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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 14 and 21 – 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As written, independent claim 1, 8 and 21 recite in each of the preambles, a repeating layer system or a repeating layer device; however, the body of each claim and their dependent claims recite steps or what the assembly is adapted to do. There is no definite apparatus components beyond that which the examiner identifies below in each claim:
Claim 1 recites a transport system and layering stations
Claim 8 recites an assembly arrangement of a transport system and layering stations
Claim 21 recites an assembly arrangement of a transport system and layering stations for transforming the product between an uncompleted configuration and a completed configuration
It is unclear if applicant is intending the scope of the claims to cover the steps or process by which the product(s) are made or if applicant is intending to claim the apparatus and what the apparatus is capable of doing.
In addition, examiner also maps as best understood in the specification what the transport system is and what the layering stations are – as noted, the transport system is only identified as ‘e,g a tray transport and the layering stations are identified as devices 101 with no further structural description as to what the structure is – other components of device 101 are discussed ‘may include any machine configuration to perform one or more processing, machining assembly and/or tooling’ and thus, the structures which are identified in paragraph 0025 of the specification are not limiting, and are only examples thereof.
For the purposes of examination, the prior art applied below will address the apparatus elements and the intended steps recited to the extent that the prior art apparatus is capable of functioning as such. Examiner notes that the previously-applied art is also used.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 6, 8 – 11, 13, 21 – 23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)/(a2) as being anticipated by El-Siblani (US 2017/0165916 A1 – cited previously).
With respect to claim 1, El-Siblani teaches a repeating layer system ([0016], system to additive manufacturing three-dimensional objects) for providing operations comprising:
generate one or more layers for assembly of products having a similar repeating layer including a common structure and quantity (Fig. 1A, hearing aids 12-19) based on an assembly arrangement of a transport system (Fig. 1B, system 20 has a transport elevator 29 or carriage system; see paragraph 0023) and layering stations (Fig. 1B, platform 31) for transforming the product between an uncompleted configuration and a completed configuration ([0021], on build platform 31, objects are built to completion by solidifying layers of material);
generate pass quantity for the one or more layers ([0053], generate layer index k to identify each layer of the object);
And causing movement of the products by the transport system through the layering stations (Fig. 1B, [0021] move the products on the build platform 31 by the transport elevator 29, see paragraph 0023) to respectively build the similar repeating layer for each of the products ([0020] each products are built with the same operation; [0030] each layer operation is the same) according to pass quantity for the one or more layers ([0030] the layers’ building operation is defined by data string; [0053], interface layer index value k is the data string).
With respect to claim 2, El-Siblani teaches the operations further comprising remove a first one of the products from the transport system ([0031], after completion of the objects, the objects with their support structure are removed) and start a second one of the products after completion of all of the one or more layers of the first one ([0060] in step 1046, the system ensures all products of the current set are completed before the end of the current process is reached before the building of the next set of objects) .
With respect to claim 3, El-Siblani teaches the operations further comprising adapt the assembly arrangement by changing layering operations that form the one or more layers ([0031], the building operation switches to a different solidifiable object material which requires adapting the build platform to align with a different material container).
With respect to claim 4, El-Siblani teaches the operations further comprising increasing a quantity of the layering stations that perform layering operations for the one or more layers ([0028], using multiple material sources with built platforms instead of using a single material source with build platform in order to adapt to the different axis height of the product).
With respect to claim 6, El-Siblani teaches improving throughput by dynamically adjusting operation quantity ([0060], adjusting the removable support section lengths leads to reducing number of solidifiable material switching events which improves throughput by reducing the number of steps).
With respect to claim 8, El-Siblani teaches a repeating layer device for providing operations ([0016], system to additive manufacturing three-dimensional objects) comprising:
generate one or more layers for assembly of products having a similar repeating layer including a common structure and quantity (Fig. 1A, hearing aids 12-19) based on an assembly arrangement of a transport system (Fig. 1B, system 20 has a transport elevator 29, build platforms are moved from station to station via carriage assembly [see paragraph 0023])) and layering stations (Fig. 1B, platform 31) for transforming the product between an uncompleted configuration and a completed configuration ([0021], on build platform 31, objects are built to completion by solidifying layers of material);
Generate pass quantity for the one or more layers ([0053], generate layer index k to identify each layer of the object);
And causing movement of the products by the transport system through the layering stations Fig. 1B, [0021] move the products on the build platform 31 by the transport elevator 29) that respectively build the similar repeating layer for each of the products ([0020] each products are built with the same operation; [0030] each layer operation is the same) according to pass quantity for the one or more layers ([0030] the layers’ building operation is defined by data string; [0053], interface layer index value k is the data string).
With respect to claim 9, El-Siblani teaches removing a first one of the products from the transport system ([0031], after completion of the objects, the objects with their support structure are removed) and starting a second one of the products after completion of all of the one or more layers of the first one ([0060] in step 1046, the system ensures all products of the current set are completed before the end of the current process is reached before the building of the next set of objects).
With respect to claim 10, El-Siblani teaches adapt the assembly arrangement by changing the layering operations that form the one or more layers ([0031], the building operation switches to a different solidifiable object material which requires adapting the build platform to align with a different material container).
With respect to claim 11, El-Siblani teaches increasing throughput by increasing a quantity of the layering stations that perform layering operations ([0028], using multiple material sources with built platforms instead of using a single material source with build platform in order to adapt to the different axis height of the product; [0060], reducing the number of solidifiable material switching events which improves throughput by reducing the number of steps) for the similar repeating layers (Fig. 1A, hearing aids 12-19 have similar structure in each layer).
With respect to claim 13, El-Siblani teaches dynamically improve throughput by adjusting operation quantity ([0060], adjusting the removable support section lengths leads to reducing number of solidifiable material switching events which improves throughput by reducing the number of steps).
With respect to claim 21, El-Siblani teaches a repeating layer system ([0016], system to additive manufacturing three-dimensional objects) for providing operations comprising:
Generate one or more layers for assembly of products having a similar repeating layer having a common structure and quantity (Fig. 1A, hearing aids 12-19) based on an assembly arrangement of a transport system (Fig. 1B, system 20 has a transport elevator 29 and a carriage assembly [see paragraph 0023] which moves the build platform from station to station) and layering stations (Fig. 1B, platform 31 moved from build container to build container [see paragraph 0023])) for transforming the product between an uncompleted configuration and a completed configuration ([0021], on build platform 31, objects are built to completion by solidifying layers of material);
Generating pass quantity for the one or more layers ([0053], generate layer index k to identify each layer of the object);
Causing movement of the products by the transport system through the layering stations (Fig. 1B, [0021] move the products on the build platform 31 by the transport elevator 29) that respectively build the similar repeating layer for each of the products ([0020] each products are built with the same operation; [0030] each layer operation is the same) according to operation quantity ([0030] the layers’ building operation is defined by data string; [0053], interface layer index value k is the data string);
And adapt the assembly arrangement by changing layering operations that form the one or more layers ([0031], the building operation switches to a different solidifiable object material which requires adapting the build platform to align with a different material container).
With respect to claim 22, El-Siblani teaches to remove a first one of the products from the transport system ([0031], after completion of the objects, the objects with their support structure are removed) and start a second one of the products after completion of all of the one or more layers of the first one ([0060] in step 1046, the system ensures all products of the current set are completed before the end of the current process is reached before the building of the next set of objects).
With respect to claim 23, El-Siblani teaches to increase throughput by increasing a quantity of the layering stations that perform layering operations ([0028], using multiple material sources with built platforms instead of using a single material source with build platform in order to adapt to the different axis height of the product; [0060], reducing the number of solidifiable material switching events improves throughput by reducing the number of steps) for the similar repeating layers (Fig. 1A, hearing aids 12-19 have similar structure in each layer).
With respect to claim 25, El-Siblani teaches improving throughput by dynamically adjusting operation quantity ([0060], adjusting the removable support section lengths leads to reducing number of solidifiable material switching events which improves throughput by reducing the number of steps).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 12, 14 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El-Siblani in view of Twelves (US 2008/0201008 A1).
With respect to claim 5, El-Siblani does not teach increasing throughput by reducing the cycle time for at least one of the layering station and increasing a transfer rate of the products between the layering stations.
Twelves teaches an additive manufacturing system ([0001]), comprising increasing throughput by reducing the cycle time for at least one of the layering stations ([0026], simultaneous processing combined with the minimal material removal requirement allow for the short manufacturing time and fast speed) and increasing a transfer rate of the products between the layering stations ([0045], reduce transfer time of the workpiece between locations).
El-Siblani and Twelves are 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 system in El-Siblani to incorporate controller that reduces cycle time and increases transfer rate as taught by Twelves as described above, in order to optimizes both cost and cycle time for the manufacturing process (Twelves, [0024]).
With respect to claim 7, El-Siblani fails to teach automatically adapting operation type in response to sensor information.
Twelves teaches automatically adapting operation type in response to sensor information ([0050] the controller executes automatic instruction to use white light inspection to determine the amount of material needed to be removed and this information will determine whether abrasive machining will be performed).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system in El-Siblani to incorporate automatically determine whether abrasive machining will be performed as taught by Twelves as described above, in order to reduce time for concurrent secondary operations (Twelves, [0006]).
With respect to claim 12, El-Siblani does not teach increasing throughput by reducing the cycle time for at least one of the layering station and increasing a transfer rate of the products between the layering stations.
Twelves teaches an additive manufacturing system ([0001]), comprising increasing throughput by reducing the cycle time for at least one of the layering stations ([0026], simultaneous processing combined with the minimal material removal requirement allow for the short manufacturing time and fast speed) and increasing a transfer rate of the products between the layering stations ([0045], reduce transfer time of the workpiece between locations).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system in El-Siblani to incorporate controller that reduces cycle time and increases transfer rate as taught by Twelves as described above, in order to optimizes both cost and cycle time for the manufacturing process (Twelves, [0024]).
With respect to claim 14, El-Siblani fails to teach automatically adapting operation type in response to sensor information.
Twelves teaches automatically adapting operation type in response to sensor information ([0050] the controller executes automatic instruction to use white light inspection to determine the amount of material needed to be removed and this information will determine whether abrasive machining will be performed).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system in El-Siblani to incorporate automatically determine whether abrasive machining will be performed as taught by Twelves as described above, in order to reduce time for concurrent secondary operations (Twelves, [0006]).
With respect to claim 24, El-Siblani does not teach increasing throughput by reducing the cycle time for at least one of the layering station and increasing a transfer rate of the products between the layering stations.
Twelves teaches an additive manufacturing system ([0001]), comprising increasing throughput by reducing the cycle time for at least one of the layering stations ([0026], simultaneous processing combined with the minimal material removal requirement allow for the short manufacturing time and fast speed) and increasing a transfer rate of the products between the layering stations ([0045], reduce transfer time of the workpiece between locations).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system in El-Siblani to incorporate controller that reduces cycle time and increases transfer rate as taught by Twelves as described above, in order to optimizes both cost and cycle time for the manufacturing process (Twelves, [0024]).
Claim(s) 1 – 14 and 21 – 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wicker et al. (US 2006/0022379 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Wicker, et al. teach a repeating layer system for providing operations comprising: an assembly arrangement (to fabricate layered products via SLS) of a transport system (figure 9c – examiner notes that dual elevator system 68 is capable of transforming product between an uncompleted and completed configuration; see paragraph 0066) which generates one or more layers for assembly of products having a similar repeating layer (paragraph 0065 – 0066) and layering stations (figure 9c, paragraph 0066; examiner notes that the arrangement of multiple vats, wherein the build platform may rotate from vat to vat is a layering station per say; examiner further notes that ‘layering station’ is simply noted as such without further structure to such layering station); causing movement of the product(s) by the transport system through the layering station to respectively build the similar repeating layer for each of the products (paragraph 0064 and 0066 – 0067, examiner notes that the dual elevator system may include 1 or more build platforms which may be rotated via the elevator mechanism 50 and dual-sided elevator 68).
While Wicker, et al. is not specific to generating at least one of an operation portion, operation quantity, type and/or cycle time or pass, this is simply an operational feature dependent on the controller, sensor and product desired. Wicker, et al. already teach the SLS system, which is capable of manufacturing multiple product and complex multi-layered products. Furthermore, the reference teaches the inclusion of a computer 32, an SLS cabinet, UC laser beam 12 and controller (paragraph 0044). The control of the quantity, type and/or cycle time is obvious based on the input to the computer system. There is NO further structure to the processor and/or controller. The control of the system and how the product is made or what its geometry and configuration is/are is dependent on the input from the user and thus, examiner contends that such features and parameters are obvious based on the system of Wicker, et al.
With respect to claim 2, the system of Wicker, et al. is capable of removing the product(s) or product removal. Once drying and curing is completed, the product may be removed from the build platforms (paragraph 0043).
With respect to claims 3 – 7, examiner notes that the features claimed do not further limit the apparatus but only define what it is capable of doing. Examiner notes that because Wicker, et al. teach the presence of computer control, the system of Wicker, et al. is capable of functioning in the manner as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
403
685
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 8, Wicker, et al. teach a repeating device for providing operations comprising: an assembly arrangement (to fabricate layered products via SLS) of a transport system (figure 9c – examiner notes that dual elevator system 68 is capable of transforming product between an uncompleted and completed configuration; see paragraph 0066) which generates one or more layers for assembly of products having a similar repeating layer (paragraph 0065 – 0066) and layering stations (figure 9c, paragraph 0066; examiner notes that the arrangement of multiple vats, wherein the build platform may rotate from vat to vat is a layering station per say; examiner further notes that ‘layering station’ is simply noted as such without further structure to such layering station); causing movement of the product(s) by the transport system through the layering station to respectively build the similar repeating layer for each of the products (paragraph 0064 and 0066 – 0067, examiner notes that the dual elevator system may include 1 or more build platforms which may be rotated via the elevator mechanism 50 and dual-sided elevator 68).
While Wicker, et al. is not specific to generating at least one of an operation portion, operation quantity, type and/or cycle time or pass, this is simply an operational feature dependent on the controller, sensor and product desired. Wicker, et al. already teach the SLS system, which is capable of manufacturing multiple product and complex multi-layered products. Furthermore, the reference teaches the inclusion of a computer 32, an SLS cabinet, UC laser beam 12 and controller (paragraph 0044). The control of the quantity, type and/or cycle time is obvious based on the input to the computer system. There is NO further structure to the processor and/or controller. The control of the system and how the product is made or what its geometry and configuration is/are is dependent on the input from the user and thus, examiner contends that such features and parameters are obvious based on the system of Wicker, et al.
With respect to claim 9, the system of Wicker, et al. is capable of removing the product(s) or product removal. Once drying and curing is completed, the product may be removed from the build platforms (paragraph 0043).
With respect to claim 10, examiner contends that the system of Wicker, et al. is capable of changing the quantity of layers, operations or stations as claimed. Examiner notes that the number of vats and stations may be modified, subtracted or added and thus, the change as recited is obvious per the teachings in Wicker, et al. (paragraph 0044, 0046, and 0051).
With respect to claims 11 – 14, examiner notes that the features claimed do not further limit the apparatus but only define what it is capable of doing. Examiner notes that because Wicker, et al. teach the presence of computer control, the system of Wicker, et al. is capable of functioning in the manner as claimed.
With respect to claim 21, Wicker, et al. teach a repeating layer system for providing operations comprising: an assembly arrangement (to fabricate layered products via SLS) of a transport system (figure 9c – examiner notes that dual elevator system 68 is capable of transforming product between an uncompleted and completed configuration; see paragraph 0066) which generates one or more layers for assembly of products having a similar repeating layer (paragraph 0065 – 0066) and layering stations (figure 9c, paragraph 0066; examiner notes that the arrangement of multiple vats, wherein the build platform may rotate from vat to vat is a layering station per say; examiner further notes that ‘layering station’ is simply noted as such without further structure to such layering station); causing movement of the product(s) by the transport system through the layering station to respectively build the similar repeating layer for each of the products (paragraph 0064 and 0066 – 0067, examiner notes that the dual elevator system may include 1 or more build platforms which may be rotated via the elevator mechanism 50 and dual-sided elevator 68).
While Wicker, et al. is not specific to generating at least one of an operation portion, operation quantity, type and/or cycle time or pass, this is simply an operational feature dependent on the controller, sensor and product desired. Wicker, et al. already teach the SLS system, which is capable of manufacturing multiple product and complex multi-layered products. Furthermore, the reference teaches the inclusion of a computer 32, an SLS cabinet, UC laser beam 12 and controller (paragraph 0044). The control of the quantity, type and/or cycle time is obvious based on the input to the computer system. There is NO further structure to the processor and/or controller. The control of the system and how the product is made or what its geometry and configuration is/are is dependent on the input from the user and thus, examiner contends that such features and parameters are obvious based on the system of Wicker, et al.
Furthermore, examiner contends that the assembly of Wicker, et al. can be adapted to change a quantity of the one or more layers, layering operations or layering stations as claimed. Examiner notes that the number of vats and stations may be modified, subtracted or added and thus, the change as recited is obvious per the teachings in Wicker, et al. (paragraph 0044, 0046, and 0051).
With respect to claim 22, the system of Wicker, et al. is capable of removing the product(s) or product removal. Once drying and curing is completed, the product may be removed from the build platforms (paragraph 0043).
With respect to claims 23 – 25, examiner notes that the features claimed do not further limit the apparatus but only define what it is capable of doing. Examiner notes that because Wicker, et al. teach the presence of computer control, the system of Wicker, et al. is capable of functioning in the manner as claimed.
Claim(s) 1 – 14 and 21 – 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel, et al. (US 2018/0141275 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Patel, et al. teach a repeating layer system for providing operations comprising: an assembly arrangement (to fabricate layered products via SLS) of a transport system (figure 36 – examiner notes that conveyor 351 is capable of transforming product between an uncompleted and completed configuration; see paragraph 0225) which generates one or more layers for assembly of products having a similar repeating layer (paragraph 0225) and layering stations (build modules 355 are conveyed along a predetermined path through build regions 352); causing movement of the product(s) by the transport system through the layering station to respectively build the similar repeating layer for each of the products (paragraph 0225).
While Patel, et al. is not specific to generating at least one of an operation portion, operation quantity, type and/or cycle time or pass, this is simply an operational feature dependent on the controller, sensor and product desired. Patel, et al. already teach the SLS system, which is capable of manufacturing multiple product and complex multi-layered products. Furthermore, the reference teaches the inclusion of a computer 341, an SLS build region, inspection systems and controller (paragraph 0222). The control of the quantity, type and/or cycle time is obvious based on the input to the computer system. There is NO further structure to the processor and/or controller. The control of the system and how the product is made or what its geometry and configuration is/are is dependent on the input from the user and thus, examiner contends that such features and parameters are obvious based on the system of Patel, et al.
With respect to claim 2, the system of Patel, et al. is capable of removing the product(s) or product removal. Once drying and curing is completed, the product may be removed from the build platforms (paragraph 0223 and 0225.
With respect to claims 3 – 7, examiner notes that the features claimed do not further limit the apparatus but only define what it is capable of doing. Examiner notes that because Patel, et al. teach the presence of computer control, the system of Patel, et al. is capable of functioning in the manner as claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
512
741
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 8, Patel, et al. teach a repeating device for providing operations comprising: an assembly arrangement (to fabricate layered products via SLS) of a transport system (figure 36 – examiner notes that conveyor 351 is capable of transforming product between an uncompleted and completed configuration; see paragraph 0225) which generates one or more layers for assembly of products having a similar repeating layer (paragraph 0225) and layering stations (figure 36, paragraph 0225 examiner notes that the arrangement of build modules 355 which move from build regions 352 via conveyor 351; examiner further notes that ‘layering station’ is simply noted as such without further structure to such layering station); causing movement of the product(s) by the transport system through the layering station to respectively build the similar repeating layer for each of the products (paragraph 0225.
While Patel, et al. is not specific to generating at least one of an operation portion, operation quantity, type and/or cycle time or pass, this is simply an operational feature dependent on the controller, sensor and product desired. Patel, et al. already teach the SLS system, which is capable of manufacturing multiple product and complex multi-layered products. Furthermore, the reference teaches the inclusion of a computer 341, an SLS build region, inspection systems and controller (paragraph 0222). The control of the quantity, type and/or cycle time is obvious based on the input to the computer system. There is NO further structure to the processor and/or controller. The control of the system and how the product is made or what its geometry and configuration is/are is dependent on the input from the user and thus, examiner contends that such features and parameters are obvious based on the system of Patel, et al.
With respect to claim 9, the system of Patel et al. is capable of removing the product(s) or product removal. Once drying and curing is completed, the product may be removed from the build platforms (paragraph 0223).
With respect to claim 10, examiner contends that the system of Patel, et al. is capable of changing the quantity of layers, operations or stations as claimed. Examiner notes that the number of build modules and stations may be modified, subtracted or added and thus, the change as recited is obvious per the teachings in Patel, et al. (see paragraph 0222 and 0268; examiner notes that in operation, a build module is signaled whether to prompt a layer to be deposited or printed or not [see also paragraph 0275]).
With respect to claims 11 – 14, examiner notes that the features claimed do not further limit the apparatus but only define what it is capable of doing. Examiner notes that because Patel, et al. teach the presence of computer control, the system of Patel, et al. is capable of functioning in the manner as claimed.
With respect to claim 21, Patel, et al. teach a repeating layer system for providing operations comprising: an assembly arrangement (to fabricate layered products via SLS) of a transport system (figure 36 – examiner notes that conveyor 351 is capable of transforming product between an uncompleted and completed configuration; see paragraph 0225) which generates one or more layers for assembly of products having a similar repeating layer (paragraph 0225) and layering stations (figure 36, examiner notes that the arrangement of build modules 355 which moves to area 352 is a layering station per say; examiner further notes that ‘layering station’ is simply noted as such without further structure to such layering station); causing movement of the product(s) by the transport system through the layering station to respectively build the similar repeating layer for each of the products (paragraph 0222 – 0225, examiner notes that the conveyor 351 moves the product from build module to build module to form layers successively).
While Patel, et al. is not specific to generating at least one of an operation portion, operation quantity, type and/or cycle time or pass, this is simply an operational feature dependent on the controller, sensor and product desired. Wicker, et al. already teach the SLS system, which is capable of manufacturing multiple product and complex multi-layered products. Furthermore, the reference teaches the inclusion of a computer a computer 341, an SLS build region, inspection systems and controller (paragraph 0222). The control of the quantity, type and/or cycle time is obvious based on the input to the computer system. There is NO further structure to the processor and/or controller. The control of the system and how the product is made or what its geometry and configuration is/are is dependent on the input from the user and thus, examiner contends that such features and parameters are obvious based on the system of Patel, et al.
Furthermore, examiner contends that the assembly of Patel, et al. can be adapted to change a quantity of the one or more layers, layering operations or layering stations as claimed. Examiner notes that the number of modules and stations may be modified, subtracted or added and thus, the change as recited is obvious per the teachings in Patel, et al. (see paragraph 0222 and 0268; examiner notes that in operation, a build module is signaled whether to prompt a layer to be deposited or printed or not [see also paragraph 0275])).
With respect to claim 22, the system of Patel, et al. is capable of removing the product(s) or product removal. Once drying and curing is completed, the product may be removed from the build platforms (paragraph 0223).
With respect to claims 23 – 25, examiner notes that the features claimed do not further limit the apparatus but only define what it is capable of doing. Examiner notes that because Patel, et al. teach the presence of computer control, the system of Patel, et al. is capable of functioning in the manner as claimed.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s arguments and amendment(s) to correct claim dependency of claims 9 – 14 is/are persuasive. Claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed May 1, 2026 with respect to the reference of El-Siblani have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s primary argument regarding the reference of El-Siblani is that the single build platform and the system of the reference cannot anticipate “causing movement of the products by the transport system through the layering stations.” Applicant further argues that the transport elevator 29 in El-Siblani moves the build platform not the products and that the build platform is incorrectly identified as the layering station(s). In addition, applicant notes that the structural distinction between the prior art reference and the instant application is the “multi-station architecture” wherein the products are transported through discrete sequential layering stations. Other arguments pertain to the process limitations recited in the claims regarding pass quantity, dynamic adjustment and/or adapting the assembly arrangement by changing layering operations or layering stations.
To applicant’s main argument regarding the “transport system” and a structural distinction of the layering station, examiner concurs that the transport elevator 29 moves platform up and down but not through the layering station. However, upon further review of the reference, examiner contends that it is still pertinent and can be applied to reject the claims. The build platform 31 while moving up and down via elevator 29 is moved within and from layering station(s) via carriage assembly not shown (paragraph 0023). As such, the examiner contends that the carriage assembly (paragraph 0023) which moves the single build platform or the containers is the transport system which moves the product(s). The unfinished product itself remains on the build platform and thus, the product IS moved per the claim. Furthermore, the layering station is simply the container within which resin is contained. The build platform is disposed above the container, platform receives the solidifiable material and then either moves to the next container OR the container moves. As such this system has a ‘layering station’ as claimed. Regarding the remaining arguments over what the system of El-Siblani can and cannot be adapted to do, examiner find the remaining arguments unpersuasive. The features which applicant argues are all process limitations or functions which the system of El-Siblani is capable of performing because of the system components to include computer control and a processor. Furthermore, the examiner contends that the combination of El-Siblani with Twelves is still proper and thus, the rejection is maintained above.
In addition, the examiner further cites the references of Wicker, et al. and Patel, et al. Wicker, et al. teach an additive manufacturing system which can be adapted to include multiple vats and more than one build platform which can be mounted on a dual elevator 68. Thus, examiner contends that the dual elevator 68 is the transport system which transports the products through layering stations.
Likewise, Patel, et al. teach an additive manufacturing system (see figure 36 included above). The system may include a conveyor upon which modules support a layer-wise product. The modules move from build area to build area (products built via powder deposited layerwise or printed) via conveyor. Thus, the conveyor is the transport system which transports the modules – each module supporting a product or products. Layering stations may include area 352 under which each module is moved. Area 352 may be a powder layering system (paragraph 0225).
Because of the newly-applied prior art rejections and clarification with respect to El-Siblani as well as the new rejection under 35 USC 112, the rejection has been made non-final.
Reference of Interest
Uckelmann, et al. (US 2013/0108726 A1) is cited of interest. Uckelmann, et al. teach an additive manufacturing system wherein modules 612a – 612c are conveyed from printhead to printhead via a conveyor (see figure 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA VERONICA EWALD whose telephone number is (571)272-8519. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri ~9am-5:30pm 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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at 571-270-7769. 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.
/MARIA V EWALD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights