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
Claims 14-29 are pending. Claims 23-25 and 27 have been withdrawn. Claims 14, 26, and 28-29 have been amended. Claims 26, 28, and 29 depend from previously canceled claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 26, 28, and 29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 26, 28, and 29 depend from claim 13, which was canceled in a preliminary amendment. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 14-16, 20-22, 26, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uckelmann (US 2013/0108726).
Regarding claim 14, Uckelmann discloses a system for manufacturing assembly units (abstract, [0003], Fig. 7), comprising: a component platform that is movably situated in a conveying direction (endless conveyor belt 620, [0233], Fig. 7); at least one layering unit configured to apply a layer (coating devices 630a-d, [0235], Fig. 7); and at least one irradiation unit (lasers 640a-d, 0237], Fig. 7), situated downstream from the layering unit in the conveying direction of the component platform configured to selectively irradiate the layer for a generative assembly of the layer ([0235-38], Fig. 7); and several assembly unit carriers situated on the component platform (substrate plate stacks 612a-e, [0234-35], Fig. 7), each of the assembly unit carriers being configured as a plate-shaped carrier (substrate plate stacks 512a-d and 612a-e are plate-shaped, [0234-35], Figs. 6-7; “plate-shaped” is interpreted as at least including approximately flat shapes that are thinner than they are wide) to accommodate at least one base component of an assembly unit to be produced (layer by layer assembly on each to completion, [0238-40])), on whose surface the generative assembly of the at least one layer of the assembly unit takes place (layer by layer assembly on each to completion, [0238-40]), wherein the at least one base component is arranged in rows along the conveying direction and in a transverse direction (substrate plate stacks 512a-d shown in two rows and two columns, [0231], Fig. 6; combining the teachings of [0231], Fig. 6 with [0234-35], it would have been obvious to have plate stacks in rows and columns relative to the conveying direction).
Regarding claim 15, Uckelmann discloses wherein the assembly unit carriers are situated on the component platform in the conveying direction one after another and/or perpendicularly to the conveying direction (situated in the conveying direction, right to left, [0238], Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 16, Uckelmann discloses wherein the system is an in-line system including a placement device configured to place the assembly unit carriers on the component platform (robot arm 1040 places substrate plate stacks, [0225]), and a removing device configured to take the assembly unit carriers off the component platform (robot arm 1040 removes substrate plate stacks, [0228]).
Regarding claim 19, Uckelmann discloses wherein in addition to the at least one layering unit and the at least one irradiation unit (coating devices 630a-d, [0235], Fig. 7; lasers 640a-d, 0237], Fig. 7), at least one further processing station is situated along a conveyance path of the assembly unit carriers (suction station downstream on conveyor belt 520, [0240], Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 20, Uckelmann discloses wherein the at least one further processing station is a cleaning device (suction station cleans powder from the object, [0240], Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 21, Uckelmann discloses wherein at least the at least one layering unit and the at least one irradiation unit form a module-like constructional unit (pairs of working cycles mean each coating and following laser unit [see arrangement in Fig. 7] form a module-like constructional unit, [0242], Fig. 7; this interpretation is consistent with the use of “module for designing constructional unit” as used on p.10 of Applicant’s disclosure).
Regarding claim 22, Uckelmann discloses wherein the system includes multiple layering units situated in the conveying direction of the assembly unit carriers at different levels with regard to one another (vertically staggered height arrangement, [0236], Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 26, Uckelmann discloses wherein the system is configured to manufacture circuit configurations or cooling devices as the assembly unit (production of board for printed circuits, [0156]; see also abstract teaches construction of an individual geometry, this would include the capacity for producing a simple panel fan which would be a cooling device; the scope of this claim includes a system capable of such construction, and thus includes the teachings of Uckelmann (separately from the board for printed circuits in [0156]).
Regarding claim 29, Uckelmann discloses a processing station situated along a conveyance path along which the component platform is movable and with which the generatively assembled layers are cleanable (suction station which is capable of cleaning by removing powder from the object, [0240], Fig. 7).
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.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uckelmann (US 2013/0108726) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Patel (US 2018/0141275).
Regarding claim 17, Uckelmann discloses the system includes a placement device configured to place the assembly unit carriers on the component platform (robot arm 1040 places substrate plate stacks, [0225]) and a removing device configured to take the assembly unit carriers off the component platform (robot arm 1040 removes substrate plate stacks, [0228]). Uckelmann teaches a system substantially as claimed. Uckelmann does not disclose wherein the system is a carousel-type system, wherein the component platform is rotatable about an axis.
However, in the same field of endeavor of a production line for additive manufacturing, moving platforms to various stations (abstract), Patel teaches wherein the system is a carousel-type system, wherein the component platform is rotatable about an axis ([0182-90], Figs. 6-8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Uckelmann to have a carousel type system because [0172] of Patel teaches that conveyors can be linear like Uckelmann’s, or cyclic and rotate, performing the same conveyance with stations adding powder layers and solidifying (see Patel [0182-90], Figs. 6-8)).
Regarding claim 18, Uckelmann in view of Patel wherein the assembly unit carriers are situated on the component platform so that they may pivot about an axis of the assembly unit carriers (as modified, plural build modules with respective cavities rotate (pivot) around a central axis, Patel [0182], Figs. 6-8).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uckelmann (US 2013/0108726) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Houben (US 2019/0224919).
Regarding claim 28, Uckelmann teaches a system substantially as claimed. Uckelmann does not disclose further comprising a processing station situated along a conveyance path along which the component platform is movable and with which the generatively assembled layers are surface processesable.
However, in the same field of endeavor of a production line for additive manufacturing, moving platforms to various stations (abstract), Houben teaches further comprising a processing station situated along a conveyance path along which the component platform is movable and with which the generatively assembled layers are surface processesable (conveyed to an additional station for surface treatment, [0079]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Uckelmann to include the surface treatment stations of Houben on the conveyance because [0079] of Houben teaches that many products need such further processing and [0079] teaches a way to do so with a conveyor for the same technical context.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 27, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended subject matter is not taught in the prior art, but does not explain why. This argument is not persuasive for the reasons stated above regarding the teachings of the amended subject matter.
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 NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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 Xiao 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.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744