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 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/17/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 31 recites the limitation the stations are fixed to the frame yet can rotate. It is unclear how the frame can rotate while also being fixed. Clarification is required. Claims 3-21 are also rejected for depending on claim 1 and indirectly/directly including all the limitations of claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 10-14, 16-17, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben Zur (WO2018203331) in view of Menchik (US2021/0060850 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ben Zur discloses an additive manufacturing machine (pg.15 ln 21-29; figs 1A, 9) for making a part layerwise (abstract; pg. 8 ln 29) by firstly using additive manufacture to make a mold to define a space for the layer (pg. 8 ln 29-31), and secondly filling the space with a paste to make a layer of the part (pg. 8, ln 32-33), the machine comprising:
a first, mold forming, station with nozzles configured to form said mold (figure 9 left printing station with printing nozzle 81; pg. 8 ln 6),
and a second, paste dispensing, station distanced from said first station, on said frame, with a dispensing die slot for dispensing paste into said space (figure 9 right pouring state with pouring nozzles 84; pg. 8 ln 6). As for the paste material,
the machine being configured to operate on a plurality of parts simultaneously, wherein said stations are arranged around a rotating table,
Ben Zur discloses a rotating table or carousel (130) with a plurality of stations (132, 134, 136, 138) (pg. 18 line 33 – pg. 19 line 8) and tray tables (86) which are found on the carousel (figure 13).
Ben Zur does not explicitly disclose a frame, said rotating table being rotatably mounted on said frame, and wherein an outer circumference such that said outer circumference of said rotating table is configured to ride while in contact with said frame of said rotating table is supported by said frame, each part being conveyed on said rotating table along a path through respective ones of said stations and said first station being attached to said frame. However, one would look to conventional art to for a rotating table being rotatably mounted on said frame. Analogous art, Menchik, depicts a frame as depicted in 1D (see annotated figure below). An outer circumference of the rotating table is supported by the frame [0081]. Menchik further delineates each part being conveyed on said rotating table along a path through respective ones of said stations and said first station being attached to said frame (16, 18 and 32 are stations that can be rotated). Further, the annotated figure depicts the outer circumference of said rotating table is configured to ride while in contact with said frame (the outer circumference brushes against the frame). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a frame, said rotating table being rotatably mounted on said frame, and wherein a circumference of said rotating table is supported by said frame, each part being conveyed on said rotating table along a path through respective ones of said stations and said first station being attached to said frame, as taught by Menchik, into the additive manufacturing machine taught by Ben Zur for the benefit of ensuring 3D object may be printed with a pre-defined base surface to provide specific texture or properties to at least part of its bottom layer surface and then rotated or inverted for use after printing, so that the 3D printed surface that faced the base during printing now becomes the main surface of the object, and the object now has the surface qualities desired on its main, typically upper, surface. Often it is the upper surface that has the designated surface quality requirements so that in general, objects according to the present embodiments are printed upside down and subsequently inverted for use [0054].
PNG
media_image1.png
527
479
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for the rotating table is supported by said frame to rotate with respect to said frame, Menchik teaches this limitation when he discloses Tray 12 and heads 16 are optionally and preferably mounted such as to allow a relative rotary motion between tray 12 and heads 16. This can be achieved by (i) configuring tray 12 to rotate about a vertical axis 14 relative to heads 16, (ii) configuring heads 16 to rotate about vertical axis 14 relative to tray 12, or (iii) configuring both tray 12 and heads 16 to rotate about vertical axis 14 but at different rotation velocities (e.g., rotation at opposite direction). While the embodiments below are described with a particular emphasis to configuration (i) wherein the tray is a rotary tray that is configured to rotate about vertical axis 14 relative to heads 16, it is to be understood that the present application contemplates also configurations (ii) and (iii). Any one of the embodiments described herein can be adjusted to be applicable to any of configurations (ii) and (iii), and one of ordinary skills in the art, provided with the details described herein, would know how to make such adjustment [0081]. Therefore, the rotating table is supported by said frame and moves rotates in a circular manner, which reads on the limitation of said circumference to ride circumferentially on a support. As for a build tray to rotate with said rotating table, Menchik teaches this in [0081, 0086]. Furthermore, Menchik goes into detail about the movement of the trays [0086]. Additionally, Ben Zur depicts trays (138) on rotating table (13) in figure 13 (pg. 18 line 33 – pg. 19 line 8). Therefore, Menchik is teaching the tray 12 moving while the frame and everything else stands still (rotating about a vertical axis/ see annotated figure where the frame is stationary).
Applicant as amended the claims to add the stations being fixed to said frame. Menchik discloses the heads and radiation sources are preferably mounted in a frame [0072]. The textbook definition of mounted is fixed. Therefore, absent a special definition, combination of Menchik and Ben Zur reads on the applicant’s claim language of the stations being fixed to said frame.
Regarding claim 3, Ben Zur discloses the stations respectively forming bridges (figure 12 bridges 122, 124) said path between an inner side of said path and an outer side of said path and wherein said fixing is at said inner and outer sides respectively (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
760
1067
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Ben Zur discloses wherein said stations are arranged around a circumference (figure 13). Menchik also teaches said stations are arranged around a circumference in figure 1D.
Regarding claim 6, Ben Zur discloses stations are arranged such that a rotation of a part around said stations provides a whole number of completed layers for said part (pg. 9 lines 8-9 discloses the procedure is repeated as often as necessary to form a molded layer product the requisite number of layers).
Regarding claim 7, Ben Zur teaches wherein said rotating table (figure 13 carousel 130) is configured for carrying manufacturing trays between said stations (138).
Regarding claim 8, Menchik teaches wherein said rotating table (12) is connected to said frame via a central axis (14), the central axis providing rotation to said table (see figure 1D).
Regarding claim 10, Menchik teaches wherein said circumference of said table is supported vertically from said frame (see figure 1D).
Regarding claim 11, Menchik teaches wherein said circumference of said table comprises a rail (the rail/rod of 28) and said frame comprises cam (28) followers extended upwardly towards said rail, thereby to provide said vertical support [0094].
Regarding claim 12, Menchik teaches wherein said cam (28) followers are aligned thereby to securely hold said table at each station vertically (see figure 1d). Although Menchik does not explicitly disclose the cam are aligned with said station the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As per figure 1D, the cams are capable of aligning with said station (16, 32, 18).
Regarding claims 13 and 21, as for the claim limitation, at least one additional paste dispensing station, Ben Zur teaches multiple nozzles may be provided to accelerate filling speed (pg. 16 line 4) and shows multiple stations in figures 11-13 (pg. 17 lines 33+). Further, as per MPEP §2115, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the material worked upon. Therefore having additional paste dispensing station would be within one ordinary skill in the art skillset. MPEP 2144.04 states the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate a pasting station since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only route skill in the art. As for claim 21, as per MPEP §2115, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the material worked upon and would be capable of dispense past of different compositions.
Regarding claim 14, Ben Zur discloses drying station (pg. 12 line 1).
Regarding claims 16-17, Menchik teaches a sensing system (270) that allows detecting errors in the locations of the electronic components (occurring, e.g., during the placement of the components or due to movement/s of the components after placement) [0135] and fix the fabrication process [0136]. This reads on observation layer. As for the claim limitation, wherein said observation station is configured to control said machine to remove a layer found to be damaged, for said layer to be rebuilt, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Since Menchik states correct the error in the fabrication [0136] which would include removing a damaged layer.
Regarding claim 19, Ben Zur depicts moving the height of the mold (figure 12, pg. 18 lines 19+ ). As for the functional language: configured to vary the height of the mold so that different layers are of different thicknesses, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 20, Ben Zur discloses the 3D part can be manufactured from any requisite number of layers (pg. 9 lines 8-9 discloses the procedure is repeated as often as necessary to form a molded layer product the requisite number of layers). Further, as per MPEP §2114 while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben Zur (WO2018203331) in view of Menchik (US2021/0060850 A1) and further in view of Safai (US 2020/0217807 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Ben Zur and Menchik do not explicitly disclose an indexer to stop said table when said parts are aligned at a respective stations. However, analogous additive manufacturing art, Safai discloses “actuator 330, for example, the turntable, under the direction of controller 354, has stopped rotating and metal powder feeder 380 begins to deposit metal powder while laser beam 382 fuses the metal powder at the surface of object 399” [0042]. Therefore, Safai is teaching the indexer (actuator) stops the table when aligned with a station. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated disclose an indexer to stop said table when said parts are aligned at a respective stations as taught by Safai into the machine taught by Ben Zur and Menchik for the benefit of ensuring there are no defects in the printed product.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben Zur (WO2018203331) in view of Menchik (US2021/0060850 A1) and further in view of CN106141184B, herein referred to as ‘184.
Regarding claim 4, Ben Zur discloses said paste dispensing station comprises cutter following said dispensing die slot, and said cutter being configured to level said paste (pg. 5 lines 22; figure 15-16). Ben Zur is silent to a roller preceding said dispensing die slot, and the roller configured for leveling said mold to a predetermined level. However, Menchik discloses a roller preceding said dispensing die slot and the roller configured for leveling said mold to predetermined level [0072]. Both Ben Zur and Menchik are silent to the roller and the cutter being mounted at a same level. However analogous additive manufacturing art, ‘184 discloses Compacting 15 material of roller is stainless steel, and compacting 15 axis of roller is with 6 tip straight line of scraper same In plane, and the two is parallel (pg. 3 paragraph 4) for the benefit of carrying out automatic leveling (pg. 2 first paragraph under invention content). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the roller and the cutter being mounted at a same level as taught by ‘184 into the machine taught by Ben Zur and Menchik for the benefit of carrying out automatic leveling.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben Zur (WO2018203331) in view of Menchik (US2021/0060850 A1) and further in view of Riquelme (US2018/0171032 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Ben Zur and Menchik does not explicitly disclose a vacuum station. However it is conventionally well known to incorporate vacuum station in 3d printing. Analogous 3d printing art, Riquelme, discloses adding vacuum station in order to dehydrate gel [0051]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a vacuum station, as taught by Riquelme, into the machine taught by Ben Zur and Menchik for the benefit of dehydrating the production.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben Zur (WO2018203331) in view of Menchik (US2021/0060850 A1) and further in view of Ishikawa (US2021/0154744 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Ben Zur depicts wherein said stations are aligned on a linear path, the linear path (figure 14, pg. 17 lines 26-30). But does not disclose a linear conveyor. However, it is conventionally well known to include conveyor to move stations. Analogous 3d printer art, Ishikawa discloses using conveyors to move stations [0026]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a conveyor, as taught by Ishikawa, into the machine taught by Ben Zur and Menchik to efficiently move stations around.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben Zur (WO2018203331) in view of Menchik (US2021/0060850 A1) and further in view of Park et al (US 2019/0283317 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Ben Zur discloses an additive manufacturing machine (pg.15 ln 21-29; figs 1A, 9) for making a part layerwise (abstract; pg. 8 ln 29) by firstly using additive manufacture to make a mold to define a space for the layer (pg. 8 ln 29-31), and secondly filling the space with a paste to make a layer of the part (pg. 8, ln 32-33), the machine comprising:
a first, mold forming, station with nozzles configured to form said mold (figure 9 left printing station with printing nozzle 81; pg. 8 ln 6),
and a second, paste dispensing, station distanced from said first station, with a dispensing die slot for dispensing paste into said space (figure 9 right pouring state with pouring nozzles 84; pg. 8 ln 6).
Ben Zur discloses a rotating table or carousel (130) with a plurality of stations (132, 134, 136, 138) (pg. 18 line 33 – pg. 19 line 8) and multiple tray tables (86) which are found on the carousel (figure 13).
Ben Zur does not explicitly disclose a frame, said rotating table being rotatably mounted on said frame, and wherein an outer circumference of said rotating table I contact with a frame such that said frame supports said outer circumference directly, the outer circumference riding on said frame, said outer circumference thus being rotatably supported by said frame, each part being conveyed on said rotating table along a path through respective ones of said stations, wherein the machine further comprising a controlled linear Z stage to allow for making of said part on a tray along the rotating table, the linear Z stage configured to allow said part to be raised and lowered so that each layer to be fabricated is at the same height as a respective space is filled with said paste, each part being conveyed in a respective build tray, a plurality of said respective build trays being mobile along said path of said rotating table between said stations.
However, analogous art, Menchik discloses a rotating table (tray 12) (see annotated figure above). Therefore, the rotating table is supported by said frame and moves rotates in a circular manner, which reads on the limitation of said circumference to ride circumferentially on a support. As for a build tray to rotate with said rotating table, Menchik teaches this in [0081, 0086]. Furthermore, Menchik goes into detail about the movement of the trays [0086]. Further, figure 1D depicts the outer circumference of said rotating table is configured to ride while in contact with said frame (the outer circumference brushes against the frame). Additionally, Ben Zur depicts trays (138) on rotating table (13) in figure 13 (pg. 18 line 33 – pg. 19 line 8). Therefore, Menchik is teaching the tray 12 moving while the frame and everything else stands still (rotating about a vertical axis/ see annotated figure where the frame is stationary).
As for the limitation, the machine further comprising a controlled linear Z stage to allow for making of said part on a tray along the rotating table, the linear Z stage configured to allow said part to be raised and lowered so that each layer to be fabricated is at the same height, analogous art, Park et al, discloses the supply stage and fabrication unit can be elevated and lowered in the Z-direction [0036, 0073] to increase the degree of freedom of the movement of the stage and unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the machine taught by Ben Zur and Menchik to include a supply stage the can be elevated and lowered in the Z-direction, as taught by Park et al, for the benefit of allowing layer by layer fabrication at various heights.
As for the limitation the machine being configured to operate on a plurality of parts simultaneously, that each layer to be fabricated is at the same height as a respective space is filled with said paste, and thus allowing for simultaneous operation on different ones of said respective build trays in parallel, thereby to increase throughput, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114.
Applicant as amended the claims to add the stations being fixed to said frame. Menchik discloses the heads and radiation sources are preferably mounted in a frame [0072]. The textbook definition of mounted is fixed. Therefore, absent a special definition, combination of Menchik and Ben Zur reads on the applicant’s claim language of the stations being fixed to said frame. Further, it is unclear how the stations are fixed yet rotating.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Ben Zur teaches a carousel and not a rotating table. However both a carousel and a rotating table are simply circular conveyor (dictionary definition).
Applicant further argues that Ben Zur does not specifically teach two manufacturing stations in fixed positions over a rotating table which thus rotates independently of the stations. The parts rotate between fixed stations, rather than the stations rotating on a table. Examiner disagrees. First, the claim says the stations being fixed to said frame, which is what Ben Zur teaches in [0072]. Second, the it is the combination of Ben Zur and Menchik that teaches the entire limitation. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Further, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, 1). Ben Zur teaches discloses a rotating table or carousel (130) with a plurality of stations (132, 134, 136, 138) (pg. 18 line 33 – pg. 19 line 8) and tray tables (86) which are found on the carousel (figure 13) and 2.) Analogous art, Menchik, depicts a frame as depicted in 1D (see annotated figure below). An outer circumference of the rotating table is supported by the frame [0081]. Menchik further delineates each part being conveyed on said rotating table along a path through respective ones of said stations and said first station being attached to said frame (16, 18 and 32 are stations that can be rotated). Further, the annotated figure depicts the outer circumference of said rotating table is configured to ride while in contact with said frame (the outer circumference brushes against the frame). Menchik further teaches this limitation when he discloses Tray 12 and heads 16 are optionally and preferably mounted such as to allow a relative rotary motion between tray 12 and heads 16, 3.) Menchik discloses the heads and radiation sources are preferably mounted in a frame [0072]. The textbook definition of mounted is fixed. Therefore, absent a special definition, combination of Menchik and Ben Zur reads on the applicant’s claim language of the stations being fixed to said frame.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights