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 amendments to the claims filed November 06, 2025, has been entered. Claims 9, 35, and 38 are currently amended. Claims 1-8, 11-17, 19-20, 24, and 33 are canceled. Claims 9-10, 18, 21-23, 25-32, and 34-38 are pending and under examination. The amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a means for irradiating” in claim 35;
“a means for regulating a temperature of an atmosphere” in claim 35;
“a means for adjusting a relative air humidity or a relative solvent concentration” in claim 35.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
New Grounds of Rejection
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.
Claims 9 – 10, 21 – 23, 25, 30, 32, and 34 – 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,905,645 (“Iskra”; of record) in view of US 2015/0050377 A1 (SHI et al.), and US 2006/0061618 A1 (“Hernandez”; of record), US 6,162,378 (“Bedal”; of record), US 2002/0078828 A1 (Kishkovich et al.; “Kish”).
Regarding claim 9 and claim 38. Iskra teaches a device, suitable for 3D printing methods, comprising: a closed build space (e.g., “enclosure system 700” Col. 28 lines 50-56);
a removable build container (e.g., first and second powder bed assemblies 202, 302) including a build platform (e.g., carrier plate 222, 322, Col. 11, lines 30-43, Col. 13, lines 50-54), container walls (e.g., “perimeter walls” 220, 320) (see FIGs. 18-19, Col. 10, lines 48-67, cont. Col. 11, lines 1-14, Col. 13, lines 13-54, cont. Col. 14, lines 8-33), and
a seal between the container walls and the building platform (e.g., see Col. 11, lines 44-50 “the perimeter of the carrier plate 222 is fitted with an external, polymeric gasket 226 and a pair of internal O-rings 228 [analogous to the claimed “seal”]. The polymeric gasket 226 can slide along the inner surface of perimeter wall 220 to prevent powder from escaping from the powder bed assembly 202 during use. The O-rings 228 can urge the polymeric gasket 226 against the inner surface of perimeter wall 220.”);
a coater for applying a layer of particulate material to the building platform (222, 322) in the closed build space (see FIGs. 47 – 48, and Col. 1 lines 12- 21, lines 47- 51, Col. 3 line 57- Col. 4 line 5, Col. 22 lines 1- 21, Col. 32 line 58- Col. 33 line 7, Col. 35 lines 38- 64, Col. 36 lines 46- 59, and Claims 26, 35 teach forming a 3D object by depositing a layer of powder, selectively depositing a binder onto the powder, and repeating to form the 3D object);
a printer for selectively applying a printing fluid to the layer of particulate material (Col. 1 lines 12- 21, lines 47- 51, Col. 3 line 57- Col. 4 line 5, Col. 22 lines 1- 21, Col. 32 line 58- Col. 33 line 7, Col. 35 lines 38- 64, Col. 36 lines 46- 59, and Claims 26, 35 teach forming a 3D object by depositing a layer of powder, selectively depositing a binder onto the powder, and repeating to form the 3D object);
a sensor for measuring a temperature in the closed build space (Col. 33 line 61- Col. 34 line 27);
an air conditioner for regulating a temperature and a humidity of the air in the closed build space and for flowing a processed air into the closed build space (Col. 2 lines 8- 26, Col. 26 lines 26- 39, Col. 31 line 44- Col. 32 line 6 teaches using airflow through the enclosure to remove heat and thereby better control the temperature of the operating components in the enclosure; Col. 2 lines 8- 21 teaches controlling the duration of drying and the extent of drying before application of a subsequent layer of powder; Col. 32 lines 7- 29 teaches the concentration of the vapor in the gas of the enclosure may be controlled by a recirculation fraction or condensation operation, for example; Col. 33 line 61- Col. 34 line 26 teaches controlling the drying extent and time with a temperature or moisture sensor – The Examiner notes that “drying” in Iskra refers to reducing the amount of moisture in the powder. The moisture in the powder evaporates into vapor form in the enclosure where the concentration of vapor in the gas is also controlled); and
a diffusor or a baffle plate for controlling or eliminating air currents from the processed air in the closed build space (Fig. 49 and Col. 29 lines 51- 67 teaches a blower motor 732 powers the blower 730 causing air to eventually be routed by hose 726 to an outlet 738, where the outlet 738 can include a distribution plenum which spreads the airflow somewhat uniformly over a substantial area and a HEPA filter, the combination of the distribution plenum and HEPA filter is interpreted as the claimed diffuser or baffle plate);
wherein the particulate material is applied as a dry free flowing powder (Col. 17, lines 3 – 65 teaches the roller can spread powder from the feed bed across the surface of the build bed; Col. 35, lines 4 – 9 teaches “at least in the case of roller-spread dry layers”).
Iskra does not disclose, wherein the coater comprises a reservoir capable of including the particulate material, a sensor for measuring a temperature of an air in the closed build space, wherein the temperature is regulated to 18 °C to 50 °C, and wherein the air in the closed build space has a relative humidity in the range of 40% to 70% or a relative solvent content of 50 - 80%.
The examiner notes that the claims attempt to further limit the device by specifying the material worked upon (i.e., the particulate material, the air in the closed build space), however, the material worked upon is not germane to the patentability of apparatus itself and such fails to further limit the structure of the apparatus. “A claim is only limited by positively recited elements.” Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115.
The examiner notes that the claims attempt to further limit the device by defining what certain features are used for (i.e., “a coater for”, “a printer for”, “a sensor for”, “an air conditioner for”, “a diffusor or a baffle plate for”) and the manner of operating the device (i.e., “wherein the particulate material is applied as a dry free flowing powder”); however, the operation of the apparatus is not germane to the patentability thereof and such fails to further limit the structure of the apparatus. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Applicant is respectfully reminded that, as per MPEP 2114 (II), the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In this case, a prior art device suitable for 3D printing methods comprising all the structural elements as recited in claim 9 and claim 38, would be considered capable of performing the claimed intended use and/or capable of operating in the claimed manner. As per MPEP § 2111.02 (II): “To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim.” See, e.g., In re Schreiber.
As to the amended limitation “wherein a reservoir of the coater includes the particulate material.”
In the same field of endeavor of 3D rapid prototyping apparatus [0007], SHI et al. teaches a 3D rapid prototyping apparatus 1 comprising bio-cartridge 11 (a print head), a supply container 12 (coater comprising a reservoir, [0018] teach “a movable feeding mechanism 133 supports the bio-building material that is uniformly dropped down from the supply container 12”),
a construction platform 13 (building platform; [0018] comprising a construction chamber 131, a chamber lift/lower mechanism 132, a movable feeding mechanism 133, and a movable printing mechanism 134),
an identifying and monitoring device 14, a disinfection and temperature/humidity regulation device 15, temperature/humidity regulation unit 153 (see [0020-0022]) (i.e., analogous to the claimed air conditions/means for regulating temperature/means for adjusting relative humidity), a casing 16 (i.e., a closed build space; FIG. 1 [0021]), and a negative pressure device 17 [0015];
[0017] the supply container 12 (coater with reservoir) stores bio-building material “includes but is not limited to an organ base material, a tissue base material, a connective tissue powder of a solid powdery collagen protein, a high-strength polymer, a metal ceramic powder or any other human-compatible building material. That is, the bio-building material is compatible with the bio-forming fluid, but it is not limited thereto.”
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modify the device of Iskra with the known coater (SHI et al. 133 and 12) for applying a layer of particulate material, the coater comprising a reservoir for particulate material (SHI et al. movable feeding mechanism 133 supporting the supply container 12 [0017-0018]), as taught and suggested by SHI et al., and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been recognized the combination would have yielded no more that predictable results, e.g., a device suitable for 3D printing methods comprising a coater mechanism (movable feeding mechanism 133 supporting the supply container 12) that supports particulate material that is uniformly dropped down from the coater and when it is moved to a position over the building platform in the closed build space, the particulate material is spread in the spreading space of the build platform, as taught by SHI et al. [0017-0018]. See MPEP 2143 (I) (D).
As to the limitation “a sensor for measuring a temperature of an air in the closed build space, wherein the temperature is regulated to 18 °C to 50 °C, and wherein the air in the closed build space has a relative humidity in the range of 40% to 70% or a relative solvent content of 50 - 80%.”
In the same field of endeavor of apparatus and methods for producing three-dimensional objects (Hernandez [0007]), Hernandez discloses a printer 10 comprising – inter alia – an enclosure cover to contain any debris generated during a printing operation, creating an enclosed area that can be heated “to facilitate better reactions (i.e., faster reaction times and improved bonding) between the build material and the binder materials,” wherein the heating is accomplished by introducing warm air at a low velocity to the enclosed area (analogous to the claimed “air conditioning”), “the flow of air is typically not directed at the build surface to prevent disturbing the build material after spreading,” [0073];
Hernandez [0073] discloses that the enclosure temperature [hence, the air temperature, since Hernandez discloses heating is accomplished by providing heated air; Although, Hernandez does not explicitly discloses a sensor for measuring the air temperature, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), a PHOSITA would have found obvious that a “sensor” device/system (i.e., “sensing means”) is implicitly provided to Hernandez device to performed the measurement of said temperature conditioned air] is maintained from about 90 °F to about 150 °F (32.2 °C to 65.5556 °C), overlapping the claimed temperature regulation range of from 18 °C to 50 °C. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.
Hernandez [0042] discloses that the data value (e.g., temperature, humidity, binder material, and/or build material) can be compensated during acquisition to account for an operational environmental factor of the three-dimensional printer;
Hernandez [0115] discloses “The threshold values of any particular factor can be varied depending on the types of liquid binder and powder materials used and other operational environmental factors, such as temperature and humidity, that can affect printhead condition.” – Therefore, a PHOSITA could have found the optimal values (e.g., values closer to the lower temperature bound “18 °C” based on the needs of the materials used) to regulate the temperature and humidity of the closed build space, for any specific combination of binder/build materials, i.e., through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A)) and with good expectations of success, to provide optimal operating environment to the device/printhead.
In the same field of endeavor of methods, systems, and apparatuses for maintaining the temperature of a three-dimensional object within a predetermined range and for reducing the time required to build three-dimensional objects, (Bedal Col. 3, lines 40 – 45), Bedal discloses a method, system, and apparatus for forming a three-dimensional object using selective deposition modeling, formed in a build environment that has a temperature that is detected, and a gas is forced through the build environment, wherein the gas has a characteristic, such as temperature and quantity, that is related to the detected temperature of the build environment (Bedal Col. 4, lines 7 – 15, Col. 11, lines 44 – 59); “other mounting schemes for the fans and/or other cooling systems are possible including the use of misting devices for directing vaporizable liquids (e.g. water, alcohol, or solvents) onto the surface of the object. Cooling systems might involve active or passive techniques for removing heat and may be computer controlled in combination with temperature sensing devices to maintain the dispensed material within the desired building temperature range.” (Col. 5, lines 13 – 25);
Bedal discloses that the temperature can be detected using, e.g., a thermistor (Col. 11, lines 51 – 59), an infra-red sensor or other well-known temperature measuring devices, (see FIG. 1, “temperature sensor” 23 coupled to a “processor” 25 “for controlling the fans 15 and 26 based on the sensed temperature and a suitable processor control program”; Bedal Col. 10, lines 15 – 22, Col. 11, lines 44 – 59);
Bedal teaches that based on the detected temperature in the build environment (also on the detected temperature of the three-dimensional object), the number of operating fans, the flow rates provided by the fans and/or the temperature of the gas blown by the fans and/or the temperature of the gas applied to the surface of the three-dimensional object can be variably controlled (Bedal Col.11, lines 53 – 65).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Iskra/SHI’s device with the device and method for measuring a temperature of an air in the closed build space, as taught and suggested by any of the prior art of SHI et al. and Hernandez, having a sensor (e.g., a temperature sensor, and processor/control system Bedal Col. 11 lines 44 – 59; SHI et al. temperature/humidity regulation unit 153 [0020]) for measuring a temperature of an air in the closed build space, for the purpose of providing an environment with appropriate temperature and humidity for the selected build materials, as taught by SHI et al. [0020]. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modify the device suitable for 3D printing methods of Iskra/SHI/Hernandez/Bedal by selecting the portion of Hernandez’ closed build space regulated temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I):
“In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Iskra/SHI’s device with the temperature control system of Hernandez, and the temperature sensor system of Bedal for the purpose of variably controlling the temperature of the gas applied to the surface of the three-dimensional object, as taught by Bedal (Bedal Col.11, lines 53 – 65), and for the purpose of e.g., “to facilitate better reactions (i.e., faster reaction times and improved bonding) between the build material and the binder materials,” wherein the heating is accomplished by introducing warm air at a low velocity to the enclosed area, as taught by Hernandez [0073].
The examiner notes that certain limitations in the amended claim (i.e., “wherein the temperature is regulated to 18 °C to 50 °C, and wherein the air in the closed build space has a relative humidity in the range of 40% to 70% or a relative solvent content of 50 - 80%”), attempts to further limit the device by defining the manner in which the device is intended to be operated and how certain features are used for (e.g., maintain a temperature, and/or a relative humidity, and/or a relative solvent content – while operating the device); however, the operation of the apparatus is not germane to the patentability of the device thereof and such fails to further limit the structure of the device. As per MPEP 2114 (II), the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
In the same field of endeavor of devices suitable for 3D printing methods (e.g., Kish’s photolithography tool 41, FIG. 6), Kish [0053] teaches a device (FIGs. 6-7) comprising an air conditioning unit 104 that regulates the temperature and humidity of air entering the photolithography tool 41 and ensures that the temperature and humidity remain within tightly-prescribed limits, a computer having a computer-readable medium storing software code for controlling the cooling element and heating element can be coupled via a processor with the air conditioning unit 104 to ensure that the temperature and humidity are maintained within those limits; [0055] teaches that after conditioning the air “the air may be at a temperature of about 18° to about 20 °C”.
Furthermore, the device and methods disclosed by Iskra/SHI/Hernandez/Bedal is capable of controlling variables such as a temperature range/humidity regulation; and the relative humidity range or a relative solvent content of the atmosphere in the closed build space.
Iskra Col. 38, ll. 45-59 teaches “Any condensable vapor carried in a noncondensable gas has a dew point or condensation temperature that is a function of the vapor's concentration [e.g., a relative solvent content in the atmosphere of the closed build space]. In the case of an aqueous binder liquid, the concentration of the vapor is the local humidity, and the dew point is indicative of the local humidity.” Iskra Col. 31, ll. 44 – 56 teaches that the device, “can incorporate a heat exchanger or other elements for providing the enclosure with air at a desired temperature and/or moisture content,” could be “configured with filters and adsorbers for removing undesired substances from the air in the enclosure,” and that it “can be used to remove heat and thereby better control the temperature of operating components inside the enclosure.”
Bedal Col. 5, ll. 17 – 25 teaches “other mounting schemes for the fans and/or other cooling systems are possible including the use of misting devices for directing vaporizable liquids (e.g. water, alcohol, or solvents) onto the surface of the object. Cooling systems might involve active or passive techniques for removing heat and may be computer controlled in combination with temperature sensing devices to maintain the dispensed material within the desired building temperature range.”
Hernandez [0042] teaches “Additionally, the data value can be compensated during acquisition to account for an operational environmental factor of the three-dimensional printer, such as, for example, temperature, humidity, binder material, and/or build material.” [0115] “The threshold values of any particular factor can be varied depending on the types of liquid binder and powder materials used and other operational environmental factors, such as temperature and humidity, that can affect printhead condition.”
SHI et al. [0020 – 0021] teaches a “temperature/humidity regulation unit 153 is located beside the construction platform 13 for providing a cell cultivation environment with appropriate temperature and humidity.” [Hence, recognizing that variables such as temperature/humidity of the build environment are material dependent].
As to the temperature range for the atmosphere in the closed build space. Since the time it takes for each drop of e.g., binder material to solidify or freeze is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the temperature of the atmosphere in the closed build space. For that reason, the temperature of the atmosphere in the closed build space, would have been consider a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the temperature of the atmosphere in the closed build space cannot be considered critical.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the temperature of the atmosphere in the closed build space in the device suitable for 3D printing methods of Iskra/SHI/Hernandez/Bedal to obtain the desired temperature of the atmosphere in the closed build space, by means and methods, as suggested and taught by Kish [0053], to ensure that the temperature and humidity are maintained within desired limits, that avoids differential shrinkage of the 3D printed article, as taught by Bedal Col. 10, ll. 44 – 47 (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (B).
As to the relative humidity or a relative solvent content range in the atmosphere of the closed build space. Iskra teaches that in the case of an aqueous binder liquids, the concentration of the vapor is the local humidity, and the dew point is indicative of the local humidity, and that the condensation of the vapor is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying said temperature or the relative humidity of the build space atmosphere. SHI et al. [0020 – 0021] teaches temperature/humidity control and regulation. Bedal Col. 5, ll. 17 – 25 teaches that other cooling systems are possible including the use of misting devices for directing vaporizable liquids (e.g. water, alcohol, or solvents) onto the surface of the object. For those reasons and since (as discussed above, suitable/optimal temperature/humidity ranges of the build environment are dictated by material selection, e.g., see Hernandez [0115]), the relative humidity or a relative solvent content range in the atmosphere of the closed build space, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the relative humidity or a relative solvent content range of the build space atmosphere cannot be considered critical.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the relative humidity or a relative solvent content range in the closed build space in the device suitable for 3D printing methods of Iskra/SHI/Hernandez/Bedal/Kish to obtain the desired relative humidity or a relative solvent content range, by means to ensure that the temperature and humidity are maintained within desired limits, as suggested and taught by Kish [0053], that avoids unwanted condensation of the vapors on the build space (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (B).
Regarding claim 10. Iskra/SHI/Hernandez/Bedal/Kish teaches the build space is tightly sealable (“tightly sealable” is been interpreted in view of Applicant’s disclosure [0056] as an enclosure capable of allowing for “regulation of the temperature and/or the relative humidity”) (see Iskra Col. 28 lines 50-56; SHI et al. FIG. 1 and [0020 – 0021] teaches a “temperature/humidity regulation unit 153 is located beside the construction platform 13 for providing a cell cultivation environment with appropriate temperature and humidity”; Hernandez “enclosed area” [0073]; Bedal “closed chamber” Col. 11 lines 44 – 59), and capable of regulate the temperature of the air in the closed build space at a material dependent desired range, as discussed in claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 21. Iskra/SHI/Hernandez/Bedal/Kish teaches the closed build space being insulated (Iskra Col. 28 lines 50-56 teaches the enclosure system being airtight and formed of seals and windows which would inherently insulate the build space; similarly to Hernandez [0073] “enclosed area”).
Regarding claim 22. Iskra/SHI/Hernandez/Bedal/Kish teaches the device includes an IR emitting unit (Iskra Col. 33 lines 28-60).
Regarding claim 23. The examiner notes the claim attempt to further limit the device by specifying the intended use (the reservoir holding the particulate material) and the material worked upon (a water-insoluble particulate material); however, the material worked upon is not germane to the patentability of apparatus itself and such fails to further limit the structure of the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 (II), MPEP 2115.
Therefore, since Iskra/SHI/Hernandez/Bedal/Kish teaches the device of claim 10, comprising a reservoir of the coater (e.g., SHI et al. elements 12 and 133, as discussed in claim 9 above), it would have been capable of including a water insoluble particulate material, since the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use of holding a particulate material regardless of whether the particulate material includes a water-insoluble particulate or not. See, e.g., In re Schreiber. See MPEP § 2111.02 (II).
Regarding claim 25. Iskra/SHI/Hernandez/Bedal/Kish teaches the device of claim 10, wherein the device is capable of including a 3D part having particulate material joined by bridges of dried glass water binder, wherein the 3D part is embedded in loose particulate material (e.g., Iskra Col. 1, ll. 12 – 16 “Three-dimensional printing is a process of depositing successive layers of powder onto a substrate, and causing portions of each layer to adhere or bind to themselves and to adjacent earlier-deposited layers through the action of a liquid called a binder.”). However, this limitations are directed to the manner of operating the device and to the product/article worked upon/made by the apparatus being claimed, which does not impart patentability to apparatus claims, see MPEP 2115.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the device of Iskra/SHI/Hernandez/Bedal/Kish is capable of fabricating a 3D part having particulate material joined by bridges of dried glass water binder, wherein the 3D part is embedded in loose particulate material; e.g., see Iskra Col. 1, ll. 12 – 16, Iskra Col. 27, ll. 63 – 67, Col. 28, ll. 1 – 9, Hernandez [0007] “the invention relates to apparatus and methods for producing three-dimensional objects”).
Regarding claim 30. Iskra/SHI/Hernandez/Bedal/Kish teaches the device of claim 9, wherein the device includes the diffusor. (Iskra Fig. 49 and Col. 29 lines 51- 67 teach a blower motor 732 powers the blower 730 causing air to eventually be routed by hose 726 to an outlet 738, where the outlet 738 can include a distribution plenum which spreads the airflow somewhat uniformly over a substantial area and a HEPA filter, the combination of the distribution plenum and HEPA filter is interpreted as the claimed diffuser or baffle plate).
Regarding claim 32. Iskra/SHI/Hernandez/Bedal/Kish teaches the device of claim 9, wherein only the coater (e.g., SHI et al. elements 12, 133; [0017-0018]) applies the particulate material. (e.g., see Iskra Col. 17 lines 4 – 40, FIG. 20). See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 34. Iskra/SHI/Hernandez/Bedal/Kish teaches device of claim 9, wherein the temperature of the air in the closed build space could be regulated to about 18 °C to 20 °C (see Kish [0055]), overlapping with the claimed range of from 18 °C to 30 °C. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Kish's temperature range in the closed build space that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). Determination of the optimal temperature ranges in the closed build space is material dependent and would be within the skill set of one having ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize it through routine experimentation based on the material selection, as discussed in claim 9 above.
Furthermore, the claim attempt to further limit the parent claim by defining what certain features are used for and/or the intended manner in which the device is operated; however, the operation of the apparatus is not germane to the patentability thereof and such fails to further limit the structure of the apparatus. If the applicant intends to impart structure, they may consider wording such as “configured to” rather than “used to” as the former imparts a level of structure. See MPEP 2114 (II).
Regarding claim 35. For the sake of brevity of the Office action, only those limitations not shared between the device of claim 9 and the device of claim 35 will be discuss. See the discussion of claim 9 above.
Iskra/SHI/Hernandez/Bedal/Kish teaches a device suitable for 3D printing methods (as discussed in claim 9 above), comprising
a removable build container (e.g., first and second powder bed assemblies 202, 302) including a build platform (e.g., carrier plate 222, 322, Col. 11, lines 30-43, Col. 13, lines 50-54), container walls (e.g., “perimeter walls” 220, 320) (see FIGs. 18-19, Col. 10, lines 48-67, cont. Col. 11, lines 1-14, Col. 13, lines 13-54, cont. Col. 14, lines 8-33), and a seal between the container walls and the building platform (e.g., see Col. 11, lines 44-50 “the perimeter of the carrier plate 222 is fitted with an external, polymeric gasket 226 and a pair of internal O-rings 228 [analogous to the claimed “seal”]. The polymeric gasket 226 can slide along the inner surface of perimeter wall 220 to prevent powder from escaping from the powder bed assembly 202 during use. The O-rings 228 can urge the polymeric gasket 226 against the inner surface of perimeter wall 220.”);
c. means for irradiating a construction area with infrared radiation (Iskra Col. 33, ll. 28-36; Bedal Col. 1, lines 39-43 “based on the selective solidification of layers of a powdered medium by exposing the layers to infrared electromagnetic radiation to sinter or fuse the particles”);
d. a means for regulating a temperature of an atmosphere of the closed build space (Iskra Col. 2 lines 8- 26, Col. 26 lines 26- 39, Col. 31 line 44- Col. 32 line 6 teach using airflow through the enclosure to remove heat and thereby better control the temperature of the operating components in the enclosure; Col. 2 lines 8- 21 teaches controlling the duration of drying and the extent of drying before application of a subsequent layer of powder; Col. 32 lines 7- 29 teaches the concentration of the vapor in the gas of the enclosure may be controlled by a recirculation fraction or condensation operation, for example; Col. 33 line 61- Col. 34 line 26 teach controlling the drying extent and time with a temperature or moisture sensor; SHI et al. [0020-0021] teaches temperature/humidity regulation device 15, temperature/humidity regulation unit 153);
e. a means for adjusting a relative air humidity or a relative solvent concentration in the atmosphere of the closed build space (SHI et al. [0020-0021] teaches temperature/humidity regulation device 15, temperature/humidity regulation unit 153; Bedal Col. 5, ll. 17 – 25 teaches that “other cooling systems are possible including the use of misting devices for directing vaporizable liquids (e.g. water, alcohol, or solvents) onto the surface of the object”; Kish [0053] teaches that the air conditioning unit 104 is controlled by a computer storing software core for controlling the heating/cooling elements coupled via a processor with the unit 104 to ensure that the temperature and humidity are maintained within preset/desired limits).
Regarding claim 36. Iskra/SHI/Hernandez/Bedal/Kish teaches the device of claim 35, except for, wherein the atmosphere in the closed build space has a relative solvent content of 50 - 80%. However, the operation of the apparatus is not germane to the patentability thereof and such fails to further limit the structure of the apparatus. Applicant is respectfully reminded that, as per MPEP 2114 (II), the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art. Therefore, the relative solvent content in the atmosphere of the closed build space would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the relative solvent content range cannot be considered critical.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the relative solvent content range in the device suitable for 3D printing methods of Iskra/SHI/Hernandez/Bedal/Kish to obtain the desired relative solvent content range that avoids unwanted condensation of the vapors on the build space (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (B).
Regarding claim 37. Iskra/SHI/Hernandez/Bedal/Kish teaches the device of claim 35, except for, wherein the atmosphere in the closed build space has a relative humidity of 40% to 70%. However, the operation of the apparatus is not germane to the patentability thereof and such fails to further limit the structure of the apparatus. Applicant is respectfully reminded that, as per MPEP 2114 (II), the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art. Therefore, the relative humidity in the atmosphere of the closed build space would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the relative humidity range cannot be considered critical.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the relative humidity or a relative solvent content range in the atmosphere in the closed build space of the device suitable for 3D printing methods of Iskra/SHI/Hernandez/Bedal/Kish to obtain the desired relative humidity or a relative solvent content range, by means and methods, as suggested and taught by Kish [0053], to ensure that the temperature and humidity are maintained within desired limits, that avoids unwanted condensation of the vapors on the build space (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (B). See the discussion of claim 9 in pages 15 – 19 above.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iskra, SHI et al., Hernandez, Bedal, and Kish, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 5,940,674 (“Sachs”; of record).
Regarding claim 18. Iskra/SHI/Hernandez/Bedal/Kish, teaches temperature and humidity regulation/control, but does not explicitly disclose the device includes a water-based humidifier for regulating the humidity of the air in the closed build space.
Sachs teaches a water-based humidifier for regulating the humidity of the air in the closed build space (Fig. 1c and Col. 7 lines 4-12 teach humidifying via a mister 112 that applies a mist of water).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iskra/SHI/Hernandez/Bedal/Kish device to incorporate a water-based humidifier, as taught and suggested by Sachs, motivated by helping the powdered material from flying about when impacted by a jet or spray of binding material (Sachs – Col. 7 lines 4 – 12), since Bedal Col. 5, ll. 17 – 25 teaches “other mounting schemes for the fans and/or other cooling systems are possible including the use of misting devices for directing vaporizable liquids (e.g. water, alcohol, or solvents) onto the surface of the object. Cooling systems might involve active or passive techniques for removing heat and may be computer controlled in combination with temperature sensing devices to maintain the dispensed material within the desired building temperature range.” See MPEP 2143 (I) (D).
Claims 26 – 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iskra, SHI et al., Hernandez, Bedal, and Kish, as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of US 20140212677 A1 (Gnüchtel et al.; “US’677”).
Regarding claim 26. Iskra/SHI/Hernandez/Bedal/Kish teaches the device of claim 23, comprising all the structural element of the device as claimed, therefore the reservoir of the coater (SHI et al. elements 12, 133) is capable of including a dried water glass binder. See MPEP 2115. Furthermore, the use of dried water glass as binder is well known in the art.
For example, US’677 [0050] teaches “particle material containing a spray-dry waterglass or a spray-dry alkali silicate solution is applied in layers with a coater, known from the prior art of rapid prototyping methods to a particulate material, and then a water-containing solution is applied, for example, by means of a print head. The water thereby activates hardening of the alkali silicate solution, wherein a connection of the particulate material takes place after removal of the water, for example, by drying.”
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a dried water glass binder for the particulate material in the reservoir of the coater in the device suitable for 3D printing methods of Iskra/SHI/Hernandez/Bedal/Kish, for purposes as suggested and taught by the prior art of US’677, since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07:
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Regarding claim 27. Iskra/SHI/Hernandez/Bedal/Kish/US’677 teaches the device of claim 26, comprising all the structural elements of the device as claimed, wherein the printer is capable of including the printing fluid, wherein the printing fluid includes or consists of water (Iskra Figs. 24-27 and Col. 1 line 47-Col. 2 line 7, Col. 22 lines 1-21 teach the printhead for dispensing a binder or other fluid onto a preselected area(s) of powder; see SHI et al. [0015 – 0017]). Since a printing fluid which includes or consists of water is the material worked upon by the device claimed, such imparts no structure to the claimed device. Therefore, the device of Iskra/SHI/Hernandez/Bedal/Kish/US’677 device suitable for 3D printing methods is capable of performing the intended use of using a printing fluid including or consisting of water. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, MPEP § 2111.02 (II) and MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 28. Iskra/SHI/Hernandez/Bedal/Kish/US’677 teaches the device of claim 27, wherein the device includes a humidity sensor. (Iskra Col. 33 line 61- Col. 34 line 26 teach controlling the drying extent and time with a temperature or moisture sensor; SHI et al. [0020-0021] teaches temperature and humidity control and regulation; Hernandez [0042, 0115]).
Regarding claim 29. Iskra/SHI/Hernandez/Bedal/Kish/US’677 teaches the device of claim 9, capable of performing the intended use of comprising a particulate material, and therefore of comprising a particulate material wherein the particulate material includes water insoluble particles (e.g., see US’677 [0050] spray-dry waterglass or a spray-dry alkali silicate). See MPEP 2114 (II), and MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 31. Iskra/SHI/Hernandez/Bedal/Kish/US’677 teaches the device of claim 27, wherein the device includes the baffle plate (Iskra Fig. 49 and Col. 29 lines 51- 67 teach a blower motor 732 powers the blower 730 causing air to eventually be routed by hose 726 to an outlet 738, where the outlet 738 can include a distribution plenum which spreads the airflow somewhat uniformly over a substantial area and a HEPA filter, the combination of the distribution plenum and HEPA filter is interpreted as the claimed diffuser or baffle plate).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9-10, 18, 21-32, and 34-38 (Remarks filed November 06, 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.
In response to applicant's argument that Kiskovich is nonanalogous art, and therefore the Office action errs in suggesting that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the teachings of Iskra with the teachings of Kiskovich, since Kiskovich is directed to a photolithography process (Remarks, pages 7-8), it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). This is unpersuasive.
In this case, as discussed in claim 9 above, Kiskovich’s photolithography device is a “device suitable for 3D printing methods”, and therefore, in the field of the inventor’s endeavor. Furthermore, as discussed in claim 9 above, Kiskovich teaches an air conditioning unit 104 that regulates the temperature and humidity of air entering the photolithography tool 41 and ensures that the temperature and humidity remain within tightly-prescribed limits, and Iskra Col. 31, ll. 44 – 56 teaches that the device, “can incorporate a heat exchanger or other elements for providing the enclosure with air at a desired temperature and/or moisture content,” could be “configured with filters and adsorbers for removing undesired substances from the air in the enclosure,” and that it “can be used to remove heat and thereby better control the temperature of operating components inside the enclosure.” – therefore, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned.
In response to applicant's argument that the Office action errs in suggesting that the movable feeding mechanism 133 supporting the container 12 reads on Applicant’s coater (Remarks page 8), the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
This assertion is unpersuasive. As discussed in claim 9 above, and in the Non-Final Office action, SHI et al. discloses that the moving feeding mechanism 133 “can support the bio-building material that is uniformly dropped down from the supply container 12. When the movable feeding mechanism 133 is moved to the position over the construction chamber 131, the bio-building material is spread in the spreading space. Consequently, a construction layer to be printed is formed.” (see SHI et al. [0018], [0023]). Therefore, construing SHI et al. disclosure that the moving feeding mechanism 133 can support the bio-building material (which can be a dry powder, see SHI et al. [0017]), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, SHI et al. moving feeding mechanism 133 is analogous to the claimed a reservoir of the coater. See MPEP 2143 (I) (F).
Absent persuasive evidence or arguments, the examiner submits the claims would need to be further amended to overcome the prima facie case.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Grasegger et al. (US 20160114533 A1): discloses a device for manufacture of three-dimensional models by means of a 3D printing process, whereby the build material is deposited on a build platform in layers and the build platform is moveable in the Z-direction and one or several drive units and one or several guide elements is/are provided to move the build platform; [0011] In addition, acting in opposition to every movement of the build platform in the build cylinder are frictional forces between the seal and the build platform and build cylinder wall. Such a seal is necessary so that the powder cannot run through the gap between the build platform and chamber wall and thereby lead to malfunctions that could result in blockages. These frictional forces of the seals contacting the chamber wall can be very large if an error occurs, such as during a blockage of the seal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742