DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “pressed against the edge to peel the 3D printed item” in line 9 should be corrected as --pressed against the edge of the 3D printed item to peel the 3D printed item--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “pressed against the edge to peel the 3D printed item” in line 11 should be corrected as --pressed against the edge of the 3D printed item to peel the 3D printed item--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The device of Claim I1” should be corrected as --The device of Claim [[I1]]11--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-4, 11-17 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 2: Claim 2 recites “a front edge” in lines 1-2. It is noted that claim 1 (which upon claim 2 depends) recites “a front edge” in line 8. The scope of the claim is indefinite because it is not clear whether “a front edge” of claim 2 refers to “a front edge” of claim 1 or if they are distinct and separate from each other. For examination purposes, “a front edge” is interpreted as --[[a]]the front edge--.
Claim 11: Claim 11 recites “a front edge” in lines 1-2. It is noted that claim 9 (which upon claim 11 depends) recites “a front edge” in line 10. The scope of the claim is indefinite because it is not clear whether “a front edge” of claim 11 refers to “a front edge” of claim 9 or if they are distinct and separate from each other. For examination purposes, “a front edge” is interpreted as --[[a]]the front edge--.
Claims 3-4 and 12-17 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 2 and 11 recites that the nose element comprises the front edge (as interpreted under 112(b) above). However, claims 1 and 9 (which upon claims 2 and 11 depend respectively) recite that the nose element comprises a front edge. Claims 2 and 11 do not recite any limitations that further define structural limitations of the device. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US 2018/0236648 A1).
Regarding claim 1¸ Jones (‘648) discloses a device (figs2A-2B) for removing a workpiece comprising:
a body (figA, a portion of an element 210, para[0039]) housing one or more springs 215 (para[0040]) biased force an impact rod 205 (para[0039]) to extend therefrom (fig2B);
a nose element (figA, a front portion of the element 210) extending from a front portion (figA) of the body, the nose element to aid in removing the workpiece (abstract), the nose element coupled to the impact rod 205 to permit the nose element to extend into an extended position and provide a non-destructive force to the workpiece (abstract, para[0044]), wherein the nose element further comprises a front edge (figA) configured to be positioned at an edge of the workpiece and pressed against the edge of the workpiece to remove the workpiece, and wherein release of the impact rod 205 causes kinetic energy to be transferred through the impact rod 205 to the nose element and then to the workpiece (para[0044], “The extension of spring 215 … creates mechanical energy in spring 2015. When the user releases internal striker 2-5, the mechanical energy in spring 215 is released, driving internal striker 205 into impact shoulders 230 of tool portion 210. The driving force created when internal striker 205 impacts shoulders 230 of tool portion 210 is magnified by a chisel blade on tool portion 210”).
PNG
media_image1.png
397
769
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Jones does not explicitly disclose that the device is for removing a 3D printed item from a build plate of a 3D printer. It is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, Jones discloses each and every positively recited claimed structural limitations, therefore, it is clear that the device of Jones is capable of removing a 3D printed item from a build plate of a 3D printer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the device of Jones to be used to remove a 3D printed item from a build plate of a 3D printer, to provide versatility of the device.
Therefore, the front edge (figA) of the nose element is capable of being positioned at an edge of the 3D printed item and pressed against the edge of the 3D printed item (para[0044]) to peel the 3D printed item from the build plate (para[0044]), and wherein release of the impact rod 205 causes kinetic energy to be transferred through the impact rod 205 to the nose element and then to the 3D printed item to separate the 3D printed item from the build plate (para[0044], “The extension of spring 215 … creates mechanical energy in spring 2015. When the user releases internal striker 2-5, the mechanical energy in spring 215 is released, driving internal striker 205 into impact shoulders 230 of tool portion 210. The driving force created when internal striker 205 impacts shoulders 230 of tool portion 210 is magnified by a chisel blade on tool portion 210”).
Regarding claim 2, Jones discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the nose element comprises the front edge (figA above).
Regarding claim 3¸ Jones discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the nose element comprises a curved portion (outer surface of the nose element).
Regarding claim 4¸ Jones discloses the device of claim 3, wherein the front edge and the curved portion aid in removing the workpiece. As aforementioned, Jones discloses each and every positively recited claimed limitations, therefore, the front edge and the curved portion of Jones are capable of aiding in removing the 3D printed element from the build plate of the 3D printer.
Regarding claim 7¸ Jones discloses the device of claim 1, further comprising one or more spring posts (para[0041], a body portion of “a rivet”) to each attach to each of the one or more springs 215 (para[0041]).
Regarding claim 8¸ Jones discloses the device of claim 7, further comprising a spring post tab (para[0041], a head portion of “a rivet”) to couple the one or more springs 215 (para[0041]) to each spring tab.
Regarding claim 9¸ Jones (‘648) discloses a device (figs2A-2B) for removing a workpiece, the device comprising:
a body (figA, a portion of an element 210, para[0039]) housing one or more springs 215 (para[0040]) biased force an impact rod 205 (para[0039]) to extend therefrom (fig2B);
a nose element (figA, a front portion of the element 210) extending from a front portion (figA) of the body, the nose element to aid in removing the workpiece (abstract) by contacting the workpiece prior to pulling the impact rod 205 rearward and releasing the impact rod 205 to force the nose element (para[0044]), via the one or more springs 215 toward the workpiece, the nose element coupled to the impact rod 205 to permit the nose element to extend into an extended position (fig2B) and provide a non-destructive force to the workpiece (abstract, para[0044]), wherein the nose element further comprises a front edge (figA) configured to be positioned at an edge of the workpiece and pressed against the edge of the workpiece to remove the workpiece, and wherein release of the impact rod 205 causes kinetic energy to be transferred through the impact rod 205 to the nose element and then to the workpiece (para[0044], “The extension of spring 215 … creates mechanical energy in spring 2015. When the user releases internal striker 2-5, the mechanical energy in spring 215 is released, driving internal striker 205 into impact shoulders 230 of tool portion 210. The driving force created when internal striker 205 impacts shoulders 230 of tool portion 210 is magnified by a chisel blade on tool portion 210”.
However, Jones does not explicitly disclose that the device is for removing a 3D printed item from a build plate of a 3D printer. It is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, Jones discloses each and every positively recited claimed structural limitations, therefore, it is clear that the device of Jones is capable of removing a 3D printed item from a build plate of a 3D printer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the device of Jones to be used to remove a 3D printed item from a build plate of a 3D printer, to provide versatility of the device.
Therefore, the front edge (figA) is capable of being positioned at an edge of the 3D printed item and pressed against the edge of the 3D printed item (para[0044]) to peel the 3D printed item from the build plate (para[0044]), and wherein release of the impact rod 205 causes kinetic energy to be transferred through the impact rod 205 to the nose element and then to the 3D printed item to separate the 3D printed item from the build plate (para[0044], “The extension of spring 215 … creates mechanical energy in spring 2015. When the user releases internal striker 2-5, the mechanical energy in spring 215 is released, driving internal striker 205 into impact shoulders 230 of tool portion 210. The driving force created when internal striker 205 impacts shoulders 230 of tool portion 210 is magnified by a chisel blade on tool portion 210”)
Regarding claim 10, Jones discloses the device of claim 9, wherein the one or more springs force 215 the impact rod 205 into the workpiece to provide the non-destructive force and remove the workpiece. As aforementioned, Jones discloses each and every positively recited claimed limitations, therefore, the device of Jones is capable of removing the 3D printed element from the build plate of the 3D printer.
Regarding claim 11¸ Jones discloses the device of claim 9, wherein the nose element comprises the front edge (figA above).
Regarding claim 12¸ Jones discloses the device of claim 10, wherein the nose element comprises a curved portion (outer surface of the nose element).
Regarding claim 13¸ Jones discloses the device of claim 11, wherein the front edge and the curved portion aid in removing the workpiece. As aforementioned, Jones discloses each and every positively recited claimed limitations, therefore, the front edge and the curved portion of Jones are capable of aiding in removing the 3D printed element from the build plate of the 3D printer.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US 2018/0236648 A1) in view of Welch (US 6,684,514 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Jones discloses the device of claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose a use of a thumb rest. Welch (‘514) teaches a use of a thumb rest 3 (col.3 line67- col.4 line2) for facilitating slip free manual handling of a device (col.3 line67-col.4 line2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones to use a thumb rest, as taught by Welch, for the purpose of facilitating slip free manual handling of a device (col.3 line67-col.4 line2).
Regarding claim 6¸ the combination of Jones and Welch teaches the device of claim 5. Jones further discloses a body cover (figA above) to shield the one or more springs and provide a surface area for the thumb rest (as modified by Welch).
Regarding claim 14¸ Jones discloses the device of claim 12, however, does not explicitly disclose a use of a thumb rest. Welch (‘514) teaches a use of a thumb rest 3 (col.3 line67- col.4 line2) for facilitating slip free manual handling of a device (col.3 line67-col.4 line2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones to use a thumb rest, as taught by Welch, for the purpose of facilitating slip free manual handling of a device (col.3 line67-col.4 line2).
Regarding claim 15¸ the combination of Jones and Welch teaches the device of claim 13. Jones further discloses a body cover (figA above) to shield the one or more springs and provide a surface area for the thumb rest (as modified by Welch).
Regarding claim 16¸ the combination of Jones and Welch teaches the device of claim 14. Jones further discloses one or more spring posts (para[0041], a body portion of “a rivet”) to each attach to each of the one or more springs 215 (para[0041]).
Regarding claim 17¸ the combination of Jones and Welch teaches the device of claim 15. Jones further discloses a spring post tab (para[0041], a head portion of “a rivet”) to couple the one or more springs 215 (para[0041]) to each spring tab.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Jones does not disclose the newly-recited edge-peeling configuration and the specified kinetic-energy transfer pathway. However, the Office respectfully disagrees. Claims 1 and 9 recites that a front edge is “configured to” engage the edge of the 3D-printed item to be peeled and removed. As aforementioned, Jones discloses a use of the nose element which can cause kinetic energy to be transferred to the impact rod to the nose element and then to the workpiece (the 3D-printed item) by releasing the spring (para[0044]). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 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 Seahee Hong whose telephone number is (571)270-5778. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-4pm ET.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/SEAHEE HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723