DETAILED ACTION
The present application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/998,650 filed on Aug. 20, 2020 and titled “THERMALLY DECOMPOSING BUILD PLATE FOR FACILE RELEASE OF 3D PRINTED OBJECTS,” which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/891,143 filed on Aug. 23, 2019 and titled “THERMALLY DECOMPOSING BUILD PLATE FOR FACILE RELEASE OF 3D PRINTED OBJECTS.”
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-5, 8-10, and 17-20 are amended. Claims 21-28 are newly added. Claims 6-7 and 11-16 are canceled. Claims 1-5, 8-10, and 17-28 are pending.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group lI, claims 17-28, drawn to an additive manufacturing system, in the reply filed on 03/16/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-5 and 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS)s submitted on 08/23/2023, 01/31/2024 and 07/29/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "145" in Fig. 2A and "155" in Fig. 2B have both been used to designate “a drainage hole”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: the reference character “145” has been used to designate both “surfaces” in Pa [0076] and “a drain hole” in Pa [0077]-[0078].
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant has been advised to replace “a solidus temperature of the first metal or metal alloy” in line 4 to – the solidus temperature of the first metal or metal alloy --. Appropriate correction is required.
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 17-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 15, 16, 18 and 20 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,042,864. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to claims 17-19, 21-23 and 27, the claims 1 and 20 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,042,864 teaches the claims.
With respect to claim 20, the claim 4 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,042,864 teaches the claim.
With respect to claim 25, the claim 15 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,042,864 teaches the claim.
With respect to claim 26, the claim 16 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,042,864 teaches the claim.
With respect to claim 28, the claim 15 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,042,864 teaches the claim.
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 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 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweetland (US 2021/0402480) in view of Hövel et al. (US 2012/0018115-of record).
With respect to claim 17, Sweetland teaches an additive manufacturing system (Pa [0004]), comprising:
a build plate (“a build plate assembly 100”, Pa [0066]) configured to couple to a 3D printing device (“a build plate assembly for an additive manufacturing system”, Pa [0004]), the build plate (“a build plate assembly 100”, Pa [0066]) comprising:
a body (“a build plate 110”) comprising an external top surface (“a build surface 112”), an external bottom surface, and external sidewalls (Pa [0066] and Fig. 1); and
a recessed section (“recesses 120”) extending through the external top surface (“the recesses correspond to elongated recesses with transverse cross sectional shapes taken perpendicular to their length that are trapezoidal with an opening in the build surface connected to at least a portion of the recess along its length.”, Pa [0066]) and including a first sidewall, a second sidewall opposite the first sidewall, and a lower surface between the external top surface and the external bottom surface, the lower surface extending from the first sidewall to the second sidewall (Fig. 1); and
a solid form (“an insert 130”) filling the recessed section (“The inserts 130 may be configured to be slid into the recesses 120 from a side of the build plate 110, and the inserts 130 may be slidably retained in the recesses 120.”, Pa [0066]) such that it is in touching relation with the first sidewall, the second sidewall, and the lower surface (“an insert 130 may be constrained only at one end in some embodiments, and thus may be able to expand and/or contract in response to changing thermal conditions.”, Pa [0067]), the solid form including a build surface for forming a 3D printed metal object in the 3D printing device (“a portion of the inserts located proximate to the build surface are exposed.”, Pa [0066]).
Sweetland further teaches steel build plate (Pa [0045]), but does not explicitly teach a solid form of a first metal or metal alloy, wherein the first metal or metal alloy has a solidus temperature that is lower than a solidus temperature of the 3D printed metal object and lower than a solidus temperature of the body of the build plate.
In the same field of endeavor, selective laser melting, Hövel teaches that a separating layer 11 is initially applied to the surface of the platform 10, which separating layer should make possible and in particular simplify the subsequent separation of the component made of a first metal powder to be produced from the platform 10, and the separating layer 11 is produced by melting one or more layers of a second metal powder, the melting point of which is considerably lower than the melting point of the first metal powder for the component to be produced (Pa [0044]), and a first component 16 can be produced on the separating layer 11, this is done using a first metal powder, the melting point of which is significantly higher than the melting point of the separating layer 11, and a suitable material in this case is, in particular, a powder from the group consisting of a nickel-based alloy, cobalt-based alloy, titanium-based alloy, and iron-based alloy, e.g., steel (Pa [0047]), and the finished component is separated from the surface by melting the associated separating layer without further machining (Pa [0020], [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sweetland with the teachings of Hövel to form the insert of the metal powder, the melting point of which is considerably lower than the melting point of the metal powder for the component to be produced and lower than the melting point of the steel build plate in order to separate the finished component from the surface by melting the insert without further machining.
With respect to claim 18, it has been noted that the claim 17 is considered product-by-process claim. The cited prior art teaches all of 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
With respect to claim 19, Hövel as applied in the combination regarding claim 17 above teaches a powder of a second metal or metal alloy used to form the 3D printed metal object, the second metal or metal alloy having a solidus temperature that is higher than a solidus temperature of the first metal or metal alloy (“a first component 16 can be produced on the separating layer 11, this is done using a first metal powder, the melting point of which is significantly higher than the melting point of the separating layer 11”, Pa [0047])
With respect to claim 20, Sweetland as applied to claim 17 above further teaches that the build surface of the solid form of the first metal or metal alloy is flat and flush at top edges of the recessed section of the build plate (Figs. 2A-2D).
Claims 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweetland (US 2021/0402480) in view of Hövel et al. (US 2012/0018115-of record) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Hart et al. (US 2018/0117854-of record).
With respect to claim 21, the combination as applied to claim 17 above does not explicitly teach that the build plate further comprises a hole extending from the external bottom surface of the body through the lower surface of the recessed section.
In the same field of endeavor, an additive manufacturing system, Hart teaches a build plate 100 for an additive manufacturing system 900 (FIG. 10), build plate 100 may include a base plate 102 composed of solid metal, such as stainless steel, base plate 102 may include a first build surface 104 having a least one recess 110 therein (Pa [0019]), build plate 100 may also include at least one block 114 sized to or configured to matingly engage, releasably couple, and/or be retained within at least one recess in the plurality of recesses 110 (Pa [0020]), an object 902 (FIG. 10) which is desired to be built by additive manufacturing system 900 (FIG. 10) may be built directly on build surface 122 of block 116, block 116 may also include at least one hole, aperture, opening, orifice, cavity, space, etc., hereinafter “hole” 124 extending entirely or partially therethrough, and hole 124 may facilitate the removal of raw material 914 (FIG. 10) used in additive manufacturing system 900 (Pa [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sweetland in view of Hövel with the teachings of Hart to form hole(s) with the inserts extending entirely through the inserts and the lower surface of the recesses for the purpose of removal of raw material used in additive manufacturing system.
With respect to claims 22-28, Hart as applied in the combination regarding claim 21 above further teaches that base plate 102 may be of any dimension and/or thickness depending upon the desired object 902 (FIG. 10) to be built thereon, and base plate 102 may be the same size as the machine build platform (not shown), and can be secured to the platform using bolts (Pa [0019]). Fig. 1 shows the holes in corners of the base plate 102.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sweetland in view of Hövel with the teachings of Hart to provide bolt holes at the corners of the build plate in order to secure the build plate to the machine build platform. Even though the Hövel does not mention that the holes in Fig. 1 are the bolt holes, it would have found it obvious to provide the bolt holes in the corners of the base plate in view of Figures in order to secure the build plate to the machine build platform. Furthermore, even though Hövel does not mention that the bolt hole extends through the body, since Hövel teaches that the object is built on the base plate 102 (Pa [0019]), one would have found it obvious to form the bolt holes extending through the build plate in order to secure the build plate to the machine build platform below the build plate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1176. 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.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights