DETAILED ACTION
In Reply Filed 3/24/2025, claims 35-36, 38-40, 42-44, and 46-56 are pending. Claims 50-54 are withdrawn, and claims 55 and 56 are newly added. Therefore, 35-36, 38-40, 42-44, 46-49, and 55-56 are considered in the current Office 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 Interpretation
Claim 38 recites the term “at least one grinder”, wherein “grinder” is interpreted as “any structure that can remove undesirable material that has been added to the at least one three-dimensional object” as disclosed in Specification, Pg. 28, [0076].
Claims 40 and 42-44 recite the term “concurrently print”. The term “concurrently printing the plurality of three-dimensional objects” will be treated as defined by Applicant where it refers to two (or more) additive manufacturing processes that may occur during coincident or overlapping time periods, either where one begins and ends during the duration of the other or where a later one starts before the completion of the other ([0086]). Thus, there are no 112 issues with claims 40 and 42-44.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 35, 38-40, 42, 44, 46, and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20160297149 (“Albert et al.”) in view of US Pub. No. 20140178588 (“Swanson et al.”) further in view of US Pub. No. 20170348902 (“Ohara et al.”) and US Pub. No. 20170165916 (“El-Siblani”).
Regarding claim 35, Albert et al. teaches an additive manufacturing apparatus (Abstract, “a 3D printer device”) having a round printing configuration ([0037], circular platform 247a), the additive manufacturing apparatus comprising:
At least one frame for supporting at least one print head ([0036] nozzle assembly supports multiple print heads) configured to deposit fluidic additive manufacturing material ([0046], the deposition material is melted before deposited) deposition layer by deposition layer ([0061], the layers are sequentially printed);
At least one reservoir in communication with the at least one print head ([0050], the nozzle assembly of the cartridge is communicating with the feed gear of the nozzles), the at least one reservoir being configured to contain the fluidic additive manufacturing material ([0046], cartridge contains deposition material);
A printing table having a round shape ([0025] a rotational bed 106) and rotatable about a rotation axis at a center of the printing table ([0025], a rotational bed 106 that rotates on the theta axis; Fig. 2B, [0041], a platform turning mechanism 255 located at the center of the printing platform), the printing table being configured to support at least one movable printing platform ([0033], a platform 245 can be moved by a platform turning mechanism 255) and at least one substrate thereon for printing a three-dimensional object ([0037], deposition material is dispensed onto a top surface 247a of the platform 245 to form the desired object);
And at least one processor ([0044] control system) configured to:
Control horizontal movement between the at least one print head and the printing table ([0025], a rotational bed 106 that rotates on the theta axis, and also slides in a transverse radial direction);
Control vertical movement between the at least one print head and the printing table ([0025], the platform also moves in ‘z’ axis);
And control at least one vertical movement of the at least one movable printing platform relative to the printing table ([0040], the control system 220 determines the proper position of the nozzle relative to the top surface of the platform; [0041], the platform turning mechanism is arranged to rotate the platform around the Z axis).
Albert et al. fails to disclose the substrate for printing a three-dimensional object is removable and the printing apparatus prints at least two three-dimensional objects.
Swanson et al. teaches an additive manufacturing apparatus (Abstract, “An additive manufacturing system”), comprising at least one removable substrate ([0009], the substrate is removable from the platen assembly), and the additive manufacturing apparatus can print at least two three-dimensional objects ([0103], capable of printing and removing multiple successive 3D parts).
Albert et al. and Swanson et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of additive manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the additive manufacturing device in Albert et al. to incorporate a removable substrate as taught by Swanson et al., in order to remove the 3D parts without requiring user intervention (Swanson et al., [0044]). In addition, one with ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious before the effective filing date to modify the additive manufacturing device in Albert et al. to incorporate concurrently printing at least two three-dimensional objects (where successive printing would be also considered to be concurrent as described in the instant specification, as mentioned in claim interpretation above and specification [0086]) as taught by Swanson et al., in order to reduce time and labor to print 3D parts (Swanson et al., [0044]).
Albert et al. fails to teach the at least one print head includes a plurality of print heads arranged around at least one of a tangential axis and a radial axis and the plurality of print heads being configured to deposit fluidic additive manufacturing material deposition layer by deposition layer; the at least one movable printing platform includes a plurality of individually printing platforms movable to different platform heights and wherein the at least one processor is configured to independently control vertical movement of the plurality of individually movable printing platform relative to the printing table during an additive manufacturing process and cause the at least one print head to concurrently print the at least two three-dimensional objects on different ones of the plurality of individually movable printing platforms positioned at different platform heights relative to at least one of the plurality of print heads.
Ohara et al. teaches the apparatus has a round printing configuration (Fig. 1A, “printing table 30”) and the at least one print head includes a plurality of print heads arranged around at least one of a tangential axis and a radial axis (Fig. 1A, print heads 12 are arranged around a radial axis), and the plurality of print heads being configured to deposit fluidic additive manufacturing material deposition layer by deposition layer ([0010], the ink layers are sequentially formed by discharging the ink droplet with the inkjet head); the at least one movable printing platform includes a plurality of individually printing platforms (Fig. 6C, [0073], the rotating table 30 includes a plurality of individually rotatable platforms 40, also called the 3D object holding section. The 3D object holding section is considered individually separated printing platform because they are individually rotatable) movable to different platform heights ([0049] each component of shaping units are adjustable to different heights) and wherein the at least one processor is configured to independently control vertical movement of the plurality of individually movable printing platform relative to the printing table during an additive manufacturing process and cause the at least one print head to concurrently print the at least two three-dimensional objects on different ones of the plurality of individually movable printing platforms positioned at different platform heights relative to at least one of the plurality of print heads ([0049], changing the relative position of the 3D object with respect to the inkjet head in the z direction by moving the printing head. Furthermore, the individual sections of the printing platform can be moved via a 3D object holding section 40 in [0073]. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to move the 3D object by moving the individual sections of the printing platform instead of the printing head in the z direction to achieve identical result.)
Albert et al. and Ohara et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of additive manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the additive manufacturing device in Albert et al. to incorporate a plurality of print heads arranged around a radial axis as taught by Ohara et al., in order to reduce the moving distance of the inkjet head and improve efficiency of inkjet head usage (Ohara et al., [0005]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the additive manufacturing device in Albert et al. to incorporate at least one movable printing platform includes a plurality of individually height-adjustable printing platforms as taught by Ohara et al., because moving the printing devices such as inkjet head, light source, and roller to positions corresponding to the height of the 3D object being shape is necessary for appropriately carrying out the printing process (Ohara et al., [0049]).
Albert et al. and Ohara et al. fail to teach at least two three-dimensional objects on different ones of the plurality of individually movable printing platforms positioned at different platform heights relative to the printing table and at the same height relative to the at least one of the plurality of print heads, so that the uppermost printed layer of each of the at least two three-dimensional objects is at the same height relative to the printing table.
El-Siblani teaches an additive manufacturing apparatus ([0001]), wherein at least two three-dimensional objects (Fig. 2A, objects 36, 38, and 40) on different ones of the plurality of individually movable printing platforms positioned at different platform heights (Fig.2A, support sections 42, 44, and 46 are individually movable and having different platform heights) relative to the printing table (Fig. 2A, build platform 31) and at the same height relative to the build material (Fig. 2A, the objects 36, 38, and 40 have the same distance relative to the material in 28), so that the uppermost printed layer of each of the at least two three-dimensional objects is at the same height relative to the printing table (Fig. 2A, the uppermost printed layer of each of the objects 42, 44, and 46 is at the same height relative to the printing platform 31).
Albert et al., Ohara et al. and El-Siblani are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of additive manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify height adjustable platforms in Ohara et al. to incorporate having the uppermost printed layer of each objects to be at the same height relative to the printing platform as taught by El-Siblani as described above, in order to reduce material container switching operation (El-Siblani, [0028]).
Regarding claim 38, Albert et al. fails to teach at least one grinder for leveling deposited material added to the at least two three-dimensional objects between depositing the deposition layers during the additive manufacturing process.
Ohara teaches at least one grinder for leveling deposited material added to the three-dimensional objects ([0045] roller 16 planarizes deposition material) between depositing the deposition layers during the additive manufacturing process ([0045], planarizing of the layer of the material when the 3D object 50 passes the planarizing position).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the additive manufacturing device in Albert et al. to incorporate a planarization roller as taught by Ohara, in order to provide a level surface (Ohara, [0044]).
Regarding claim 39, Albert et al. fails to teach at least two reservoirs for containing a differing additive manufacturing material in each reservoir and at least one processor configured to print the at least two three-dimensional objects using a plurality of the differing additive manufacturing materials.
Swanson et al. further teaches at least two reservoirs for containing a differing additive manufacturing material in each reservoir ([0049] multiple consumable assembly 12 contain different part material filament) and at least one processor configured to print the at least two three-dimensional objects using a plurality of the differing additive manufacturing materials ([0064], processors control printing instructions to system 10 including using different part material filament from consumable assembly 12).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the additive manufacturing device in Albert et al. to incorporate at least two reservoirs for containing a differing additive manufacturing material in each reservoir as taught by Swanson et al., in order to produce different 3D parts with different manufacturing materials (Swanson et al., [0107]).
Regarding claim 40, Albert et al. fails to disclose the at least one processor is configured to concurrently print the at least two three-dimensional objects using the differing additive manufacturing materials at a common build rate.
Ohara et al. teaches an additive manufacturing apparatus (Abstract, “a shaping device that shapes a three-dimensional (3D) object”), comprising at least one processor ([0050] controls operation of the printer) configured to concurrently print at least two three-dimensional objects ([0135], simultaneously shaping multiple 3D objects 50) using the differing additive manufacturing materials ([0042] use different materials) at a common build rate ([0008], having a constant moving speed at the time of discharge of the ink droplet when printing).
Albert et al. and Ohara et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of additive manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the additive manufacturing device in Albert et al. to incorporate printing at least two three-dimensional objects using the differing additive manufacturing materials at a common build rate as taught by Ohara et al., in order to improve efficiency of shaping 3D objects and enhance operation rate of the inkjet head (Ohara et al., [0062]).
Regarding claim 42, Albert et al. fails to disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to concurrently print the at least two three-dimensional objects such that when at least one of the plurality of print heads is actively printing, another of the plurality of print heads is inactive.
Ohara et al. further teaches wherein the at least one processor ([0050], controls the operations of the printer) is configured to concurrently print the at least two three-dimensional objects ([0135], simultaneously shaping multiple 3D objects 50) such that when at least one of the plurality of print heads is actively printing, another of the plurality of print heads is inactive ([0119], selectively using some inkjet heads 12 rather than using all of the plurality of inkjet heads).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the additive manufacturing device in Albert et al. to incorporate a processor for concurrently printing multiple 3D objects while have a portion of printing heads active as taught by Ohara et al., because when printing object with smaller diameter, using fewer number of printheads can be more appropriately disposed with respect to the periphery of the 3D object (Ohara et al., [0119]).
Regarding claim 44, modified Albert et al. fails to disclose that printing of one of the three- dimensional objects on one of the plurality of individually movable printing platforms is completed before the printing of another one of the three-dimensional objects on another one of the plurality of individually movable printing platforms.
Ohara et al. further teaches that printing of one of the three- dimensional objects on one of the movable printing platforms is completed before the printing of another one of the three-dimensional objects on another one of the movable printing platforms ([0015], forming a plurality of 3D objects through discharging the layering materials when the forming object is circled to the material discharge region. Fig. 1A shows the 3D objects are positioned under various shaping components and are undergoing various forming steps. Thus, Ohara et al. teaches the 3D objects are forming concurrently but are not completed simultaneously).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the additive manufacturing device in Albert et al. to incorporate concurrently printing a plurality of three-dimensional objects as taught by Ohara et al., in order to improve efficiency of shaping 3D objects and enhance operation rate of the inkjet head (Ohara et al., [0062]).
Regarding claim 46, Albert et al. fails to teach the plurality of print heads are arranged on a plurality of printing units oriented in a single tangential direction relative to a direction of rotation of the printing table, wherein the plurality of printing units is respectively arranged with differing radial distances from the center of the printing table, and wherein the print heads in each of the plurality of printing units are arranged in a linear array and parallel to each other.
Ohara et al. further teaches the plurality of print heads are arranged on a plurality of printing units ([0033] –[0034], a predetermined number of the inkjet heads 12 are from one shaping unit, and there are multiple shaping units) oriented in a single tangential direction relative to a direction of rotation of the printing table (Fig. 2A, the print heads 12 are oriented in a tangential direction relative to a direction of rotation of the printing table), wherein the plurality of printing units are respectively arranged with differing radial distances from the center of the printing table ([0064] & [0079], the relative position of the 3D object are changed with respect to the inkjet head in the radial direction by moving the 3D object. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to move the inkjet head instead of the 3D object in the radial direction to achieve identical result. Furthermore, other components in a shaping unit are moved along with the inkjet head. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to move the shaping units in the radial direction), and wherein the print heads in each of the plurality of printing units are arranged in a linear array and parallel to each other (Fig. 6A, the print heads 12 are arranged in a linear array and parallel to each other).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the additive manufacturing device in Albert et al. to incorporate a plurality of printing units and the arrangement of a plurality of as taught by Ohara et al. as discussed above, in order to reduce the moving distance of the inkjet head and improve efficiency of inkjet head usage (Ohara et al., [0005]).
Regarding claim 56, Albert et al. fails to teach wherein the processor is configured to cause the at least one print head to complete printing of multiple three-dimensional objects having different heights at the same printing layer.
El-Siblani teaches the processor ([0034] control unit) is configured to complete printing of multiple three-dimensional objects having different heights at the same printing layer ([0020] different built objects 12-19 have different build axis heights at the same printing section A).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the additive manufacturing device in Albert et al. to incorporate a processor for printing multiple 3D objects with different heights as taught by El-Siblani, because same objects made from different materials may have different heights (El-Siblani, [0005]).
Claims 36, 48, 49 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20160297149 (“Albert et al.”) in view of US Pub. No. 20140178588 (“Swanson et al.”), US Pub. No. 20170348902 (“Ohara et al.”), and US Pub. No. 20170165916 (“El-Siblani”), as applied in claim 35, further in view of US Pub. No. 20170072644 (“Ng et al.”).
Regarding claim 36, Albert et al. fails to teach at least one of the plurality of individually movable printing platforms includes a heating element for heating from below the at least one removable substrate during the additive manufacturing process.
Ng et al. teaches an additive manufacturing apparatus (Abstract, “An additive manufacturing system”), comprising at least one of the plurality of individually movable printing platforms ([0034] platen 105) includes a heating element ([0034] heater 109) for heating from below the at least one removable substrate during the additive manufacturing process (Fig. 1A and [0034], heat the platen 105 and the feed material deposited on the platen 105 from below the platen).
Albert et al. and Ng et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of additive manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the additive manufacturing device in Albert et al. to incorporate heating elements for heating from below the at least one removable substrate as taught by Ng et al., in order to raise the temperature of material on the build plate to a temperature below the melting point of the material (Ng et al., [0015]) and improves uniformity of the printing process by keeping constant temperature of the layer on the substrate (Ng et al., [0043]).
Regarding claim 48, Albert et al. fails to teach a uniform heater that uniformly heats the printing table.
Ng et al. further teaches a uniform heater that uniformly heats the printing table ([0043], control the power delivered to the heat source so that the portions to be fused are raised to a uniform temperature).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the additive manufacturing device in Albert et al. to incorporate a uniform heater as taught by Ng et al., in order to improve uniformity of the printing process (Ng et al., [0043]).
Regarding claim 49, Albert et al. fails to teach a heat source that is at least one of: a halogen lamp, I.R. lamp, UV lamp, a laser, a flash-lamp, or a microwave source, to directly heat a printed layer by radiation from above.
Ng et al. further teaches a heat source that is at least one of: a halogen lamp, I.R. lamp, UV lamp, a laser, a flash-lamp, or a microwave source, to directly heat a printed layer by radiation from above (Fig. 2&3, [0051], heat source 234 is a heat lamp and an energy source laser 260 to fuse the feed material).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the additive manufacturing device in Albert et al. to incorporate a heat lamp or a laser as taught by Ng et al., because the heat lamp can raise the temperature of the feed material without fusing the material and the laser can fuse the feed material (Ng et al., [0051]) in order to improve uniformity of the printing process by keeping constant temperature of the layer on the substrate (Ng et al., [0043]).
Regarding claim 55, Albert et al. fails to teach wherein the plurality of printing units are staggered radially in a distance that is less than a distance between adjacent print heads in each print unit, to thereby reduce an effective radial separation between adjacent print heads in a given radial direction.
Ng et al. further teaches wherein the plurality of printing units (Fig. 4B, 204 and 205) are staggered radially in a distance that is less than a distance between adjacent print heads (Fig. 4B, 446a-I and 445a-i) in each print unit ([0091] the gap between 204 and 205 can be smaller than the distance between apertures in each dispenser), to thereby reduce an effective radial separation between adjacent print heads in a given radial direction ([0091] the tight distance reduces the effective separation distance between adjacent print heads 204 and 205 in the radial direction).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the additive manufacturing device in Albert et al. to incorporate print heads with small gaps as taught by Ng et al. as described above, because large gap between adjacent print heads results in missed deposition of build materials within the gap region (Ng et al., [0066]).
Claims 43 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20160297149 (“Albert et al.”) in view of US Pub. No. 20140178588 (“Swanson et al.”), US Pub. No. 20170348902 (“Ohara et al.”), and US Pub. No. 20170165916 (“El-Siblani”), as applied in claims 35 or 42, further in view of US Pub. No. 20060061613 (“Fienup et al.”).
Regarding claim 43, Albert et al. fails to teach the print head undergoes scrubbing while the print head is in an inactive state.
Fienup et al. teaches an additive manufacturing apparatus (Abstract, “apparatus and methods for producing three-dimensional objects”), wherein each of the plurality of print heads undergoes scrubbing while the print head is in an inactive state ([0019], a software algorithm that specifies the activation of each printhead; [0029], a printhead servicing station for wiping the printhead at multiple instances during printing).
Albert et al. and Fienup et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of additive manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the additive manufacturing device in Albert et al. to incorporate scrubbing the printhead as taught by Fienup et al., because quality of the parts produced in the 3-D printing process depends upon the reliable and accurate delivery of droplets of binder liquid from the nozzle arrays located on the faces of the printheads (Fienup et al., [0018]).
Regarding claim 47, Albert et al. fails to teach a maintenance station positioned on a height-controlled platform on the printing table that is maintained at a constant height relative to the at least one print head, wherein the maintenance station includes a wiper configured to wipe accumulated condensed fumes from a mask bottom, and wherein the maintenance station includes an inspection substrate to periodically test a jetting performance.
Fienup et al. further teaches a maintenance station ([0019] a service station) positioned on a platform (build surface 165) on the printing table that is maintained at a constant height relative to the at least one print head ([0019] & [0086], a servicing station capable of moving in z direction in order to maintain same distance between the service station and the printheads. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to position the service station on a height-controller platform on the printing table in order to adjust the height of the servicing station in relation to the printheads);
Wherein the maintenance station includes a wiper configured to wipe accumulated condensed fumes from a mask bottom ([0020], a splash guard which is similar in both structure and function of a mask bottom because the splash guard is located in adjacent to a wipe which removes excess fluid from a printhead face without contacting the printhead face and the splash guard serves as a mask for isolating the printhead face from excess fluid),
And wherein the maintenance station includes an inspection substrate to periodically test a jetting performance ([0008], the alignment method determines droplet-positioning errors when a test pattern is printed with the printheads to be aligned and indicating that they are perfectly positioned).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the additive manufacturing device in Albert et al. to incorporate a maintenance station as taught by Fienup et al. as discussed above, because quality of the parts produced in the 3-D printing process depends upon the reliable and accurate delivery of droplets of binder liquid from the nozzle arrays located on the faces of the printheads (Fienup et al., [0018]) and an alignment method determines droplet-positioning errors that is particularly suited to 3D printing (Fienup et al., [0008]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 3/24/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 TIFFANY YU HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2643. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
TIFFANY YU. HUANG
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754