Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-8 and 11-18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lawton (US 5,529,473 A, hereinafter Lawton) in view of Hull et al. (US 5,192,559, hereinafter Hull).
Regarding Claims 1, 3-5, 11, and 14-18, John teaches in Figures 1-2 and Column 5 Line 47 – Column 6 Line 65 an apparatus for making an object, the apparatus comprising a vessel formed by flexible sheet/film 45 having sidewalls with a volume sufficient to build an object with being replenished as seen in Figure 2, the vessel considered removeable as there is no indication that it cannot be moved, and the claims do not specifically define what removal is in relation to (such that any movement would thus read on “removeable”). Additionally, the vessel comprises a transparent flexible sheet/film designed to reduce adhesion (per Column 5 Lines 65-67) and allows for radiation from a radiation source 12 (broadly considered to be an image projection system and light beam scanning apparatus as these are both functions that a radiation source curing photohardenable resin would possess) to pass through the sheet/film from the bottom to solidify photohardenable material on the upwardly facing surface of the sheet/film (per the Figures and Column 3 Line 39- Column 4 Line 2).
Lawton discloses silicone as a possible film material in Column 7 Lines 5-20, but is silent on the film being a multilaminate comprising a layer of silicone bonded to a polyester layer having the claimed Young’s moduli.
In analogous art pertaining to 3D printing, Hull teaches a film is disclosed to be polyester (per Column 5 Lines 44-62) with embodiments include a silicone antistick layer bonded thereto (per Column 15 Lines 3-8) to thus achieve anti-stick/anti-adhesion functionality.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention’s filing to use Hull’s silicone antistick layer bonded to polyester as a substitute for Lawton’s anti-adhesion film, since such a substitution would be a simple substitution of a known element to achieve the predictable result of anti-adhesion.
Regarding Claims 6-8, as the previous combination’s sheet/film includes a polyester/silicone embodiment as claimed, it is presumed that by meeting the claimed materials, the film meets the claimed Young’s modulus ranges of 100 to 1000 MPa, 400 to 700 MPa, and around 560 MPa, since It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. in re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding Claim 12, Lawton teaches a tension frame 49 to act as a sheet tensioner.
Regarding Claim 13, Lawton’s supporting frame 78 is considered a chassis with two ends comprising feet.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1 and 3-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN M OCHYLSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN M OCHYLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights