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 .
Specification
The amendment filed 6/7/26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: New paragraph [0064.1] and description of new figure 1B. Specifically, new element 110 (flexure) is added as a flat line (fig. 1B) inserted at an interface between elements 103 and 104 in original fig. 1.
Applicant is requested to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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, 4-6, 11, 14-16, 18-19 and 23-24 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.
With respect to claims 1 and 11, limitations the moving ram plate comprises multiple segments, each adjacent pair of segments connected by a flexure, with each segment attached to a separate ram are ambiguous because it is not clear what is meant by each segment connected by a flexure? Applicant added new figure 1B and new paragraph [0064.1] in recent amendment (filed 6/7/26). However, new element 110 (flexure) just appears to be flat line (fig. 1B) inserted at an interface between elements 103 and 104 in original fig. 1. Applicant’s original specification does not describe what structure is implied by “flexure”? The last sentence in [0054] states “flexible sections or flexures”, but fails to mention any material. Furthermore, there is no guidance in terms of how each segment 103 actually connects to 110- there is no indication of any coupling mechanism in fig. 1b. New paragraph [0064.1] simply repeats the same language – each adjacent pair of segments (103) connected by a flexure (110). Consequently, the recited vague language fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claims indefinite. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claims are taken to mean: applying force to the stack via a moving ram plate driven by at least one ram to bond the object portions of the stack.
As to claims 6 and 16, feature the platen comprises a stiff enclosure made from a first material is ambiguous because implied structure is unclear. Specifically, previous claim 4 requires that the platen is located between the moving ram plate and the stack. Applicant points to figs. 5 and 6. However, platen 502 shown in fig. 5 is not located between the moving ram plate and stack; rather, the platen 502 is below the stack 501. In other words, platen shown in figs. 5-6 appears to be a different embodiment from original fig. 1 (where platen 104 is between moving ram plate 103 and the stack 101). Thus, the claims seems to mix up distinct embodiments and are inconsistent. Therefore, the recited conflicting language fails to clearly set forth the scope of the claims, rendering them indefinite. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claims are taken to mean: the platen comprises a stiff material.
Claims depending from claims 1 and 11 are indefinite due to dependency.
Appropriate corrections are requested.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 11, 14-16, 18-19 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pomerantz et al. (US 2019/0344381, hereafter “Pomerantz”) in view of Mizuno (US 2008/0210380).
Regarding claim 1, Pomerantz discloses a method for the manufacture of large-scale metal laminated object parts (fig. 1, [0005-0007]), the method comprising: assembling a plurality of metal foils/sheets in a stack (figs. 1C-1E), each metal sheet having: a thickness of 100 µm [0040], and an object portion & a support portion (side portion- fig. 1C); and removing a support portion from the stack by a trimming unit 124 (fig. 1C, [0052-0053]); and applying force to the stack via a moving ram plate 120/136 to bond the object portions of the stack, and wherein the bonded object portions of the stack form an object. Concerning the object external dimensions, Pomerantz teaches forming 3D metallic objects to be used as shaped mold [0002]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the bonded metallic object having recited dimensions exceeding 0.5 m in length, 0.5 m in width, and 0.1 m in height with a motivation to fabricate a desired mold assembly size.
Pomerantz discloses moving plate 120/136 (figs. 1C-1E) but does not explicitly show a ram. However, such feature is conventional in the art. Mizuno (also directed to bonding/laminating apparatus) teaches bonding a stack of plurality of plates 3 using a moving ram plate 13 (main body part) driven by a ram 23 (driving mechanism) providing vertical movement (figs. 1-2, [0038-0039, 0044]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize any suitable ram/shaft in the method of Pomerantz in order to provide necessary driving force for bonding.
As to claims 4-5, Mizuno teaches that another platen 12 (thin metal plate- [0044]) is located between the moving ram plate 13 and the stack, wherein the platen 12 has a curvature on the face adjacent to the stack, and applying force via the moving ram plate deflects the curvature of the platen (figs. 1-2), and a heat source is also mounted in the plate part 13, which includes controlling heat transmission to the stack using the platen [0058]. In this manner, Mizuno discloses that it is ideal to bond the central portions of the plates/substrates 3 and then to gradually proceed toward the outer edges so as to enable the air to be expelled and prevent the occurrence of voids [0083]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a curved platen arrangement similar to Mizuno in the bonding apparatus of Pomerantz because doing so would enable the air to be expelled and prevent the occurrence of voids at the bonding interface.
As to claim 6, Mizuno discloses that platen 12 is made of metal thin plate [0044], which metal meets “stiff” material. Pomerantz as modified by Mizuno in claim 4 above discloses that platen comprises stiff material.
Regarding claim 11, Pomerantz discloses a bonding apparatus for manufacturing large-scale metal laminated object parts (fig. 1, [0005-0007]), the bonding apparatus comprising: a platen 180 configured to receive a plurality of metal foils/sheets in a stack (figs. 1C-1E), each metal sheet having: a thickness of 100 µm [0040] and an object portion & a support portion (side portion- fig. 1C); and applying force to the stack via a moving ram plate 120/136 to bond the object portions of the stack, and wherein the bonded object portions of the stack form an object. Concerning the object external dimensions, Pomerantz teaches forming 3D metallic objects to be used as shaped mold [0002]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the bonded metallic object having recited dimensions exceeding 0.5 m in length, 0.5 m in width, and 0.1 m in height with a motivation to fabricate a desired mold size.
Pomerantz discloses moving plate 120/136 (figs. 1C-1E) but does not explicitly show a ram. However, such feature is conventional in the art. Mizuno (also directed to bonding/laminating apparatus) teaches bonding a stack of plurality of plates 3 using a moving ram plate 13 (main body part) driven by a ram 23 (driving mechanism) providing vertical movement (figs. 1-2, [0038-0039, 0044]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize any suitable ram/shaft in the method of Pomerantz in order to provide necessary driving force for bonding.
As to claims 14-15, Mizuno teaches that another platen 12 (thin metal plate- [0044]) is located between the moving ram plate 13 and the stack, wherein the platen 12 has a curvature on the face adjacent to the stack, and applying force via the moving ram plate deflects the curvature of the platen (figs. 1-2), and a heat source is also mounted in the plate part 13, which includes controlling heat transmission to the stack using the platen [0058]. In this manner, Mizuno discloses that it is ideal to bond the central portions of the plates/substrates 3 and then to gradually proceed toward the outer edges so as to enable the air to be expelled and prevent the occurrence of voids [0083]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a curved platen arrangement similar to Mizuno in the bonding apparatus of Pomerantz because doing so would enable the air to be expelled and prevent the occurrence of voids at the bonding interface.
As to claim 16, Mizuno discloses that platen 12 is made of metal thin plate [0044], which metal meets “stiff” material. Pomerantz as modified by Mizuno in claim 4 above discloses that platen comprises stiff material.
As to claims 18-19, examiner notes that features of support portion and sealing edges thereof relate to stack of metal sheet workpieces, which do not structurally limit the bonding apparatus (the apparatus can bond metal sheets having different thickness or without any support portion). The bonding apparatus of Pomerantz & Mizuno is configured to seal the edges of the support portions in the stack during the bonding process and can be used to provide vacuum. Examiner points out, “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” (MPEP 2115).
Regarding claim 23, Pomerantz discloses a system for manufacturing large-scale metal laminated object parts (fig. 1, [0005-0007]), the system comprising: a stack assembly machine configured to receive a plurality of metal foils/sheets in a stack (figs. 1A, 1C-1E), each metal sheet having: a thickness of 100 µm [0040]; and separate object portion & support portion (side portion- fig. 1C); and a bonding apparatus applying force to the stack via a moving ram plate 120/136 to bond the object portions of the stack, and wherein the bonded object portions of the stack form an object. Rejection of claim 11 above is incorporated herein concerning the bonding apparatus.
As to claim 24, Pomerantz discloses that each metal sheet 15 is separated into an object portion and a support portion by cutting through the metal sheet using a trimming unit 124 (fig. 1C, [0052-0053]).
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant's amendment and arguments filed 6/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for following reasons.
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection(s)
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Applicant states that new drawing fig. 1B and amended specification [0064.1] address the 112 rejection of claims 1 and 11.
In response, examiner contends that amended specification introduces new matter not supported by original disclosure. Independent claims 1 and 11 remain indefinite for reasons explained above.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
218
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response, examiner submits that platen shown in figs. 5-6 appears to be a different embodiment, which is distinct from fig. 1 and instant claims 4-6 & 14-16. Specifically, previous claim 4 requires that the platen is located between the moving ram plate and the stack. However, platen 502 shown in fig. 5 is not located between the moving ram plate and stack; rather, the platen 502 is below the stack 501. The platen 502 shown in figs. 5-6 appears to be a different embodiment from platen 104 in original fig. 1 (where platen 104 is between moving ram plate 103 and the stack 101). Appropriate clarification is requested.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735
Prosecution Insights