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
The Amendment filed 01/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application. Claim 1 has been amended. No new claims have been added.
Response to Amendment
35 USC 112(b). The amendments to claim 1 have overcome the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 USC 112(b) as being indefinite set forth in the Office Action mailed 07/11/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 103. Applicant's remarks regarding the rejection of claims 1-4, 9-13, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constabeber (US 2016/0151974 A1) in view of Holt (US 2021/0122104 A1) have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 17, Applicant concedes that “Costabeber further discloses that in other embodiments, the thrusting device comprises a plunger arranged in each reservoir 5, 5a. (Costabeber, [0102])” (Remarks, PG 10). However, Applicant asserts that “Costabeber does not teach or otherwise disclose any feeding means using a movable structure,” “Costabeber does not teach or otherwise disclose that the thrusting device is a movable structure within the first chamber and, in fact, suggests the contrary,” “the feeding means comprising a thrusting device is depicted in Fig 6…resides on the boundary of the reservoir, not within the reservoir,” “Constabeber fails to define or disclose any details regarding the plunger,” and “based on the ordinary mechanisms of a plunger, the thrusting device must necessarily remain outside of the reservoir given the positioning of the seal formed by the plunger at the first end of the reservoir. Accordingly, the thrusting device cannot be a structure movable within the first chamber (i.e., reservoir). Furthermore, every embodiment of the feeding mechanism disclosed or taught by Costabeber employs a mechanism to supply air into the reservoir to manipulate pressure to facilitate the flow of material from the reservoir to the container. Costabeber does not disclose a movable structure within the chamber as claimed by Applicant” (Remarks, Pg 10-12).
Examiner notes that Costabeber discloses that the thrusting device comprises a plunger arranged in each reservoir 5, 5 a and a thrusting device 18 suited to thrust the materials 6, 6 a from the reservoirs 5, 5 a (a structure, movable within the first chamber adapted to transfer a portion of the printing material from the first chamber) towards the container 3, wherein the modelling platform 14 is arranged in contact with the material 6, 6 a or 6 b present in the container 3, and wherein the movement of the platform 14 is parallel to the bottom 9 of the container 3 (a printing area between a surface of a window and the platform in the second chamber) (¶0099,0102,0152-0160). Accordingly, Constabeber teaches a movable structure within the first chamber to facilitate the hydraulic transfer of printing material and that the movable structure (plunger) is located within the first chamber (reservoirs 5, 5).
Regarding claim 2, “Applicant respectfully disagrees that the claimed limitations are merely recitations with respect to the manner in which the invention is intended to be employed. Furthermore, for the reasons presented above, the prior art does not teach all the structural limitations of the claim (e.g., movable structure within the chamber)” (Remarks, 13).
As noted above, the prior art teaches of the structural limitations of the claim (movable structure within the chamber).
Accordingly, based upon the reasons stated above, the rejection of claims 1-4, 9-13, and 18-20 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the Office Action mailed 07/11/2025 is maintained. The rejection of amended claims 1-4, 9-13, and 18-20 is provided below.
Applicant’s arguments that prior art cited in the rejection of dependent claims do not make up for the deficiencies of the prior art cited in the rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 18 is not persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 12, and 18 is not considered to be deficient as argued above. The rejection of amended claims 5-8 and 14-17 is provided below.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 01/12/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 12,128,624 and 12,128,625 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
The terminal disclaimer filed on 01/12/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on Application No. 18/401,160, 18/543791, and 18/619744 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Interpretation
Functional language is often associated with a "controller" in the claims (see instant claims 1-20). The specific language associated with the "controller" will determine what subject matter must be given patentable weight.
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 19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “wherein movement of the platform hydraulically transfers the portion of the printing material from the first chamber to the printing area in the second chamber.” Claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter. A claim is indefinite if the scope of the claim is not clear to a hypothetical person possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. For compact prosecution, the limitation has been examined as if it read --wherein movement of the structure hydraulically transfers the portion of the printing material from the first chamber to the printing area in the second chamber --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 9-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constabeber (US 2016/0151974 A1) in view of Holt (US 2021/0122104 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 10, Constabeber discloses a stereolithography machine 1 (system for printing a three-dimensional (3D) object) comprising cartridge 2 (a container assembly adapted to store a printing material; wherein the container assembly is adapted to hermetically store the printing material), including a body adapted to be aligned with an emitter means 13 (curing light engine; the curing light engine…configured to emit a curing light through the window to cure at least a layer of the printing material to the platform or to a cured layer of the printing material on the platform, in order to build the 3D object on the platform) external to cartridge 2, the body housing conveyance ducts 8 a (channel), a reservoir 5 (first chamber; the first chamber is adapted to sealably store the printing material), and container 3 (second chamber); wherein the conveyance ducts 8 a is formed on an intermediate wall 16 (side wall) of reservoir 5 a to allow fluid communication between reservoir 5 and container 3; a thrusting device (a structure, movable within the first chamber adapted to transfer a portion of the printing material from the first chamber to a printing area between a surface of a window and the platform in the second chamber); and a power means (motor…configured to move the platform) (Fig 4 and ¶0078-0095,0099-0108,0148).
Examiner notes that Costabeber discloses that the thrusting device comprises a plunger arranged in each reservoir 5, 5 a and a thrusting device 18 suited to thrust the materials 6, 6 a from the reservoirs 5, 5 a (a structure, movable within the first chamber adapted to transfer a portion of the printing material from the first chamber) towards the container 3, wherein the modelling platform 14 is arranged in contact with the material 6, 6 a or 6 b present in the container 3, and wherein the movement of the platform 14 is parallel to the bottom 9 of the container 3 (a printing area between a surface of a window and the platform in the second chamber) (¶0099,0102,0152-0160). Accordingly, Constabeber teaches a movable structure within the first chamber to facilitate the hydraulic transfer of printing material and that the movable structure (plunger) is located within the first chamber (reservoirs 5, 5).
While Constabeber teaches a structure, platform, and curing light engine, Constabeber does not explicitly teach a controller; a motor coupled to the controller; nor the curing light engine in communication with the controller.
However, in the same field of endeavor, stereolithographic (SLA) 3D printing apparatus, Holt discloses a system comprising any device which emits digitally controllable light (controller, inherently disclosed; curing light engine in communication with the controller) (¶0055-0059) (known technique applicable to the base device). Holt discloses a system further comprising a piston attached to platform 110 in the resin reservoir chamber 101, which can be controlled by computer to allow pistons to lower and retract in the desired sequence (controller; structure) (Fig 1 and ¶0061,0072) (known technique applicable to the base device).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the system disclosed in Constabeber by applying the known technique of a system comprising a controller; the controller coupled to a structure and configured to move the structure; and a curing light engine in communication with the controller as disclosed in Holt to the system comprising a motor configured to move a platform and a curing light engine disclosed in Constabeber with predictable results and resulting in an improved apparatus. MPEP 2143(D).
The limitations “wherein movement of the structure hydraulically moves the platform in the second chamber when transferring the portion of the printing material from the first chamber to the printing area in the second chamber,” “wherein movement of the structure includes pushing or pulling the structure into the first chamber in order to transfer the portion of the printing material from the first chamber to the printing area in the second chamber,” and “wherein movement of the platform includes pushing or pulling the platform away from the printing area inside the second chamber” are a recitation of intended use of the claimed structure and platform. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114(II). Here, Constabeber in view of Holt teaches an apparatus which includes all the structural limitations of the claim, specifically the structure and the platform.
Alternatively regarding claim 2, Constabeber teaches that feeding means 8 make it possible to transfer the materials 6, 6 a into the container 3 when it is necessary to use them for the processing cycle, thus avoiding any need to top up the container 3 from the outside and thus achieving one of the objects of the invention (¶0064), wherein layer of the material 6, 6 a or 6 b arranged in contact with the modelling platform 14 is then selectively irradiated with the predefined radiation 7, in such a way as to cause it to solidify (¶0155), and wherein the modelling platform 14 is associated with power means suited to move it along a movement trajectory X (¶0148).
While Constabeber teaches a wherein movement of the structure hydraulically transfers the portion of the printing material from the first chamber to the printing area in the second chamber, Constabeber doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein movement of the structure hydraulically moves the platform in the second chamber when transferring the portion of the printing material from the first chamber to the printing area in the second chamber.
However, Holt teaches an apparatus wherein movement of the structure (platform 210) hydraulically moves the platform (print platform 206) in the second chamber when transferring the portion of the printing material from the first chamber to the printing area in the second chamber (Fig 2 and ¶0061-0065) (known technique applicable to base device).
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 Constabeber in view of Holt by applying the known technique of wherein movement of the structure (platform 210) hydraulically moves the platform (print platform 206) in the second chamber when transferring the portion of the printing material from the first chamber to the printing area in the second chamber (Fig 2 and ¶0061-0065) disclosed in Holt to the structure (thrusting device comprising a plunger arranged in each reservoir 5, 5 a) and platform (modelling platform 14 is associated with power means suited to move it along a movement trajectory) disclosed in Constabeber in view of Holt with predictable results and resulting in an improved apparatus. MPEP 2143(D).
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 1, although Constabeber in view of Holt does not specify a plurality of container assemblies in order to build a plurality of 3D objects nor wherein each of the plurality of 3D objects built on a respective platform of each of the plurality of container assemblies, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the system disclosed in Constabeber in view of Holt such that the system comprises a plurality of container assemblies in order to build a plurality of 3D objects and wherein each of the plurality of 3D objects built on a respective platform of each of the plurality of container assemblies, since it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
While Constabeber in view of Holt disclose a system comprising a curing light engine, Constabeber in view of Holt does not explicitly disclose wherein the curing light engine is adapted to simultaneously emit curing light at a plurality of container assemblies in order to build a plurality of 3D objects, each of the plurality of 3D objects built on a respective platform of each of the plurality of container assemblies.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the system disclosed in Constabeber in view of Holt such that the curing light engine is adapted to simultaneously emit curing light at a plurality of container assemblies in order to build a plurality of 3D objects, each of the plurality of 3D objects built on a respective platform of each of the plurality of container assemblies, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention is an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 11, as applied to claim 1, Constabeber in view of Holt discloses a system wherein the cartridge 2 comprises also a second reservoir 5 a, associated with the supporting structure 34, suited to contain a second liquid or pasty material 6 a different from said first material 6; wherein the presence of several different materials 6, 6 a in a single cartridge 2 makes it possible to produce three-dimensional objects that consist of several different material; and wherein the feeding means 8 comprise a thrusting device 18 suited to thrust the materials 6, 6 a from the reservoirs 5, 5 a towards the container 3 (wherein the first chamber is adapted to hold a plurality of printing materials in lieu of the printing material, and the structure, movable within the first chamber is adapted to transfer a portion of each of the plurality of printing materials from the first chamber to the to the printing area between the surface of the window and the platform in the second chamber for receiving the curing light for curing a layer of each of the printing materials onto the platform or onto a cured layer of one of the plurality of printing materials on the platform, in order to build the 3D object on the platform) (Constabeber, Fig 1,4,6 and ¶0058-0061,0099-0106).
Regarding claims 12-13, Constabeber discloses a stereolithography machine 1 (system for printing a three-dimensional (3D) object) comprising cartridge 2 (a container assembly adapted to store a printing material) including a body housing conveyance ducts 8 a (channel), a reservoir 5 (first chamber; the first chamber adapted to sealably store the printing material), and a container 3 (second chamber; the second chamber is adapted to receive a platform); a thrusting device (a structure, movable within the first chamber adapted to transfer a portion of the printing material from the first chamber to a printing area between a surface of a window and the platform in the second chamber); a power means (motor…configured to move the platform); and an emitter means 13 (curing light engine…configured to emit a curing light through the window to cure at least a layer of the printing material to the platform or to a cured layer of the printing material on the platform, in order to build the 3D object on the platform) (Fig 4 and ¶0078-0095,0099-0108,0148).
Examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “the channel connects a side wall of the first chamber with a side wall of the second chamber,” a side wall of the first chamber and a side wall of the second chamber are not mutually exclusive and may be the same structural element. Here, Constabeber teaches conveyance ducts 8 a formed on an intermediate wall 16 (channel connects a side wall of the first chamber with a side wall of the second chamber to fluidly communicate the first chamber with the second chamber) (Fig 4 and ¶0078-0095,0099-0108,0148).
While Constabeber teaches a system comprising a structure, platform, and curing light engine, Constabeber does not explicitly teach a controller; a motor coupled to the controller; nor a curing light engine in communication with the controller.
However, in the same field of endeavor, stereolithographic (SLA) 3D printing apparatus, Holt discloses a system comprising any device which emits digitally controllable light (controller, inherently disclosed; curing light engine in communication with the controller) (¶0055-0059) (known technique applicable to the base device). Holt discloses a system further comprising a piston attached to platform 110 in the resin reservoir chamber 101, which can be controlled by computer to allow pistons to lower and retract in the desired sequence (controller; structure) (Fig 1 and ¶0061,0072) (known technique applicable to the base device).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the system disclosed in Constabeber by applying the known technique of a system comprising a controller; the controller coupled to a structure and configured to move the structure; and a curing light engine in communication with the controller as disclosed in Holt to the system comprising a motor configured to move a platform and a curing light engine disclosed in Constabeber with predictable results and resulting in an improved apparatus. MPEP 2143(D).
The limitations “wherein movement of the structure hydraulically moves the platform in the second chamber when transferring the portion of the printing material from the first chamber to the printing area in the second chamber” and “wherein movement of the structure includes pushing the structure into the first chamber in order to transfer the portion of the printing material from the first chamber to the printing area in the second chamber” are a recitation of intended use of the claimed structure and platform. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114(II). Here, Constabeber in view of Holt teaches an apparatus which includes all the structural limitations of the claim, specifically the structure and the platform.
Regarding claims 18-20, Constabeber discloses a stereolithography machine 1 (system for printing a three-dimensional (3D) object) comprising cartridge 2 (container assembly adapted to store a printing material) including a body housing conveyance ducts 8 a (channel; wherein the channel fluidly communicates the first chamber with the second chamber), a reservoir 5 (first chamber; the first chamber is adapted to sealably store the printing material), and a container 3 (second chamber; the second chamber is adapted to receive a platform); a thrusting device (a structure, movable within the first chamber adapted to transfer a portion of the printing material from the first chamber to a printing area between a surface of a window and the platform in the second chamber); a power means (motor…configured to move the platform); and an emitter means 13 (curing light engine…configured to emit a curing light through the window to cure at least a layer of the printing material to the platform or to a cured layer of the printing material on the platform, in order to build the 3D object on the platform) (Fig 4 and ¶0078-0095,0099-0108,0148).
While Constabeber teaches a system comprising a body housing a channel, a first chamber, and a second chamber, a motor configured to move the platform, and a curing light engine (base device), Constabeber does not explicitly disclose a controller; wherein the first chamber non-overlapping with second chamber; a motor coupled to the controller; nor a curing light engine in communication with the controller.
However, in the same field of endeavor, stereolithographic (SLA) 3D printing apparatus, Holt discloses a system comprising any device which emits digitally controllable light (controller, inherently disclosed; curing light engine in communication with the controller) (¶0055-0059) (known technique applicable to the base device). Holt discloses a system further comprising a piston attached to platform 110 in the resin reservoir chamber 101, which can be controlled by computer to allow pistons to lower and retract in the desired sequence (controller; structure) (Fig 1 and ¶0061,0072) (known technique applicable to the base device). Holt discloses a system further comprising a transfer pipe 102 (channel), chamber 101 (first chamber), and a build vessel 108 (second chamber), wherein chamber 101 is non-overlapping with build vessel 108 (Fig 1 and ¶0061) (known technique applicable to the base device).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the system disclosed in Constabeber by applying the known technique of a system comprising a controller; wherein the first chamber non-overlapping with second chamber; the controller coupled to a structure and configured to move the structure; and a curing light engine in communication with the controller as disclosed in Holt to the system comprising a body, a motor configured to move a platform, and a curing light engine disclosed in Constabeber with predictable results and resulting in an improved apparatus. MPEP 2143(D).
The limitations “wherein movement of the structure .
Claims 5-6 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constabeber (US 2016/0151974 A1) in view of Holt (US 2021/0122104 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 12, and in further view of Stadlmann (US 2022/0032539 A1).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 14-15, as applied to claims 1 and 12, while Constabeber in view of Holt teaches a system comprising a container assembly (base device), Constabeber in view of Holt does not teach a container assembly support adapted to secure the container assembly during the building of the 3D object on the platform.
However, in the same field of endeavor, stereolithographic (SLA) 3D printing apparatus, Stadlmann discloses a system wherein one or more cartridge units 5, 6 are held by way of respective associated receiving units 75, 76 and are arranged on a base plate 77, wherein the base plate 77 forms the support unit 7 (container assembly support; wherein the container assembly support is adapted to support or receive multiple container assemblies) (Fig 1 and ¶0057) (known technique applicable to the base device).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the system disclosed in Constabeber in view of Holt by applying the known technique of providing a support unit (container assembly support) disclosed in Stadlmann to the system comprising a container assembly disclosed in Constabeber in view of Holt with predictable results and resulting in an improved apparatus. MPEP 2143(D).
Although Constabeber in view of Holt and Stadlmann does not specify wherein the container assembly support is adapted to support or receive multiple container assemblies, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the system disclosed in Constabeber in view of Holt and Stadlmann such that the container assembly comprises multiple container assemblies, since it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constabeber (US 2016/0151974 A1) in view of Holt (US 2021/0122104 A1), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Solorzano (US 2018/0281280 A1).
Regarding claims 7-8, as applied to claim 1, while Constabeber in view of Holt teaches a system comprising a container assembly, motor, structure, and platform (base device), Constabeber in view of Holt does not teach an arm coupled to the motor and adapted to couple with the structure or the platform of the container assembly.
However, in the same field of endeavor, arms coupled to motors in 3D printing apparatus, Solorzano discloses a system comprising a piston and a level arm connected to the piston, wherein blocks that hold the cartridges 301, 370, 350 are held together by both the top plate 310 and the bottom plate 360, wherein the engager 340 uses a mechanism to raise itself up and down using either mechanical or pneumatic pressure mechanism 345, wherein piston 335 moves up and down in sync and a lever arm 330 that supports the piston, wherein pneumatic air inlet 325 sends air down plunger 320 to a syringe 380 loaded in a cartridge, and wherein creation of pneumatic force extrudes material out of the tip 355 of cartridge 301(arm coupled to the motor and adapted to couple with the structure) (Fig 3 and ¶0016,0079) (known technique applicable to the base device).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the system disclosed in Constabeber in view of Holt by applying the known technique of providing an arm coupled to the motor and adapted to couple with the piston (structure) disclosed in Solorzano to the motor and structure of the container assembly disclosed in Constabeber in view of Holt with predictable results and resulting in an improved apparatus. MPEP 2143(D).
Although Constabeber in view of Holt and Solorzano does not specify wherein the arm is adapted to simultaneously actuate or move each of a plurality of structures of a plurality of container assemblies, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the system disclosed in Constabeber in view of Holt and Solorzano such that system comprises a plurality of structures of a plurality of container assemblies and wherein the arm is adapted to simultaneously actuate or move each of a plurality of structures, since it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constabeber (US 2016/0151974 A1) in view of Holt (US 2021/0122104 A1) and Stadlmann (US 2022/0032539 A1), as applied to claim 15, and in further view of Solorzano (US 2018/0281280 A1).
Regarding claim 16, as applied to claim 15, while Constabeber in view of Holt and Stadlmann teaches a system comprising a container assembly, motor, structure, and platform (base device), Constabeber in view of Holt does not teach an arm coupled to the motor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, arms coupled to motors in 3D printing apparatus, Solorzano discloses a system comprising a piston and a level arm connected to the piston, wherein blocks that hold the cartridges 301, 370, 350 are held together by both the top plate 310 and the bottom plate 360, wherein the engager 340 uses a mechanism to raise itself up and down using either mechanical or pneumatic pressure mechanism 345, wherein piston 335 moves up and down in sync and a lever arm 330 that supports the piston, wherein pneumatic air inlet 325 sends air down plunger 320 to a syringe 380 loaded in a cartridge, and wherein creation of pneumatic force extrudes material out of the tip 355 of cartridge 301(arm coupled to the motor and adapted to move a structure) (Fig 3 and ¶0016,0079) (known technique applicable to the base device).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the system disclosed in Constabeber in view of Holt and Stadlmann by applying the known technique of providing arm coupled to the motor and adapted to move a structure disclosed in Solorzano to the motor and structure of the container assembly disclosed in Constabeber in view of Holt and Stadlmann with predictable results and resulting in an improved apparatus. MPEP 2143(D).
Although Constabeber in view of Holt and Stadlmann and Solorzano does not specify wherein the arm is adapted to simultaneously actuate or move each of a plurality of structures of a plurality of container assemblies, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the system disclosed in Constabeber in view of Holt and Stadlmann and Solorzano such that system comprises a plurality of structures of a plurality of container assemblies and wherein the arm is adapted to simultaneously actuate or move each of a plurality of structures, since it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 16, although Constabeber in view of Holt and Stadlmann and Solorzano does not specify a plurality of container assemblies in order to build a plurality of 3D objects nor wherein each of the plurality of 3D objects built on a respective platform of each of the plurality of container assemblies, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the system disclosed in Constabeber in view of Holt and Stadlmann and Solorzano such that the system comprises a plurality of container assemblies in order to build a plurality of 3D objects and wherein each of the plurality of 3D objects built on a respective platform of each of the plurality of container assemblies, since it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
While Constabeber in view of Holt and Stadlmann and Solorzano disclose a system comprising a curing light engine, Constabeber in view of Holt and Stadlmann and Solorzano does not explicitly disclose wherein the curing light engine is adapted to simultaneously emit curing light at a plurality of container assemblies in order to build a plurality of 3D objects, each of the plurality of 3D objects built on a respective platform of each of the plurality of container assemblies.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the system disclosed in Constabeber in view of Holt and Stadlmann and Solorzano such that the curing light engine is adapted to simultaneously emit curing light at a plurality of container assemblies in order to build a plurality of 3D objects, each of the plurality of 3D objects built on a respective platform of each of the plurality of container assemblies, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention is an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 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