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
Applicant’s amendment has been entered. Claims 1 and 5-19 are pending. The submission of a fresh set of claims clarifies the claims intended to be examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a cutting system for cutting through the 3D printed component or the support structure along the cutting path to separate the 3D printed component from the support structure” in claim 1 lines 8-10. The limitation is a “system” which is a generic placeholder for means as indicated in MPEP 2181(I)(A); the system is modified by functional language linked to the system with the word “for” (cutting, for cutting through the 3D printed component or the support structure along the cutting path to separate the 3D printed component from the support structure), and claim 1 does not modify the system with additional structure or steps sufficient for performing the claimed function. In discussing systems which perform cutting, the present specification states “cutting of the 3D printed component 12 or support structures 18, 20 involves the use of a rotating mill, a laser, or a reciprocating saw on the cutting head” (paragraph [0020] of the disclosure as filed); the present disclosure refers to a “robotic system about what tool to choose (e.g., laser cutting and/or milling tool depending on the material to be removed)” (paragraph [0039] of the disclosure as filed); claim 12 as filed claims “the cutting comprises milling, laser cutting or sawing”, and the specification as filed discloses several instances of machining with a CNC mill cutter. In view of the disclosure as filed, the claimed cutting system will be interpreted as laser cutter, saw cutter, mill cutter (which is open to a CNC mill cutter), or equivalents. Note that as claim 1 is directed to a method, and process claims may be defined by a series of manipulative steps, applicant may be able to rephrase claim 1 to claim manipulation of the function without dependence on the means (system).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1, 5-8, 10, 12-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schalk (US20220143925) in view of Kozlak (US20090173443) and Nelaturi (US20190204807). Schalk is the publication of an application for patent in the United States effectively filed before the effective filing date of the present application. Kozlak is cited in the IDS filed January 3, 2023. Schalk, Kozlak, and Nelaturi are cited in prior office action(s).
Regarding claim 1, Schalk discloses a method to enable post-processing a 3D printed component (object) (abstract, [0002], [0013]). Schalk discloses fabricating a marker (features such as characterization objects, object labels, and/or the like [0014]) on the 3D printed component with the same apparatus used to form the 3D printed component and a support structure (“example apparatus 100 that may cause fabrication of a support structure 300 and a 3D object 302 or objects” [0016-18], [0032-34], [0035], [0040], Figs. 1-4). Schalk discloses that the apparatus which fabricates the component, support structure(s), and marker(s) is a 3D printer (abstract, [0001], [0013-14]); therefore, fabricating the marker (object label) disclosed by Schalk [0014], [0038], [0040] prints the marker. Schalk discloses that the marker enables access and tracking the object [0014]. Enabling access and tracking with a marker necessitates sensing the marker to some extent.
Schalk discloses separating supports from the 3D component by robot [0047], and that robotic handling of support structures is encoded [0039], [0045]. Schalk discloses that the marker may comprise encodable information (a revision number, a barcode, text, human readable plaques, and/or the like [0040]). Schalk further discloses that the marker enables tracking for post processing [0014]. Schalk does not disclose that separating the 3D printed component and the support portions is in some way based on the marker.
Kozlak teaches a method comprising post-processing (post-build operations) a 3D printed component (abstract, [0006], [0023], claim 20). Kozlak teaches placing a marker (ID-tag) on the 3D printed component [0014], [0021]. Kozlak teaches sensing (information may be read) the marker [0024-25]. Kozlak teaches determining parameters for separating the 3D printed component and the support structure attached to the 3D printed component based on the marker [0029-30], [0041]. Kozlak teaches outputting the information read from the marker to separate the 3D printed component from the support structure [0030], [0035], [0041]. Kozlak teaches that a marker with information regarding support structure removal is beneficial because a manufactured 3D object may be difficult to visually identify prior to support removal [0030], and that a marker allows the manufacturer to readily identify which post-build operations are required [0029].
Both Schalk and Kozlak teach additively manufacturing components and support structures with markers that at least identify fabricated components for post-processing.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to sense and output parameters for separating the 3D printed component and the support structure based on the marker disclosed by Schalk, applied above, because Kozlak teaches that a marker with information regarding support structure removal is beneficial because a manufactured 3D object may be difficult to visually identify prior to support removal [0030], and the marker allows the manufacturer to readily identify which post-build operations are required [0029]. Considering Schalk teaches markers on which component information may be encoded [0040], and to some extent sensed [0014], one of ordinary skill in the art of markers for 3D printed components could have encoded support separating parameters on the marker disclosed by Schalk. Such encoding would predictably result in informing manufacturers of appropriate support separating parameters, as taught by Kozlak [0029-30].
Schalk in view of Kozlak does not disclose that the sensed and output parameters comprise a cutting path output to a cutting system. See the above statement of interpretation of the claimed cutting system.
Nelaturi teaches a method of post-processing (support removal) a 3D printed component (part) (title, [0001], [0010], [0021]). Nelaturi teaches that the fabricated part comprises support structures [0001], [0010], [0021]. Nelaturi teaches sensing points on the support structures and determining a cutting path between the 3D printed component (part) and the support structure attached to the 3D printed component based on the detected points [0011-12], [0021], [0023]. Nelaturi teaches outputting the cutting path to a cutting system for cutting through the 3D printed component or the support structure along the cutting path to separate the 3D printed component from the support structure [0011-12], [0023]. Nelaturi teaches that the cutting system is a CNC mill cutter [0004], [0023], [0029]. Nelaturi teaches that the cutting path cuts at the point of contact where support structure and 3D printed component (part) intersect (abstract, [0010-11], [0030]). Nelaturi teaches that a computer-controlled cutting system programmed according to the determined cutting path is successful in machining off the support structures ([0013], [0023], claim 1).
Both Nelaturi and Schalk in view of Kozlak teach separating a 3D printed component and support structure by some encoded process.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to encode the marker with parameters for a cutting path output to a cutting system in the process disclosed by Schalk in view of Kozlak as applied above because Nelaturi teaches that a computer-controlled cutting system programmed according to the determined cutting path is successful in machining off the support structures ([0013], [0023], claim 1). Schalk discloses that support removal may be automated (by robot) [0047], and Kozlak teaches that mechanical post-processing may be encoded on a marker [0029], [0031]. As the process disclosed by Schalk in view of Kozlak, applied above, enacts support separation according to parameters encoded on the marker, encoding a cutting path for a cutting system as taught by Nelaturi, would result in a process comprising determining a cutting path between the 3D printed component and the support structure based on the marker; and outputting the cutting path to a cutting system for cutting through the 3D printed component or the support structure along the cutting path to separate the 3D printed component from the support structure. Nelaturi teaches determining the cutting path between the 3D printed component (part) and the support structure attached to the 3D printed component based on detected points [0011-12], [0021], [0023]; therefore, the combination of Schalk in view of Kozlak and Nelaturi encodes a location of the cutting path relative to the 3D printed component on the marker. As Schalk discloses that the marker is on the 3D printed component [0040], an encoded location of a cutting path relative to the 3D printed component is an encoded location that cutting path to a marker on that 3D printed component.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Schalk in view of Kozlak and Nelaturi, applied above encodes part removal parameters as taught by Kozlak [0029-30], which include cutting path location as taught by Nelaturi [0011-12], [0021], [0023], [0030] on the encodable marker disclosed by Schalk [0040]. Example marker encoding disclosed by Schalk are revision number of the 3D object, a barcode, text, human readable plaques [0040], which are all explicit encoding; therefore, the location relative to the marker of the cutting path encoded on the marker, in the process disclosed by Schalk in view of Kozlak and Nelaturi, applied above, is encoded explicitly in the marker.
Regarding claim 6, Schalk discloses manipulating process steps of the 3D component manufacture by accessing and executing based on a database containing information about the 3D component [0027-29], including post-processing settings [0050]. Nelaturi teaches defining the cutting path according to information of the part stored on a database (storage device within which is stored models of designed parts [0022-24]). Considering the marker in the combination of Schalk in view of Kozlak and Nelaturi, applied above, encodes parameter information regarding support structure separation, and both Schalk [0027-29], [0050] and Nelaturi [0022-24] refer to a database comprising component data in planning post-processing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a pointer to a database containing the geometry of the 3D printed component, support structure, and the cutting path among the information encoded on the marker in the process disclosed by Schalk in view of Kozlak and Nelaturi applied above, because Schalk [0050] and Nelaturi [0022-24] both point to such a database in order to determine post-processing conditions.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Schalk discloses the marker is a bar code [0040].
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Schalk discloses an identity of the 3D printed component is encoded in the marker [0040]. Kozlak teaches that identity instructions may be provided on a marker (ID-tag) in addition to post-processing instructions [0025-26], [0029-30].
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Schalk discloses and shows that the support structure is attached to a base upon which the 3D printed component is formed (build platform 210 [0044], Figs. 2, 5) and Schalk discloses an embodiment wherein the support structure is attached at opposite sides to different portions of the 3D printed component (additionally supports structures fabricated above the 3D object [0037]).
Regarding claim 12, the cutting system in the process taught by Schalk in view of Kozlak and Nelaturi, applied above, is the CNC mill cutter taught by Nelaturi [0004], [0023], [0029]; therefore, in outputting the cutting in the process disclosed by Schalk in view of Kozlak and Nelaturi, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the cutting comprises milling.
Regarding claim 13, Schalk discloses an embodiment wherein the feed material to fabricate the 3D printed component and the support structure is metallic [0016], [0020], [0046]. The result of metallic feed material is an embodiment wherein the 3D printed component and the support structure are both metallic.
Regarding claim 14, Schalk discloses an embodiment wherein the common apparatus which fabricates both the 3D printed component and the support structure comprises a curable binding agent, and that both the 3D printed component and support structure are made from the same feed material [0016], [0024], [0046], thereby disclosing an embodiment wherein the 3D printed component and the support structure are both the same material with the same curing.
Regarding claim 15, Schalk shows that the support structure comprises a lattice structure, segments of which are spaced apart from each other and parallel to each other (Fig. 3, [0031]). Segments of a lattice structure which are spaced apart from each other and parallel to each other are a plurality of support members spaced apart from each other and parallel to each other. Note that claim 15 is open to the support structure comprising additional support members which intersect and interconnect the support members parallel and spaced apart from each other because “the support structure comprises” is open to additional support structure constituents which are not recited.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schalk (US20220143925) in view of Kozlak (US20090173443) and Nelaturi (US20190204807) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Thiel (US20160311024). Thiel is cited in prior office action(s).
Regarding both claim 9 and claim 18, the cutting path of the process disclosed by Schalk in view of Kozlak and Nelaturi applied above cuts through support portions at the intersection of the 3D printed component and support structure taught be Nelaturi [0010-12], [0030], [0035-37]. Schalk in view of Kozlak and Nelaturi does not disclose a cutting path space away from the 3D printed component.
Thiel teaches a method comprising removing support structures from a 3D printed component [0006], [0009], [0017], [0028]. Thiel teaches forming the component and support structure such that the portion of the support structure to be cut (weakened region) is arranged spaced away from the 3D printed component [0008], [0017]. Thiel teaches that a cutting path through the support structure above the build platform allows easier cutting (severing) through the support structure [0013]. Thiel teaches that removing support structure specifically from the build platform allows reuse of the build platform from which support structures are removed [0009], [0014].
Both Thiel and Schalk in view of Kozlak and Nelaturi teach methods comprising removing support structures from a 3D printed component. Schalk discloses building the support structures on a build platform ([0020], [0044], Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further encode a cutting path through the support structures away from the 3D printed component in order to allow easier cutting through the support structure and to more easily reuse the build platform as taught by Thiel for such a cutting path [0009], [0013-14].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schalk (US20220143925) in view of Kozlak (US20090173443) and Nelaturi (US20190204807) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ekström (US20220355382). Ekström is a publication of an application for patent in the United States, effectively filed before the earliest filing date of the present application. Ekström is cited in prior office action(s).
Schalk discloses that the marker identifies similar groups of objects when manufactured together [0040]. Schalk shows a plurality of support structures (Figs. 3, 5). Nelaturi teaches identifying each of a plurality of support structures [0022], [0029]. Schalk in view of Kozlak and Nelaturi does not disclose a marker on each of a plurality of support structures.
Ekström teaches a method of post-processing a 3D printed component (removing support structure) (abstract, [0005], [0009]). Ekström discloses modifying support structures such that each of a plurality of support structures has an interface adapted to interact with a post-processing tool [0005-06], [0009]. Ekström discloses placing markers on support structure with information regarding support removal parameters and support structure identification [0033]. Ekström teaches that information provided may include instructions on more easily removing a particular support structure [0033] and that additional information may be beneficial [0033].
Both Ekström and Schalk in view of Kozlak and Nelaturi teach fabricating a 3D printed component and support structure to be removed. Nelaturi discloses a plurality of support structures each of which is considered in the removal plan [0010-11], [0022-24], [0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide some marker on each of at a least some plurality of support structures in the process disclosed by Schalk in view of Kozlak and Nelaturi because Ekström teaches that providing markers on a support structure can aid in identifying and removing the support structures [0033], thereby aiding removal of the plurality of support structures shown by Schalk (Figs. 3, 5) and planned by Nelaturi [0022], [0029].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The portion of section II directed of pages 5-7 of applicant’s remarks filed January 23, 2026 provides an overview on statues, court decisions, and policies on obviousness which may inform applicant’s arguments; however, arguments that are not directed specifically to either the claimed invention or the cited prior art are not persuasive arguing that the claimed invention would not have been obvious over the prior art.
Regarding rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 over Schalk (US 20220143925) in view of Kozlak (US 20090173443) and Nelaturi (US 20190204807), applicant argues that “any teaching of Schalk's object labels being used to encode a location of a connection point between Schalk's support structure and Schalk's 3D object” and “determining a cutting path between Schalk's 3D object and Schalk's support structure based on Schalk's object label” are absent from Schalk. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145(IV). The present and prior rejection rely on Kozlak to teach that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to sense and output parameters for separating the 3D printed component and the support structure based on the marker disclosed by Schalk. The present and prior rejections rely on Nelaturi to teach that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to encode the marker with parameters for a cutting path output to a cutting system in the process disclosed by Schalk in view of Kozlak. A cutting path which is encoded is to some extent determined. Applicant is reminded that the claimed location of a connection point between support structure and 3D object is explicitly claimed as an alternative to the location of the marker relative to the cutting path. Claim 1 states “wherein a location relative to the marker of a connection point between the support structure and the 3D printed component or [emphasis added] the cutting path is encoded in the marker”. Schalk discloses that the marker is on the 3D printed component [0040], and Nelaturi teaches determining the cutting path between the 3D printed component (part) and the support structure attached to the 3D printed component based on detected points [0011-12], [0021], [0023]. As the cutting path separates the 3D printed component from the structure, and the 3D printed component is the location of the marker, encoding a cutting path defines information of a cutting path relative to the location of the marker (some position on the 3D printed component).
Similarly, arguments that Kozlak does not teach an ID-tag on the component are not persuasive because rejections rely on Schalk to meet limitations regarding the marker on the component [0040]. Further Kozlak teaches placing ID-tag on printed layers (34) [0040], Fig. 2B, which does place the ID-tag on a component, just not the finished component.
In response to applicant's argument that Kozlak is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2141.01(a). In this case, both Kozlak and the present invention are in the same, narrow field of endeavor of 3D printing component with markers.
Applicant is reminded that the requirement is that prior art references be analogous to the presently claimed invention (MPEP 2141.01(a)), not that a secondary reference be analogous to the primary reference. Even if the requirement were for analogy between two references, both Schalk and Kozlak are within the same, narrow field of endeavor of manufacturing a 3D printed component with a marker.
If the arguments against Kozlak is to be interpreted as an argument that embedding the ID-tag taught by Kozlak somehow renders Kozlak incompatible with Schalk, this argument would not be persuasive because the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art, and again one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145(III, IV). The present rejection relies on Schalk, not Kozlak to meet the placement of the marker on the component. Kozlak teaches that a marker which can encode identifying information for a component can also encode information on the post-processing, including support removal [0029-30], [0035], [0041]. Schalk teaches encoding location information on the marker [0014]. As Kozlak teaches that both support removal and location information may be encoded on the same marker [0029-30], [0035], [0041], and Schalk discloses encoding location information on the marker [0014], the teachings of Kozlak, as applied, are combinable with the disclosure of Schalk.
Arguments that Kozlak does not teach modifying Schalk for determining a cutting path are not persuasive in overcome the rejection of record because the rejection relies on Nelaturi to teach encoding a cutting path. As explained above, it is Schalk in view of Kozlak
Arguments that Nelaturi does not teach a location relative to the marker are not persuasive because the rejection relies on Schalk to teach that the marker is on the 3D printed component [0040], and therefore relies on Schalk to teach the location of the marker. Nelaturi teaches a cutting path relative to the 3D printed component (part) [0011-12], [0021], [0023]. The combination of Schalk in view of Nelaturi teaches defining a location of the cutting path relative to the component and that the component comprises the location of the marker; therefore, Schalk in view of Nelaturi teaches some location relative to the marker of the cutting path. The office action relies on Kozlak to teach encoding separating parameters and on Nelaturi to teach that the separation is cutting between the 3D component and support structures.
While applicant argues that remarks do not attack references individually, with references as used in In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981) and MPEP 2145(IV), applicant’s reduction of references to each reference’s individual contribution ignores the range of activity which is manipulated as a result of the combination of Schalk in view of Kozlak and Nelaturi, as applied. Applicant is reminded that MPEP 2145(IV) also states that a reply “that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually”. The scope and content of the prior art, as applied includes that which the references would teach to one of ordinary skill in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art is one of ordinary creativity The sets forth a rationale for how the manipulation of activity disclosed by the combination of prior art as applied, meets manipulation of some process encompassed by the claimed series of steps.
Applicant argues for the patentability of dependent claims by reference to their dependence on independent claim 1. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SEAN P O'KEEFE whose telephone number is (571)272-7647. The examiner can normally be reached MR 8:00-6:30.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/SEAN P. O'KEEFE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/ SPE, Art Unit 1738