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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed 08/07/2026 responsive to the Office Action filed 05/07/2026 has been entered. Drawings, Specification, and Claims 1, 17, 19 and 21 have been amended. Claims 1-5 and 8-10 maintain withdrawn. Claims 1-5, 8-10 and 17-28 are pending in this application.
A terminal disclaimer has been filed on 08/07/2026.
Response to Arguments
Drawings and Specification have been amended to address the informalities, thus the objections of Drawings and Specification have been withdrawn.
Claim 19 has been amended to address the informality, thus the objection of claim 19 has been withdrawn.
Since claim 17 has been amended, the statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed 08/07/2026 in pages 10-13, with respect to the rejection of claims 17 and 18 under 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments, filed 08/07/2026 in pages 13-14, with respect to the rejection of claim 21 under 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the hole 124 is configured to "facilitate the removal of raw material 914 (FIG. 10) used in additive manufacturing system 900" (Hart 122), where Hart describes "raw material 914" as the "powder, used in additive manufacturing system 900 (FIG. 10)" (Hart 120). As such, Hart's hole 124 is not "configured to receive a liquid form of the first metal or metal alloy for filling the recessed section" of a build plate as presently claimed.” and “this hole 124 is in a removable block 114 that engages Hart's recess 110, not the body of the build plate, and does not extend "from the external bottom surface of the body through the lower surface of the recessed section." (pages 13-14)
These arguments are found to be unpersuasive because:
Hart teaches that recesses 110 may be formed at least partially through an entire thickness of base plate 102 (Pa [0019]), block 116 may contact a bottom surface of recess 118 (Pa [0021]), block 116 may also include at least one hole 124 extending entirely therethrough, and hole 124 may facilitate the removal of raw material 914 (FIG. 10) used in additive manufacturing system 900 (Pa [0022]). Therefore, one would have found it obvious to provide a hole with the base plate connected to the hole 124 of the block 116 in order to facilitate the removal of raw material used in additive manufacturing system. Even if Hart does not explicitly teach that the hole is configured to receive a liquid form of the first metal or metal alloy for filling the recessed section, it is noted that the limitation is an intended use since the apparatus of the prior art is capable of being used as the claimed operation. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
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 17-19 and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al. (US 2018/0117854) in view of Hövel et al. (US 2012/0018115) (All of record).
With respect to claim 17, Hart teaches an additive manufacturing system (Pa [0019]), comprising:
a build plate (“100”) configured to couple to a 3D printing device (“a build plate 100 for an additive manufacturing system 900”, Pa [0019]), the build plate comprising:
a body (“a base plate 102”) comprising an external top surface (“a first build surface 104”), an external bottom surface, and external sidewalls (Pa [0019] and Fig. 1); and
a recessed section (“a least one recess 110”) extending through the external top surface (“a first build surface 104 having a least one recess 110 therein”, Pa [0019]) 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 (“Recesses 110 may be formed at least partially through an entire thickness of base plate 102.”, Pa [0019]), and the recessed section being laterally enclosed by the build plate such that the recessed section is not open to any external sidewall of the body (Fig. 1); and
a solid form (“at least one block 114”) filling the recessed section such that it is in touching relation with the first sidewall, the second sidewall, and the lower surface (“at least one block 114 sized to or configured to matingly engage, releasably couple, and/or be retained within at least one recess”, Pa [0020]; “block 116 may contact a bottom surface of recess 118”, Pa [0021]), the solid form including a build surface (“a build surface 122”) for forming a 3D printed metal object in the 3D printing device (“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.”, Pa [0022]; “Direct Metal Laser Melting (DMLM)”, Pa [0003]).
Hart further teaches that a base plate 102 is composed of solid metal, such as stainless steel (Pa [0019]), and blocks 114 may be composed of a material that is distinct from a material that is used for raw material 914 used in additive manufacturing system 900 (Pa [0020]), but does not explicitly teach that a solid form is made 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 Hart 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 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 21, Hart as applied to claim 17 above teaches that recesses 110 may be formed at least partially through an entire thickness of base plate 102 (Pa [0019]), block 116 may contact a bottom surface of recess 118 (Pa [0021]), block 116 may also include at least one hole 124 extending entirely therethrough, and hole 124 may facilitate the removal of raw material 914 (FIG. 10) used in additive manufacturing system 900 (Pa [0022]). Therefore, one would have found it obvious to provide a hole with the base plate connected to the hole 124 of the block 116 in order to facilitate the removal of raw material used in additive manufacturing system. Even if Hart does not explicitly teach that the hole is configured to receive a liquid form of the first metal or metal alloy for filling the recessed section, it is noted that the limitation is an intended use since the apparatus of the prior art is capable of being used as the claimed operation. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
With respect to claims 22-28, Hart as applied to 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]), and 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 provide bolt holes at the corners of the build plate in order to secure the build plate to the machine build platform. Even though Hart 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 Hart does not mention that the bolt hole extends through the body, since Hart 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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al. (US 2018/0117854) in view of Hövel et al. (US 2012/0018115) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Sweetland (US 2021/0402480) (All of record).
With respect to claim 20, Hart as applied to claim 17 above further teaches that build surfaces 122 of each block 114 can be in substantially planar alignment, substantially level, and/or substantially even with one another (Pa [0025]), but does not explicitly teach that the build surface of the solid form is flush at top edges of the recessed section of the build plate.
In the same field of endeavor, a build plate assembly for an additive manufacturing system, Sweetland teaches that a build plate assembly 100 that includes a build plate 110 and inserts 130, the build plate 110 may include a build surface 112 and recesses 120 (Pa [0066]), in some embodiments, a printed part is attached only to one or more inserts 130 and not to the build surface 112 of the build plate 110, however, in some embodiments, a printed part may be attached to the build surface 112 in addition to being attached to one or more inserts 130 (Pa [0067]), and the depicted inserts have necks that extend to a height within a corresponding opening that is approximately flush with a corresponding surface of the build plate (Pa [0068] and FIGS. 2A-2D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hart with the teachings of Sweetland to form the build surface of the insert flush with the build surface of the base plate in order to form a printed part being attached to the build surface of the base plate in addition to being attached to the inserts.
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 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