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
This action is in reply to the application filed on 09/14/2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
Note: Whenever the claims indicated inclusive (and) or alternative (or) limitations, only the alternative limitations were examined unless stated different in the rejection. Similarly, whenever the claims indicated optional limitations (e.g. “optionally"), the claim limitations were considered to be a preference and not a requirement unless stated different in the claim rejection.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“wherein the applicator comprises a means for directing, in response to the one or more control signals, a plurality of thermally conductive particles in the blasting medium toward the plurality of additively manufactured objects within the agitatable drum” in claim 20. Where in the instant case, the means is interpreted per the applicant’s disclosure in claim 1 to include the following: a nozzle.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 3-4 and 10 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.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “wherein the agitatable drum comprises a rotating drum, a translating drum, or a combination thereof” is indefinite because per MPEP 2173.5(h)(i) it is held that “if a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group “comprising” or “consisting essentially of” the recited alternatives) the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim”. Where in the instant case, the group is chosen from an open list of alternatives by the term “comprises”. For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as “wherein the agitatable drum consists of a rotating drum, a translating drum, or a combination thereof”.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “wherein the blasting medium comprises metal particles, ceramic particles, or a combination thereof” is indefinite because per MPEP 2173.5(h)(i) it is held that “if a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group “comprising” or “consisting essentially of” the recited alternatives) the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim”. Where in the instant case, the group is chosen from an open list of alternatives by the term “comprises”. For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as “wherein the blasting medium consists of metal particles, ceramic particles, or a combination thereof”.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “wherein the excess mechanical load comprises an excessive torque, an excessive force, or a combination thereof” is indefinite because per MPEP 2173.5(h)(i) it is held that “if a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group “comprising” or “consisting essentially of” the recited alternatives) the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim”. Where in the instant case, the group is chosen from an open list of alternatives by the term “comprises”. For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as “wherein the excess mechanical load consists of an excessive torque, an excessive force, or a combination thereof”.
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.
Claims 1-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaio et al (WIPO PUB No. 2022/018446) in view of Wanfei et al (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN106002642), hereinafter referred to as Gaio and Wanfei, respectively.
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Gaio discloses a system [Gaio, figs 1 and 6, 10] comprising:
a controller configured to provide one or more control signals [Gaio, page 30, lines 4-7, 76];
a chamber coupled to the controller [Gaio, figs 1 and 6, 12], wherein the chamber comprises an agitatable drum shaped to receive a plurality of additively manufactured objects [Gaio, fig 6, 58 and page 31, lines 14-15, 58], and to agitate the plurality of additively manufactured objects [Gaio, page 35, line 36 – page 36, line 17] in response to the one or more control signals [Gaio, page 30, line 36 – page 31, line 2, teaching the controller is connected to processing cycle duration, which includes the chamber 12]; and
an applicator coupled to the controller [Gaio, page 30, line 36 – page 31, line 2, 76 is coupled to flow rate of media], wherein the applicator comprises a nozzle or means [Gaio, fig 6, 56 is a nozzle means and is functionally equivalent to the means in claim 20 because there are insubstantial differences between the claimed invention and the prior art] operative to direct, in response to the one or more control signals, a plurality of thermally conductive particles in the blasting medium toward the plurality of additively manufactured objects within the agitatable drum [Gaio, page 35, lines 12-18 and 30-34, coupled to a robotic arm, and page 38, line 33 – page 39, line 16 teaching that metal media may be used, which are thermally conductive, and 56 is also connected to 76].
Gaio does not explicitly disclose a heater coupled to the controller, wherein the heater comprises one or more heating elements arranged to heat a blasting medium in response to the one or more control signals.
Wanfei et al (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN106002642) teaches a system [Wanfei, fig 1] comprising:
a heater [Wanfei, fig 1, 3] coupled to a controller [Wanfei, page 15, pp’s 0031-0032, automated system], wherein the heater comprises one or more heating elements arranged to heat a blasting medium [Wanfei, page 20, pp 0042, page 22, pp 045, and page 27, pp 0059] in response to the one or more control signals [Wanfei, page 15, pp’s 0031-0032, automated system teaching that the heater is automated];
a chamber [Wanfei, fig 1, 4], wherein the chamber comprises an agitatable drum shaped to receive a plurality of additively manufactured objects, and to agitate the plurality of additively manufactured objects [Wanfeit, page 26, pp 0056]; and
an applicator [Wanfei, fig 1, 204], wherein the applicator comprises a nozzle operative to direct a plurality of thermally conductive particles in the blasting medium toward the plurality of additively manufactured objects within the agitatable drum [Wanfei, page 29, pp 0062, the medium is heated an ejected through a nozzle end of 204].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the heater of Wanfei to be used within the system of Gaio such that the heater is coupled to the controller to heat the blasting medium in response to the control signals because the high temperature medium reduces the surface roughness of the 3D printed parts which increases the strength of the parts and automates the process which saves labor costs and saves time [Wanfei, pages 15-16, pp 0031-0032, summarized].
Regarding claim 2, Gaio as modified further discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a medium source coupled to the heater, wherein the medium source is arranged to hold the blasting medium [Wanfei, page 21, pp 0044, media mixed in 201 and then send to 202 and fig 1, showing 202 is coupled to the heater 3 and Gaio, page 29, lines 11-12, 26 holds the media].
Regarding claim 3, Gaio as modified further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the agitatable drum comprises a rotating drum, a translating drum, or a combination thereof [Gaio, page 31, line 15, 58 rotates].
Regarding claim 4, Gaio as modified further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the blasting medium comprises metal particles, ceramic particles, or a combination thereof [Gaio, page 38, line 33 – page 39, line 16 teaching that metal media may be used].
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Gaio as modified further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the agitatable drum comprises an inner portion shaped to allow removal of excess thermally conductive particles of the plurality of thermally conductive particles [Gaio, fig 6, 58 is shaped and capable of allowing the media to be removed], wherein the inner portion comprises perforations to allow removal of the excess thermally conductive particles [Gaio, fig 6, 58, page 36, lines 19-24 and is capable of letting the media be removed].
Regarding claims 7-8, Gaio as modified further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the agitatable drum comprises an outer portion to catch excess thermally conductive particles of the plurality of thermally conductive particles [Gaio, fig 6, 16], wherein the outer portion does not have perforations [Gaio, fig 6, 16 does not have perforations].
Regarding claim 9, Gaio as modified further discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a sensor coupled to the controller, wherein the sensor is operative to sense if the agitatable drum has an excess mechanical load [Gaio, page 24, lines 26-35, the Office notes that the term “if” renders this condition as optional, as the condition may also not exist, where under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this condition is not required and the limitations that depend from this condition may also not be required. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Office has put forth that the prior art Gaio does teach this condition].
Regarding claim 10, Gaio as modified further discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the excess mechanical load comprises an excessive torque, an excessive force, or a combination thereof [Gaio, page 24, lines 26-35, load cell which is capable of excessive force].
Regarding claim 11, Gaio as modified further discloses the system of claim 9, wherein, in response to a determination that the agitatable drum has an excess mechanical load, the controller is operative to shut the agitatable drum off, slow the agitatable drum down, or a combination thereof [MPEP 2114(II), [A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. 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. In the instant case, the load cell of Gaio, page 24, lines 26-35 the load cell is capable of identifying the condition of excessive torque, and is therefore capable of being able to shut off the drum].
Regarding claim 12, Gaio as modified further discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the excess mechanical load is due to at least a portion of the thermally conductive particles not exiting perforations in an inner portion of the agitatable drum [MPEP 2114(II) [A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. 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. In the instant case, the load cell of Gaio, page 24, lines 26-35 is capable of identifying that not all of the media is removed in this condition].
Claims 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaio et al (WIPO PUB No. 2022/018446) in view of Wanfei et al (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN106002642), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kopelman et al (US PGPUB No. 2017/0007366), hereinafter referred to as Gaio, Wanfei, and Knopelman, respectively.
The Office notes that per MPEP 2115 the “[i]nclusion of the material worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”. Where in the instant case, regarding claims 13-19, the following rejections are set forth on the record in order to promote compact prosecution. However, since claims 13-19 only limit the article worked on, claims 13-19 are interpreted to not be required since these claims limit only the article worked upon and not to the structure being claimed.
Regarding claim 13, Gaio as modified further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the system works on a plurality of additively manufactured objects [Gaio, abstract]. Gaio as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of additively manufactured objects comprises an additively manufactured palatal expander to expand a person’s palate from a first arrangement toward a second arrangement.
Knopelman teaches orthodontics that can be produced by additive manufacturing [Knopelman, page 7, pp 0089] and requires post-processing [Knopelman, page 9, pp 0102 and page 10, pp 0106], wherein the plurality of additively manufactured objects comprises an additively manufactured palatal expander to expand a person’s palate from a first arrangement toward a second arrangement [Knopelman, page 12, pp 0130].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the plurality of additively manufactured objects of Gaio as modified to be processed are orthodontic devices such as palatal expanders because the post-processing is a way to compensate for variability is material and/or machine properties [Knopelman, page 1, pp 0106, summarized] and where the apparatus of Gaio as modified is useful for treating additively manufactured parts because the processing media has been found to be allow powder to be effectively removed from AM parts and the surfaces of AM parts to be smoothed or roughened as desired in a single processing cycle [Gaio, page 5, line 32 – page 6, line 2, summarized] such that this allows the AM orthodontic devices of Knopelman to be processed faster which allows greater throughput of the AM devices of Knopelman which increases yield and profit of the manufacturing plant.
Regarding claim 14, Gaio as modified further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the system works on a plurality of additively manufactured objects [Gaio, abstract]. Gaio as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of additively manufactured objects comprises a series of incremental palatal expanders to expand a person’s palate from a first arrangement toward a second arrangement.
Knopelman teaches orthodontics that can be produced by additive manufacturing [Knopelman, page 7, pp 0089] and requires post-processing [Knopelman, page 9, pp 0102 and page 10, pp 0106], wherein the plurality of additively manufactured objects comprises a series of incremental palatal expanders to expand a person’s palate from a first arrangement toward a second arrangement [Knopelman, page 12, pp 0130 and page 2, pp 0012].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the plurality of additively manufactured objects of Gaio as modified to be processed are orthodontic devices such as palatal expanders because the post-processing is a way to compensate for variability is material and/or machine properties [Knopelman, page 1, pp 0106, summarized] and where the apparatus of Gaio as modified is useful for treating additively manufactured parts because the processing media has been found to be allow powder to be effectively removed from AM parts and the surfaces of AM parts to be smoothed or roughened as desired in a single processing cycle [Gaio, page 5, line 32 – page 6, line 2, summarized] such that this allows the AM orthodontic devices of Knopelman to be processed faster which allows greater throughput of the AM devices of Knopelman which increases yield and profit of the manufacturing plant.
Regarding claim 15, Gaio as modified further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the system works on a plurality of additively manufactured objects [Gaio, abstract]. Gaio as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of additively manufactured objects comprises a series of incremental palatal expanders to expand a person’s palate from an initial arrangement toward a target arrangement.
Knopelman teaches orthodontics that can be produced by additive manufacturing [Knopelman, page 7, pp 0089] and requires post-processing [Knopelman, page 9, pp 0102 and page 10, pp 0106], wherein the plurality of additively manufactured objects comprises a series of incremental palatal expanders to expand a person’s palate from an initial arrangement toward a target arrangement [Knopelman, page 12, pp 0130 and page 2, pp 0012].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the plurality of additively manufactured objects of Gaio as modified to be processed are orthodontic devices such as palatal expanders because the post-processing is a way to compensate for variability is material and/or machine properties [Knopelman, page 1, pp 0106, summarized] and where the apparatus of Gaio as modified is useful for treating additively manufactured parts because the processing media has been found to be allow powder to be effectively removed from AM parts and the surfaces of AM parts to be smoothed or roughened as desired in a single processing cycle [Gaio, page 5, line 32 – page 6, line 2, summarized] such that this allows the AM orthodontic devices of Knopelman to be processed faster which allows greater throughput of the AM devices of Knopelman which increases yield and profit of the manufacturing plant.
Regarding claim 16, Gaio as modified further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the system works on a plurality of additively manufactured objects [Gaio, abstract]. Gaio as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of additively manufactured objects comprises a batch of incremental palatal expanders to expand one or more persons’ palates.
Knopelman teaches orthodontics that can be produced by additive manufacturing [Knopelman, page 7, pp 0089] and requires post-processing [Knopelman, page 9, pp 0102 and page 10, pp 0106], wherein the plurality of additively manufactured objects comprises a batch of incremental palatal expanders to expand one or more persons’ palates [Knopelman, page 12, pp 0130 and page 7, pp 0088].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the plurality of additively manufactured objects of Gaio as modified to be processed are orthodontic devices such as palatal expanders because the post-processing is a way to compensate for variability is material and/or machine properties [Knopelman, page 1, pp 0106, summarized] and where the apparatus of Gaio as modified is useful for treating additively manufactured parts because the processing media has been found to be allow powder to be effectively removed from AM parts and the surfaces of AM parts to be smoothed or roughened as desired in a single processing cycle [Gaio, page 5, line 32 – page 6, line 2, summarized] such that this allows the AM orthodontic devices of Knopelman to be processed faster which allows greater throughput of the AM devices of Knopelman which increases yield and profit of the manufacturing plant.
Regarding claim 17, Gaio as modified further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the system works on a plurality of additively manufactured objects [Gaio, abstract]. Gaio as modified does not explicitly disclose the plurality of additively manufactured objects comprises a batch of incremental palatal expanders to expand palates of a plurality of people.
Knopelman teaches orthodontics that can be produced by additive manufacturing [Knopelman, page 7, pp 0089] and requires post-processing [Knopelman, page 9, pp 0102 and page 10, pp 0106], the plurality of additively manufactured objects comprises a batch of incremental palatal expanders to expand palates of a plurality of people [Knopelman, page 12, pp 0130 and page 7, pp 0088, and page 10, pp 0113].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the plurality of additively manufactured objects of Gaio as modified to be processed are orthodontic devices such as palatal expanders because the post-processing is a way to compensate for variability is material and/or machine properties [Knopelman, page 1, pp 0106, summarized] and where the apparatus of Gaio as modified is useful for treating additively manufactured parts because the processing media has been found to be allow powder to be effectively removed from AM parts and the surfaces of AM parts to be smoothed or roughened as desired in a single processing cycle [Gaio, page 5, line 32 – page 6, line 2, summarized] such that this allows the AM orthodontic devices of Knopelman to be processed faster which allows greater throughput of the AM devices of Knopelman which increases yield and profit of the manufacturing plant.
Regarding claim 18, Gaio as modified further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the system works on a plurality of additively manufactured objects [Gaio, abstract]. Gaio as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein: the plurality of additively manufactured objects comprises a series of incremental palatal expanders to expand a person’s palate from an initial arrangement toward a target arrangement in accordance with a treatment plan; and the series of incremental palatal expanders are associated with a single person.
Knopelman teaches orthodontics that can be produced by additive manufacturing [Knopelman, page 7, pp 0089] and requires post-processing [Knopelman, page 9, pp 0102 and page 10, pp 0106], wherein: the plurality of additively manufactured objects comprises a series of incremental palatal expanders to expand a person’s palate from an initial arrangement toward a target arrangement in accordance with a treatment plan; and the series of incremental palatal expanders are associated with a single person [Knopelman, page 12, pp 0130 and page 7, pp 0088].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the plurality of additively manufactured objects of Gaio as modified to be processed are orthodontic devices such as palatal expanders because the post-processing is a way to compensate for variability is material and/or machine properties [Knopelman, page 1, pp 0106, summarized] and where the apparatus of Gaio as modified is useful for treating additively manufactured parts because the processing media has been found to be allow powder to be effectively removed from AM parts and the surfaces of AM parts to be smoothed or roughened as desired in a single processing cycle [Gaio, page 5, line 32 – page 6, line 2, summarized] such that this allows the AM orthodontic devices of Knopelman to be processed faster which allows greater throughput of the AM devices of Knopelman which increases yield and profit of the manufacturing plant.
Regarding claim 19, Gaio as modified further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the system works on a plurality of additively manufactured objects [Gaio, abstract]. Gaio as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of additively manufactured objects are composed of a thermoplastic material.
Knopelman teaches orthodontics that can be produced by additive manufacturing [Knopelman, page 7, pp 0089] and requires post-processing [Knopelman, page 9, pp 0102 and page 10, pp 0106], wherein the plurality of additively manufactured objects are composed of a thermoplastic material [Knopelman, page 8, pp 0095].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the plurality of additively manufactured objects of Gaio as modified to be processed are orthodontic devices such as palatal expanders because the post-processing is a way to compensate for variability is material and/or machine properties [Knopelman, page 1, pp 0106, summarized] and where the apparatus of Gaio as modified is useful for treating additively manufactured parts because the processing media has been found to be allow powder to be effectively removed from AM parts and the surfaces of AM parts to be smoothed or roughened as desired in a single processing cycle [Gaio, page 5, line 32 – page 6, line 2, summarized] such that this allows the AM orthodontic devices of Knopelman to be processed faster which allows greater throughput of the AM devices of Knopelman which increases yield and profit of the manufacturing plant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights