The arguments and amendments submitted 04/02/2026 have been considered. The merits of the claims, however, remain unpatentable as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 12, 14, 20-23, 25-28, and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, lines 6 and 14 and claim 31, lines 2 and 3-4 each recite the limitation of a “functional part", but applicant has not pointed out specifically where this limitation is supported. There is no description anywhere in the disclosure supporting claiming the genus of a functional part, and therefore this feature is unsupported new matter. Dependent claims fall herewith.
Claim 1, line 13 recites the limitation of “the joint structure being integrally formed", but applicant has not pointed out specifically where this limitation is supported. There is no description anywhere in the disclosure supporting this feature, and therefore this feature is unsupported new matter. Dependent claims fall herewith.
Claim 31, lines 3-4 recite the limitation that “each of the at least three segments is configured to remain in the functional part after assembly", but applicant has not pointed out specifically where this limitation is supported. There is no description anywhere in the disclosure supporting this feature, and therefore this feature is unsupported new matter.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 12, 20, 22-23, 25, 28, and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver (US Patent 5,031,483) in view of Mykulowycz (US PG Pub 2023/0166356).
Regarding claim 1, Weaver teaches a laminated object additive manufacturing system (Fig. 4 and col. 3, lines 7-31), comprising:
a memory having processor-readable instructions stored therein (col. 3, lines 7-11 and col. 6, lines 20-32); and
one or more processors configured to access the memory and execute the processor-readable instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors (col. 3, lines 7-11 and col. 6, lines 20-32), configures the one or more processors to perform functions including:
dividing an electronic representation of a functional part (tooling, molds, or dies of col. 1, lines 6-9 are known functional parts for the various industries listed) into at least three segments (col. 3, lines 36-45; col. 10, lines 5-9; col 12, lines 1-7 and e.g. Figs. 5-6, 7, and 9), and wherein a second layer of the part is configured to be secured on a first layer (col. 7, lines 5-7 and lines 29-30); and
configuring a manufacturing device to form the at least three segments (col. 3, lines 36-45; col. 10, lines 5-9) from one or more sheets of material (col. 6, lines 56-58 and col. 10, lines 5-9) based on at least one of the electronic representation (col. 3, lines 36-45; col. 10, lines 5-9 and lines 15-18; col. 12, lines 1-12 and lines 17-22) or a request for coolant channels (col. 1, lines 37-47; col. 8, lines 8-18, and col. 11, lines 15-23).
Weaver does not teach that the at least three segments include a first segment and a second segment that are part of a first layer, wherein a third segment of the at least three segments is part of a second layer; and
adding a joint structure to the first segment and to the second segment of the at least three segments, such that first segment and the second segment are configured to connect via the joint structure, the joint structure being integrally formed as part of the functional part.
However, Mykulowycz teaches a laminated object additive manufacturing method (abstract) wherein the functional part (e.g. the metal laminated parts shown in Fig. 6 or the middle of Fig. 7 including support and object sections per para. 0074 joined by connection bridges or flexure joints per para. 0077 are functional parts since the support sections function to ensure the part remains dimensionally accurate and repeatable during the manufacturing process per para. 0003 and the bridges or flexure joints function to allow the layers to be handled prior to bonding and to allow complex geometries to be fabricated with higher reliability and to ease object section removal after bonding per para. 0077 and also to increase the strength of the part made up of support and object sections thereby allowing this part to be transported without detachment of the support sections per para. 0088) is divided into at least three segments (e.g. as shown in Fig. 7 and per paras. 0092 and 0096), the at least three segments including a first segment (object segment 750) and a second segment (support segment) that are part of a first layer (e.g. the uppermost layer in Fig. 7), wherein a third segment of the at least three segments is part of a second layer (either the object or support segment in the layer below the uppermost layer in Fig. 7);
and comprising adding a joint structure to the first segment and to the second segment of the at least three segments (connection bridge or flexure joint of para. 0077), such that first segment and the second segment are configured to connect via the joint structure (connection bridges described in para. 0077), the joint structure being integrally formed as part of the functional part (e.g. as shown in Figs. 6-7 and per paras. 0074 and 0077).
Mykulowycz teaches that the use of object and support sections together with connection bridges or flexure joints between them beneficially enables complex geometries to be fabricated with higher reliability (para. 0077), ensures the part remains dimensionally accurate and repeatable during the manufacturing process (para. 0003), increases the strength of the part from inclusion of functional bridge-connected support and object sections per para. 0088, and allows this part to be transported without detachment of the support sections (para. 0088).
The courts have held that applying a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2143.I (rationale C) and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
In view of Mykulowycz’s teachings and/or KSR rationale C, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Weaver’s processor to include the functions of dividing the part into object and support segments within a first layer together with a flexure joint configured to connect the object and support segments as taught by Mykulowycz to predictably obtain the benefits taught by Mykulowycz as cited above.
Regarding claim 3, Weaver and Mykulowycz both teach the functions further include controlling the manufacturing device to form the at least three segments from the one or more sheets of material including forming an angled cut in the two or more segments of the at least three segments (col. 7, line 65 through col. 8, line 7 in Weaver and the first sentence in para. 0113 of Mykulowycz).
Regarding claim 4, Weaver teaches the functions further include storing the electronic representation in the memory (col. 6, lines 28-32).
Regarding claim 6, Weaver teaches the functions further include controlling the manufacturing device to automatically nest the at least three segments in the one or more sheets of material (stacking of col. 6, lines 32-36 is a type of nesting; col. 3, lines 36-45; col. 10, lines 19-21; col 12, lines 19-22 and e.g. Figs. 5-6, 7, and 9).
Regarding claim 7, Mykulowycz teaches the joint structure comprises interlocking parts on the first segment and the second segment (as shown in the middle drawing in Fig. 7 and/or per para. 0077 wherein there are bridges or small areas of foil between the object and support segments).
Regarding claim 8, Weaver teaches the functions performed with the one or more processors of the additive manufacturing system further comprises controlling the manufacturing system to remove material from the one or more sheets of material to form physical segments that correspond to the electronic representations of the at least three segments based on the request (per col. 3, lines 36-45; col. 10, lines 5-9 and lines 15-18; col. 12, lines 1-12 and lines 17-22 and as shown in Figs. 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8).
Regarding claim 12, Weaver teaches the manufacturing system is further configured to automatically nest two or more of the segments (stacking of col. 6, lines 32-36 is a type of nesting; col. 3, lines 36-45; col. 10, lines 19-21; col 12, lines 19-22), by forming the segments with U-shaped portions in the one or more sheets of material (contours 17’ and 18’ each include U-shaped portions as shown in Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 20, Weaver teaches the manufacturing device is further configured to remove material from the one or more sheets of material to form a first set of through holes and a second set of through holes that, when aligned, are sized and positioned to receive fasteners (apertures/bores 25 or holes 36 are also joint structures added to two or more segments per col. 7, lines 25-27, which function as joint structures in pin-and-hole type joints per col. 5, lines 16-23 and col. 6, lines 62-68 and as shown in Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 22, Weaver teaches the electronic representation of the part is a CAD file (col. 6, lines 28-32).
Regarding claim 23, Weaver teaches the functions further include receiving a layer thickness of the one or more sheets of material (col. 3, lines 35-39) and receiving a wall thickness of the one or more sheets of material (implicit per col. 7, lines 45-52 and as shown in Figs 1-4).
Regarding claim 25, Weaver and Mykulowycz both teach the functions further include adding a second joint structure to two or more segments of the at least three segments (holes 36 per col. 7, lines 25-27 and as shown in Figs. 1-2 and 4 in Weaver and para. 0077 in Mykulowycz).
Regarding claim 28, Weaver teaches the joint structure is formed as a protrusion of a first segment of the two or more segments (17 and 17’ in Figs. 1-4) and a recess of a second segment of the two or more segments (18 and 18’ in Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 30, Weaver teaches the functions further include controlling the manufacturing device to machine the one or more sheets of material with a plurality of tools of the manufacturing device (col. 3, lines 25-28; also see reference to tools in col. 6, lines 32-33).
Regarding claim 31, Mykulowycz teaches each of the at least three segments constitutes a respective portion of the functional part (as shown in Figs. 6-7 and per paras. 0077 and 0088), and wherein each of the at least three segments is configured to remain in the functional part after assembly (“the increased strength allows the foil layers to be transported without detaching the object region 610 from the support regions 615, 620” per para. 0088).
Claims 2, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver in view of Mykulowycz, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hamilton (US PG Pub 2023/0241835).
Regarding claims 2, 14, and 21, Weaver teaches the manufacturing device is configured to form the at least three segments from the one or more sheets of material and to operate according to the instructions by removing material from the one or more sheets of material to form the segments by movement of a tool holder and a tool of the manufacturing device based on the electronic representation of the part (using tool holder 30, 32 and laser tool 28 per col. 6, lines 15-27 and as shown in Fig. 4), and wherein the tool holder is configured to be movable in at least three degrees of freedom to control of a position of the plurality of machine tools (col. 6, lines 15-24 and as shown in Fig. 4).
Weaver and Mykulowycz do not teach the recited use of a gantry, as recited in claims 2 and 14, nor controlling the manufacturing device to machine the at least three segments by movement of a plurality of tools of the manufacturing device as recited in claim 21.
However, use of a gantry in this manner is a conventional alternative means of providing movement for the tools and tool holder in laminated object AM, as taught for example by Hamilton (paras. 0003, 0009, 0028, and claim 14). Furthermore, Hamilton also teaches controlling a laminated object manufacturing device to machine the one or more sheets of material by movement of a plurality of tools including a laser cutter and a gripper for transferring sheet material to the lamination stack (para. 0009).
In view of Hamilton’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the AM arts to configure Weaver’s manufacturing device, functions, and instructions with these conventional components to predictably obtain automation of these functions and accompanying improvement of manufacturing speed and efficiency.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver in view of Mykulowycz, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Susnjara (US PG Pub 2021/0101343).
Regarding claims 26-27, Weaver does not explicitly teach these features.
However, Susnjara teaches an additive manufacturing method including functions of determining to add trim stock to the segments from the sheets of material (e.g. implicit for trim stock portions 88 as shown in Fig. 5A and per para. 0040; see also trim stock portion 108 in Fig. 6A and para. 0045), generating instructions for controlling a machining apparatus based on the determined amount of trim stock (implicit per the last sentence in para. 0045), and determining a thickness of the trim stock (para. 0042).
Susnjara teaches that this step facilitates providing a desired surface finish or feature for the part (para. 0040) and/or compensates for part warp (paras. 0017 and 0045).
The courts have held that applying a known technique to improve similar articles in the same way is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2143.I (rationale C) and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Thus, in view of Susnjara’s teachings and/or KSR rationale C, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the AM arts to modify Weaver’s apparatus, functions, and instructions to include Susnjara’s step of determining an amount of trick stock to add to the representation of the part and generating machining steps to remove material based on the determined amount of trim stock to predictably obtain the benefits taught by Susnjara as cited above.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1, Applicant presents an argument contending that Weaver and Mykulowycz fail to teach the requirement of “dividing an electronic representation of a functional part”, and in particular that the support regions and bridges taught by Mykulowycz are not part of a functional part.
However, this argument is not persuasive for the following reasons. First, no special definition of the term “functional part” is found in the present specification, and, absent a special definition, the claim must be interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation not in conflict with the specification. Secondly, this argument fails to consider Weaver’s explicit teachings of dividing an electronic representation of a functional part, as cited in the rejection above. Thirdly, this argument fails to consider Mykulowycz’s explicit teachings of the functions provided by the support regions, bridges, and flexures, in combination, which are components of a larger functional part having various advantages, as cited in the rejection above. Furthermore, as evidenced by the article “An Introduction to Flexure Design” by J. Carson and G. Wang, Proceedings of the 47th Aerospace Mechanisms Symposium, May 15-17, 2024, pp. 413-428, made of record herein, metallic flexures with integrally formed joints and their functions have been known and used in the metalworking arts for hundreds of years (last paragraph on pg. 413, with descriptions of their common functionalities provided in the captions of figures 1-4), as well as in the additive manufacturing arts (2nd paragraph on pg. 414).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM R SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9-6 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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/JRS/
Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/JIMMY R SMITH JR./Examiner, Art Unit 1745