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 .
Continued Examination Under
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/18/2025 have been carefully and fully considered. With respect to applicant’s argument of the remarks on the USC 103 rejection which recites:
“Applicant asserts that, because Menchik and Sadusk relate to two different 3D printing technologies, they would not be compatible as far as the support materials’ mechanical properties are concerned or “weakness” issues related thereto.”
Examiner notes that in response to applicant's argument that the support materials properties in Menchik would be incompatible with the printing technology of Sadusk, 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). The combined teaching provides an expected result of printing using extrusion techniques, granular techniques, liquid resin curing techniques, and inkjet techniques. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated increase the printing methods to allow for more diverse printed objects. 3D printers are able to combine extrusion and inkjet techniques for example an inkjet printhead adding color to an extruded object that was printed. For support of this argument please view US20160228255 which discloses [0337] “lattice 1110 can be formed in any suitable manner, including, without limitation, via any suitable known or novel method involving additive manufacturing (e.g., 3D printing, sintering, laser sintering, selective laser sintering, direct metal laser sintering, selective laser melting, heat sintering, selective heat sintering, fused deposition molding, stereo-lithography, directed energy deposition, laminated object manufacturing, fused filament fabrication, robocasting, electron beam freeform, electron beam melting, digital light processing, a powder bed process, a powder bed and inkjet head 3D printing process, computer numerical control electrical discharge machining, and/or other additive manufacturing techniques), vapor deposition, molding, extrusion, sintering, welding, grinding, etching, polishing, drilling, smoothing, coupling with one or more mechanical, chemical, frictional, other suitable fasteners, laser polishing, laser radiation, heat glossing, heating, re-melting, and/or any other suitable process.”
“Applicants assert that, while Kulkarni describes braces with a triangular shape, this is not the same thing as the triangular prism shape of the support structure as required.. the braces of Kulkarni are only used to stabilize the supporting structure and accordingly cannot function as a support structure ”
Examiner notes that applicant specification describes a support structure as [0005] at least one support structure needed to support the at least one body region. Fig. 7 of Kulkarni discloses support structures (the triangular braces), this interpretation is aligned with applicants described “support structure” as the triangular braces are providing support to the part. Although the triangular braces make up a strand projection network in a part, these braces are still needed to support the at least one body region as defined in applicant’s specification.
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 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.
Claims 1, 9, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadusk et al. (US20180373227, herein Sadusk), in view of Menchik et al. (US20170173886, herein Menchik).
Regarding claim 1, Sadusk teaches A method of printing a 3D object using a 3D… printing system ([0009] Producing the object may include producing a support structure for the object, [0052] CAD slice if needed for AM printing, [0027] The AM system 170 includes an extruder 172 and can thus be referred to as a 3D extrusion printer. However, the AM system 170 can also employ one or more other additive manufacturing techniques in addition to extrusion techniques, such as granular techniques (e.g., Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) and Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS)), and liquid resin curing techniques (e.g., Stereolithography)), the method comprising: receiving a 3D digital model of a 3D object to be printed ([0007] A CAD model having a native and/or neutral format may be received); slicing the 3D digital model to generate multiple slices ([0009] modified CAD model in place of the original CAD model, including slicing the modified CAD model to create modified CAD design slice files.); identifying a slice of the multiple slices that includes a body region of the 3D object that has to be supported by a support structure ([0015] modified CAD model in place of the original CAD model, including slicing the modified CAD model to create modified CAD design slice files, [0043] Producing the object 12 may include producing a support structure 26 for the object 12, ([0044] any place where the previous slice boundary sticks out from the current slice boundary by more than a threshold amount (e.g., overhang distance is greater than 0.8 mm) for the extrusion material to be used with the 3D extrusion printer, then support is needed)) ; determining if the following set of rules is met: (i) a width of the body region in the identified slice in smaller than a specified width threshold; (ii) a length of the body region in the identified slice is larger than a specified length threshold ([0005] the second slice being below the first slice, and the distance being greater than a threshold amount defining an unsupported overhang, [0044] any place where the previous slice boundary sticks out from the current slice boundary by more than a threshold amount (e.g., overhang distance is greater than 0.8 mm) for the extrusion material to be used with the 3D extrusion printer, then support is needed, [0032] Due to the overhang, a support structure needs to be created); and (iii) a distance between the body region in the identified slice and a body region in one of the preceding slices of the multiple slices immediately below or a fabrication tray) is larger than a specified distance threshold ([0005] the second slice being below the first slice, and the distance being greater than a threshold amount defining an unsupported overhang, [0044] any place where the previous slice boundary sticks out from the current slice boundary by more than a threshold amount (e.g., overhang distance is greater than 0.8 mm) for the extrusion material to be used with the 3D extrusion printer, then support is needed); and if the set of rules is met, defining the support structure for the body region in the at least one identified slice as an improved support structure ([0044] any place where the previous slice boundary sticks out from the current slice boundary by more than a threshold amount (e.g., overhang distance is greater than 0.8 mm) for the extrusion material to be used with the 3D extrusion printer, then support is needed) (I.e. the improved support structure is interpreted as the minimum amount of support structure added, additionally the conditional limitation is interpreted as the set of rules not being met).
Sadusk does not teach … 3D inkjet printing system…and printing the 3D object with a building material and the support structure with a support material, wherein the support material is different from the building material.
Menchik teaches 3D inkjet printing system ([0006]] three-dimensional inkjet printing)…and printing the 3D object with a building material and the support structure with a support material, wherein the support material is different from the building material ([0048] the plurality of inkjet printing heads comprise at least one support material head for dispensing support material, and at least two modeling material heads for respectively dispensing at least two different modeling materials, [0133] different target locations can be occupied by different building materials. The types of building materials can be categorized into two major categories: modeling material and support material) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sadusk’s teaching of printing using extrusion techniques, granular techniques, and liquid resin curing techniques with Menchik’s teaching of printing using inkjet methods, and additive manufacturing using dispensing systems. The combined teaching provides an expected result of printing using extrusion techniques, granular techniques, liquid resin curing techniques, and inkjet techniques. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated increase the printing methods to allow for more diverse printed objects.
Regarding claim 9, Sadusk teaches … printing system for printing 3D object ([0009] Producing the object may include producing a support structure for the object, [0052] CAD slice if needed for AM printing), the system comprising: a slicing module configured to: receive a 3D digital model of a 3D object to be printed ([0007] A CAD model having a native and/or neutral format may be received); and slice the 3D digital model to generate multiple slices ([0009] modified CAD model in place of the original CAD model, including slicing the modified CAD model to create modified CAD design slice files.); and a support structure definition module configured to: identify a slice of the multiple slices that includes a body region of the 3D object that has to be supported by a support structure ([0015] modified CAD model in place of the original CAD model, including slicing the modified CAD model to create modified CAD design slice files, [0043] Producing the object 12 may include producing a support structure 26 for the object 12); determine whether the following set of rules is met ([0044] any place where the previous slice boundary sticks out from the current slice boundary by more than a threshold amount (e.g., overhang distance is greater than 0.8 mm) for the extrusion material to be used with the 3D extrusion printer, then support is needed): (i) a width of the body region in the identified slice is smaller than a specified width threshold; (ii) a length of the body region in the identified slice is larger than a specified length threshold; and (iii) a distance between the body region in the identified slice and a body region in one of preceding slices of the multiple slices immediately below or a fabrication tray is larger than a specified distance threshold ([0005] the second slice being below the first slice, and the distance being greater than a threshold amount defining an unsupported overhang, [0044] any place where the previous slice boundary sticks out from the current slice boundary by more than a threshold amount (e.g., overhang distance is greater than 0.8 mm) for the extrusion material to be used with the 3D extrusion printer, then support is needed, [0032] Due to the overhang, a support structure needs to be created); and if the set of rules is met, define the support structure for the body region in the identified slice as an improved support structure ([0044] For a slice that has an overhang from a previous slice, toolpaths for shell supports and infill supports are generated… any place where the previous slice boundary sticks out from the current slice boundary by more than a threshold amount (e.g., overhang distance is greater than 0.8 mm) for the extrusion material to be used with the 3D extrusion printer, then support is needed, [0056] using the minimum amount of support structure). (I.e. the improved support structure is interpreted as the minimum amount of support structure added, additionally the conditional limitation is interpreted as the set of rules not being met).
Sadusk does not teach 3D inkjet…3D inkjet printing system… and a printing unit, configured to: print the 3D object with a building material; and print the support structure with a support material that is different from the building material.
Menchik teaches 3D inkjet… 3D inkjet printing system ([0006]] three-dimensional inkjet printing) and a printing unit, configured to: print the 3D object with a building material; and print the support structure with a support material that is different from the building material ([0048] the plurality of inkjet printing heads comprise at least one support material head for dispensing support material, and at least two modeling material heads for respectively dispensing at least two different modeling materials, [0133] different target locations can be occupied by different building materials. The types of building materials can be categorized into two major categories: modeling material and support material) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sadusk’s teaching of printing using extrusion techniques, granular techniques, and liquid resin curing techniques with Menchik’s teaching of printing using inkjet methods, and additive manufacturing using dispensing systems. The combined teaching provides an expected result of printing using extrusion techniques, granular techniques, liquid resin curing techniques, and inkjet techniques. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated increase the printing methods to allow for more diverse printed objects.
Regarding claim 21, The combination of Sadusk, and Menchik The method of claim 1,
Menchik further teaches wherein the building material has stronger mechanical properties than the support material ([0048] the plurality of inkjet printing heads comprise at least one support material head for dispensing support material, and at least two modeling material heads for respectively dispensing at least two different modeling materials, [0133] different target locations can be occupied by different building materials. The types of building materials can be categorized into two major categories: modeling material and support material, [0134] The support material serves as a supporting matrix for supporting the object or object parts during the fabrication process and/or other purposes, e.g., providing hollow or porous objects. The support material is preferably water dispersible to facilitate its removal once the buildup of object is completed. The support material is preferably dispensed in liquid form and is curable by radiation, such as, but not limited to, electromagnetic radiation (e.g., ultraviolet radiation, visible light radiation, infrared radiation), and electron beam radiation. Also contemplated are support materials which comprise a wax component, and, optionally, also a viscosity modifying component, [0154] in this example, the internal regions may be fabricated of a material which lacks mechanical strength, such as a gel or liquid, but having other desirable properties such as being easily removable, e.g., in order to create a hollow object, or easily burnt without leaving ash or other traces, [0284] Suitable building materials can include compositions which comprise acrylic or methacrylic functionalities, which are UV polymerizable by radical mechanism ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sadusk’s teaching of 3D printing using support structures with Menchik’s teaching of using stronger build material than support material. The combined teaching provides an expected result of 3D printing using support structures, and having the build material stronger than the support material. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the efficiency of the removal process for support structures as disclosed by Menchik [0154] being easily removable, e.g., in order to create a hollow object, or easily burnt without leaving ash or other traces.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Sadusk and Menchik teach The system of claim 9,
Menchick further teaches wherein the building material has stronger mechanical properties than the support material ([0048] the plurality of inkjet printing heads comprise at least one support material head for dispensing support material, and at least two modeling material heads for respectively dispensing at least two different modeling materials, [0133] different target locations can be occupied by different building materials. The types of building materials can be categorized into two major categories: modeling material and support material, [0134] The support material serves as a supporting matrix for supporting the object or object parts during the fabrication process and/or other purposes, e.g., providing hollow or porous objects. The support material is preferably water dispersible to facilitate its removal once the buildup of object is completed. The support material is preferably dispensed in liquid form and is curable by radiation, such as, but not limited to, electromagnetic radiation (e.g., ultraviolet radiation, visible light radiation, infrared radiation), and electron beam radiation. Also contemplated are support materials which comprise a wax component, and, optionally, also a viscosity modifying component, [0154] in this example, the internal regions may be fabricated of a material which lacks mechanical strength, such as a gel or liquid, but having other desirable properties such as being easily removable, e.g., in order to create a hollow object, or easily burnt without leaving ash or other traces, [0284] Suitable building materials can include compositions which comprise acrylic or methacrylic functionalities, which are UV polymerizable by radical mechanism ).
Claims 3, 7, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadusk et al. (US20180373227, herein Sadusk), in view of Menchik et al. (US20170173886), in further view of Rowe et al. (US20210046694A1).
Regarding claim 3, The combination of Sadusk, and Menchik, The method of claim 1, wherein defining the support structure for the body region in the identified slice as an improved support structure comprises: selecting a subset of preceding slices of the multiple slices that precede the at least one identified slice, wherein each of the slices of the subset of preceding slices has to include at least one support region to be filled with a supporting material when printing the at least one 3D object, to thereby form the at least one support structure needed to support the at least one body region in the at least one identified slice (Sadusk, [0044] For a slice that has an overhang from a previous slice, toolpaths for shell supports and infill supports are generated… any place where the previous slice boundary sticks out from the current slice boundary by more than a threshold amount (e.g., overhang distance is greater than 0.8 mm) for the extrusion material to be used with the 3D extrusion printer, then support is needed, [0056] using the minimum amount of support structure, [0055] more than one layer (e.g., three layers) of solid infill can be used above each overhang to provide a good platform on which traditional infill can be added in higher layer ).;
The combination of Sadusk, and Menchik, do not teach and defining at least one support region for each slice of the subset of preceding slices such that a width of the at least one support region in the subset of preceding slices gradually increases between a last slice in the subset that is adjacent to the at least one identified slice and a first slice in the subset.
Rowe teaches and defining at least one support region for each slice of the subset of preceding slices such that a width of the at least one support region in the subset of preceding slices gradually increases between a last slice in the subset that is adjacent to the at least one identified slice and a first slice in the subset (Fig. 16A, [0123] Turning to FIG. 16A, the structure 200 is shown as optionally including a plurality of layers 220 stacked in the z direction. The layers 220 are shown as each including a support segment 213. Each support segment 213 can include a first portion E on the base section 208, and a second portion F overhanging or extending beyond the base section 208. The second portions F of the support segments 213 are shown as collectively forming the junction overhang section 230.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sadusk’s teaching of attaching support structures for 3D printing using slices of a 3D model with Rowe’s teaching of preceding slices width gradually increasing. The combined teaching provides an expected result of attaching support structure for 3D printing where the preceding slices width gradually increasing. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the printing process as shown by Rowe “improved additive manufacturing processes that have high efficiency and are capable of making joint structures in a simple manner”.
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Sadusk, and Menchik, teach The method of claim 1, wherein the set of rules further comprises; (Sadusk, [0044] any place where the previous slice boundary sticks out from the current slice boundary by more than a threshold amount (e.g., overhang distance is greater than 0.8 mm) for the extrusion material to be used with the 3D extrusion printer, then support is needed) comprises:
The combination of Sadusk, Suresh, Menchik, and Voris do not teach there is no body region in a slice that is subsequent to the identified slice, that is wider than the body region in the identified slice.
Rowe teaches there is no body region in a slice that is subsequent to the identified slice, that is wider than the body region in the identified slice. (Fig. 16C, [0134] FIG. 16C shows the structure 200 as including only the continuing section 250 on the linking section 210 for illustrative purposes only, the structure 200 can optionally include the branch overhang section 290 (shown in FIG. 14A) and/or the medium segment 203 (shown in FIG. 14B-14C), without limitation. The continuing section 250, the branch overhang section 290 and/or the medium segment 203)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sadusk’s teaching of attaching support structures for 3D printing using slices of a 3D model with Rowe’s teaching of no body region of a slice subsequent is wider. The combined teaching provides an expected result of attaching support structure for 3D printing where no body region of a slice subsequent is wider. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the printing process as shown by Rowe “improved additive manufacturing processes that have high efficiency and are capable of making joint structures in a simple manner”.
Regarding claim 11, The combination of Sadusk, and Menchik, The system of claim 9, wherein in order to define the support structure for the body region in the identified slice as an improved support structure, the support structure definition module is configured to: select a subset of preceding slices of the multiple slices that precede the at least one identified slice, wherein each of the slices of the subset of preceding slices has to include at least one support region to be filled with the support material when printing the at least one 3D object, to thereby form the at least one support structure needed to support the at least one body region in the at least one identified slice (Sadusk, [0044] For a slice that has an overhang from a previous slice, toolpaths for shell supports and infill supports are generated… any place where the previous slice boundary sticks out from the current slice boundary by more than a threshold amount (e.g., overhang distance is greater than 0.8 mm) for the extrusion material to be used with the 3D extrusion printer, then support is needed, [0056] using the minimum amount of support structure, [0055] more than one layer (e.g., three layers) of solid infill can be used above each overhang to provide a good platform on which traditional infill can be added in higher layer ).;
The combination of Sadusk, and Menchik, do not teach and define at least one support region for each slice of the subset of preceding slices such that a width of the at least one support region in the subset of preceding slices gradually increases between a last slice in the subset that is adjacent to the at least one identified slice and a first slice in the subset.
Rowe teaches and define at least one support region for each slice of the subset of preceding slices such that a width of the at least one support region in the subset of preceding slices gradually increases between a last slice in the subset that is adjacent to the at least one identified slice and a first slice in the subset (Fig. 16A, [0123] Turning to FIG. 16A, the structure 200 is shown as optionally including a plurality of layers 220 stacked in the z direction. The layers 220 are shown as each including a support segment 213. Each support segment 213 can include a first portion E on the base section 208, and a second portion F overhanging or extending beyond the base section 208. The second portions F of the support segments 213 are shown as collectively forming the junction overhang section 230.).
Regarding claim 15, The combination of Sadusk, and Menchik, The system of claim 9, wherein the set of rules further comprises, (Sadusk,[0044] any place where the previous slice boundary sticks out from the current slice boundary by more than a threshold amount (e.g., overhang distance is greater than 0.8 mm) for the extrusion material to be used with the 3D extrusion printer, then support is needed),
The combination of Sadusk, and Menchik, do not teach (iv) there is no body region in a slice that is subsequent to the identified slice, that is wider than the body region in the identified slice.
Rowe teaches (iv) there is no body region in a slice that is subsequent to the identified slice, that is wider than the body region in the identified slice. (Fig. 16C, [0134] FIG. 16C shows the structure 200 as including only the continuing section 250 on the linking section 210 for illustrative purposes only, the structure 200 can optionally include the branch overhang section 290 (shown in FIG. 14A) and/or the medium segment 203 (shown in FIG. 14B-14C), without limitation. The continuing section 250, the branch overhang section 290 and/or the medium segment 203).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadusk et al. (US20180373227, herein Sadusk), in view of Menchik et al. (US20170173886), in view of Kulkarni et al. (US20030178750, herein Kulkarni)
Regarding claim 17, The combination of Sadusk, and Menchik, The method of claim 1,
The combination of Sadusk, and Menchik, do not teach wherein the improved support structure has a triangular prism shape.
Kulkarni teaches wherein the improved support structure has a triangular prism shape ([0033] FIG. 7 is a diagrammatic illustration of triangular braces that are used to reinforce the entire strand-projection network in a part) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sadusk’s teaching of attaching support structures for 3D printing using slices of a 3D model with Kulkarni’s teaching of the support structures having a triangular prism shape. The combined teaching provides an expected result of attaching support structures in the shape of triangular prism for 3D printing . Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to “further improving the build object appearance and ease of making certain object shapes” as shown by Kulkarni [0005] .
Regarding claim 18, The combination of Sadusk, and Menchik, The method of claim 1, wherein the improved support structure has a triangular prism shape.
The combination of Sadusk, and Menchik, do not teach wherein the improved support structure has a triangular prism shape.
Kulkarni teaches wherein the improved support structure has a triangular prism shape ([0033] FIG. 7 is a diagrammatic illustration of triangular braces that are used to reinforce the entire strand-projection network in a part) .
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadusk et al. (US20180373227, herein Sadusk), in view of Menchik et al. (US20170173886), in further view Iverson et al. (US20140297014A1).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Sadusk and Menchik teach The method of claim 1, wherein slicing the 3D digital model to generate multiple slices comprises (Sadusk, [0005] first slice of a three dimensional (3D) model of a 3D object to be manufactured by a 3D extrusion printer having a 3D print bead width, the perimeter corresponding to a first boundary of the 3D model for the first slice)
Menchik further teaches … inkjet ([0006]] three-dimensional inkjet printing)
The combination of Sadusk and Menchik do not teach generating a 3D digital dataset with a 3D digital dataset resolution that is coarser than a predetermined resolution of the 3D … printing system
Iverson teaches generating a 3D digital dataset with a 3D digital dataset resolution that is coarser than a predetermined resolution of the 3D … printing system ([0005] To speed up the process of model building and slicing, 3D meshes are often simplified and reduced according to a polycount (e.g., a number of polygons). This simplification reduces the overall fidelity of the model compared to an original representation)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iverson’s teaching of with Iverson’s teaching of reducing the polycount of a 3D mesh slice. The combined teaching provides an expected result of slicing a model to generate slices reducing polycount in an inkjet printing system. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to “speed up the process of model building and slicing” as described by Iverson [0005].
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Sadusk and Menchik teach The system of claim 9, wherein the slicing module is further configured to (Sadusk, [0005] first slice of a three dimensional (3D) model of a 3D object to be manufactured by a 3D extrusion printer having a 3D print bead width, the perimeter corresponding to a first boundary of the 3D model for the first slice)
The combination of Sadusk and Menchik do not teach generate a 3D digital dataset with a 3D digital dataset resolution that is coarser than a predetermined resolution of the 3D … printing system
Iverson teaches generate a 3D digital dataset with a 3D digital dataset resolution that is coarser than a predetermined resolution of the 3D … printing system ([0005] To speed up the process of model building and slicing, 3D meshes are often simplified and reduced according to a polycount (e.g., a number of polygons). This simplification reduces the overall fidelity of the model compared to an original representation)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Courter (US20180240263) discloses the part and support materials dispensed via inkjet technology.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVONNE T FOLLANSBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-0634. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 1:00pm - 9:00pm.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached on (571) 272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YVONNE TRANG FOLLANSBEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117