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
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 14-18 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-3, 5, 8-9, 11, and 19-20 have been amended. The rejections are revised in view of the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-13 and 19-20 in various ways recite limitations as to the additively manufactured object. It is noted that recitations as to the additively manufactured object do not limit the present system claims. See MPEP 2115.
Claims 1-13 and 19-20 do not positively recite a base film. Accordingly, recitations regarding the base film are limitations to the material worked upon and do not limit the present system claims. See MPEP 2115.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-13 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 9-13, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Riha (US 2019/0322047).
Regarding claim 1, Riha discloses a system (abstract) comprising: a build platform for an additive manufacturing machine (seal layer 240 and print substrate 140, [0082], Figs. 2, 10-11); and at least one aperture in the build platform (vacuum holes 162, [0082], Figs. 10-11) that is positioned to use a difference in air pressure to force a base film (build sheet 200, [0082], Figs. 10-11) directly onto the build platform ([0046] [0082-83], Figs. 10-11), wherein the build platform is configured for the additive manufacturing machine to produce an additively manufactured object on the base film ([0085]), and wherein the additively manufactured object bond forms a partially penetrated bond with the base film (object 180 has to be subsequently detached from build sheet 200, hence a partially penetrated bond has formed, [0046] [0050]; as noted above, under MPEP 2115, details of the produced object and build sheet do not limit the system limitations).
Regarding claim 2, Riha discloses wherein the base film is integrated into the additively manufactured object (object 180 has to be subsequently detached from build sheet 200, and thus they are integrated together, [0046] [0050]; as noted above, under MPEP 2115, details of the produced object and build sheet do not limit the system limitations).
Regarding claim 4, Riha discloses wherein the additively manufacture object is a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) object (a material that can be 3D printed [0117], recitations as to the additively manufactured object do not limit the present system claims. See MPEP 2115; accordingly, a specific teaching of PVDF is unnecessary to the anticipation rejection).
Regarding claim 5, Riha discloses wherein the base film is a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) base film (as noted above, parent claims 1 and 4 do not positively recite a base film, it is instead recited as something the system works upon, accordingly, Riha does not have to disclose a PVDF base film to anticipate the system claim, See MPEP 2115).
Regarding claim 6, Riha discloses wherein the additively manufacture object includes polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), and the PVDF bonds to the base film (recitations as to the additively manufactured object do not limit the present system claims. See MPEP 2115; accordingly, a specific teaching of PVDF is unnecessary to the anticipation rejection; as noted above, the object 180 bonds to build sheet 200, hence the need for detachment, [0046] [0050]).
Regarding claim 9, Riha discloses the system as claimed. As noted above, parent claim 1 does not positively recite a base film, it is instead recited as something the system works upon, accordingly, Riha does not have to disclose the additional limitations regarding the base film, See MPEP 2115. Accordingly, Riha anticipates the base film is configured as a roll configured to advance new base film material across the build platform or is configured as a folded stack configured to advance the new base film material across the build platform.
Regarding claim 10, Riha discloses wherein an exterior edge of the base film is sealed to a top plate of the build platform (combined build sheet 200 and seal layer 240 sealed by closing sheet 148, [0088], Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 11, Riha discloses wherein the base film is formed of a single material and is textured to facilitate gas conductance into the at least one aperture of the build platform (build surface layer 220 is a sheet (therefore a single material) described as having textured object facing surface in Fig. 8B, with equivalent texture facing downward, this roughness means the surface is textured and would have the effect of facilitating gas conductance as recited ([0070], Fig. 8B).
Regarding claim 12, Riha discloses wherein a mesh between the base film and the build platform facilitates gas conductance into the at least one aperture of the build platform (barrier layer 146, [0087], Fig. 87).
Regarding claim 13, Riha discloses wherein the difference in the air pressure forces the base film onto the build platform continuously during production of the additively manufactured object ([0082-83]).
Regarding claim 19, Riha discloses a means for producing an additively manufactured object (interpreted as an additive manufacturing machine, see Applicant’s [0010]; system 100 with print head 120, [0041]); a means for using a difference in air pressure to selectively attach a base film directly to the means for producing the additively manufactured object (interpreted as a low pressure source with a vacuum port, see Applicant’s [0015]; vacuum through vacuum holes 162 pulls build sheet 200 to the platform, [0082], Figs. 10-11); and wherein the additively manufactured object forms a partially penetrated bond with the base film while the additively manufactured object is produced by the means for producing the additively manufactured object (object 180 has to be subsequently detached from build sheet 200, hence a partially penetrated bond has formed, [0046] [0050]; as noted above, under MPEP 2115, details of the produced object and build sheet do not limit the system limitations; [0082-83]).
Regarding claim 20, Riha discloses wherein the additively manufacture object is a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) object and the base film is a PVDF base film (recitations as to the additively manufactured object do not limit the present system claims. See MPEP 2115; accordingly, a specific teaching of PVDF is unnecessary to the anticipation rejection; additionally, the base film was not positively recited and therefore further limitations do not require Riha to teach a PVDF base film).
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riha (US 2019/0322047) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of El-Siblani (US 2012/0195994).
Regarding claim 3, Riha discloses a top plate (print susbtrate 140, Fig. 11). Riha teaches a system substantially as claimed. Riha does not disclose a bottom plate; a vacuum port configured for pulling air from a voided internal region between the top plate and the bottom plate; and a sealing ring between the top plate and the bottom plate that seals the voided internal region, wherein the at least one aperture passes through the top plate to the voided internal region, wherein the top plate, the bottom plate, the spacer material sheet, and the sealing ring are distinct components of the build platform, and wherein pulling the air from the vacuum port creates the difference in the air pressure that forces the base film onto the build platform.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing (abstract) and solving the same problem of providing negative suction through a series of holes ([0091-93], Fig. 25), El-Siblani teaches a top plate (upper layer 340, [0093], Fig. 25), a bottom plate (bottom 344, [0093], Fig. 25); a vacuum port configured for pulling air from a voided internal region between the top plate and the bottom plate (vacuum line port 346 for pulling air from interior of enclosure 334, [0093], Fig. 25); and a sealing ring between the top plate and the bottom plate that seals the voided internal region (side walls 336a-b, 338a-b, [0092-93]), wherein the at least one aperture passes through the top plate to the voided internal region (gaps in mesh of upper layer 340, [0093], Fig. 25), wherein the top plate, the bottom plate, the spacer material sheet, and the sealing ring are distinct components of the platform (all components supporting object 28, [0093], Fig. 28), and wherein pulling the air from the vacuum port creates the difference in the air pressure that forces the base film onto the build platform ([0093]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of Riha pulling air through vacuum holes 162 to be pulled from enclosure 334 of El-Siblani from a vacuum line port 346 with vacuum line 348 of El-Siblani because Riha is silent as to how vacuum is pulled from multiple vacuum holes 162 and [0092-93], Fig. 25 of El-Siblani teaches a predictable way to pull vacuum from a plurality of vacuum holes in an upper platen from a single vacuum line. As modified, vacuum holes 162 would take the place of upper layer 340 of El-Siblani, with the remaining structure of El-Siblani below down to the vacuum line 348.
Regarding claim 5, Riha discloses wherein the base film is a polymeric ([0067]). For the sake of compact prosecution, it is noted that Riha does not disclose wherein the base film is a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) base film.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing (abstract) and solving the same problem of materials for build surfaces (film material 31, [0084], Fig. 25), El-Siblani teaches wherein the base film is a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) base film ([0084]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Riha such that the base film is a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) base film because [0084] of El-Siblani teaches that PVDF is a suitable film for this purpose.
Claim(s) 4, 6, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riha (US 2019/0322047) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stolyarov (US 2016/0339633).
Regarding claim 4, Riha discloses wherein the additively manufactured object is made of a material that can be 3D printed ([0117]). For the sake of compact prosecution, it is noted that Riha is not explicit that the additively manufactured object is a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) object.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing by extrusion deposition ([0008] of Riha, abstract; [0061] of Stolyarov), Stolyarov teaches wherein the additively manufactured object is a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) object ([0041]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified the material for printing in Riha to be polyvinylidene fluoride because [0117] of Riha teaches the object can be made of any material used for 3D printing and [0061] of Stolyarov teaches PVDF is such a material.
Regarding claim 6, Riha discloses wherein the additively manufactured object includes a material that can be 3D printed ([0117]), and the printed material bonds to the base film (must do so to hold onto the initial printing layers, [0008-09] [0048] [0126]).
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing by extrusion deposition ([0008] of Riha, abstract; [0061] of Stolyarov), Stolyarov teaches wherein the additively manufactured object includes polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) ([0041]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified the material for printing in Riha to be polyvinylidene fluoride (and therefore a material of the resulting object) because [0117] of Riha teaches the object can be made of any material used for 3D printing and [0061] of Stolyarov teaches PVDF is such a material.
Regarding claim 20, Riha discloses wherein the additively manufactured object is made of a material that can be 3D printed ([0117]). For the sake of compact prosecution, it is noted that Riha is not explicit that the additively manufactured object is a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) object.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing by extrusion deposition ([0008] of Riha, abstract; [0061] of Stolyarov), Stolyarov teaches wherein the additively manufactured object is a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) object ([0041]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified the material for printing in Riha to be polyvinylidene fluoride because [0117] of Riha teaches the object can be made of any material used for 3D printing and [0061] of Stolyarov teaches PVDF is such a material.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riha (US 2019/0322047) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chanclon (US 2019/0061250).
For ease of presentation, claim 7 is presented with claims 8-9.
Regarding claim 7, Riha discloses a vacuum pulling assembly (vacuum through vacuum holes 162 inherently includes a vacuum pulling assembly in fluid communication with vacuum holes 162, [0082], Figs. 10-11); and pulling air from the vacuum port creates the difference in the air pressure that forces the base film onto the build platform (vacuum through vacuum holes 162 pulls build sheet 200 to the platform, [0082], Figs. 10-11).
Riha teaches a system substantially as claimed. Riha does not disclose a vacuum pulling assembly that includes a vacuum tab and a vacuum port on the vacuum tab.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing (abstract) and solving the same problem of connecting a vacuum source to a tube to create negative pressure ([0034]), Chanclon teaches a vacuum pulling assembly that includes a vacuum tab and a vacuum port on the vacuum tab (magnetic interconnect 255 connects connection unit adapter 275 to outlet adaptor 208, [0053], Figs. 2, 4; vacuum tab interpreted as the structure on the that connects to the vacuum port).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have connected the vacuum source in Riha by the structure recited in Chanclon because [0053] of Chanclon teaches it is a predictable way to connect a vacuum source.
Regarding claim 8, Riha in view of Chanclon teaches wherein: the vacuum pulling assembly includes a magnet (as modified, Chanclon [0053]); and the magnet is positioned to use a magnetic force to hold a vacuum hose to the vacuum port (as modified, Chanclon [0053]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riha (US 2019/0322047) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boyd (US 2004/0224173).
Regarding claim 9, as noted above, Riha discloses the system as claimed. For the sake of compact prosecution, it is noted that Riha does not disclose the base film is configured as a roll configured to advance new base film material across the build platform or is configured as a folded stack configured to advance the new base film material across the build platform.
However, in the same field of endeavor of 3D printing and solving the same problem of managing a film placed on a build platform, [0043]), Boyd teaches the base film is configured as a roll configured to advance new base film material across the build platform (delivered from a roll, [0034]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Riha to have build sheet 200 delivered from a roll because Riha is silent as to how the build sheets are delivered and [0043] of Boyd teaches that sheets placed over a build platform can be delivered from a roll.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that because Riha teaches separating the object and the base film, that a partially penetrated bond does not form. This argument is not persuasive because without a partially penetrated bond, no separation would be required. In any event, this limitation is drawn to the object worked upon and does not limit system limitations, see MPEP.
Next, Applicant argues that Riha does not teach a vacuum pulling the build sheet 200 directly onto the print substrate 140. Instead, Riha teaches a seal layer 240 interposed between the build sheet 200 and the print substrate 140. This argument is not persuasive because seal layer 240 along with print substrate 140 together form the build platform. Any distinction about these components being separable or integral would, at most under MPEP 2144.04(V) make the claims obvious. In any event, these components are together in Riha and trying to say the build platform can only be the print substrate would ignore the meaning of a build platform as recited by Applicant, which includes the structure that the base film rests upon.
Regarding El-Siblani, Applicant argues that the reference is not applicable because the vacuum in El-Siblani is for a cleaning station. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because both references are solving the same problem of providing negative suction through a series of holes. Applicant does not address this, instead claiming that El-Siblani is “not concerned with providing negative suction through a series of holes” despite that being the structure. Applicant’s remaining argument is derivative, that the lack of a spacer material sheet, which is not pertinent to the shared problem being solved of providing negative suction through a series of holes, would count against the rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Boyd (US 2005/0266110; US 6,966,960) teaches subject matter similar to Boyd (US 2004/0224173), cited above.
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 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 NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/ Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744