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
Applicant’s amendment has been entered. Amendment withdraws non-elected claims 13-20 from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on June 24, 2026 is acknowledged.
Amendment filed June 24, 2026 withdraws claims 13-20 drawn to a non-elected invention from consideration.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Characters 4, 5, 6, 7 in Fig. 12; 1605 and 1610 in Fig. 16; 2820 in Fig. 28. Note that paragraph [0173] only mentions layers 1, 2, and 3 of Fig. 12. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Figs. 11 and 33 are objected to because they contain a photograph of a view that is capable of being illustrated in a line drawing. See 37 CF7 1.84(b)(1) “Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7, please replace “beam comprises laser” with “beam comprises a laser”
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-2 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takasu (JP-H08192468-A). References to Takasu are directed to the examiner-supplied English language translation.
Regarding claim 1, Takasu discloses a method for forming a three-dimensional (3D) object (three dimensional model, Title, claim 2, [0001], particularly embodiment 2 [0011], [0016], [0021], Figs. 8, 9). Takasu discloses generating an intermediate object (three dimensional shape) by iteratively performing operations (claim 2, [0010-11], [0015-16], [0021]). Takasu discloses that operations include applying a binder to a layer of powder material [0010-11], [0014-16], [0021]. Takasu discloses that the binder permeates into the powder on which the binder is applied by capillary action [0015-16]. As capillary action, is a process by which a liquid adheres to a solid, in disclosing that the applied binder permeates powder by capillary action [0015-16], Takasu discloses that the applied binder which permeates into the powder [0010-11], [0014-16] at least comprises a liquid substance. Takasu discloses applying an energy beam to selectively target a portion of the layer of powder material, wherein the applied energy beam causes formation of a boundary of the intermediate object (a predetermined shape of the sheet is heated with a laser beam, and the metal-mixed sheet is laminated while cutting the boundary portion with a laser beam or a cutter [0011]; the boundary portion between the predetermined shape and the periphery thereof is irradiated with a laser beam [0016], [0021], Figs. 8-9). Takasu discloses that the predetermined shape defines the boundary on which the beam is applied [0011], [0016], [0021], and Takasu discloses that the predetermined shape is based on a virtual model (discussion of two-dimensional shape obtained by slicing a target three-dimensional shape in paragraph [0020], controlling beam according to the model and boundary thereof in paragraph [0021], in reference to prior art methods discussed in paragraphs [0002-03], [0006], Fig. 9); therefore, Takasu indirectly discloses that applying the beam is to some extent based on a three-dimensional virtual model of the 3D object. Takasu discloses removing an unnecessary portion at a stage where the modeling of the last layer is completed to generate the 3D object [0016], [0021], which meets the very broadly claimed generating the 3D object by “treating” the intermediate object.
Regarding claim 2, Takasu discloses that the applied substance is a binding substance (binder) [0011], [0015-16], [0021].
Regarding claim 4, Takasu discloses that the energy beam is applied to generate a perimeter on the portion of the layer by heating [0016], [0021], burning, removing, and decomposing the substance (the binder is vaporized [0021]) and heating and removing a portion of the powder ([i]n the boundary portion 91, the sheet is melted and cut [0021]).
Regarding claim 5, Takasu discloses that the operations comprise providing the layer of powder material prior to the applying of the binder substance (portion of paragraph [0021] discussing Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 6, when the limitations of claim 5, on which claim 6 depends are explicitly incorporated into claim 6, the expanded claim 6 states: [t]he method of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise at least one of: providing the layer of powder material prior to the applying of the liquid substance; or providing a new layer of powder material subsequent to the applying of the energy beam, wherein the new layer of powder material at least partially overlaps the layer of powder material within the formed boundary. As the additional features recited in claim 6 only apply to the providing a new layer of powder material alternative, Takasu meets claim 6 in meeting the providing the layer of powder material, as applied to claim 5 above. Further, Takasu’s disclosure of providing a new layer of powder material after applying binding material on previously formed layers subsequent to applying the energy beam ([0016], [0021], Figs. 8-9) to some extent do provide a new powder layer (which also includes the applied binder), subsequent to the applying of the energy beam, wherein the new layer of powder material at least partially overlaps the layer of powder material within the formed boundary.
Regarding claim 7, Takasu discloses that the energy beam comprises a laser [0011], [0016], [0021].
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farr (US 20050079086), cited in the IDS filed June 24, 2026.
Regarding claim 1, Farr discloses a method for forming a three-dimensional object (abstract, [0005], [0060], Fig. 5). Farr discloses generating an intermediate object (green part) by iteratively performing operations including: applying a liquid substance (liquid phase binder) to a layer of powder material (abstract, [0005], [0017], [0060]). Farr discloses applying an energy beam (selective light exposure by radiation applicator) to selectively target a portion of the layer of powder material ([0062], Fig. 6). Farr discloses that the portions are selectively targeted based on a three-dimensional virtual model of the 3D object [0047]. Farr discloses that the either the entire object, which necessarily includes a boundary thereof, or alternatively only the boundary (shell) may be targeted [0047-48], [0060] and cured with the beam (light) [0062] (Figs. 4C-4D), either of which meets a process wherein the applied energy beam to some extent causes formation of a boundary of the intermediate object. Farr discloses generating the 3D object by treating the intermediate object (curing [0060-62]; removing un-bound metal powder; removing organic content from the green part by thermal burnout, and sintering the metal powder to form the desired three-dimensional metal part [0060], Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 2, Farr discloses that the liquid substance is a binding substance (liquid phase binder [0005], [0017], [0060], Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Farr discloses that the liquid substance comprises an aqueous solvent [0032], [0038]. Note that Farr discloses that the binder described in paragraphs [0032-38] may comprise an initiator [0033-35], thereby indicating Farr’s intent for the binder of paragraphs [0032-38 to apply to the light-curing embodiment of paragraphs [0060-62].
Regarding claim 5, Farr discloses that the operations further comprise providing the layer of powder material prior to the applying of the liquid substance (step 500 Fig. 5, [0060]) and providing a new layer of powder material subsequent to the applying of the energy beam (If the material dispensing operation is not complete (NO, step 520), the present system and apparatus may again spread and pack a quantity of metal-based powder Fig. 5, [0060]).
Regarding claim 6, Farr shows that new layers of powder material at least partially overlap previously formed layers of powder material (Fig. 2, [0026-30]), thereby showing that new layers at least partially overlap previously formed layers of powder material within the formed boundary.
Regarding claim 8 Farr discloses embodiments, wherein the iteratively performed operations include applying a first liquid substance (liquid phase binder) and a second liquid substance (methyl ethyl ketone peroxide, acetylacetone peroxide, cumene hydroperoxide), different from the first liquid substance [0032-38], [0042].
Regarding claim 9, Farr discloses that the first liquid substance is a binder [0005], [0017], [0032-38], [0060].
Regarding claim 10, Farr discloses performing at least a portion of the operations in a controlled environment ([0060]; note Farr’s reference to the “above” conditions for the treatment steps which Farr discloses in paragraphs [0055-57]).
Regarding claim 11, Farr discloses that the controlled environment may comprise an inert gas environment or a temperature-controlled environment as possible options [0057].
Regarding claim 12, Farr discloses that treating the intermediate object comprises heating the intermediate object (thermal burnout, sintering [0060]), or curing the intermediate object [0060-62].
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:
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.
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) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takasu (JP-H08192468-A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bergstrom (US3510296).
Regarding claim 12, Takasu discloses that other embodiments comprise generating the 3D object by treating the intermediate object by heating or curing (heating the three dimensional metallic model, claim 1, [0010], [0015], three dimensional object is put into a heating furnace and heated [0020], binder is cured [0014], [0022]). Takasu does not disclose that treating the intermediate object in the embodiment comprising applying a beam to a boundary, comprises one of the steps recited in claim 12.
Bergstrom teaches a method for forming an object (refractory metal structures, abstract, column 1 lines 66-71). Bergstrom teaches generating an intermediate object (green structure) by iteratively performing operations including: applying a layer comprising powder and liquid binder substance (green sheet comprising a binder slurry) (column 1 lines 60-66, column 2 lines 43-64). Bergstrom teaches defining a boundary for the intermediate object (column 2 lines 48-51). Bergstrom teaches generating the object by treating the intermediate object formed by iteratively providing layers (column 2 line 65 to column 3 line 5). Bergstrom teaches that sintering produces a dense material which corresponds to the shape of the intermediate (green) object (column 2 line 72 to column 3 line 3). Bergstrom teaches that sintering comprises heating at a controlled temperature under vacuum (column 4 lines 30-35, 51-56; column 5 lines 5-11, 37-44, column 6 lines 13-18).
Both Takasu and Bergstrom teach methods of forming articles from layers comprising metal powder and a binder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to heat the intermediate object, disclosed by Takasu, applied above, in order to achieve the results of a dense article corresponding to the intermediate object taught by Bergstrom (column 2 line 72 to column 3 line 3, column 4 lines 30-35, 51-56; column 5 lines 5-11, 37-44, column 6 lines 13-18). Performing a step of heating the intermediate object is one of the options recited in claim 12.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, in order to achieve the results of the sintering taught by Bergstrom, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to conduct that heating at a controlled temperature, under vacuum, which Bergstrom teaches achieves the taught results (column 2 line 72 to column 3 line 3, column 4 lines 30-35, 51-56; column 5 lines 5-11, 37-44, column 6 lines 13-18).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-6, 8, 10-15 of U.S. Patent No. 9987682, cited in the IDS filed June 24, 2026. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding instant claim 1, the patent claims a method for forming a three-dimensional (3D) object (claim 1). Patent claims generating an intermediate object (three-dimensional object) by iteratively performing operations including: applying a binding substance to a layer of powder material (claim 1). Patent claims applying the binding substance via an inkjet head, an atomizing sprayer, an ultrasonic sprayer, or a nebulizer (claims 12-13) and that the binding substance is applied as a droplet (claim 15). A substance which is applied via an inkjet heat, sprayer, or nebulizer, as a droplet is a liquid substance. Patent claims using a perimeter generator to generate one or more perimeters (claim 1), based on a three-dimensional virtual model of the 3D object (one or more perimeters of said first layer is in accordance to a model design of said three-dimensional object in computer memory) (claim 1). The patent claims that the perimeter generator is a laser cutter (claims 8, 10, 11). Using a laser cutter to generate one or more perimeters (claim 1), based on a three-dimensional virtual model of the 3D object, manipulates the steps of applying, based on a three-dimensional virtual model of the 3D object, an energy beam to selectively target a portion of the layer of powder material, wherein the applied energy beam causes formation of a boundary of the intermediate object. The patent claims generating the 3D object by treating the intermediate object (claims 5, 6).
Regarding claim 2, the patent claims that the liquid substance is a binding substance (claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, the patent claims that the applied liquid is a binding substance (claim 1). The patent states “[t]he binding substance may be a sugar, a glue, a resin, a polymer, or a combination thereof. The binding substance may be sucrose, epoxy resin, Gorilla Glue, polyurethane, Liquid Nails, Super Glue, wood stain, nail polish, or any combination thereof. A binding substance may comprise an organic solvent, an aqueous solvent, or any combination thereof” (column 21 lines 4-10). In construing the binding substance claimed by the patent in view of what the patent discloses is the binding substance, one of ordinary skill in the art would meet the limitations of present claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, the patent claims that applying the beam to generate a perimeter is a cutting process (claims 8, 10, 11). Laser cutting is a process which removes a portion of the powder.
Regarding claim 5, the patent claims providing the layer of powder material prior to the applying of the liquid substance (applying a first binding substance to a first area of a first layer of powder material claim 1) and providing a new layer of powder material (second layer) subsequent to the applying of the energy beam (first perimeter generator) (claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, the patent claims a laser cutter (claims 8, 11, 12). A laser cutter is an energy beam which is a laser.
Regarding claim 12, the patent claims that the treating the intermediate object comprises performing heating the intermediate object (claims 5, 6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P O'KEEFE whose telephone number is (571)272-7647. The examiner can normally be reached MR 8:00-6:30.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/SEAN P. O'KEEFE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/ SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights