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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/15/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark et al (US 2019/0270254 A1) vs in Mark et al 2 (US2020/0114422 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mark et al discloses a supporting structure for supporting an overhang of an object during additive manufacturing (figure 7b), the supporting structure comprising:
(i) a plurality of object-supporting pillars (CH2);
and (ii) a plurality of reinforcements (CSP1) reinforcing reinforced by reinforcements around said pillars (SH1) [0189],
wherein each pillar comprises a dissolvable support material [0034], and each reinforcement comprises a reinforcing material (binder system), wherein said reinforcing material is different from said support material ([0082] discloses the material may be different so the binder system may not dissolve);
Further, analogous art, Mark et al 2, discloses the binders may be dissolvable [0087] in order to keep the 3d printed shape. 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 binder/reinforcing material that is undissolvable in order to keep the same of the 3d printer.
Mark et al 2 discloses wherein said which reinforcing material is a non-dissolvable model material having a higher modulus of elasticity than said support material [0121-0123];
wherein each reinforcement is distributed around one of said pillars (see figure 9, 29-31)
and substantially extends along a length thereof (see figures 26-31 shows various configurations of reinforcements and pillars). MPEP 2144.04 states In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) Mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.
in a manner that there is an exposed surface area of said support material for allowing liquid to dissolve said support material (Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the material worked upon)
and wherein at least a portion of said object-supporting pillars adjoin at tops thereof (OH2) and define a surface supporting the overhang of the object (see figures).
Regarding claim 8, Mark discloses wherein the support material is a liquid-soluble photopolymer or thermoplastic [0289].
Regarding claim 9, Mark discloses wherein the reinforcing material is a photopolymer [00145].
Regarding claim 10, Applicant claims the supporting structure is formed by inkjet printing. With regard to the claim recitations regarding the method of forming the apparatus (support structure), such relate only to the method of producing the claimed apparatus, which does not impart patentability to the apparatus claims. Note that determination of patentability is based on the product apparatus itself, In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, 688, and the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production, In re Pilkington, 162 USPQ 145, 147; see also In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC 1985).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark et al (US 2019/0270254 A1) vs in Mark et al 2 (US2020/0114422 A1) in view of Ravich (US2013/0241114 A1).
Mark depicts various number of support pillars (see figures) but does not explicitly disclose a contact pad from of said support material and configured to interface with the overhang of the object. However, analogous art, Ravich discloses protective stacks 82 made of support material to further reinforce the layer [0079]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated a contact pad to further reinforce the layers.
Claim(s) 3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark et al (US 2019/0270254 A1) in Mark et al 2 (US2020/0114422 A1) and further in view of Swaelens.
Regarding claim 3, Mark does not explicitly disclose wherein a cross- section of each object-supporting pillar is wider at said top thereof than at a base thereof. Analogous art, Swaelens, depicts in figure 13 where the pillar is wider at the top. MPEP 2144.04 states It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a cross- section of each object-supporting pillar is wider at said top thereof than at a base thereof since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not Significant to the function of the combination.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Mark does not explicitly teach a plurality of pillar-supporting pillars adjoined at tops thereof such that said adjoined tops of said pillar-supporting pillars support bases of said object-supporting pillars and at least a portion of said pillar supporting pillars are larger in size than each of said object-supporting pillars. Swaelens discloses a plurality of pillar-supporting pillars adjoined at tops thereof such that said adjoined tops of said pillar-supporting pillars support bases of said object-supporting pillars (figures 12 and 15). Further, Swaelens figure 12 depict at least a portion of said pillar supporting pillars (bottom pillar) are larger in size than each of said object-supporting pillars (top pillar). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated adjoined tops of said pillar-supporting pillars support bases of said object-supporting pillars and at least a portion of said pillar supporting pillars are larger in size than each of said object-supporting pillars for the benefit of providing a maximum support is obtained at the top for the
object, while a minimum amount of material is used at the bottom. Should this be required for stability reasons (column 6 lines 25-30).
Regarding claim 6, Mark does not explicitly disclose wherein said tops of said pillar-supporting pillars are larger in size than said tops of said object-supporting pillars, such that at least two bases of object-supporting pillars are supported by a top of a single pillar-supporting pillar. Analogous art, Swaelens discloses “figure 13 the diameter of the columns 18 increases towards the top and thus the columns widen towards the top. As a result, maximum support is obtained at the top for the object, while a minimum amount of material is used at the bottom” (column 6 lines 25-29). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the date of the invention to have tops of said pillar-supporting pillars are larger in size than said tops of said object-supporting pillars, such that at least two bases of object-supporting pillars are supported by a top of a single pillar-supporting pillar for the benefit of maximizing stability while reducing costs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 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.
The 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
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