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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/28/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The Amendment filed 01/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7 are currently pending in the application. Claims 4 and 6-7 have been amended.
Response to Amendment
35 USC 112(b). The amendments to claims 4 and 6-7 have overcome the rejection of claims 4 and 6-7 under 35 USC 112(b) as being indefinite set forth in the Office Action mailed 08/28/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 103. Applicant’s arguments filed 01/28/2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection of claim 1 is made in view of Holt (US 2018/0282544 A1). The rejection of claims 1-7 may be found below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Holt (US 2018/0282544 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 7, Holt teaches a build platform for use in a three-dimensional (3D) printing system comprising a build surface including a hardened layer; wherein the build surface is roughened to increase a surface area of contact between the build surface and a 3D printed part; and wherein the hardened layer is secured directly to a bottom surface of the build platform without the cavity (build platform was a sheet of anodised aluminium that had a roughened surface) (¶0082,0122).
A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. MPEP 2115. Regarding the limitation “employing photosensitive resin comprising suspended particles including a first Mohs hardness rating,” the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. The limitation “a hardened layer that has a second Mohs rating, the second Mohs rating equal to or greater than the first Mohs rating” compares the structure being claimed to the inclusion of the material worked upon by said structure and does not impart patentability to the claims.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Holt (US 2018/0282544 A1), as applied to claim 1, as evidenced by Axsom, “Aluminum Anodizing: All You Need to Know” (hereinafter “Axsom”) and as further evidenced by Techmetals, “Tech Talk – Anodized Aluminum & Titanium) (hereinafter “Techmetals).
Regarding claims 2-3, as applied to claim 1, a claim is only limited by positively recited elements. MPEP 2115. Regarding the limitation “wherein the suspended particles include ceramic particles and the first Mohs rating is about 7.5,” the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.
The limitations “the hardened layer of the build surface is formed of aluminum oxide (Al2O3) through anodization” and “wherein the anodization is a Type III anodization,” respectively (emphasis added) are considered product-by-process claims. The cited prior art teaches all the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113.
Nevertheless, Holt teaches a build platform wherein the hardened layer of the build surface is formed of aluminum oxide (A1203) through anodization (¶0082,0122) as evidenced by Axsom which teaches that in the aluminum anodizing process, natural aluminum oxide layer is replaced through the anodizing process with a new aluminum oxide layer to improve part durability, paint adhesion, component appearance, and corrosion resistance (Pg 2).
Axsom further teaches that each type of anodization creates different functional and aesthetic characteristic and Type III is used primarily to increase abrasion and wear resistance; it’s a much thicker coating that outperforms the other types for abrasion and wear; wherein this coating may reduce fatigue life, however; and wherein Type III anodize is frequently used on firearm components, gears, valves, and other parts that slide relative to each other (Pg 6-7).
Holt further teaches that the Mohs rating is about 9.0 as evidence by Techmetals which discloses that aluminum oxide is rated 9 out of 10 on the Mohs scale (Pg 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (US 2018/0282544 A1) as evidenced by Axsom, “Aluminum Anodizing: All You Need to Know” (hereinafter “Axsom”) and as further evidenced by Techmetals, “Tech Talk – Anodized Aluminum & Titanium) (hereinafter “Techmetals), as applied to claim 2, and in further view of Axsom.
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 2, Holt does not specify that a thickness of the anodized aluminum oxide is about 13 µm to 150 µm.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (thickness of the anodized aluminum oxide layer; see MPEP 2141.01(a)), Axsom teaches that each type of anodization creates different functional and aesthetic characteristic and Type III is used primarily to increase abrasion and wear resistance; it’s a much thicker coating that outperforms the other types for abrasion and wear; wherein this coating may reduce fatigue life, however; wherein Type III anodize is frequently used on firearm components, gears, valves, and other parts that slide relative to each other; and wherein the Type III coating type has a thickness range of 0.0005 mm to 0.0045 mm (Pg 6-8).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus disclosed in Holt by applying the known technique of a Type III coating having a thickness range of 0.0005 mm to 0.0045 mm as disclosed in Axsom to build surface including a hardened layer disclosed in Holt with predictable results and resulting in an improved apparatus. MPEP 2143(D).
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 4, while Holt teaches wherein the build surface is roughened…such that it increases the overall adhesive force between the build surface and a 3D printed part (see rejection of claims 1-2 and 4 above) (base device), Holt does not specify that a surface roughness RA of about 0.5 µm to 10 µm.
However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05(II). It would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success since Holt teaches that the build platform may be obtained by using anodized aluminum with a surface that was slightly roughened or plastics with a high surface energy (Holt, ¶0082).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus disclosed in Holt through routine optimization to arrive at the claimed surface roughness RA of about 0.5 µm to 10 µm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a build surface with high surface energy between the build platform and the object created on a build platform (Holt, ¶0082).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JaMel M Nelson whose telephone number is (571)272-8174. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM ET - 5:00 PM 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, Galen Hauth can be reached on (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.
/JAMEL M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743