Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/785,826

HEAT DISSIPATION CONTROL IN ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jul 26, 2024
Examiner
TENTONI, LEO B
Art Unit
1742
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Rtx Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
1134 granted / 1386 resolved
+16.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
1413
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
48.3%
+8.3% vs TC avg
§102
20.7%
-19.3% vs TC avg
§112
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1386 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §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. Claim 8 is 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. In claim 8, line 1, the expression “the guided pressurized cool inert gas control” does not have clear and proper antecedent basis in the claims. 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. Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Riensche et al (WO 2024/026100 A2). Regarding claim 1, Riensche et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0003], [0007], [0062], [0087] and [0150]; Figure 6) teaches a process (see paragraph [0003] (laser powder bed fusion process) of Riensche et al), including (a) making, with an AM process, one or more parts (see paragraph [0003] (making metal parts by laser powder bed fusion) of Riensche et al); and (b) applying a heat dissipation technique to the one or more parts during performance of the AM technique to mitigate temperature build-up in the one or more parts, wherein the heat dissipation technique is applied to keep temperature at a top of a build part at or below a Threshold Temperature (Tth) (see paragraphs [0062] (correcting heat build-up by increasing the dwell time (of the laser) between layers, thus allowing the part to cool), [0003] (the laser powder bed fusion process prints a part layer-by-layer with the intent of avoiding heat build-up and reducing thermal-induced flaw formation (e.g., keyhole porosity)) and [0007] (areas of potential heat build-up include areas that satisfy a threshold temperature difference) of Riensche et al); (b)(1) wherein the Threshold Temperature (Tth) is a temperature above which keyhole porosity forms in the one or more parts (see paragraphs [0003] (the laser powder bed fusion process prints a part layer-by-layer with the intent of avoiding heat build-up and reducing thermal-induced flaw formation (e.g., keyhole porosity)) and [0150] (maximum laser power is set to avoid overheating and keyhole melting) of Riensche et al); (b)(2) wherein the heat dissipation technique includes a variable height-dependent interlayer pause (see paragraph [0062] (correcting heat build-up by increasing the dwell time (of the laser) between layers, thus allowing the part to cool) of Riensche et al). Regarding claim 5, see paragraph [0062] (the processing conditions can be optimized through iterative simulation of the thermal history using a graph theory approach) of Riensche et al. Regarding claims 6 and 10, see Figure 6, paragraph [0087] (inter-layer time (ILT) varies for the layers) of Riensche et al. Regarding claim 9, see paragraph [0003] (making metal parts by laser powder bed fusion) of Riensche et al. Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Go et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0046519 A1). Regarding claim 11, Go et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0002], [0045], [0074], [0121], [0122] and [0143]; Figure 4B) teaches an apparatus (see Figure 4B, paragraphs [0074] (nozzle 460) and [0002] (additive manufacturing) of Go et al), including (a) a central channel configured to release a stream of cool inert gas (see Figure 4B, paragraph [0074] (inner structure 462 (i.e., central channel) which conveys a gas stream onto the surface of powder bed 482) of Go et al); and (b) an outer channel configured to use a suction to capture build powder particles displaced by the stream of cool inert gas (see Figure 4B, paragraph [0074] (outer structure 461 (i.e., outer channel) which houses a vacuum to remove aerated powder (which is form the action of the gas stream) from powder bed 482) of Go et al). Regarding claim 12, see paragraphs [0121], [0122] (while not part of the apparatus, the gas may be an inert gas), [0143] (various aspects of the invention may be used alone, in combination, or in a variety of arrangements not specifically discussed in the embodiments and is not limited in its application) and [0045] (direct metal laser sintering, direct laser melting) of Go et al. Regarding claim 13, the recitation of applying a gas/suction nozzle to a heat dissipation technique within an AM machine does not differentiate the claimed gas/suction nozzle from the prior art gas/suction nozzle because the prior art gas/suction nozzle teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP §2114(II)). 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. 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. Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riensche et al (WO 2024/026100 A2) as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 9 and 10 above, and further in view of Ott et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0059163 A1). Regarding claim 2, Riensche et al does not teach (1) that the one or more parts are aerospace parts. Ott et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0002], [0003], [0005] and [0041]) teaches a process (see paragraph [0041] (additive manufacturing process, including laser powder bed fusion) of Ott et al), wherein the one or more parts are aerospace parts (see paragraphs [0003] (gas turbine engines power modern commercial and military aircraft), [0002] (additive manufactured wear components for combustor components) and [0041] (wear components are manufactured by laser powder bed fusion) of Ott et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture one or more aerospace parts in the process of Riensche et al in view of Ott et al in order to eliminate the need to assemble many components and eliminate the need for brazing and/or welding (see paragraph [0005] of Ott et al). Regarding claims 3 and 4, see paragraphs [0003] (gas turbine engines power modern commercial and military aircraft), [0002] (additive manufactured wear components for combustor components) and [0041] (wear components are manufactured by laser powder bed fusion) of Ott et al. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riensche et al (WO 2024/026100 A2) as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 9 and 10 above, and further in view of Comb et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0266242 A1) and Go et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0046519 A1). Regarding claim 8, Riensche et al does not teach (1) wherein guided pressurized cool inert gas control includes directing cool inert gas toward the part using a cool inert gas nozzle system, or (2) wherein the cool inert gas nozzle system includes a central channel configured to release a stream of cool inert gas and an outer channel configured to use a suction to capture build powder particles displaced by the stream of cool inert gas. Comb et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0001] and [0079]; Figure 4) teaches a process (see paragraph [0001] (additive manufacturing processes) of Comb et al), wherein guided pressurized cool inert gas control includes directing cool inert gas toward the part using a cool inert gas nozzle system (see Figure 4, paragraph [0079] (air jets 78 blow cooling air towards the top layers of 3D part 80) of Comb et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to direct cool inert gas toward the part using a cool inert gas nozzle system in the process of Riensche et al in view of Comb et al in order to keep the 3D part at a desired average temperature (see paragraph [0079] of Comb et al). Go et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0002], [0045], [0074], [0121], [0122] and [0143]; Figure 4B) teaches an apparatus (see Figure 4B, paragraphs [0074] (nozzle 460) and [0002] (additive manufacturing) of Go et al), wherein the cool inert gas nozzle system includes a central channel configured to release a stream of cool inert gas and an outer channel configured to use a suction to capture build powder particles displaced by the stream of cool inert gas (see Figure 4B, paragraph [0074] (inner structure 462 (i.e., central channel) which conveys a gas stream onto the surface of powder bed 482; outer structure 461 (i.e., outer channel) which houses a vacuum to remove aerated powder (which is form the action of the gas stream) from powder bed 482) of Go et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cool inert gas nozzle system including a central channel configured to release a stream of cool inert gas and an outer channel configured to use a suction to capture build powder particles displaced by the stream of cool inert gas in the process of Riensche et al in view of Go et al in order to cool an AM part and capture excess powder. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEO B. TENTONI whose telephone number is (571)272-1209. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:00 ET M-F. 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, Christina A. Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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. LEO B. TENTONI Primary Examiner Art Unit 1742 /LEO B TENTONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 26, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603206
COMPOSITE COMPONENT AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599464
PRODUCTION OF DENTAL FLOSS FROM WOOD FIBERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601177
DECORATIVE CONCRETE WITH UNIFORM SURFACE AND METHOD OF FORMING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595594
BULKED CONTINUOUS CARPET FILAMENT MANUFACTURING FROM POLYTRIMETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592620
ROTOR CORE MOLDING METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MOLDING A ROTOR CORE OF AN ELECTRIC MOTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 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
82%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+9.9%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1386 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