DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/18/2025 has been entered. Claims 9-15 remain pending in the application. Claim(s) 12-15 have been withdrawn. Claim(s) 1-8 have been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parenthesis. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun et al. (US 20070023977 A1), previously cited.
Regarding claim 9, Braun teaches “a substrate sheet for the application of at least one first layer of a build-up material for the production of a three-dimensional molded body” (which reads upon “a modular tray for an additive manufacturing of a part with an axis of revolution on a powder bed”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0001]; the phrase “of a part with an axis of revolution” is considered intended use as the claim is to the tray, not the part). Braun teaches that “the mating element 139 provides a rapidly exchangeable receptacle for a substrate sheet 51” (which reads upon “the modular tray comprising: a shaft-mounted circular module comprising a shaft provided with two ends and with a circular tray at one of the two ends, the shaft and the circular tray being concentric”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0074] and FIGs. 5a, showing sheet 51 is a circular plate, and 7c).
Braun teaches a substrate sheet and a mating element which together read on the shaft-mounted circular module. Braun is silent regarding the shaft-mounted circular module being a single-piece. The difference between the art of record and the claim is the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in Braun. Making pieces integral has been held to be obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04 V. B. “The use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice." In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Braun teaches that “the carrier 43 has a substrate plate 51 which is positioned fixedly or releasably” (paragraph [0054]). Here, 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 tray of Braun by making it integral when positioned fixedly in order to simplify assembly and provide greater stability, or merely as a matter of obvious engineering choice.
Braun teaches that “the building platform 49 comprises a cooling plate 132 and a heating plate 136 which are connected to each other by a holding device 138” (which reads upon “a main support module”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0073]). Braun teaches that “a mating element 139 is inserted into a central hole of the cooling plate 132, said mating element having a peripheral collar 141 at the other end in order to position the heating plate 136 with respect to the cooling plate 132” (which reads upon “including, in one face, a cavity configured for receiving the shaft-mounted circular module, the shaft being completely inserted in the cavity”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0073]). Braun FIG. 7c shows wherein an assembly of the shaft-mounted circular module and of the main support module defines a planar top surface that is at least partly formed by the circular tray of the shaft-mounted circular module (51 has a flat upper surface, see FIG. 5b). the phrase “wherein the shaft of the shaft-mounted circular module is a preform of one end of the part to be manufactured” is considered intended use as the claim is to the tray, not the part.
Regarding claim 10, Braun teaches the tray of claim 9 as stated above. Braun teaches that “the view according to FIG. 5 a shows a lower side or a supporting section 181 of a substrate sheet 51 with a supporting surface 185 which rests on the carrier 43” (paragraph [0062]). Braun teaches that “further depressions 182 are provided concentrically with the central point 183, as a result of which the pattern illustrated in FIG. 5 a is produced and the supporting surface 185 is determined” (paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 11, Braun teaches the tray of claim 9 as stated above. Braun teaches that “the depressions 182 running concentrically with the central point 183 are preferably produced by turning” (paragraph [0062]). Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the mating element 139 and the substrate sheet 51 are not a single-piece assembly (remarks, page 6). Applicant argues that thus, Braun fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed shaft-mounted circular module (remarks, page 6). This is not found convincing because the difference between the art of record and the claim is the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in Braun. Making pieces integral has been held to be obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04 V. B. “The use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice." In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q2: 3/30-4/3/26; Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733