DETAILED ACTION
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 rejection is in response to the application for patent received by the office on 26 February 2026. Claims 1-10 are pending. Claim 1 is amended. No claims are added or cancelled.
Response to Amendment
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, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0238522 to Edwards et al (‘522 hereafter) in view of CN 112719294 A to Qin et al. (‘294 hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, ‘522 teaches a three-dimensional shaping stage comprising: a placement portion that includes an opening (Fig 3 items 18, Fig 1 items 22) and a reference surface partially enclosing the opening, the reference surface having a flatness (Fig 1 items 20 and 22); a shaping stage that is placed at the reference surface so as to completely cover the opening in a plan view and that includes a shaping surface at which shaping layers are stacked to form a three dimensional object (Fig 1 item 14, examiner’s note: recitations of intended use are not accorded patentable wight (See MPEP 2114 (II))); a heating unit that is disposed below the shaping stage and that is configured to heat the shaping stage (Fig 1 items 30); a pressing unit configured to press the heating unit against the shaping stage via the opening (Fig 1 items 32); and a holding unit configured to relatively hold only an outer edge of the shaping stage to the reference surface (Figs 1 and 5 items 86, 88, 104,90, 92, 94, 22). ‘522 does not teach a specific degree of flatness of the reference surface.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘294 teaches a printing substrate with a flatness less than 100 micrometers (“step two, printing substrate 1 processing and manufacturing: selecting the austenitic stainless steel or 45 # steel forged piece with qualified chemical components; carrying out solid solution heat treatment according to the standard technique; using a sawing machine or a lathe or a cold and hot cutting method to feed; using the numerical control device to process the printing substrate 1, printing substrate 1 dimensional tolerance is not more than +/- 0.1mm, the surface roughness of the working surface (to be printed) is not more than 3.2 μm, the flatness is not greater than 0.1mm.”) for the benefit of providing a high precision surface for a complex component to be built upon. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘522 with those of ‘294 for the benefit of providing a high precision surface to a removable build stage.
Regarding claim 2, ‘522 teaches the three-dimensional shaping stage according wherein a side surface of the shaping stage includes a first inclined surface inclined such that an end portion on a lower side is farther away from the shaping surface than an end portion on an upper side in a horizontal direction (Fig 3 item 46), and the holding unit includes a second inclined surface facing the first inclined surface (Fig 2 item 44).
Regarding claim 4, ‘522 teaches the three-dimensional shaping stage comprising: a biasing unit configured to bias the shaping stage toward the holding unit (Fig 3 items 48).
Regarding claim 5, ‘522 teaches the three-dimensional shaping stage wherein the holding unit includes a position adjustment mechanism configured to adjust a position of the shaping stage in a direction along the shaping surface (fig 1 items 86, 88 and 104).
Regarding claim 6, ‘522 teaches the three-dimensional shaping stage wherein the heating unit includes a first region not including a rubber heater when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the shaping surface, and a second region that surrounds the first region and that includes the rubber heater when viewed from the direction perpendicular to the shaping surface (Fig item 30 is provided with a through hole to place temperature sensor 80 against bottom surface of stage 14).
Regarding claim 7, ‘522 teaches the three-dimensional shaping stage wherein the reference surface and the heating unit are separated from each other (Fig 3 items 30 and 20/22), the shaping stage includes a first portion that is a portion in contact with the reference surface and at which a handle is formed, and a second portion that is a portion in contact with the reference surface and at which the handle is not formed, and a contact area between the first portion and the reference surface is smaller than a contact area between the second portion and the reference surface (the long and short edges of sidewalls 22 – the short edges are shown with handles in figure 3, the long edges do not have handles. The long edges necessarily have greater contact area (18) than the shorter edges.)
Regarding claim 8, ‘522 teaches the three-dimensional shaping stage wherein a plurality of grooves are formed at predetermined intervals in the shaping surface (paragraph 0041).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘522 in view of ‘294 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of case law rationale.
Regarding claim 3, while ‘522 shows an inclined surface at an angle between 90 and 180 degrees in figures 2 and 3 at least, it does not explicitly disclose the angle defined by the shaping surface and first inclined surface. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimal or workable ranges involves mere routine skill in the art. One possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have been motivated to select an incline angle from the claimed range for the benefit of providing sufficient rise while maintaining a run distance of the levelling units 40 so that they fit within the footprint of the prior art assembly.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘522 in view of ‘294as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 5,837,960 to Lewis et al. (‘960 hereafter).
Regarding claim 9, ‘522 in view of ‘294 teaches the shaping stage suitable for additive manufacturing use (paragraph 0002) as claimed but does not necessarily disclose the additive manufacturing apparatus as claimed. In the related art of additive manufacturing, ‘960 teaches a three-dimensional shaping apparatus comprising a nozzle configured to discharge a shaping material to the shaping surface (Fig 1 item 41) for the benefit of providing material to the build stage. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the build stage of ‘522 in view of ‘294 with the additive manufacturing apparatus of ‘960 for the benefit of securely holding substrates as they have additively manufactured components built upon them.
Regarding claim 10, ‘522 in view of ‘294 does not teach a sensor as claimed. In the related art of additive manufacturing, ‘960 teaches the three-dimensional shaping apparatus further comprising: a sensor, wherein the sensor measures a distance between the sensor and the shaping stage at a plurality of points while relatively moving with respect to the three-dimensional shaping stage in a direction along a side surface of the placement portion (Fig 1 item 42, C7 Ls54-58 and C22 Ls24-28) for the benefit of enabling real-time position control. 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 ‘522 with those of ‘960 for the benefit of enabling real-time position control on an apparatus with removable substrates.
Response to Arguments
In support of the patentability of the instant claims, applicant has argued that the previously applied prior art does not teach independent claim 1 as instantly amended. Examiner agrees. Accordingly, an updated search was conducted, and newly identified relevant prior art has been applied.
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