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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-19, in the reply filed on 28 November 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 28 November 2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Napadensky et al. (US Serial No. 2010/0191360), in view of Gothait et al. (US Serial No. 2016/0243619).
Regarding claim 1, 2, and 18; Napadensky et al. teaches a system for solid freeform fabrication comprising a plurality of dispensing heads (printing heads), a building material supply apparatus configured to supply a plurality of building materials to the fabrication apparatus, and a control unit configured for controlling the fabrication apparatus and a control unit configured for controlling the fabrication apparatus and the supply apparatus based on an operation mode selected from a plurality of predetermined operation modes [abs].
FIG. 1 illustrates a system 10 for solid freeform fabrication of one or more objects 12, wherein system 10 comprises a solid freeform fabrication apparatus 14 having a plurality of dispensing heads 21. Each head preferably comprises one or more nozzle arrays 22, through which a building material 24 is dispensed. Apparatus 14 is a three-dimensional printing apparatus, in which case dispensing heads 21 are printing heads, and the building material is dispensed via inkjet technology. Napadensky et al. teaches the apparatus has a plurality of inkjet printing heads (21), each having a circuit for controllably dispensing building materials (50, 52), a tray (30), a radiation source (curing device, 26) [0167; Fig1a]. Napadensky et al. teaches the radiation source (26) can comprise one or more radiation sources, for example an ultraviolet or visible or infrared lamp (i.e. heating system), or electron beam source [0176-0177]. The control unit is separated from said building space.
PNG
media_image1.png
618
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Napadensky et al. fails to teach the printing system further comprising a thermal screen. Gothait et al. teaches a three dimensional printing system comprising a thermal partition [0151]. Napadensky et al. and Gothait et al. are analogous art because they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely three dimensional printing systems. At the time of filing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add a thermal partition, as disclosed to Gothait et al., to the three dimensional printing system of Napadensky et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to protect the printing head form the other printing equipment and/or vice versa, as suggested by Gothait et al. [0151].
Regarding claim 3; Napadensky et al. does not explicitly teach said thermal radiation is configured to heat to a temperature of from about 40°C to about 900°C. The experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; see MPEP §2144.05. At the time of the filing, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the temperature from about 40°C to about 900°C, and would have been motivated to do based on the building materials used in the present invention in order to achieve efficient and appropriate cure times.
Regarding claim 4; Napadensky et al. teaches a blower unit (38) [0180]. The Examiner makes note that “for delivering heat to said dispensed building material by convection” is merely an intended use. a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim; see MPEP §2111.02, 7.37.09. While Napadensky et al. does not explicitly teach “for delivering heat to said dispensed building material by convection”, the prior art teaches a blower (blows air), which in the presence of heat (e.g. IR radiation), heating by convection occurs.
Regarding claim 10; Napadensky et al. teaches a user or operator of the apparatus of the invention may introduce user-defined definitions, e.g., via user interface software for the apparatus of the invention. For example, a user or operator may select a specific region and define within the region, sub-areas of the region, and select modeling materials and/or modeling material combinations for the thus defined sub-areas of the region, according to the properties desired for each respective sub-area [0041].
Regarding claims 15-17; Napadensky et al. teaches dispensing head 21 and radiation source 26 are preferably mounted in a frame or block 28 which is preferably operative to reciprocally move over a tray 30, which serves as the working surface. According to the common conventions, tray 30 is positioned in the X-Y plane and preferably configured to move vertically (along the Z direction), typically downward. The Examiner makes note that linear motion or rotary motion is dependent on the desired product of the object in which is being built. In various exemplary embodiments of the invention, apparatus 14 further comprises one or more leveling devices 32 which can be manufactured as a roller 34 or a blade; leveling device 32 serves to straighten the newly formed layer prior to the formation of the successive layer thereon [0177, 0341].
Claim(s) 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Napadensky et al. (US Serial No. 2010/0191360), in view of Gothait et al. (US Serial No. 2016/0243619), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kritchman et al. (US Serial No. 2006/0054039).
Napadensky et al. and Gothait et al. render obvious the basic claimed three dimensional printing system, as set forth above, with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claims 5-6 and 8-9; Napadensky et al. teaches a tray, however fails to teach a tray heater in thermal contact with a back side of said tray. Kritchman et al. teaches an apparatus for three dimensional printing comprising a printing tray, a support material, a support pedestal, a barrier layer, and a temperature control unit [abs]. Kritchman et al. teaches the printing tray to support the objects being printed by the apparatus; and a temperature control unit to control the temperature in the apparatus. The temperature control unit may include, for example, a heating source or mechanism and a temperature control unit may be integrated into the printing tray. For example, the printing tray may include cooling tunnels and/or heating elements and/or temperature sensors [0007].
Napadensky et al. and Kritchman et al. are analogous art because they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely three dimensional printing apparatuses. At the time of filing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to employ a heated tray, as taught by Kritchman et al., in the three dimensional printing apparatus of Napadensky et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to maintain higher temperatures of upper material layers, thus leading to preventing or minimizing deformation, as suggested by Kritchman et al. [0101-0102].
Regarding claim 7; Napadensky et al. and Kritchman et al. does not explicitly teach said tray heater is configured to heat to a temperature of from about 40°C to about 900°C. The experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; see MPEP §2144.05. At the time of the filing, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the temperature from about 40°C to about 900°C, and would have been motivated to do based on the building materials used in the present invention in order to achieve efficient and appropriate cure times.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of record related to the claimed thermal screen, Gothait et al. (US Serial No. 2016/0243619), teaches a three dimensional printing system comprising a thermal partition [0151]. Although Gothait et al. teaches the use of a thermal partition in a three dimensional printing apparatus, Gothait et al. fails to teach the partition is foldable and collapsible, nor accordion or telescopic, and fails to teach it thermally reflective. A prior art search to a thermal screen did not yield results pertaining to the thermal screen as required by the instant claim language as set forth in claims 11-14 and 19.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA ROSWELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5453. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/JESSICA M ROSWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767