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 .
Status of Claims and Application
This final action on the merits is in response to the remarks and amendment received by the office on 08 October 2025. Claims 17-36 are pending. Claims 1-16 are cancelled. No claims are amended.
Response to Amendment
Specification
The amendment to the specification 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 18, 19, 31, and 32 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.
The term “maximize a height of the light-curable material with a minimal cross-sectional area” in claims 18 and 32 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “maximize a height of the light-curable material with a minimal cross-sectional area” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what the thresholds for height or cross-section would be boundaries to practicing the claimed invention.
The term “single build of one or more 3D-printed objects” in claims 19 and 31 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “single build of one or more 3D-printed objects” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. ”[S]ingle build of one or more 3D-printed objects” is not a recognized unit of volume.
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) 17-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0246797 to Lambracht et al. (‘797 hereafter).
Regarding claim 17. ‘797 teaches a reservoir assembly for retrofitting an existing three-dimensional (3D) printer, comprising: a reservoir including a transparent surface adapted to hold a light-curable material and to register with a build surface of a platform adapted to removably mate with an existing Z- axis arm of the existing 3D printer (Fig 1 item 40, Fig 4 item 44); and a frame adapted to align the reservoir with a transparent substrate of the existing 3D printer and a curing light engine of the existing 3D printer (Fig 1 item 14); wherein a volume of the reservoir is smaller than a volume of a reservoir of the existing 3D printer (insofar as this limitation is a recitation of intended use of the claimed apparatus, the prior art reference teaches this limitation).
Regarding claim 18, ‘797 teaches the reservoir assembly wherein the volume of the reservoir is adapted to maximize a height of the light-curable material with a minimal cross-sectional area of the light-curable material within the reservoir (paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 19, ‘797 teaches the reservoir assembly wherein the volume of the reservoir is constrained to accommodate a single build of one or more 3D-printed objects (paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 20, ‘797 teaches the reservoir assembly wherein the frame is adapted to be removably secured over the transparent substrate of the existing 3D printer (paragraph 0108).
Regarding claim 21, ‘797 teaches the reservoir assembly wherein the frame is adapted to be removably secured atop a reservoir of the existing 3D printer (paragraph 0108). Examiner notes that the limitation itself is a recitation of intended use of the claimed apparatus and the prior art apparatus could be employed in the manner claimed.
Regarding claim 22, ‘797 teaches the reservoir assembly further comprising: a surface configured to cover a portion of the transparent substrate of the existing 3D printer in a manner so that a curing light generated by the curing light engine of the existing 3D printer passes through the transparent surface only, to facilitate curing the light-curable material and form a 3D-printed object on the build surface (Fig 2 item 14).
Regarding claim 23, ‘797 teaches the reservoir assembly wherein the surface surrounds the transparent surface of the reservoir (Fig 1 items 14 and 40).
Regarding claim 24, ‘797 teaches the reservoir system wherein the surface is adapted to be removably secured over the transparent substrate of the existing 3D printer (paragraph 0108).
Regarding claim 25 ‘797 teaches the reservoir system wherein the surface is adapted to be removably secured atop a reservoir of the existing 3D printer (paragraph 0108). Examiner notes that the limitation itself is a recitation of intended use of the claimed apparatus and the prior art apparatus could be employed in the manner claimed.
Regarding claim 26, ‘797 teaches the reservoir assembly wherein the reservoir is integral or coupled to the surface (Fig 1 items 40 and 14).
Regarding claim 27, ‘797 teaches the reservoir assembly wherein the surface is integral or coupled to the frame (Fig 1 item 14).
Regarding claim 28, ‘797 teaches the reservoir assembly wherein the reservoir is integral or coupled to the frame (Fig 1 items 14 and 40).
Regarding claim 29, ‘797 teaches the reservoir assembly wherein the reservoir is prefilled with the light-curable material (paragraph 0038). Examiner notes that although the cited prior art teaches this limitation, the limitation itself is a recitation of intended use of the claimed apparatus.
Regarding claim 30, ‘797 teaches a reservoir system for retrofitting an existing three-dimensional (3D) printer, comprising: a platform adapted to removably mate with an existing Z-axis arm of the existing 3D printer (Fig 2 items 50 and 60); a reservoir including a transparent surface adapted to hold a light-curable material and to register with a build surface of the platform (Fig 4 item 44 and fig w item 40); and a frame adapted to align the reservoir with a transparent substrate of the existing 3D printer and a curing light engine of the existing 3D printer (Fig 2 item 14); wherein a volume of the reservoir is smaller than a volume of a reservoir of the existing 3D printer (insofar as this limitation is a recitation of intended use of the claimed apparatus and the prior art apparatus as described could be used with an additive manufacturing apparatus with a larger volume).
Regarding claim 31, ‘797 teaches the reservoir system wherein the volume of the reservoir is constrained to accommodate a single build of one or more 3D-printed objects (paragraph 0016). Examiner notes that the limitation itself is a recitation of intended use of the claimed apparatus and the prior art apparatus could be employed in the manner claimed.
Regarding claim 32, ‘797 teaches the reservoir system wherein the volume of the reservoir is adapted to maximize a height of the light-curable material with a minimal cross-sectional area of the light-curable material within the reservoir (paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 33, ‘797 teaches the reservoir system further comprising: a surface configured to cover a portion of the transparent substrate of the existing 3D printer in a manner so that a curing light generated by the curing light engine of the existing 3D printer passes through the transparent surface only, to facilitate curing the light-curable material and form a 3D-printed object on the build surface (Fig 2 item 14).
Regarding claim 34, ‘797 teaches the reservoir system wherein the surface surrounds the transparent surface of the reservoir (Fig 1 item 14, 40).
Regarding claim 35, ‘797 teaches the reservoir system wherein the surface is adapted to be either: removably secured over the transparent substrate of the existing 3D printer; or removably secured atop a reservoir of the existing 3D printer (paragraph 0108). Examiner notes that the limitation itself is a recitation of intended use of the claimed apparatus and the prior art apparatus could be employed in the manner claimed.
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) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘797 as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0046779 to Pax et al. (‘779 hereafter).
Regarding claim 36, ‘797 does not teach a heater built in to the platform. In the same
field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘779 teaches the 3D printing system wherein the platform comprises at least one built-in heater adapted to heat the build surface of the platform (paragraph 0016) for the benefit of controlling the temperature of the build platform.
It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teaching of ‘797 with those of ‘779 for the benefit of controlling the temperature of the build platform.
Response to Arguments
In support of the patentability of the instant claims, applicant argues that the previously applied prior art does not teach the newly entered claims. Examiner agrees. An updated search was conducted and newly identified prior art was found which was applied against the new claims. See above.
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 John P Robitaille whose telephone number is (571)270-7006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JPR/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743