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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendments filed 10/06/2023 to the abstract, claims, and specification have been reviewed and accepted by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/12/2026 regarding the election with traverse in response to the election requirement filed 01/15/2026 have been reviewed and are found persuasive, therefore the previously filed election requirement is withdrawn.
However, a new restriction requirement is made, and in the interest of compact prosecution, the provisionally elected claims 1-7 and 18-20 have also been reviewed and rejected by the examiner for the reasons found below.
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Invention 1, claims 1-7 and 18-20, drawn to a product of a support arrangement for additive manufacturing, under classification of B29C64/40.
Invention 2, claims 8-9, drawn to an additive manufacturing device comprising a support arrangement, under classification of B22F10/47.
Invention 3, claims 10-17, drawn to a method of additive manufacturing comprising a support arrangement to create a three-dimensional object, under classification of B33Y10/00.
Inventions I-III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of “each support element having a longitudinal axis and being independently movable relative to the base structure along the associated longitudinal axis; wherein at least one of the support elements is rotatable about the associated longitudinal axis,” this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Van Espen (US-20180086004) in view of Phillips (US-20220212263), see the rejection of claim 1 below. Therefore, unity of invention is lacking and restriction is appropriate. Searching the product claims (Invention I) may not be necessary to search the claimed device (combination claims in Invention II) or the manufacturing process (Invention III), and the additional limitations in Inventions II-III regarding the computer and control devices not found in Invention I add an additional search burden to the examiner.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Espen (US-20180086004) in view of Phillips (US-20220212263).
Regarding claim 1, Van Espen teaches:
A support arrangement for additive manufacturing ([0005] – [0006]), the support arrangement comprising:
a base structure ([0044]; Fig. 1, #140); and
a plurality of elongated support elements for supporting a three- dimensional object during additive manufacture of the three-dimensional object ([0034] – [0038] and [0044]; Fig. 1, #105, #110, #115, and #120), each support element having a longitudinal axis (Fig. 1, #105, #110, #115, and #120);
Van Espen does not teach:
each support element being independently movable relative to the base structure along the associated longitudinal axis; and
wherein at least one of the support elements is rotatable about the associated longitudinal axis.
However, Phillips, in a similar field of endeavor, a support arrangement for additive manufacturing, teaches:
each support element ([0570]; Fig. 36, #3602) being independently movable relative to the base structure ([0570]; Fig. 36, #3604) along the associated longitudinal axis ([0570] – [0571]; Fig. 36, #3611); and
wherein at least one of the support elements is rotatable about the associated longitudinal axis ([0570] – [0571]; Fig. 36, #3610).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the support elements of Van Espen to incorporate the teachings of Phillips and have them be movable along the longitudinal axis and rotatable about the longitudinal axis. The purpose, as stated by Phillips, being allowing for vertical motion of the elevator plate and the rotating and translating stage ([0548]), and the translational motion comprises lowering a position of the rotating support table to accommodate a new build layer of powder as the part is being built ([0544]).
Regarding claim 2, Van Espen in view of Phillips teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 2 depends on. Phillips further teaches:
wherein a plurality of the support elements are independently rotatable about the respective associated longitudinal axes ([0452]; Fig. 26A, #2601-2606; [0570] – [0571]; Fig. 36, #3610).
Regarding claim 3, Van Espen in view of Phillips teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 3 depends on. Van Espen further teaches:
further comprising one or more temperature sensors configured to provide temperature data indicative of a temperature in one or more of the support elements ([0083] – [0086] and [0093] – [0096]).
Regarding claim 4, Van Espen in view of Phillips teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 4 depends on. Van Espen further teaches:
wherein each support element comprises an elongated distal part for supporting the three-dimensional object ([0045]; Fig. 1, #152) and an elongated proximal part supporting the distal part ([0045]; Fig. 1, #154), the distal part being releasable from the proximal part ([0045] – [0049]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Van Espen in view of Phillips teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 5 depends on. Van Espen further teaches:
further comprising an intermediate structure having a through hole associated with each support element, wherein at least a part of the intermediate structure is configured to be removed from the base structure ([0047] – [0049]; Fig. 1, #156).
Regarding claim 6, Van Espen in view of Phillips teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 6 depends on. Van Espen further teaches:
further comprising a locking device associated with each support element, each locking device being configured to be engaged for locking the distal part to the intermediate structure ([0047] – [0049]; Fig. 1, #156).
Regarding claim 18, Van Espen in view of Phillips teaches the limitations of claim 2, which claim 18 depends on. Van Espen further teaches:
further comprising one or more temperature sensors configured to provide temperature data indicative of a temperature in one or more of the support elements ([0083] – [0086] and [0093] – [0096]).
Regarding claim 19, Van Espen in view of Phillips teaches the limitations of claim 2, which claim 19 depends on. Van Espen further teaches:
wherein each support element comprises an elongated distal part for supporting the three-dimensional object ([0045]; Fig. 1, #152) and an elongated proximal part supporting the distal part ([0045]; Fig. 1, #154), the distal part being releasable from the proximal part ([0045] – [0049]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Van Espen in view of Phillips teaches the limitations of claim 2, which claim 20 depends on. Van Espen further teaches:
further comprising an intermediate structure having a through hole associated with each support element, wherein at least a part of the intermediate structure is configured to be removed from the base structure ([0047] – [0049]; Fig. 1, #156).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Espen (US-20180086004) in view of Phillips (US-20220212263), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Leung (US-20200164590).
Regarding claim 7, Van Espen in view of Phillips teaches the limitations of claim 5, which claim 7 depends on, but does not teach the intermediate structure being modular. However, Leung, in a similar field of endeavor, a support arrangement for additive manufacturing, teaches:
wherein the intermediate structure is modular and comprises a plurality of intermediate structure units ([0073] – [0085]; Figs. 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the intermediate structure of Van Espen in view of Phillips to incorporate the teachings of Leung and make it modular. The purpose, as stated by Leung, being so that the determined modular structures in the arrangement being configured to support the three-dimensional object as the three-dimensional object is formed ([0081]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrien J Bernard whose telephone number is (571)272-1384. The examiner can normally be reached M-R, from 7:30a.m.-4:30p.m..
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571 270-7001. 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.
/A.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1741 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights