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
Claims 1-20 are examined in this office action as claims 16-20 are new in the reply dated 1/30/26.
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 1-20 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 1 recites the limitation “by melting and fusing powder from a build plate” in line 9. It is not clear how powder can be melted and fused “from a build plate”. While powder bed additive manufacturing involves melting and fusing powder on a build plate and building up a part layer-by-layer from a build plate, it is not clear how the powder comes from a build plate. Claims 2-20 are also rejected as they depend from claim 1 and do not solve the above issue. For the purposes of applying prior art, this will be interpreted as melting and fusing powder on a build plate as the build plate is used as the base upon which components are constructed in additive manufacturing.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2019/0030824 A1 of Tan.
As to claim 1, Tan discloses a method of producing a curved plate by additive layer manufacture (Tan, paragraph [0002]), meeting the limitation of a method of manufacturing a component. Tan discloses finite element modelling of a plate produced by ALM by deposition of layers on a base and where ALM comprises depositing powder on a machine bed or base/build plate and then selectively consolidating or fusing the powder (Tan, paragraphs [0003] and [0006] and FIG. 1 showing the results of the modeling), meeting the limitation of determining a predicted direction and extent of distortion of a portion of the component due to shrinkage of the component during additive manufacturing by melting and fusing powder and additive manufacturing, by melting and fusing powder from a build plate, the component and the support structure. Tan discloses where support structures are designed to counter the distortions determined by the finite element modeling (Tan, paragraph [0007]), meeting the limitation of designing a support structure based on the predicted direction and extent of distortion of the portion of the component.
Tan discloses where the support structure comprises a hook structure (35,36, and 37) comprising an elongate arm and a hook protruding from the elongate arm (Tan, paragraph [0030] and annotated FIG. 5 reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
357
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tan discloses where the structures are placed to increase stiffness in the direction parallel to the preferential mode of distortion (Tan, paragraph [0007] and FIGs. 1 and 5 where the portion that meets the plate 37 is located at the surfaces of maximum distortion of the component), meeting the limitation wherein the hook is deposited to abut a distortion surface of the component to restrain distortion of the portion of the component, the distortion surface being the surface of the component having the largest distortion in the predicted direction of distortion of the component.
Tan discloses where the elongate arm extends from the hook in a direction having a vector component opposing the direction of distortion (Tan, see annotated FIG. 5 above where the elongate arm portion of the hook extends in a opposite direction from the distortion shown in FIG. 1), meeting the claim limitations. While Tan does not state that shrinkage of the elongate arm during additive manufacture provides a force to the portion of the component, via the hook, to minimize distortion of the portion of the component, as Tan discloses an identical structure produced by an identical method, this structure would necessarily have the same property of provides a force to the portion of the component, via the hook, to minimize distortion of the portion of the component. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (emphasis added), see MPEP § 2112.01(I).
As to claim 2, Tan discloses where the elongate arm extends from the hook parallel to and opposing the direction of distortion (Tan, see annotated FIG 5 above and FIG 1 showing the direction of distortion).
As to claim 3, Tan discloses a protruding arrowhead which abuts the distortion surface (Tan, FIG. 5 where the arrowhead is the pointed portion of the top of 37).
As to claim 6, Tan discloses where the support structure comprises a plurality of hook structures with each hook structure corresponding to a different portion of the component to minimize distortion of the respective portion and each hook structure is separate from the other hook structure (Tan, FIG. 5 reproduced above).
As to claim 9, Tan discloses finite element modelling of a plate produced by ALM by deposition of layers on a base (Tan, paragraph [0006] and FIG. 1 showing the results of the modeling), meeting the claim limitation of a predictive simulation is used to determine a predicted direction and extent of distortion of the portion of the component.
As to claims 11 and 13, Tan discloses where finite element modelling is used to show the directions and locations of the principal distortions in a part with support structures (Tan, paragraph [0027] and FIG. 4), meeting the claim 11 limitation of determining the predicted direction and extent of distortion of the portion of the component with the support structure and the claim 13 limitation of where the determination is done using predictive simulation. Tan discloses where the size and shape of the sacrificial portions can be modified to counter the distortions (Tan, paragraph [0015]), meeting the claim 11 limitation of altering the design of the support structure based on the determined predicted direction and extend of distortion of the portion of the component with the support structure until the distortion of the portion falls below a distortion threshold.
As to claim 15, Tan discloses where the portion of the component is an edge of the component, such that the distortion surface is the surface of the component having the largest distortion in the predicted direction of distortion at the edge of the component (Tan, FIG 5 shown above and FIG 1 which shows the largest distortions at the edge of the component).
As to claim 18, Tan discloses where the support structure comprises a hook structure (35, 36, and 37) comprising an elongate arm and a hook protruding from the elongate arm with a first end touching the surface of the part and a second opposing end where the elongate arm is in a plane and extending away from the first end of the hook (Tan, paragraph [0030] and annotated FIG. 5 reproduced above).
As to claim 19, Tan discloses where the support structures make supporting contact with the plate and where they are integrally connected together (Tan, paragraph [0030] and FIG. 5), meeting the limitation where the elongate arm is formed integrally with the hook.
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.
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.
Claims 4, 7-8, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0030824 A1 of Tan.
As to claim 4, while Tan discloses a protruding arrowhead which abuts the distortion surface (Tan, FIG. 5 where the arrowhead is the pointed portion of the top of 37), Tan does not disclose where the protruding arrowhead comprises a surface abutting the distortion surface having a maximum width of 0.5mm, in cross-section. Nevertheless, this merely relates to the size of the structure and as Tan discloses that the purpose of the features is to counter distortions in the part (Tan, paragraph [0007]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a size for the protruding arrowhead having a maximum width of 0.5mm, in cross-section, thereby having sufficient area and generating sufficient counter forces to counter these distortions. The MPEP notes that in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (emphasis added), see MPEP § 2144.04(IV)).
As to claims 7, 8, 16 and 20, while Tan discloses where the support structure comprises a hook structure (35,36, and 37) comprising an elongate arm and a hook protruding from the elongate arm where a first surface of the hook running along the longitudinal extent faces the component and Tan discloses where the elongate arm extends away from the hook (Tan, paragraph [0030] and annotated FIG. 5 reproduced above), Tan does not disclose where the elongate arm comprises a minimum extent of 20mm from the hook in the direction parallel to and opposing the direction of distortion nor wherein the support structure is deposited such that the length of the elongate arm in any cross-section parallel to the build plate is varied based on the perpendicular distance from the build plate, wherein the hook includes a longitudinal extent that is greater than a traverse extent of the hook, nor wherein the elongate arm extends past a first edge of the component such that the first edge of the component is located closer to the hook than a terminal end of the elongate arm.
Nevertheless, Tan discloses where the sacrificial plate additions are varied in length (Tan, paragraph [0015]), and as Tan discloses where the plate is curved in both an x-y as well as a z direction (Tan, FIG. 3), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the elongate arm to have a minimum extent of 20mm from the hook, where the length of the elongate arm in any cross-section parallel to the build plate is varied based on the perpendicular distance from the build plate thereby adjusting the support structures to support the curving shape of the plate as it extends backwards in the x-y direction, wherein the hook includes a longitudinal extent that is greater than a traverse extent of the hook, and wherein the elongate arm extends past a first edge of the component such that the first edge of the component is located closer to the hook than a terminal end of the elongate arm. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, (emphasis added) see MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). Further in In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, see MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0030824 A1 of Tan in view of US 2018/0311732 A1 of El Naga.
As to claim 5 and 17, Tan discloses a protruding arrowhead which abuts the distortion surface (Tan, FIG. 5 where the arrowhead is the pointed portion of the top of 37). However, Tan does not disclose where the hook comprises a plurality of protruding arrowheads.
El Naga relates to the same field of endeavor of support structures for additive manufacturing (El Naga, paragraph [0001]). El Naga teaches where a plurality of extensions ending in protruding arrowheads are used to support a part by forming attachments with the part (El Naga, paragraph [0119]) and FIG. 18). El Naga teaches that the support structures offset or otherwise mitigate structures prone to deformation or other problems (El Naga, paragraph [0041]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a plurality of extensions ending in protruding arrowheads as taught by El Naga into the method of additively manufacturing a part disclosed in Tan, thereby offsetting or otherwise mitigating structures prone to deformation or other problems (El Naga, paragraph [0041]) and providing a larger surface area for support of the part.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0030824 A1 of Tan in view of “Evaluating the Accuracy of a 3D Printed Part Against the CAD Model” of GoMeasure3D.
As to claims 10 and 12, Tan discloses the method of manufacturing a component according to claims 1 and 11, see claims 1 and 11 rejections above. However, while Tan discloses where finite element modelling is used to show the directions and locations of the principal distortions in a part with support structures (Tan, paragraph [0027] and FIG. 4), and where the size and shape of the sacrificial portions can be modified to counter the distortions (Tan, paragraph [0015]), Tan does not disclose where a component is manufactured and compared against a design template.
GoMeasure3D relates to gauging the performance of a 3D printer by evaluating its 3D part (GoMeasure3D, pg. 1, Overview, first sentence). GoMeasure3D teaches printing a desired part from CAD file on a 3D printer, scanning the printed part using a 3D scanner to acquire point cloud data about its surface geometry, and using a deviation tool such as inspection software to directly compare the scan file and the CAD file (GoMeasure3D, pg. 2, Steps for Evaluation). GoMeasure3D teaches modifying the parameters to achieve a more dimensionally accurate part (GoMeasure3D, pg. 6, first paragraph). GoMeasure3D teaches that this allows the shape of the part to be scaled for more accurate and precise prints for the best print quality (GoMeasure3D, pg. 7, last paragraph).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute printing a desired part from CAD file on a 3D printer, scanning the printed part using a 3D scanner to acquire point cloud data about its surface geometry, and using a deviation tool such as inspection software to directly compare the scan file and the CAD file as disclosed by GoMeasure3D for finite element modeling as disclosed by Tan in its method of additively manufacturing a component, thereby this allowing the shape of the part to be scaled for more accurate and precise prints for the best print quality (GoMeasure3D, pg. 7, last paragraph). This also constitutes simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results as Tan merely differs in the use of modeling instead of the formation of prototype components that are compared to a design template, GoMeasure3D discloses that it is known in the art to form prototype components, compare them to the original CAD design, and modify the parameters and shape to achieve the desired shape, and one of ordinary skill could have substituted the use of prototype components instead or in addition to modeling to achieve the predictable results of a more accurate final component, see MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0030824 A1 of Tan in view of US 2013/0112366 A1 of Mottin.
As to claim 14, Tan discloses where the sacrificial additions are removed by machining after the ALM process (Tan, paragraph [0026]). However, Tan does not explicitly state where the component is heat treated.
Mottin relates to the same field of endeavor of layer-by-layer manufacturing of a part where a hook-like clamp is used to keep the elements of a part together including during heat treatment (Mottin, abstract and paragraph [0033] and Fig 4). Mottin teaches where the part is subjected to heat treatment (Mottin, paragraph [0056]). Mottin teaches that this releases residual stresses and prevents deformations of the part that occurs during separation of the part from the plate (Mottin, paragraphs [0056] and [0025]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a step of heat treatment before the support structures are removed as taught by Mottin into the method of additive manufacturing disclosed by Tan, thereby releasing residual stresses and preventing deformations of the part that occurs during separation of the part from the plate (Mottin, paragraphs [0056] and [0025]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/358242 in view of US 2019/0030824 A1 of Tan.
As to claim 1, the ‘242 application discloses melting and fusing powder in layers from a build plate to form the component and a disposable support structure support structure comprises, in cross-section parallel to the build plate, a hook structure comprising an elongate arm and a hook protruding from the elongate arm; wherein the hook is deposited to face a distortion surface of the component to restrain distortion of a portion of the component, the distortion surface being the surface of the component having the largest distortion in the predicted direction of distortion of the component; and wherein the elongate arm is deposited to extend from the hook in a direction having a vector component opposing the direction of distortion such that shrinkage of the elongate arm during additive manufacture brings the hook into contact with the component and provides a force to the portion of the component, via the hook, to minimize distortion of the portion of the component. However, the ‘242 application claims that there is a 10 micron gap between the support structure and component.
Nevertheless, Tan teaches using support structures which also make supporting contact with the plate (Tan, paragraph [0030]). Tan teaches that these structures increase stiffness in the direction parallel to the preferential mode of distortion (Tan, paragraph [0007]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute support structures which also make supporting contact with the plate as taught by Tan into the method of manufacturing a component disclosed in the ‘242 application, thereby increasing stiffness in the direction parallel to the preferential mode of distortion (Tan, paragraph [0007]).
Further, the dependent claims are substantially identical to claims 2-10 of the ‘242 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 112(b) rejection, applicant argues that as paragraphs [0038]-[0039] recite that material is melted and fused on a build plate, this makes the recitation of melting and fusing powder from a build plate clear (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 6, 2nd paragraph).
However, even if the specification recites melting and fusing on a build plate, this does not make the recitation of melting and fusing powder from a build plate clear. Parts can be build up from a build plate and powder can be fused on a build plate, but it is not clear how powder can come from a build plate.
With respect to the rejection over Tan, applicant argues that as the finite element analysis is done on the plate which has already been produced, Tan fails to disclose where the buildup of the plate is based on the finite element modeling of FIG. 4 or any other predicted direction of distortion and the modeling of distortions is not a part of the fabrication method (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 7, section 2, 2nd paragraph).
However, the instant claims merely require determining predicted direction and extent of distortion followed by designing a support structure based on said predicted distortion. This does not require that the design of the component itself is based on the predictions. In this case, Tan discloses where finite element modeling of a plate is performed (Tan, paragraph [0006]) and where support structures are added to counter the predicted distortion of the part (Tan, paragraph [0030] and FIG. 5). Thus, Tan meets the claim limitations.
Applicant argues that the hook/arm structure in Tan does not have the hook and arm structure as in claim 1 as the elongate arm 36 has substantially the same length as the hook 37 (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 7, last paragraph).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the elongate arm is longer than the hook) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As elongate means that something is stretched out or long and slender, Tan meets the claim limitations as the elongate arm 36 is stretched out in a long and slender shape.
Applicant also argues that the elongate arm does not extend from the hook in a direction having a vector component opposing the direction of distortion as it extends from the side of the support structure and is generally perpendicular to the direction of distortion (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 8, 1st two paragraphs).
However, the elongate arm 36 in Tan extends both in a perpendicular as well as a parallel direction to the direction of distortion as shown below.
PNG
media_image2.png
422
945
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, taken as a whole, Tan is disclosing where the elongate arm extends away from the hook and in a direction having a vector component opposing the direction of distortion, meeting the claim limitations.
As to claim 8, applicant argues that Tan does not disclose or teach where the support structure is deposited such that the length of the elongate arm is varied based on the perpendicular distance from the build plate and this optimizes the force profile applied to the component during additive manufacturing (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 9, 2nd paragraph).
However, as noted in the rejection, while Tan does not explicitly state that the length of the elongate arm is varied based on the distance from the build plate, Tan does disclose where the sacrificial additions are varied in length (Tan, paragraph [0015]) and Tan discloses where the plate is curved in the X, Y, and Z directions (Tan, FIG. 3), it is obvious to modify the length of the elongate arm to support the curving shape of the plate as it extends backwards in the X-Y direction. Further, in response to applicant's argument that this optimizes the force profile applied to the component during additive manufacturing, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
With respect to claim 11, applicant argues the Tan fails to disclose any type of distortion threshold that informs the alteration of the design of the plate (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 9, 3rd paragraph).
However, Tan discloses modifying the size and shape of the sacrificial portions to counter the distortions in the produced part (Tan, paragraph [0015]). As a distortion is a deviation from a desired or true state, Tan is disclosing where there is a desired shape and support structures are being added to counter distortions and Tan thereby produces a desired part, it necessarily is disclosing where there is a threshold concerning the shape and where the sacrificial portions are modified to achieve this. Thus, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
With respect to the 103 rejections over Tan in view of GoMeasure3D and Mottin, as these rejections are not specifically challenged and Tan teaches the limitations of the claims from which they depend, these rejections stand for the reasons stated above.
With respect to the double patenting rejection, applicant argues that the elements of the claims in copending 18/358242 do not correspond or render obvious instant claims 1-15 (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 10, 2nd paragraph). However, the differences between the claims at issue are addressed with reference to Tan as noted in the rejection above.
With respect to the new claims 16-20, as these rejections are not specifically challenged, these claims are rejected for the reasons stated 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 Joshua S Carpenter whose telephone number is (571)272-2724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JOSHUA S CARPENTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights