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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 8-9 and 11-13 have been amended. Claims 1-7, 10 and 14-15 have been canceled. Claims 16-28 are newly submitted claims. Accordingly, claims 8-9, 11-13 and 16-28 remain pending and are the claims addressed and examined below.
Applicant has cancelled claims 1-7 and 14-15. Accordingly, the 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretations set forth in the 01/09/2026 Office action are withdrawn; the claim rejections under 35 USC § 101 set forth in the 01/09/2026 Office action have been withdrawn; and the claim rejections under 35 USC § 112b set forth in the 01/09/2026 Office action have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendments to the claimed subject matter, the following new grounds of rejections are necessitated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks regarding amended claim 8 have overcome the rejections under 35 USC 102 as being unpatentable over Hudelson et al. (US 2022/0032377) previously set forth in the Office action mailed 01/09/2026. Therefore, the rejections under 35 USC § 102 have been withdrawn.
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 8-9, 11-13 and 16-28 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.
Regarding claim 8: the recitation “after the foundational layer has been deposited, compacting the of the build material in the foundational layer” in lines 6-7 is incomplete and is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of prior art rejections, this recitation is being interpreted with similar recitations found in new claims 17 and 23, so as to read “after the foundational layer has been deposited, compacting ”.
Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation “the lateral position” recited in line 10 and line 11 as it is not clear if the lateral position is referring to a particular lateral position of the plurality of lateral positions introduced in line 9 of the claim, or if the lateral position is intending to reference every possible occurrence of a lateral position.
For the purposes of prior art rejections, the Examiner is interpreting the claim language to be “for each of a plurality of lateral positions over the build platform: moving the roller to the respective lateral position of each of the plurality of lateral positions; while the roller at the respective lateral position of each of the plurality of lateral positions”. Claims 9, 11-13 and 16 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 8.
Regarding claim 17: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation “the lateral position” recited in line 9 and line 10 as it is not clear if the lateral position is referring to a particular lateral position of the plurality of lateral positions introduced in line 8 of the claim, or if the lateral position is intending to reference every possible occurrence of a lateral position.
For the purposes of prior art rejections, the Examiner is interpreting the claim language to be “for each of a plurality of lateral positions over the build platform: moving the roller to the respective lateral position of each of the plurality of lateral positions; while the roller at the respective lateral position of each of the plurality of lateral positions”. Claims 18-22 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 17.
Regarding claim 23: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation “the lateral position” recited in line 11 and line 12 as it is not clear if the lateral position is referring to a particular lateral position of the plurality of lateral positions introduced in line 10 of the claim, or if the lateral position is intending to reference every possible occurrence of a lateral position.
For the purposes of prior art rejections, the Examiner is interpreting the claim language to be “for each of a plurality of lateral positions over the build platform: moving the roller to the respective lateral position of each of the plurality of lateral positions; while the roller at the respective lateral position of each of the plurality of lateral positions”. Claims 24-28 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 23.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 17 and 23 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the primary reason for indicating claim 8, claim 17 and claim 23 as allowable is that the prior art fails to provide any teachings, suggestions, and/or motivations to arrive at the claimed while the roller is at the respective lateral position of each of the plurality of lateral positions, relatively moving the build platform and the roller towards one another and then away from one another.
Kuklinski (US 2020/0038958) discloses: a system and corresponding method for additive manufacturing of a 3D object for improving uniformity of powder packing density of a powder bed used in the manufacturing process (Kuklinski at [0031], [0032]) using a multistage compaction apparatus 204 including a first compaction roller 210a and a second compaction roller 210b that are positioned relative to the top surface 218 of the powder bed 222, where the second compaction roller 210b may be configured to rotate in the second direction 226, opposite the first direction 217, and by driving the second compaction roller 210b to rotate in the second direction 226, the second compaction roller 210b applied a downward pressure to compress the compacted amount 206 and compact the compacted amount further (Kuklinski at [0065], [0070], FIG. 1B, FIG. 2).
Lange et al. (US 2023/0182389) discloses: a method for the layer-by-layer manufacture of three-dimensional objects from particulate material (Lange at [0001]), where blank layers can be applied before and/or after the object layers are processed so as to create uniform thermal conditions, where the blank layers do not contain an object cross section of the build (Lange at [0035], [0045]-[0048]).
Hiro et al. (US 2023/0008559) discloses: a powder bed fusion apparatus which forms a plurality of first layers constituting a buffer layer of the powder material of a predetermined thickness prior to forming a plurality of second layers for forming a three-dimensional object (Hiro at [0127], [0145], [0146], FIG. 18, FIG. 27).
Consequently, given the discussion above, it is the Examiner’s assessment that no reference viewed either alone or in combination teaches or reasonably suggests the claimed while the roller is at the respective lateral position of each of the plurality of lateral positions, relatively moving the build platform and the roller towards one another and then away from one another as required by claim 8, claim 17, and claim 23.
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 BAILEIGH K. DARNELL whose telephone number is (469)295-9287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, MST.
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 H. 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.
/BAILEIGH KATE DARNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights