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
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 12/22/2025. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 1 and 11 has/have been amended; claim(s) 12 has/have been cancelled and no new claim(s) has/have been added. Thus, claims 1-4 and 7-11 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanchet et al (US 2018/0319077) in view of Murao et al (US 2018/0169757).
Regarding claim 1, Blanchet discloses a three-dimensional object manufacturing method, comprising:
molding a first three-dimensional object, a second three-dimensional object, a first support part and a second support part on a base plate by an additive manufacturing (Shown in the figure below),
wherein the first three-dimensional object is molded on a first area of the base plate (Shown in the figure below), wherein the second three-dimensional object is molded on a second area of the base plate (Shown in the figure below), wherein the second area is at a different location of the base plate than the first area when viewed in a direction parallel to an upper surface of the base plate (Shown in the figure below), wherein the first three-dimensional object is arranged at a distance from the second three-dimensional object in the direction parallel to the upper surface of the base plate (Shown in the figure below), wherein the first support part is a part for coupling the first three-dimensional object and the second three-dimensional object (Shown in the figure below);
and separating the first three-dimensional object, the second three-dimensional object, the first support part and the base plate from each other (Abstract ---"The component is separated from the support and the local supporting element after the manufacturing step by breaking of the connecting regions.”; Separating is performed by the operator.);
wherein the separating separates the first and second three-dimensional objects from each other by dividing the first support part after separating at least one of the first and second three- dimensional objects from the base plate (Abstract ---"The component is separated from the support and the local supporting element after the manufacturing step by breaking of the connecting regions.”; Separating is performed by the operator and the order is chosen by the operator.), wherein the molding molds a second support part for coupling the first three-dimensional object and the first area of the base plate (Shown in the figure below); wherein the molding molds a third support part for coupling the second three-dimensional object and the second area of the base plate (Shown in the figure below),
PNG
media_image1.png
392
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Blanchet does not teach wherein the rigidity of the second support part is higher than that of the first support part, wherein the rigidity of the third support part is higher than that of the first support part.
Nonetheless, Murao in the same field of endeavor being additive manufacturing, teaches wherein the rigidity of the second support part (Fig. 3 #31 first high-density support portion; higher density contributes to higher rigidity) is higher than that of the first support part (Fig. 3 #32 low-density support portion; lower density contributes to lower rigidity) and the wherein the rigidity of the third support part (Fig. 3 #31 second high-density support portion; higher density contributes to higher rigidity) is higher than that of the first support part (Fig. 3 #32 low-density support portion; lower density contributes to lower rigidity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Blanchet by incorporating the rigidity of the second and third support parts being higher than the rigidity of the first support part for the benefit of higher mechanical strength and the thermal conductivity than that of the first support part.
Regarding claim 2, Blanchet in view of Murao teaches the manufacturing method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Blanchet teaches wherein: the separating separates the first and second three-dimensional objects from each other by dividing the first support part after separating the first and second three-dimensional objects from the base plate (Abstract ---"The component is separated from the support and the local supporting element after the manufacturing step by breaking of the connecting regions.”; Separating is performed by the operator and the order is chosen by the operator.).
Regarding claim 3, Blanchet in view of Murao teaches the manufacturing method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Blanchet teaches wherein: the separating separates the second three-dimensional object from the base plate after separating the first three-dimensional object from the base plate and separating the first and second three-dimensional objects by dividing the first support part (Abstract ---"The component is separated from the support and the local supporting element after the manufacturing step by breaking of the connecting regions.”; Separating is performed by the operator and the order is chosen by the operator.).
Regarding claim 4, Blanchet in view of Murao teaches the manufacturing method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Blanchet teaches wherein: the molding includes forming a powder layer by laying a metal powder on the base plate, melting the powder layer by irradiating a beam to a predetermined region of the powder layer, and solidifying the melted powder layer ([0005] lines 8-12 ---" The laser sintering technique consists in manufacturing the component layer by layer, by stacking the layers of powder, which are consolidated and fused on top of one another by the laser beam, in a stacking direction.”),
and the first three-dimensional object, the second three-dimensional object and the first support part are molded at mutually different positions on the base plate by repeatedly performing the forming, the melting, and the solidifying (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
392
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanchet et al (US 2018/0319077) in view of Murao et al (US 2018/0169757) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Cosandier et al (US 2020/0240462).
Regarding claim 7, Blanchet in view of Murao teaches the manufacturing method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein: the first support part includes a plurality of first plate-like parts provided to cross each other.
Nonetheless, Cosandier in the same field of endeavor being additive manufacturing, teaches wherein: the first support part includes a plurality of first plate-like parts (Fig. 5 #54 and 56 two blades) provided to cross each other.
It would have been have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Blanchet in view of Murao by incorporating the crossed plate-like structure of the first support as taught by Cosandier for the benefit of enhancing the centre shift performance of the pivot as well as the out-of-plane stiffness.
Regarding claim 8, Blanchet in view of Murao and Cosandier teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 7), Murao teaches wherein: the number of the second parts (Fig. 3 #31 high-density support portion) is more than that of the first parts (Fig. 3 #32 low-density support portion) (The density of support portions contribute to the number of supports. The more individual supports combined, the more the density increases).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Blanchet in view of Murao and Cosandier by incorporating the number of second supports being more than the number of first supports for the benefit of higher mechanical strength and the thermal conductivity than that of the first support part.
Furthermore, Cosandier teaches the second support part includes a plurality of second plate-like parts (Fig. 9 #s 102 and 104 cylindrical sleeve).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Blanchet in view of Murao and Cosandier by incorporating the second support part including a plurality of second plate-like parts for the benefit of allowing the manufacture of at least two flexible elements arranged across one another.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanchet et al (US 2018/0319077) in view of Murao et al (US 2018/0169757) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Seidler et al (US 10,576,725).
Regarding claim 9, Blanchet in view of Murao teaches the manufacturing method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein: the first support part includes three or more first rod-like parts provided along mutually different directions.
Nonetheless, Seidler teaches wherein: the first support part includes three or more first rod-like parts (Fig. 2 #36 second plurality of support-structures) provided along mutually different directions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first support part including three or more first rod-like parts, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Blanchet in view of Murao.
Regarding claim 10, Blanchet in view of Murao teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 9), and Seidler teaches wherein: the second support part (Fig. 2 #36 second plurality of support-structures) includes a plurality of second rod-like parts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first support part including three or more first rod-like parts, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Blanchet in view of Murao.
Furthermore, Murao teaches the number of the second parts (Fig. 3 #31 high-density support portion) is more than that of the first parts (Fig. 3 #32 low-density support portion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Blanchet in view of Murao by incorporating the number of second parts being more than that of the first parts for the benefit of higher mechanical strength and the thermal conductivity than that of the first support part.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanchet et al (US 2018/0319077) in view of Murao et al (US 2018/0169757) and El-Siblani et al (US 2009/0130449).
Regarding claim 11, Blanchet in view of Murao discloses a three-dimensional object manufacturing method according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above), but does not disclose wherein an energy density of the beam for molding the second support part is higher than an energy density of the beam for molding the first support part, and wherein an energy density of the beam for molding the third support part is higher than the energy density of the beam for molding the first support part.
Nonetheless, El-Siblani in the same field of endeavor as additive manufacturing, teaches an energy density of the beam for molding the second support part is higher than the beam for molding the first support part ([0008] ---" In an alternative embodiment directed to a system where different first and second materials are to be solidified, there is provided a process for producing a three-dimensional object, comprising: providing a first material to be solidified for generating at least a part of a desired three-dimensional object structure, the material comprising a filler and a binder; providing a second material, different from said first material, to be solidified as another part of the desired three-dimensional object structure or as an auxiliary support structure; solidifying said first and second materials by means of electromagnetic radiation and/or synergistic stimulation delivered selectively to respectively defined areas or volumes of said first and second materials; wherein energy densities of electromagnetic radiation and/or synergistic stimulation are varied between said respectively defined areas or volumes of said first and second materials for solidification.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Seidler by incorporating the variation of energy density for respectively defined areas of the first and second materials as taught by El-Siblani for the benefit of free-forming three-dimensional objects having unique properties as well as products derived therefrom.
However, Blanchet in view of Murao and El-Siblani does not teach an energy density of the beam for molding the third support part is higher than the energy density of the beam for molding the first support part.
In spite of that, the second support and the third support are structurally the same. Since the second support has a higher rigidity that the first support, it follows that the third support will have a higher rigidity that the first support.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have an energy density of the beam for molding the third support part being higher than the energy density of the beam for molding the first support part, since the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 9-10 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 JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOE E MILLS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights