Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 37 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Monsheimer et al. (US 2007/0197692 A1, hereinafter Monsheimer ‘692) and in view of Monsheimer et al. (US 2007/0183918 A1, hereinafter Monsheimer ‘918), Sachs et al. (US 5,204,055 A, hereinafter Sachs), and Petter et al. (US 2004/0180980 A1, hereinafter Petter).
Regarding Claim 37, Monsheimer ‘692 teaches in [0016] and [0045], for example, a method for producing three-dimensional models comprising applying a layer-by-layer process including deposition of a moderating agent/absorber on deposited powder layers so that regions of respective powder layers are melted via infrared radiation unfocused for simultaneous exposure over each entire layer (interpreted as a lamp providing the radiation) to maintain a construction space chamber temperature in the range of 85° to 120° C (thus at least implying the use of a temperature sensor and control system to maintain the temperature in the explicit target range),
However, Monsheimer ‘692 is silent on exactly how the absorber is applied.
In analogous art pertaining to 3D printing, Monsheimer ‘918 reaches in [0072] that it is known to use an absorber can be applied via a carrier liquid from an inkjet print head.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to, per Monsheimer ‘918, apply the absorber with a carrier liquid via an inkjet print head, since such a combination would be a combination of known elements to achieve the predictable result of applying an absorber.
However, the previous combination is silent whether the print head’s temperature should be specifically controlled.
In analogous art pertaining to 3D printing, Sachs teaches in Column 8 Lines 4-11 that ink-jet print heads are a known form of print head to use for 3D printing, and that because of concerns such as inadvertent activation of binding material or evaporation of binder carrier liquid, the print head is itself independently cooled to prevent these problems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an ink-jet print head and, relative to the construction space atmosphere, independently regulate the temperature of the print head in the previous combination in order to, per Sachs, prevent problems like evaporation of the absorber carrier liquid.
However, the previous combination is silent on whether the particulate construction material can include a polyamide.
In analogous art pertaining to 3D printing, Petter teaches in [0018] that nylon-12 (i.e. polyamide 12) is a known alternative to copolyimide powder and thus it would have been obvious to use polyamide 12 in the previous combination since such use would be a simple substitution of one known powder for another to achieve the predictable result of a sintered object.
Claims 38-39 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Monsheimer ‘692 and ‘918, Sachs, and Petter as applied to Claim 37 above, and in view of Seccombe (US 5,459,498 A, hereinafter Seccombe).
Regarding Claims 38-39, the previous combination teaches the method as applied above, but is silent on whether the print head is actively or passively cooled.
In further art pertaining to ink-jet printheads Seccombe further teaches using print material to cool the printhead in Column 4 Lines 7-36, and thus it would have been obvious to employ such an active cooling system as one known method of ink-jet print head cooling to achieve the print head cooling goals of Sachs.
Additionally, while this combination is silent on how tightly to control the cooling, Sachs does indicate the criticality of cooling to avoid evaporation or other negative effects, and thus it would have been obvious to find the proper temperatures to cool the print head to in order to avoid evaporation or other negative effects, and in doing so control the variation of temperature in the print head to +/- 2°C since finding the optimum or workable range has been held to require only ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 18 and 34-35 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Monsheimer ‘692 and ‘918 and Sachs, and further in view of Dickens, Jr. et al. (US 5304329 A, hereinafter Dickens).
Regarding Claims 18 and 34-35 the previous combination teaches the method as applied to Claim 37 above, and while the combination is silent on temperature gradient on the construction field, Dickens teaches the criticality of temperature gradient in Column 7 to prevent unwanted warping effects, such that it would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to maintain the temperature gradient in the previous combination to be less than 10°C in order to prevent unwanted warping effects, since finding optimum results of a result effective variable has been held to be within ordinary skill in the art.
Additionally, while this combination is silent on how tightly to control the cooling, Sachs does indicate the criticality of cooling to avoid evaporation or other negative effects (“printhead itself is cooled so that unprinted binder material in the reservoir of the ink-jet head retains its desired properties” per Column 8 Lines 9-11), and thus it would have been obvious to find the proper temperatures to cool the print head to in order to avoid evaporation or other negative effects, and in doing so control the variation of temperature in the print head to +/- 2°C since finding the optimum or workable range has been held to require only ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 21-23 and 28 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Monsheimer ‘692 and ‘918, Sachs, and Dickens as applied to Claim 18 above, and further in view of Seccombe.
Regarding Claims 21-23 and 28, the previous combination teaches the method as applied above, but is silent on whether the print head is actively or passively cooled.
In further art pertaining to ink-jet printheads Seccombe further teaches using print material to cool the printhead in Column 4 Lines 7-36, and thus it would have been obvious to employ such an active cooling system implicitly comprising a print head with a temperature sensor so that temperature of the print head is sensed in order to indicate desired cooling, a temperature control to achieve that desired cooling, and internal means for cooling and heating as one known method of ink-jet print head cooling to achieve the print head cooling goals of Sachs.
Claim 27 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Monsheimer ‘692 and ‘918, Sachs, Dickens, and Seccombe as applied to Claim 22 above, and further in view of Chen (US 2013/0215203 A1, hereinafter Chen)
Regarding Claim 27, the previous combination teaches the method as applied above, but is silent on an evaporator arranged in the print head for cooling.
In analogous art pertaining to print heads, Chen teaches [0040]-[0042] providing cooling fluid to a printhead and including an evaporator to further absorb heat.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention’s filing to include such evaporative cooling to the previous combination to provide further printhead cooling as needed.
Claims 29-32 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Monsheimer ‘692 and ‘918, Sachs, and Dickens as applied to Claim 18 above, and in further view of Alam et al. (WO 2007/114895 A1, hereinafter Alam).
Regarding Claims 29-31, the Examiner first notes that the partition/wall as claimed is not tied to anything in particular, and thus a wide variety of structures could be considered to meet the conditions of the claims.
In particular, while the previous combination motivates keeping the print head cool as discussed above, and the previous combination is silent on features that may be considered partitions or walls as claimed, Alam in analogous art pertaining to 3D printing, teaches in Figure 1b a known relative configuration of a movable print head 24 and lamp structure 5, wherein the small circle representing the heat-producing bulb in lamp structure 5 is separated from the print head by an arced structure that can be said to be a wall or partition that further can be considered a sliding wall owing to its movement capability and can also be considered flexible as it is flexible in its deployment due to its movement capability. The arced structure clearly functions as a wall to protect the print head from the lamp’s active energy supply on the construction field, and also has some capability to protect the print head from some heat wafting up as residual energy from the construction space, as it would block heat rising in a diagonal direction when both print head and lamp are directly over the construction space.
Therefore, as Alam illustrates what a lamp and print head working together in concert are known to look like, it would have been obvious to apply that known configuration to the previous combination, thereby yielding the predictable result of a lamp for heating material ejected by the print head.
Regarding Claim 32, while the previous combination is silent on sensors being mounted the wall, Dickens has identified the criticality of temperature as applied above, thus reasonably motivating a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include sensors mounted in the wall in order to detect temperatures from the lamp and ensure the lamp is emitting the proper amount of energy to maintain the desired temperatures.
Claim 40 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Monsheimer ‘692 and ‘918, Sachs, Dickens, and Seccombe as applied to Claim 21 above, and further in view of Petter.
Regarding Claim 40 the previous combination teaches the method as applied above, but is silent on whether the particulate construction material can include a polyamide 12.
In analogous art pertaining to 3D printing, Petter teaches in [0018] that nylon-12 (i.e. polyamide 12) is a known alternative to copolyimide powder and thus it would have been obvious to use polyamide 12 in the previous combination since such use would be a simple substitution of one known powder for another to achieve the predictable result of a sintered object.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the level of control of the print head temperature, Applicant has not presented any unexpected results or secondary considerations, underlining that the standard of obviousness in this situation is a determination of whether a particular range is within the range of one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Such a person would understand that temperature-dependent properties can rapidly change around temperature thresholds, and thus the Examiner maintains that it would be obvious to maintain a range of +/- 2°C, particularly as this range is not a notably narrow range, and MPEP 2144.05 II emphasizes “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.“
With respect to the newly-claimed polyamide 12 material, Applicant argues that Monsheimer ‘692 teaches away from polyamide 12. However, Monsheimer in [0021] expressly states that while an inventive copolymer powder is described, there is no intention that the invention be restricted thereto. Thus, there is no conflict in applying polyamide 12 as a powder from the prior art.
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 RYAN M OCHYLSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN M OCHYLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights