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 without traverse of species A in the reply filed on 11/04/2025 is acknowledged.
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the layers" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this plurality limitation in the claim as the prior claim discussion refers only to the part and support materials as a single layer.
Claims 2-12 are dependent of claim 1, thus they are subjected to similar rejection.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grenda (US Pat. No.: 6,206,672 B1) (hereinafter Grenda).
Regarding claim 1, Grenda discloses a method of printing a part of an additive manufacturing system, comprising: developing electrophotographic imaging member (34) and developing support material (35) (Fig. 1-6). Grenda discloses stacking bonding the layers of support material (35) and the layers of part material (34) to form a three-dimensional part within the bounding box (33) (Col 6, Ln 28; Fig. 1-6). Grenda states supporting material (35) is formed around part material (35) which naturally forms a support skin around an upward-facing surface of the three-dimensional part and within the part bounding box (33). The benefit of doing so would have been to allow the support material (35) to be removed easily to obtain the final part (34).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grenda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Buller et al. (US Pub. No.: 2017/0165792 A1) (hereinafter Buller).
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Grenda as cited above. Grenda further discloses a method of three-dimensional freeform fabrication which is based upon electrophotography is capable of making very thin object layers and providing very high resolution along the thickness or object building axis. For example, a 10 inch high object made from 0.00033 inch thick layers results in a total of 30,000 layers (Col 4, Ln 46-57).
Buller also discloses a method of printing a part. The method discloses three-dimensional skilful printing (Title, Abstract). Buller discloses the portion may be up to a certain accumulated thickness of the 3D object, referred to herein as the “critical layer thickness.” The certain critical layer thickness may be at least about 500 μm, 600 μm, 700 μm, 800 μm, 900 μm, 1000 μm, 1200 μm, 1500 μm, 1800 μm, or 2000 μm. The critical layer thickness may be of any value between the afore-mentioned values (e.g., from about 500 μm to about 2000 μm, from 500 μm to 1000 μm, or from 800 μm to 2000 μm). The critical layer thickness may be a critical thickness above which at least an additionally accumulated layer of hardened material will not contribute substantial deformation of the 3D object (or portion thereof) (¶0198). Thus, the combined teaching of Buller and Grenda discloses the layer thickness can varied based on dimensions of the object being manufactured.
Given the wealth of knowledge, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention to print support layer with thickness of 500 micrometer to 2000 micrometer as taught by Buller within the method of manufacturing the printing part as taught by Grenda. The benefit of doing so would have been to assure the layer has adequate thickness.
Claim(s) 3-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grenda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Courter et al. (US Pub. No.: 2018/0370155 A1) (hereinafter Courter).
Regarding claims 3-12, the limitations of claim 1 are taught by the combined teaching Grenda and Buller. They are both silent about boundary layer around the support skin.
Courter also discloses a method of printing a part in an additive manufacturing system. The method discloses the boundary is printed with a material that is of sufficient strength to resist deformation of the support structure during printing of a layer of the part onto an existing layer. In one embodiment, the boundary is printed using part material. In another embodiment, the boundary is printed using a combination of part material and support material. In another embodiment, the boundary is printed using a third material that has sufficient strength to resist deformation of the support structure during printing. Printing the boundary with part material can increase throughput (¶0059).
Given the wealth of knowledge, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize boundary layer as taught by Courter within the metho of printing a part in an additive manufacturing system as taught by the combined teaching of Grenda and Buller. The benefit of doing so would have been to provide sufficient strength to resist deformation of the support material during manufacturing.
Regarding claim 5, Buller also discloses a method of printing a part. The method discloses three-dimensional skilful printing (Title, Abstract). Buller discloses the portion may be up to a certain accumulated thickness of the 3D object, referred to herein as the “critical layer thickness.” as recited in claim rejection 2 above. The certain critical layer thickness may be at least about 500 μm, 600 μm, 700 μm, 800 μm, 900 μm, 1000 μm, 1200 μm, 1500 μm, 1800 μm, or 2000 μm. The critical layer thickness may be of any value between the afore-mentioned values (e.g., from about 500 μm to about 2000 μm, from 500 μm to 1000 μm, or from 800 μm to 2000 μm). The critical layer thickness may be a critical thickness above which at least an additionally accumulated layer of hardened material will not contribute substantial deformation of the 3D object (or portion thereof) (¶0198). Thus, the combined teaching of Buller and Grenda discloses the layer thickness can varied based on dimensions of the object being manufactured.
Given the wealth of knowledge, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention to print boundary layer with thickness of 500 micrometer to 2000 micrometer as taught by Buller within the method of manufacturing the printing part as taught by Grenda and Courter. The benefit of doing so would have been to assure the layer has adequate thickness.
Regarding claims 8-10 and 12, Courter discloses wherein the layer of support material comprises a lattice of support voxels and a lattice of part material voxels (¶0095). Courter discloses variable density lattice are used to form the support (¶0093). Courter discloses the porosity of the support material increases with a distance from the part (¶0007). The benefit of doing to would have been to provide adequate support near the part formation and by varying the density of the lattice support. This also allows for the use of less support material while still maintaining the stiffness required to support part.
Given the wealth of knowledge, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize support material comprising a lattice as taught by Courtet within the method of manufacturing a printed part at taught by the combined teaching of Grenda and Buller. The benefit of doing so would have been to provide adequate support near the part formation and by varying the density of the lattice support. This also allows for the use of less support material while still maintaining the stiffness required to support part.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grenda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuesters Y (EP 2910362 A1) (hereinafter Kuesters).
Regarding claim 11, the limitations of claim 1 are taught by the combined teaching of Grenda. They are both silent about drafting support vertical walls outwards as the layers increase in the z-axis.
Kuester also discloses printing part in additive manufacturing. The method involves producing powder from a component (12) in layers as powder bed (13) is applied on a building platform (11). The component is manufactured by local melting of the powder in layers. A supporting structure (15a-15c) is manufactured together with the component until portion of component is contacted with supporting locations. The supporting structure is formed like tree and is comprised with strain (17) and branches (18a,18b) at ends (corresponding to support vertical walls outwards as the layers increase in the z-axis), when supporting locations are contacted at component (Fig. 2). Supporting structure branches are made to end in powder bed. The benefit of doing so would have been to ensure the dimensional stability of the component. The heat dissipation from component surface at several locations is ensured favorably. The simultaneous relative movements between component and building platform during manufacture is prevented or reduced.
Given the wealth of knowledge it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to draft a support vertical wall outward as the layers incases in the z-axis as taught by Kuester within the method of printing a part in additive manufacturing as taught by the combined teaching of Grenda and Buller. The benefit of doing so would have been to provide adequate support to part during manufacturing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL I PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7660. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/VISHAL I PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746