 to 0.3 mm, and a taper angle in a range of 1-4°.
Socha and Ramiro do not teach open columns in the graded porosity.
Abe discloses that the width Wa of the cylindrical recess shown in FIG. 9A is about 0.5 to 20 mm, Para[0028]. This overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 to 2.0 mm. Abe also discloses that the width of the other side of the recess can range from larger than Wa, as in Fig[9(e), 9(f)], to zero as in the cone shape of the recess in Fig[9(c)]. This would encompass the claimed range of 0.05 – 0.3 mm. Abe also teaches that when the recess has a tapered shape, the spread angle α of the taper as shown in the upper right of FIG. 9E is preferably about 1 ° to 45 °. If the recess has a tapered shape, it may be in the form of a through hole as shown in FIG. 12 in that the recess itself can be easily processed, Para[0029]. This overlaps with the claimed range for taper angle. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Abe teaches that in addition, in order to obtain the shape accuracy of the three-dimensional shaped object in the prior art, it is necessary to design in advance phenomena such as “curvature” and “peel”, but in the present invention, it is possible to form the shape accuracy can be substantially achieved by simply providing a recess in the member supporting the object. That is, the present invention is also very useful in that a design that takes into consideration such a specifically difficult phenomenon can be omitted by a simple means, Para[0017]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the width of the recess of Abe in the product of Socha and Ramiro in order to increase the shape accuracy of the part.
Additionally, Okamoto discloses a three-dimensionally shaped article production member, three-dimensionally shaped article production apparatus, three-dimensionally shaped article production method, and three-dimensionally shaped article in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Okamoto teaches that the width (in the case where the planar shape of the pore 411 is a circle, the diameter) of the pore 411 is preferably 0.1 mm or more and 10 mm or less, Para[0126]. This overlaps with the claimed range of 0.05-0.3 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Okamoto teaches that an advantage of some aspects of the invention is to provide a three-dimensionally shaped article production method capable of producing a three-dimensionally shaped article with excellent dimensional accuracy with excellent productivity and excellent stability, Para[0006]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the pore diameter for the width of the recess disclosed by Abe in the product taught by Socha and Ramiro in order to achieve excellent dimensional accuracy, productivity and stability.
Thus, Socha in view of Ramiro, Abe, and Okamoto covers all limitations of claim 9.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220266344A1 of Socha in view of EP4166260A1 of Ramiro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO2020006237A1 of Kernan.
Claim 10 further limits claim 1 by claiming a fillet coupling the surface layer to the base, the fillet including the second metal.
Socha and Ramiro do not teach a fillet coupling.
Kernan discloses managing debind of structures in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Kernan discloses that parts may generally be filleted between areas with different cross section to make the transition in swelling rates continuous, or modified to provide a substantially similar cross section throughout. In general, these techniques may be use alone or in combination to yield an improved part that is less susceptible to cracking, delamination, or other strain-related defects during debinding, Para[0305]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the fillet coupling taught by Kernan in the product disclosed by Socha and Ramiro in order to prevent cracking, delamination, and other strain related defects. Thus, Socha in view of Ramiro and Kernan covers all limitations of claim 10.
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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights