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 .
Status of Claims and Application
This non-final action on the merits is in response to the election of invention received by the office on 16 December 2025. Claims 1-18 and 38-41 are pending. Claims 38-41 are withdrawn as non-elected.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 38-41 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant's election of claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 16 December 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Claim 13 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.
The term “. . . or vice versa.” In claim 13 renders the claim indefinite. In the context of the claim, the term admits of different meanings - (1) the claimed lowering and scanning steps are reversed, (2) the laser apparatus is lowered and the platform or support surface remains in the same position vertically – and it is not clear which sense the term is employed by applicant. For the purposes of examination, the term will be interpreted according to sense (1) as set forth in this paragraph.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 12-15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0184925 to Huang et al. (‘925 hereafter)in view of U.S. Patent 6,441,338 to Joshua E Rabinovich (‘338 hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, ‘925 teaches a method for preparing plates for cylinders to treat items of the paper processing industry, wherein the plates comprise a base having a support surface, and treating profile elements on said support surface of said base, the method comprising an additive manufacturing process, and comprising the following steps: c. depositing at least one layer of a polymeric powder of polymeric material on said support surface of said base or on a platform (paragraph 0043); d. premelting the deposited layer of powder of polymeric material by means of at least one laser apparatus operated to scan the cross-sections on each layer with at least one first scan, in accordance with the 3D reference model of said treating profile elements or of both said base and said treating profile elements (paragraph 0050); e. selectively raising the temperature value of the deposited layer of powder of polymeric material and sintering the deposited layer of powder of polymeric material using said laser apparatus operated to scan the premelted cross-sections on each layer with at least one second scan, in accordance with said 3D reference model of said treating profile elements or of both said base and said treating profile elements, wherein a new layer of said powder of polymeric material is deposited after the second scan is performed (paragraph 0050). ‘925 does not teach the steps of developing a model of the object to be formed.
In the related art of cutting and creasing die manufacture, ‘338 teaches the steps of a. acquiring a treating pattern to be produced on an item of the paper processing industry or acquiring a shape of said base of the plates and said treating pattern (C9L6-C9L19); b. creating a 3D reference model of at least the treating profile elements according to the treating pattern, or a 3D reference model of both said base and said treating profile elements (C9L6-C9L19) for the benefit of reducing the amount of hand work necessary to make a cutting and creasing die. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘925 with those of ‘338 for the benefit of manufacturing a cutting and creasing die with less hand work.
Regarding claim 2, ‘925 teaches the method wherein said at least one first scan and said at least one second scan are provided by said laser apparatus operating in continuous-wave mode (paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 3, ‘925 teaches the method wherein said second scan starts between 0 ms and 50 ms after the end of the first scan (0049 -the prior art teaches that the preheating and melting beams traverse in formation, the formation being the preheating beam leads with the melting beam in trail. The reference further teaches that the two beams may be slightly spaced or touching.).
Regarding claim 4, ‘925 teaches the method wherein said support surface of said base, or said platform, is formed or pretreated to receive and retain the polymeric powder (paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 12, ‘925 teaches the method wherein said laser apparatus provides a laser beam having a spot diameter of between 70 micrometers and 220 micrometers (paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 13, ‘925 teaches the method wherein said support surface or said platform is lowered along a vertical direction, when the scanning of each cross-section by the laser apparatus is completed, or vice versa (paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 14, ‘925 teaches the method wherein said additive manufacturing process is a selective laser sintering (SLS) process (paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 15, ‘925 teaches the method wherein said polymeric powder is distributed by means of a powder delivery system, which deposits said polymeric powder on the support surface of said base, or on said platform, so as to form at least one layer of powder for scanning respective cross-sections for each layer of the
Regarding claim 18, ‘925 teaches the method comprising a step of displaying and/or modification of the forming parameters of the treating profile elements or of both the base and the treating profile elements, said parameters comprising at least one of the height of the laser apparatus relative to the deposition surface of the polymeric powder, the scanning speed of the laser apparatus relative to the deposition surface of the polymeric powder, the delivery speed of the polymeric powder and spot dimension of the laser beam (paragraph 0032).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘925 in view of ‘338 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0348904 to Chang et al. (‘904 hereafter).
Regarding claim 5, ‘925 in view of ‘338 does not teach an electrostatic coating.
In the related art of additive manufacturing, ‘904 teaches the method comprising a preparatory step of coating said support surface of said base or said platform with an electrostatic coating to provide or increase the capacity of said support surface to retain said polymeric powder (paragraph 0029) for the benefit of adhering a quantity of powder material. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘925 in view of ‘338 with those of ‘904 for the benefit of adhering powder material to a build surface.
Claim(s) 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘925 in view of ‘338 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “In situ measurements of layer roughness during laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing using low coherence scanning interferometry” by DePond et al. (DEPOND hereafter).
Regarding claim 6, ‘925 in view of ‘338 does not teach pretreating to control surface finish.
In the related art of selective laser sintering, DEPOND teaches that it is known that surface roughness as a result of laser scan parameters can effect powder retention of a surface (3.1 Effect of inter-layer path orientention on surface roughness). It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine this teaching with those of ‘925 in view ‘338 since it has been held that discovering an optimum or workable value of an art-recognized result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have been motivated to modify the surface roughness of a layer for the benefit of producing an additively manufactured part with minimal defects.
Regarding claim 7, ‘925 in view of ‘338 does not teach the roughness.
In the related art of selective laser sintering, DEPOND teaches the method wherein a minimum roughness value, expressed in terms of arithmetic average of the roughness profile (Ra) is3.1 Effect of inter-layer path orientention on surface roughness, table 3) for the benefit of building a defect free part. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine this teaching with those of ‘925 in view ‘338 since it has been held that discovering an optimum or workable value of an art-recognized result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have been motivated to modify the surface roughness of a layer for the benefit of producing an additively manufactured part with minimal defects.
Regarding claim 8, ‘925 in view of ‘338 does not teach the surface roughness of the layer.
In the related art of selective laser sintering, DEPOND teaches the method wherein said preparatory scan provides a foaming on the support surface of said base to provide roughness or increase the roughness of said support surface (Fig. 7c-e) for the benefit of constructing a defect free part. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘925 in view of ‘338 with those of DEPOND for the benefit of constructing a defect free part.
Regarding claim 9, ‘925 in view of ‘338 does not teach the claimed surface finish.
In the related art of selective laser sintering, DEPOND teaches the method wherein said roughness comprises reliefs having a height comprised between 20 micrometers and 60 micrometers (Table 3., Fig 7a) for the benefit of constructing a defect free part. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘925 in view of ‘338 with those of DEPOND for the benefit of constructing a defect free part.
Regarding claim 10, ‘925 teaches that the laser may be operated in either pulsed or continuous mode (paragraph 0025). It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to conduct the preparatory scan in one of these two modes since it has been held that the combination of known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, ‘925 teaches that the laser may be operated in either or both a pulsed or continuous wave mode (paragraph 0025). It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to operate said laser apparatus is operated in pulsed mode for providing said preparatory scan, and said laser apparatus is operated in continuous wave mode for providing said first and second scans would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing since it has been held that the combination of known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘925 in view of ‘338 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0204531 to Baumann et al. (‘531 hereafter).
Regarding claim 16, ‘925 in view of ‘338 does not teach the specific polymer.
In the related art of selective laser sintering, ‘531 teaches a polymeric powder comprises one or more of polyamides (PA), Nylon 11, Nylon 12, polystyrenes (PS), thermoplastic elastomers (TPE), polyaryletherketones (PAEK) and polycarbonate (paragraph 0020) for the benefit of forming durable parts via selective laser sintering. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘925 in view of ‘338 with those ‘531 for the benefit of forming a durable part via selective laser sintering.
Regarding claim 17, ‘925 in view of ‘338 teaches the method wherein said polymeric powder comprises carbon or glass fibers (paragraph 0020) for the benefit of forming durable parts via selective laser sintering. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘925 in view of ‘338 with those ‘531 for the benefit of forming a durable part via selective laser sintering.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John P Robitaille whose telephone number is (571)270-7006. The examiner can normally be reach ed Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:00PM.
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, 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.
/JPR/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743