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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seidler et al (US 10,576,725).
Regarding claim 12, Seidler discloses a three-dimensional object manufacturing method, comprising:
molding a first three-dimensional object (Fig. 3 #116 forming a first engineered-component), a second three-dimensional object (Fig. 3 #120 forming a second engineered-component) and a first support part (Fig. 3 #119 Col. 5 lines 27-33 ---"Step 119, FORM SECOND SUPPORT-STRUCTURES, includes forming a second plurality of support-structures 36 by depositing a third plurality of layers of the material onto the formed first engineered-component 26, wherein the second plurality of support-structures 36 are interposed between the first engineered-component 26 and a second engineered-component 30 as illustrated in FIG. 2.”) for coupling the first and second three-dimensional objects at mutually different positions on a base plate by an additive manufacturing;
and separating the first three-dimensional object, the second three-dimensional object, the first support part and the base plate from each other (Fig. 3 #122 removing the support-structures and #123 removing the second support-structures; Alternatively, this limitation can be 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 (Fig. 3 #122 removing the support-structures and #123 removing the second support-structures; Alternatively, this limitation can be performed by the operator), wherein:
the first and second three-dimensional objects have parts overlapping each other when viewed in a stacking direction of the first and second three-dimensional objects (Shown in the figure below),
and the first support part (Fig. 2 #36 second plurality of support-structures) is provided between the first and second three-dimensional objects in the stacking direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
584
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidler et al (US 10,576,725) in view of Murao et al (US 2018/0169757).
Regarding claim 1, Seidler discloses a three-dimensional object manufacturing method, comprising:
molding a first three-dimensional object (Fig. 3 #116 forming a first engineered-component), a second three-dimensional object (Fig. 3 #120 forming a second engineered-component) and a first support part (Fig. 3 #119 Col. 5 lines 27-33 ---"Step 119, FORM SECOND SUPPORT-STRUCTURES, includes forming a second plurality of support-structures 36 by depositing a third plurality of layers of the material onto the formed first engineered-component 26, wherein the second plurality of support-structures 36 are interposed between the first engineered-component 26 and a second engineered-component 30 as illustrated in FIG. 2.”) for coupling the first and second three-dimensional objects at mutually different positions on a base plate by an additive manufacturing;
and separating the first three-dimensional object, the second three-dimensional object, the first support part and the base plate from each other (Fig. 3 #122 removing the support-structures and #123 removing the second support-structures; Alternatively, this limitation can be 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 (Fig. 3 #122 removing the support-structures and #123 removing the second support-structures; Alternatively, this limitation can be performed by the operator);
wherein the molding molds a second support part for coupling the first three-dimensional object and the base plate (Fig. 3 #118 forming support-structure; Col. 5 lines 12-26 ---" Step 118, FORM SUPPORT-STRUCTURES, includes forming a plurality of support-structures 28 distinct from the first engineered-component 26 by depositing a second plurality of layers of the material onto the build-platform 24 and solidifying the second plurality of layers. Step 118 is preferably performed simultaneously with step 116 (i.e. forming the first engineered-component) as illustrated in FIG. 3. The plurality of support-structures 28 may be formed of the same material as the engineered-components 12, or may be formed of a different material that may be compatible with the engineered-components 12. The plurality of support-structures 28 may originate at the build platform 24 and may surround the first engineered-component 26 and may extend beyond the first engineered-component 26, as illustrated in FIG. 2.”).
However, Seidler does not explicitly disclose wherein the rigidity of the second 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 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 Seidler by incorporating the rigidity of the second support part being higher than that 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, Seidler in view of Murao teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Seidler 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 (Fig. 3 #122 removing the support-structures and #123 removing the second support-structures; Alternatively, this limitation can be performed by the operator).
Regarding claim 3, Seidler in view of Murao teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Seidler 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 (Fig. 3 #122 removing the support-structures and #123 removing the second support-structures; Alternatively, this limitation can be performed by the operator).
Regarding claim 4, Seidler in view of Murao teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Seidler 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, 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 (Col. 3 lines 34-67 and Col. 4 lines 1-24).
Regarding claim 9, Seidler in view of Murao teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and 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.
Regarding claim 10, Seidler 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.
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 Seidler 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) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidler et al (US 10,576,725) 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, Seidler in view of Murao teaches the 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 Seidler 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, Seidler 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 Seidler 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 Seidler 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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidler et al (US 10,576,725) in view of El-Siblani et al (US 2009/0130449).
Regarding claim 11, Seidler discloses a three-dimensional object manufacturing method, comprising:
molding a first three-dimensional object (Fig. 3 #116 forming a first engineered-component), a second three-dimensional object (Fig. 3 #120 forming a second engineered-component) and a first support part (Fig. 3 #119 Col. 5 lines 27-33 ---"Step 119, FORM SECOND SUPPORT-STRUCTURES, includes forming a second plurality of support-structures 36 by depositing a third plurality of layers of the material onto the formed first engineered-component 26, wherein the second plurality of support-structures 36 are interposed between the first engineered-component 26 and a second engineered-component 30 as illustrated in FIG. 2.”) for coupling the first and second three-dimensional objects at mutually different positions on a base plate by an additive manufacturing;
and separating the first three-dimensional object, the second three-dimensional object, the first support part and the base plate from each other (Fig. 3 #122 removing the support-structures and #123 removing the second support-structures; Alternatively, this limitation can be 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 (Fig. 3 #122 removing the support-structures and #123 removing the second support-structures; Alternatively, this limitation can be performed by the operator);
wherein the molding molds a second support part for coupling the first three-dimensional object and the base plate (Fig. 3 #118 forming support-structure; Col. 5 lines 12-26 ---" Step 118, FORM SUPPORT-STRUCTURES, includes forming a plurality of support-structures 28 distinct from the first engineered-component 26 by depositing a second plurality of layers of the material onto the build-platform 24 and solidifying the second plurality of layers. Step 118 is preferably performed simultaneously with step 116 (i.e. forming the first engineered-component) as illustrated in FIG. 3. The plurality of support-structures 28 may be formed of the same material as the engineered-components 12, or may be formed of a different material that may be compatible with the engineered-components 12. The plurality of support-structures 28 may originate at the build platform 24 and may surround the first engineered-component 26 and may extend beyond the first engineered-component 26, as illustrated in FIG. 2.”).
However, Seidler does not disclose an energy density of the beam for molding the second support part is higher than that 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 that of 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.
Conclusion
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
/CHRIS Q LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights