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 .
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment, filed on December 15th, 2025, the following are withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on August 25th, 2025.
Rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in view of the amendments
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 15th, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the “powder support structures” of Crabtree are different from support structures. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under broadest reasonable interpretation the limitation “support structure” is given its plain meaning as a structure for supporting the 3D printed model. Under this interpretation, the “powder support structures” of Crabtree read on “support structure”. Furthermore, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor' s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2141.01(a). In this case, Crabtree is analogous to the claimed invention and is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned with as Crabtree teaches removing support structures from a 3D printed article using a jet of coolant. Applying the Crabtree reference to the primary reference of Kunihiro amounts to use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way, which supports a conclusion of obviousness according to MPEP 2143 I(C).
Applicant’s amendments to the claims necessitate a new grounds of rejection provided below.
New Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 13-18 and 20-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “applying a jet of coolant to the first end of each support structure based on the sensor data” in lines 10-11. The specification fails to provide written description support for this limitation. "While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure." See MPEP 2163 (1B). At best, specification [0091] states based on the location information, the jet of coolant 804 can be targeted to the support structures 810 while avoiding the functional portion 812. There is no support for the jet of coolant being targeted specifically to the first end of each support structure. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be read as “applying a jet of coolant to each support structure based on the sensor data”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “targeting the jet of the coolant to the first end of each support structure” in lines 3-4. The specification fails to provide written description support for this limitation. "While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure." See MPEP 2163 (1B). At best, specification [0087] states the jet can be selectively targeted to the support structures 810 of the object 802 and away from the functional portion 812 of the object 802. There is no support for the jet of coolant being targeted specifically to the first end of each support structure. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be read as “targeting the jet of the coolant to each support structure”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 18 and 20-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunihiro et al. (JP 2004255839 A; hereafter Kunihiro; page numbers correspond to previously attached English machine translation), in view of Mojdeh et al. (US 20200316856 A1; hereafter Mojdeh) and Crabtree et al. (US 20210221063 A1; hereafter Crabtree).
Regarding claim 1, Kunihiro discloses a method ([0002]) comprising:
receiving an object fabricated (Pg. 4, 2nd ¶; a three-dimensional object) using an additive manufacturing process (Pg. 4, 2nd ¶; three-dimensional modeling using an inkjet method), wherein the object comprises a functional portion (Pg. 4, 2nd ¶; model material 8) and a plurality of support structures (Pg. 4, 2nd ¶; first support material 6 and second support material 7, alternatively the support material 56 may comprise a plurality of sections as shown in Fig. 5) connecting the functional portion to a build platform (Marked Fig. 3; model material 17 (corresponding to model material 8) and support materials 15, 16 (corresponding to support material 6, 7) is dispensed onto a build platform, wherein support materials connect model material to the build platform);
cooling the plurality of support structures using a coolant (Pg. 6, Ln. 5-6; cooling 3D printed sample comprising the support materials), wherein the cooling comprises applying a jet of coolant (Pg. 6, Ln. 6; blowing frozen compressed air) to each support structure;
and fracturing, via the jet, the plurality of support structures to separate the functional portion of the object from the build platform (Pg. 5, Ln. 20 to Pg. 6, Ln. 3; applying mechanical impact such that cracks are formed in the frozen support material, so that the model material can be separated from the support material and thus the build platform).
As shown in marked Fig. 3 below, the support materials connect the model material to the build platform and therefore would necessarily form a support structure wherein one end would be coupled to the model material, corresponding to the functional portion, and another end coupled to the build platform.
PNG
media_image1.png
320
525
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While the disclosure of Kunihiro can be used to manufacture a variety of objects by the additive manufacturing, Kunihiro does not explicitly disclose the functional portion of the object comprises a dental appliance. Kunihiro also does not discloses receiving sensor data indicating a location of the plurality of support structures and applying the jet of coolant based on the sensor data.
However, Mojdeh teaches a method ([0007]) comprising: receiving an object ([0007]; a three-dimensional object) fabricated using an additive manufacturing process ([0007]), wherein the object comprises a functional portion ([0008]; the 3D object) and a plurality of support structures ([0008]; plurality of support structures) connecting the functional portion to a build platform ([0011]; build platform), and wherein the functional portion comprises a dental appliance ([0120-0121]; dental aligners may be directly fabricated by the additive manufacturing); and fracturing the plurality of support structures to separate the functional portion of the object from the build platform ([0087]; breaking the support structures to separate the 3D object). Mojdeh also teaches the plurality of support structures have a first end coupled to the functional portion and a second end coupled to the build platform (Fig. 6A; [0094]).
Kunihiro and Mojdeh are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of separating 3D printed objects from sacrificial support material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kunihiro with the teachings of Mojdeh to select the functional portion of the object as a dental appliance. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 I(A). Doing so would allow for the manufacture of dental appliances that may be easily separated from the support material (Kunihiro Pg. 3, Ln. 8).
Furthermore, Crabtree teaches a method of removing a plurality of support structures ([0117]; removing powder support structures) from an additively manufactured object ([0117]; nylon AM part) comprising cooling the plurality of supports structures using a jet of coolant ([0111-0112, 0117]; cryogenic blasting), wherein the method further comprises receiving sensor data indicating a location of the plurality of support structures, and targeting the jet of the coolant to the plurality of support structures based on the sensor data ([0089]; the vision system 133 may be used in the cryogenic blasting system 160 to better identify the powdered areas and help direct the jet nozzle 140 on to the AM part).
Kunihiro and Crabtree are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of separating 3D printed objects from sacrificial support material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Kunihiro with the teachings of Crabtree to provide receiving sensor data indicating a location of the plurality of support structures, and targeting the jet of the coolant to the plurality of support structures based on the sensor data. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way supports a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow the plurality of support structures to be better identified and therefore allow the jet of the coolant to be better directed to remove the plurality of support structures (Crabtree [0089]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kunihiro discloses the method of claim 1, wherein Kunihiro further discloses the coolant comprises a cryogenic fluid (Pg. 6, Ln. 6; liquid nitrogen), and wherein the cryogenic fluid comprises liquid nitrogen (Pg. 6, Ln. 6; liquid nitrogen). Alternatively, Crabtree discloses the coolant comprises a cryogenic fluid ([0086]), wherein the cryogenic fluid comprises liquid carbon dioxide ([0086]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kunihiro discloses the method of claim 1, wherein Kunihiro further discloses at least the first end of each support structure is cooled to a temperature within a range from 0 ºC to -200 ºC (Pg. 5, Ln. 16; support material is cooled to -25⁰C).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kunihiro discloses the method of claim 1, wherein Kunihiro further discloses, after cooling, the plurality of support structures are more brittle than the functional portion of the object (Pg. 5, Ln. 17-18; the support material becomes more embrittled than the model material).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kunihiro discloses the method of claim 1.
Modified Kunihiro does not explicitly teach the first end of each support structure comprises a narrowed region and wherein fracturing the first end of each support structure comprises breaking the narrowed region of each support structure.
However, Mojdeh further teaches each support structure of the plurality of support structures comprises a narrowed region at a first end ([0067]; the shapes of the support structures may narrow at or near a contact point), and wherein fracturing the plurality of support structures comprises breaking the narrowed region of each support structure at the first end ([0067, 0087]; support structures can be broken at the narrowed shape near the contact point).
Kunihiro and Mojdeh are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of separating 3D printed objects from sacrificial support material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Kunihiro with the teachings of Mojdeh to provide each support structure of the plurality of support structures comprises a narrowed region, and wherein fracturing the plurality of support structures comprises breaking the narrowed region of each support structure. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 I(D). Doing so would allow for a clean break and separation of the plurality of support structures from the functional portion of the printed object (Mojdeh [0089]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kunihiro discloses the method of claim 1, wherein Kunihiro further discloses the plurality of support structures each comprise a material having a glass transition temperature (Pg. 5, Ln. 18-19; support material may be carnauba wax, which has a glass transition temperature between 53-85⁰C), and the plurality of support structures are cooled to a temperature below the glass transition temperature (Pg. 5, Ln. 16; support material is cooled to -25⁰C, well below the glass transition temperature of carnauba wax).
Regarding claim 18, modified Kunihiro discloses the method of claim 1, wherein Kunihiro further discloses fracturing the plurality of support structures comprises applying a force to the plurality of support structures (Pg. 5, Ln. 20 to Pg. 6, Ln. 3; mechanical impact is applied to the object, comprising the support material).
Regarding claim 20, modified Kunihiro discloses the method of claim 1, wherein Mojdeh further teaches the dental appliance is an aligner ([0121]), a palatal expander ([0110]) or an attachment placement device ([0061]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Kunihiro discloses the method of claim 1, wherein Kunihiro further discloses the plurality of support structures comprise a first material (Pg. 5, Ln. 12-13; first support material 46), and wherein the functional portion comprises a second material (Pg. 5, Ln. 13; model material 48) different than the first material (Pg. 5, Ln. 16-18).
Regarding claim 22, modified Kunihiro discloses the method of claim 21, wherein Kunihiro further discloses the first material becomes more brittle than the second material when cooled (Pg. 5, Ln. 16-18; first support material is more likely to become embrittled).
Regarding claim 23, modified Kunihiro discloses the method of claim 1, wherein Kunihiro further discloses the first end of each support structure comprises a first material, wherein the rest of each support structure comprises a second material different than the first material (Pg. 3, Ln. 5-9 and Pg. 6, Ln. 1-3; support structures connecting model material and build platform may comprise first support material and second support material, wherein said materials are different).
Regarding claim 24, modified Kunihiro discloses the method of claim 23.
Modified Kunihiro does not explicitly disclose the first material becomes more brittle than the second material when cooled.
However, Kunihiro teaches multiple inks may be discharged, having different characteristics, to form the portions of the 3D printed article, such as the model and support structures (Pg. 3, Ln. 5-9). These support structures may be formed from multiple different inks, such a first support material and a second support material (Pg. 3, Ln. 5-9). Kunihiro further discloses a characteristic that can be selected for is embrittlement and provides an example wherein the support material embrittles before the model material (Pg. 6, Ln. 1-3) so that the support material maybe easily removed when the 3D printed article is cooled. From this disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize that the first support material and the second support material can be selected for their embrittlement characteristic. As the first support material and second support material are different, there exists only two possible solutions when selecting the support materials. Either the first support material embrittles before the second support material or vice versa. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to try selecting the support material corresponding to a connection with the model material as one that embrittles before the support material corresponding to a connection with the build platform since they would be choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 I(E).
Regarding claim 25, modified Kunihiro discloses the method of claim 1, wherein Crabtree further discloses the jet is selectively applied to the plurality of support structures while avoiding the functional portion ([0089]; the vision system 133 may be used in the cryogenic blasting system 160 to better identify the powdered areas and help direct the jet nozzle 140 on to the AM part).
Regarding claim 26, modified Kunihiro discloses the method of claim 1, wherein Crabtree further discloses the jet is output by an applicator (Fig. 1C; [0086]; jet nozzle 140), and wherein the method further comprises adjusting at least one of a position or orientation of the applicator (Fig. 1C; [0086]; robotic arm 139 maneuvers jet nozzle 140 in a 3D space and is therefore able to adjust a position and/or orientation of the jet nozzle 140) based on the sensor data ([0089]; the vision system 133 may be used in the cryogenic blasting system 160 to better identify the powdered areas and help direct the jet nozzle 140 on to the AM part).
Regarding claim 27, modified Kunihiro discloses the method of claim 1, wherein Kunihiro further discloses the functional portion and the plurality of support structures are each formed from a curable material (Pg. 3, Ln. 18; ink materials used for model material and support material can be ultraviolet-curable).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunihiro et al. (JP 2004255839 A; hereafter Kunihiro; page numbers correspond to previously attached English machine translation), in view of Mojdeh et al. (US 20200316856 A1; hereafter Mojdeh) and Crabtree et al. (US 20210221063 A1; hereafter Crabtree) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hutchinson et al. (US 20220363002 A1; hereafter Hutchinson).
Regarding claim 13, modified Kunihiro discloses the method of claim 1.
Modified Kunihiro does not disclose receiving a digital representation of a geometry of the object, and targeting the jet of the coolant to the plurality of support structures based on the digital representation. Note the 112a rejection above for the interpretation.
However, Hutchinson teaches a method of removing support material from an additively manufactured object ([0018]; removing support material from an AM part) using a jet of liquid ([0010]; atomized spray of fluid provided via nozzles), wherein the method comprises receiving a digital representation of a geometry of the additively manufactured object ([0044]; geometric design of additive manufactured part(s)), and targeting the jet of the liquid to the support material based on the digital representation ([0084]; the apparatus can be pre-programmed with parameters for the support removal suitable for the part geometry).
Kunihiro and Hutchinson are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of separating 3D printed objects from sacrificial support material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Kunihiro with the teachings of Hutchinson to provide receiving a digital representation of a geometry of the object, and targeting the jet of the coolant to the plurality of support structures based on the digital representation. Doing so would allow for automatically removing the plurality of support structures without damaging the functional portion and therefore remove the manual labor bottleneck of processing additively manufactured objects (Hutchinson [0007]).
Claims 14, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunihiro et al. (JP 2004255839 A; hereafter Kunihiro; page numbers correspond to previously attached English machine translation), in view of Mojdeh et al. (US 20200316856 A1; hereafter Mojdeh) and Crabtree et al. (US 20210221063 A1; hereafter Crabtree) as applied to claims 1, and further in view of Ceriani (EP 3950186 A1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Kunihiro discloses the method of claim 1.
Modified Kunihiro does not explicitly disclose generating a temperature gradient across the object.
However, Ceriani teaches a method of removing a plurality of support structures (Fig. 3; [0023]; support structures 12) from an additively manufactured object (Fig. 3; [0023]; part comprising portions 14, 13 and 12) comprising cooling the plurality of support structures in a coolant (Fig. 3; [0015]; 12 are frozen in a water-based solution), wherein a temperature gradient is generated across the additively manufactured object (Marked Fig. 3; [0015]; 12 is frozen in the water-based solution, but the functional portion is not, therefore the object has a temperature gradient wherein 12 is at a lower temperature).
PNG
media_image2.png
524
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kunihiro and Ceriani are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of separating 3D printed objects from sacrificial support material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Kunihiro with the teachings of Ceriani to provide generating a temperature gradient across the object. Doing so would allow the functional portion to be detached from the plurality of support structures and the build platform without using machine tools or manual tools, therefore greatly simplifying the method of separating the functional portion (Ceriani [0016]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Kunihiro discloses the method of claim 14, wherein Ceriani further teaches the temperature gradient comprises: a first temperature at the plurality of support structures ([0015]; 12 is frozen to a temperature below 0⁰C), and a second temperature at the functional portion (Marked Fig. 3; a temperature of the functional portion), wherein the second temperature is higher than the first temperature (Marked Fig. 3; the function portion is not frozen, so its temperature is higher than 12).
Regarding claim 17, modified Kunihiro discloses the method of claim 14, wherein Ceriani further teaches generating the temperature gradient comprises exposing the plurality of support structures to the coolant while protecting the functional portion from the coolant (Marked Fig. 3; [0029]; functional portion is not exposed to the frozen water and is therefore protected from the frozen water).
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunihiro et al. (JP 2004255839 A; hereafter Kunihiro; page numbers correspond to previously attached English machine translation), in view of Mojdeh et al. (US 20200316856 A1; hereafter Mojdeh) and Crabtree et al. (US 20210221063 A1; hereafter Crabtree) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Oliwiusz et al. (RU 2723431 C2; hereafter Oliwiusz; paragraph numbers correspond to previously attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 14, modified Kunihiro discloses the method of claim 1.
Modified Kunihiro does not explicitly disclose generating a temperature gradient across the object.
However, Oliwiusz teaches a method of removing a plurality of support structures (Fig. 8; [0037]; support structure 200) from an additively manufactured object ([0037]; fuel injector 144) comprising generating a temperature gradient ([0037]) between a functional portion (Fig. 8; [0037-0038]; surfaces 172, 174 of spray portion 166 of the fuel injector 144) and the plurality of support structures. The temperature gradient can be formed by heating and/or cooling the functional portion and/or the plurality of support structures ([0037]; the surfaces 172, 174 or bases 202, 204 may be heated and/or cooled to any temperature that provides a temperature gradient that results in the destruction of the support structure 200).
Kunihiro and Oliwiusz are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of separating 3D printed objects from sacrificial support material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Kunihiro with the teachings of Oliwiusz to provide generating a temperature gradient across the object. Doing so would ensure the plurality of support structures can be removed without affecting the functional portion at all (Oliwiusz) and therefore can avoiding damaging the functional portion during the separation process.
Regarding claim 16, modified Kunihiro discloses the method of claim 14, wherein Oliwiusz further teaches generating the temperature gradient comprises heating the functional portion ([0037]; the surfaces 172, 174 may be heated to any temperature that provides the temperature gradient).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hutchinson (US 20190176403 A1) discloses removing support material from an additively manufactured object by directing a high-velocity stream of fluid to an attachment point between the build material and the support material.
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 Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/V.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights