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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on July 23, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the dependent claims add additional features. This is not found persuasive because the limitations in the dependent claims are not recited in the independent claims in each group.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim ends with a semicolon. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fedyk (US 2020/0238447) in view of Jacobs (US 2020/0192332) and Schroeder (US 2018/0349519).
Claim 1: Fedyk discloses a method of using a build plate (abstract). The method includes providing a build plate (118) having an upper surface, and a lower surface, and a first locating feature (fig. 3; ¶ 66), providing an additive manufacturing platform including one of a table-top and a spacer, including an upper surface and a second locating feature (¶¶ 13, 63), positioning the build-plate on the upper surface of the table-top and engaging the first locating feature and the second locating feature (¶ 63).
Fedyk is silent as to forming on the upper surface of the build-plate a third locating feature and a set of orthopedic implant constructs via an additive manufacturing process performed by the platform, locations of the third locating feature and the set of constructs being known with respect to one another, and using the third locating feature for relative adjustment of the build-plate relative to a subtractive manufacturing platform to facilitate accurate positioning for performance of a subtractive manufacturing process on each of the orthopedic implant constructs. However, Jacobs discloses a method of using a build plate (abstract). The method includes providing a build plate having an upper surface, and a lower surface (¶ 47), providing an additive manufacturing platform including one of a table-top and a spacer, including an upper surface and a second locating feature (¶¶ 13, 63), positioning the build-plate on the upper surface of the table-top (¶ 47), forming on the upper surface of the build-plate a third locating feature (312) and a set of objects via an additive manufacturing process performed by the platform (¶¶ 48, 73), locations of the third locating feature and the set of constructs being known with respect to one another (the reference feature and the objects are generated in the same additive build, thus their relative positions are predetermined by the digital design and known), and using the third locating feature for relative adjustment of the build-plate relative to a subtractive manufacturing platform to facilitate accurate positioning for performance of a subtractive manufacturing process on each of the objects (¶ 69). As taught by Jacobs, printing fiducial markers along with objects aids in subsequent subtractive machine alignment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have printed the fiducial marker of Jacob along with the object of Fedyk in order to aid in subsequent subtractive machine alignment.
Jacob teaches that this method can be applied to any additively manufactured object (¶ 63), but is silent as to the objects being orthopedic implant constructs. However, Schroeder discloses manufacturing orthopedic implants by additive manufacturing to a near-net shape, followed by subtractive manufacturing/finish machining (¶¶ 44, 101, 172-174). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to apply the known additive manufacturing-to-subtractive finishing workflow for orthopedic implants taught by Schroeder to the additively produced constructs of modified Fedyk so that the printed implants could be accurately machine-finished.
Claim 2: Modified Fedyk discloses sequencing AM deposition from a first end to a second end across a plate-mounted array (figs. 6A-B, 7C).
Claim 4: Fedyk discloses a vision system obtaining digital representations including measurements of the positions of the workpiece-interfaces for the plurality of workpieces on the plat in a method disclosed as aligning a build plate to coordinates of the system (figs. 1, 7C).
Claim 5: Fedyk teaches aligning a build plate to coordinates and Jacobs supplies the datum to which that shift if computed (fig. 7A).
Claim 6: Jacobs teaches locating the printed body within a subtractive device using the reference feature and then performing subtractive machining and using the computed shift (915-920).
Claim 7: Fedyk teaches clamping the plate’s socket with the lock-pin via detents that extend into appertures (figs. 4-5; abstract).
Claim 8: Jacobs discloses that the printed reference feature 312 may include attachment features and projections/recesses that mate with locating hardware on a fixture, and Fedyk recognizes clames as locating/fixturing elements (216).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fedyk (US 2020/0238447) in view of Jacobs (US 2020/0192332) and Schroeder (US 2018/0349519), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Mironets (US 2016/0144428).
Claim 3: Modified Fedyk is silent as to a cut line that forms a surface for detachment. However, Mironets discloses a method of using a build plate that separates a near-net shape from the build plate and that cut defines a surface of the released part (fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have separated the object of Fedyk from the build plate with a cut line in order to effectively release the object.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY THROWER whose telephone number is (571)270-5517. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm MT M-F.
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.
/LARRY W THROWER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754