DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission has been entered.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17376291, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
In reference to claim 1, 17376291 does not provide for “wherein at least one weld couples the periphery of the peripheral region to the base and wherein the middle region is not part of at least one weld between the periphery of the peripheral region and the base”.
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.
Claim 1, 4-12, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stecker (US 20210402481 A1).
In reference to claim 1, 12, Stecker discloses an additive manufacturing (AM) system (figure shown below), comprising:
an adjustable base; (16 in figure shown below)
PNG
media_image1.png
444
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a build platform including a middle region surrounded by a peripheral region and the build platform further including a periphery of the peripheral region, the periphery being coupled to the base and the middle region, wherein at least weld couples the periphery of the peripheral region to the base and wherein the middle region is not part of at least one weld between the periphery of the peripheral region and the base; and (Fig 6I, shown below, and description thereof, e.g., “a plurality of connection features 15 (e.g., welds).” [P0142]
“article of manufacture 19” [P0143]
Fig 6I shows welds 15 form a perimeter around the object between two plates and the article 19 is formed on the plates by metal additive manufacturing)
PNG
media_image2.png
528
592
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a build material applicator for depositing a build material above the build platform for creating an object (“material deliver device 12, an energy emission device 14,” [P0125])
The rejection combines the weld plate embodiment Fig 6I into the apparatus embodiment of Fig 1A. Thus, the rejection is made under 35 USC 103.
In reference to claim 4-5, 15, 16, the plain meaning of weld encompasses these terms. Tack means a small weld.
In reference to claim 6-8, 17-19, this is an intended use or product by process limitation that does not limit the structure of the claimed device over the prior art.
In reference to claim 9, see Fig 1A and claim 1 rejection.
In reference to claim 10-11, 20, see Fig 6I.
Claim 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray (US 20230013204 A1).
In reference to claim 1, 12, Murray discloses an additive manufacturing (AM) system (Fig 9), comprising:
an adjustable base; (Fig 9)
a build platform including a middle region surrounded by a peripheral region and the build platform further including a periphery of the peripheral region, the periphery being coupled to the base and the middle region (Fig 6-8)
PNG
media_image3.png
404
668
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Murray does not disclose wherein at least weld couples the periphery of the peripheral region to the base and wherein the middle region is not part of at least one weld between the periphery of the peripheral region and the base, but indicates that the peripheral bolts (166 in Fig 8) can be “166 may take a variety of other forms such as but not limited to a bolt welded to base 110.” (P0051).
Murrary shows a build platform that is intended to be fastened to the base using bolts and acknowledges that welding the peripheral bolts 166 is possible.
Examiner is taking notice that welding is an art recognized alternative to fastening with bolts.
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to replace the bolts with a weld because welding is an art recognized alternative to fastening with bolts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-5pm.
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, Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS KRASNOW/ Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights