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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/27/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "such that" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180304365 (“Brzezinski”) in view of US 20090072447 (“Hull”) and further in view of Mantell et al (US 2020/0094474 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Brzezinski teaches a method for manufacturing a three-dimensional shaped object ([0004], “a method of printing an object via a 3D printer”), in which a shaped object (object 112) and a support structure ([0034], “support bridges”) that supports the shaped object are shaped by ejecting a material ([0034], “nozzle dispenses a composite build material… dispenses a support material”) to laminate a layer ([0064], fabricate layer by layer) in a laminating direction ([0032], “positioning the nozzle 110 relative to the build plate 114 while depositing the composite in a pattern to fabricate the object”), the method comprising:
a first step of shaping ([0061], “step 202), based on support data generated according to a shaping condition ([0061], process various depending on build material), the support structure ([0041], “different support materials and or different support rules may be employed for each type of required support”) including a first support layer in contact ([0038] support structure necessarily has a layer that contacts) with the shaped object from below ([0038], “structures that might otherwise require support structures underneath”) and a second support layer in contact ([0038] support structure on top necessarily has a layer that contacts) with the shaped object from above ([0041], “top or side supports”);
and a second step ([0061], separation step necessarily follows the creation of support structure) of separating the first support layer and the second support layer from the shaped object ([0061], two support structure are necessarily separated as they are removed at different times from the object),
wherein the shaping condition includes a shaping pattern selected from a plurality of shaping patterns ([0032], it is well known that for additive manufacturing depositing in a pattern of an object necessarily indicates if an object requires a different pattern the device will be able to deposit a different pattern),
and data for shaping the first support layer ([0060], design rules for support structure) and data for shaping the second support layer ([0060], design rules for support structure) among the support data are generated based on the different shaping conditions ([0060] design rules are changed based on different build materials).
Brzezinski does not explicitly teach a body layer sandwiched between the first support layer and the second support layer.
Hull teaches an additive manufacturing process (Abstract), wherein a body layer (Fig. 32, a layer of 50 which is composed of multiple layers; [0067] support size can be reduced depends on the size of the object being supported; In specification Fig. 11, the body layer in between support layers D1 and D2 has multiple layers; it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when the part being supported is only a layer, the support structure only needs a layer in order to reduce the amount of post-processing because lighter support also has minimum number of scars) is sandwiched between the first support layer (Fig. 32, 30 above the body part 50) and the second support layer (Fig. 32, 30 below the body part 50).
Brzezinski and Hull are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of additive manufacturing to generate support structure for 3D objects. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the support structure in Brzezinski to incorporate a first support layer and a second support layer as taught by Hull as described above, in order to make it easier to remove support structure from the body part (Hull, [0168]).
As for the limitation, shaping conditions related to the support structure includes a condition related to a separation distance, which is a distance between the shaped object and the support structure, Mantell teaches a distance between the nozzle and the support structure is different than the distance between the nozzle and the infill (see claims 5 and 18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a separation distance, which is a distance between the shaped object and the support structure, as taught by Mantell into the method taught by Brzezinski and Hull for the benefit of producing structures more efficiently [0041].
Regarding claim 2, Brzezinski teaches wherein the shaping condition related to the support structure includes a condition related to a material ([0060] design rules are changed based on different build materials).
Regarding claim 3, Brzezinski teaches generating the support data ([0040], design rules including temperature during deposition) such that an adhesion strength between the second support layer ([0040] the ease of removal of support structure from the object is related to the adhesion strength in that higher adhesion strength leads to less easy removal) and the shaped object is lower than an adhesion strength between the first support layer and the shaped object ([0040], Brzezinski teaches higher deposition temperature for a support structure improves removal and lowers adhesion strength and increasing the temperature to improve the ease of removal, it would be logical to one having ordinary skill in the art to also understand that the second support layer which is easier to remove due to the higher temperature has a lower adhesion strength than the first layer in connection with the object).
Regarding claim 4, Brzezinski teaches generating the support data ([0060] design rules) such that a distance between the second support layer and the shaped object ([0061], a support structure that is “loosely mechanically coupled to a green body” because it is loosely, there is some distance) is larger than a distance between the first support layer and the shaped object in the laminating direction ([0061], another support structure that is “preferably coupled to the object” it’s coupled, so there isn’t a distance).
Regarding claim 8, Mantell teaches wherein the condition related to the separation distance includes a first distance between the shaped object and the first support layer, and second distance between the shaped object and the second support layer (Mantell discloses a distance between the nozzle and support structure is different from the distance from the infill [0041]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the condition related to the separation distance includes a first distance between the shaped object and the first support layer, and second distance between the shaped object and the second support layer based on design needs of the final product and "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Regarding claim 9, Mantell discloses a distance between the nozzle and support structure is different from the distance from the infill [0041]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a second distance greater than the first distance since second support layer is higher than the first. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have different distances based on design needs of the final products and "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180304365 (“Brzezinski”) in view of US 20090072447 (“Hull”) and further in view of Mantell et al (US 2020/0094474 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 20180169954 (“Kendrick”).
Regarding claim 5, Brzezinski does not teach wherein in the first step, the first support layer or the second support layer is shaped with a contour region and an interior region.
However, Kendrick teaches an additive manufacturing method ([0002]), wherein the support layer (Fig. 3, 330) is shaped with a contour region (Fig. 3, [0039], outer region of 330 has complex patterns) and an interior region ([0039], Fig. 3, inner regions of 330 has in-fill structure).
Brzezinski and Kendrick are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of additive manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the support structure in Brzezinski to incorporate a contour region and an interior region as taught by Kendrick, in order to have more flexibility on the orientation in which the support structure could be positioned (Kendrick, [0040]).
Regarding claim 6, Brzezinski does not teach wherein in the first step, the first support layer or the second support layer is shaped with a contour region and an interior region, and at least one layer of the support structure that is not in contact with the shaped object is shaped with the inner region and without the contour region.
However, Kendrick teaches wherein the support layer (Fig. 3, 330) is shaped with a contour region (Fig. 3, [0039], outer region of 330 has complex patterns) and an interior region ([0039], Fig. 3, inner regions of 330), and at least one layer of the support structure ([0044] support structure 330 contains additional structure in between outer and inner regions) that is not in contact with the shaped object ([0044] between outer and inner regions, the interconnecting support structure is not contacting the top surface 310 or bottom surface 320) is shaped with the inner region ([0039], Fig. 3, inner regions of 330) and without the contour region ([0049], Kendrick teaches the pattern of the support structure is non-limited, including honeycomb patterns, which only has inner infills without outer boundaries, which is equivalent to Pattern C in Fig. 9 of instant Specification, which includes one round of contour, since if the number of contour is zero, the structure in Pattern C is a honeycomb pattern).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the support structure in Brzezinski to incorporate a contour region and an interior region as taught by Kendrick, in order to have more flexibility on the orientation in which the support structure could be positioned (Kendrick, [0040]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Brzezinski teaches wherein a shaping speed of the interior region ([0104] tool speed for shaping any one region of the support structure) is higher than a shaping speed of the contour region ([0104], underextruding at least one of the support structure in this case the interior region with increased tool speed compared to the contour region).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180304365 (“Brzezinski”) in view of US 20090072447 (“Hull”) and further in view of Mantell et al (US 2020/0094474 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kulkarni et al (US 6,558, 606 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Brzezinski teaches a method for manufacturing a three-dimensional shaped object ([0004], “a method of printing an object via a 3D printer”), in which a shaped object (object 112) and a support structure ([0034], “support bridges”) that supports the shaped object are shaped by ejecting a material ([0034], “nozzle dispenses a composite build material… dispenses a support material”) to laminate a layer ([0064], fabricate layer by layer) in a laminating direction ([0032], “positioning the nozzle 110 relative to the build plate 114 while depositing the composite in a pattern to fabricate the object”), the method comprising:
a first step of shaping ([0061], “step 202), based on support data generated according to a shaping condition ([0061], process various depending on build material), the support structure ([0041], “different support materials and or different support rules may be employed for each type of required support”) including a first support layer in contact ([0038] support structure necessarily has a layer that contacts) with the shaped object from below ([0038], “structures that might otherwise require support structures underneath”) and a second support layer in contact ([0038] support structure on top necessarily has a layer that contacts) with the shaped object from above ([0041], “top or side supports”);
and a second step ([0061], separation step necessarily follows the creation of support structure) of separating the first support layer and the second support layer from the shaped object ([0061], two support structure are necessarily separated as they are removed at different times from the object),
wherein the shaping condition includes a shaping pattern selected from a plurality of shaping patterns ([0032], it is well known that for additive manufacturing depositing in a pattern of an object necessarily indicates if an object requires a different pattern the device will be able to deposit a different pattern),
and data for shaping the first support layer ([0060], design rules for support structure) and data for shaping the second support layer ([0060], design rules for support structure) among the support data are generated based on the different shaping conditions ([0060] design rules are changed based on different build materials).
Brzezinski does not explicitly teach a body layer sandwiched between the first support layer and the second support layer.
Hull teaches an additive manufacturing process (Abstract), wherein a body layer (Fig. 32, a layer of 50 which is composed of multiple layers; [0067] support size can be reduced depends on the size of the object being supported; In specification Fig. 11, the body layer in between support layers D1 and D2 has multiple layers; it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when the part being supported is only a layer, the support structure only needs a layer in order to reduce the amount of post-processing because lighter support also has minimum number of scars) is sandwiched between the first support layer (Fig. 32, 30 above the body part 50) and the second support layer (Fig. 32, 30 below the body part 50).
Brzezinski and Hull are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of additive manufacturing to generate support structure for 3D objects. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the support structure in Brzezinski to incorporate a first support layer and a second support layer as taught by Hull as described above, in order to make it easier to remove support structure from the body part (Hull, [0168]).
Bezezinski does not explicitly disclose adhesion strength, analogous 3d printing art, Kulkarni et al discloses the adhesion strength is proportional to the area of contact between layers (column 2 lines 17-19). Therefore, adhesion strength is a result effective variable. MPEP 2144.05 discloses In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 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, 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights