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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 07/27/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9-22 have been withdrawn.
Requirement for Information Under 37 CFR 1.105
Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application
Two Information Disclosure Statements were filed on 03/06/2024.
A partial review of the first IDS (22 pages) that lists US Patent 6811744 as Cite No 1 include the following references:
6866497 – a molding apparatus for a bulge located in a die half
6919035 – metal oxide coated polymer substrates
6926970 – an apparatus for forming weld joints with compressive residual stress patterns
7152292 – a roller folding head
These references appear to have no relevance to a modular printer or discuss 3D printing.
Similarly a partial review of the second IDS (21 pages) that lists US Patent 10002215 as Cite No 1 includes the following references:
10002215 – arrayed imaging systems having improved alignment
10006156 – systems and methods for calculated fiber tow angle
10011685 – polyarylether ketone imide adhesives
10012532 – an optical detector for picking up optical information
These references appear to have no relevance to a modular printer or discuss 3D printing.
Since the examiner does not see the relevance of these documents, the Applicant is required to explain the relevance of each document cited in the submitted Information Disclosure Statements, including citations to pertinent sections. For each document cited in the submitted Information Disclosure Statements that applicant still wants considered, the following factual information is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application and is required to be provided under 37 CFR 1.105. Applicant must provide the factual basis that caused each document in the IDS to be disclosed to the Office. This factual basis could include an explanation of how each document bears upon the claimed invention and/or citations to the pertinent portions of the documents, by column/page and line number, that caused applicant to submit the document for consideration.
Applicant is reminded that the reply to this requirement must be made with candor and good faith under 37 CFR 1.56. A statement that the item is “unknown or not readily available” is inapplicable in this situation because the applicant is in possession of the information that was listed in the IDS.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim appears to have a redundant “calibrate” in the phrase “configured to calibrate or set up or calibrate…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Côté (US 20190344500).
With regards to claim 1, Côté teaches an additive manufacturing system comprising a plurality of stations (framework areas) proximate to one another as seen in Figure 1. Côté teaches that each station may comprise a removably mounted build module (AM subsystem configured to dock) (¶ 0066-0067). Côté teaches a third AM subsystem in the form of bonding module (26) which is configured to move between the stations (Fig. 1-7, ¶ 0107, 0109). Côté teaches a controller (¶ 0028) configured to control the third AM subsystem to perform a bonding process (AM process) at the first station while the first build module is docked in the framework, to move the bonding module to the second station and perform bonding while the second build module is docked in the framework (Fig. 1-7, ¶ 0028-0031).
With regards to claim 2, Côté teaches that the bonding module includes an optical bench with a scanning energy beam (¶ 0054-0055, 0100).
With regards to claims 3 and 4, Côté teaches that the first and second subsystems include a build plate on which powder is spread (¶ 0144).
With regards to claim 5, Côté teaches arranging the stations in a circle with a wedge shaped station (Fig. 11).
With regards to claim 6, Côté teaches that the third subsystem moves on a gantry or rail system (Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majer (US 2022/0234288) in view of Spicer et al. (US 11007713).
With regards to claims 1-4, Majer teaches an additive manufacturing system (Abstract) comprising a plurality of stations arranged proximate to one another (Fig. 5, stations 20 and 30) and an optical bench (70) interpreted to read upon the third AM subsystem of the claim that is configured to move between the first and second stations (¶ 0158-160). Majer teaches that the two areas are powder beds which are selectively subjected to a laser, but does not explicitly teach that the two areas comprise a respective subsystem configured to dock.
In a similar field of endeavor of additive manufacturing of multiple components, Spicer teaches a system for producing a plurality of parts simultaneously in a powder based system similar to the powder based system of Majer in which for a given print area a layer of powder is spread and then subjected to a selective laser (Abstract, Fig. 1-2, col 3 ln 43-59). Spicer teaches that each print area can be provided with a removable base substrate or build plate so that when a given part is finished it can be removed without disrupting printing of the other taller objects (claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to include removable build plates in the respective printing areas of Majer as taught by Spicer as both relate to building multiple objects with a powder spreading additive manufacturing system presenting a reasonable expectation of success, doing so allows for the individual removal of parts as taught by Spicer, and such presents use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way yielding predictable results. Each removable build plate reads upon the first and second AM subsystem of the claim that is configured to be docked in a respective build area.
With regards to claim 5, Majer demonstrates a linear configuration for the build area; however, as shown in Spicer a circle or donut shape is also a known configuration for a plurality of build areas. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize a circular configuration through a simple substitution of known prior art shapes for a plurality of build areas yielding predictable results. As seen in Figure 2 of Majer this results in wedge shaped build plates.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Côté (US 20190344500) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bonilla et al. (US 2022/0314541).
With regards to claims 7 and 8, Côté teaches the AM system of claim 1 as discussed above, but does not teach a fourth station configured to calibrate or set up one of the first, second or third subsystems.
In a similar field of endeavor of powder based additive manufacturing, Bonilla teaches that it was known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate a maintenance station separate from a build area in a powder based additive manufacturing device (Abstract, ¶ 0216). Bonilla teaches that the maintenance station may also include a calibration station for the optical assembly (¶ 0221).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate a maintenance station for calibration of the optical assembly of Côté as taught by Bonilla as both relate to powder based additive manufacturing systems with a movable optical assembly presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and doing so utilizes a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way yielding predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GALEN H HAUTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM to 6 PM EST.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
