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
The Amendment filed 04/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1-2, 5, and 19 have been amended. No new claims have been added.
Response to Amendment
Objection. The amendments to claims 2, 5, and 19 have overcome the objection of claims 2, 5, and 19 as set forth in the Office Action mailed 11/03/2026. The objection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks regarding the rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 10-11, 13-16, and 18 under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by Zhang (CN-214774026-U) are moot as they rely upon amended claim limitations not previously considered. Applicant' s arguments that prior art cited in the rejection of dependent claims 3, 5, 8-9, 12, and 17 do not make up for the deficiencies of the prior art cited in the rejection of independent claim 1 is not persuasive. Independent claims 18, 19, and 20 incorporate the limitations of claim 1. The rejection of amended claims 1-20 is provided below.
Claim Interpretation
Functional language is often associated with a "controller" in the claims (see instant claims 5, 9, and 20). The specific language associated with the "controller" will determine what subject matter must be given patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-11, 13-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN-214774026-U) in view of Thau (US 2019/0351609 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a device for three-dimensional printing comprising: a lifting platform 11 (substrate having a first side and a second side opposing the first side, wherein one or more three-dimensional objects are printed above the first side of the substrate during the three-dimensional printing); a screw rod 31 (shaft configured to translate and couple to the second side of the substrate); a fixing frame 2 (build module housing configured to accommodate the substrate, the one or more three-dimensional objects, and at least a portion of the shaft, the build module housing being configured to facilitate translation of the shaft from an interior of the build module housing to an exterior of the build module housing, the build module housing being stationary during the translation of the shaft relative to the build module); and a motor 32 (bent arm configured to couple to the shaft, the bent arm being disposed externally to the build module housing, and the bent arm being configured to translate and cause the translation of the shaft that causes translation of the substrate in a direction) (Fig 1-4 and Translation, Pg 3).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose a bent arm comprising a straight portion and an angled portion and being configured to translate via an actuation mechanism.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (bent arms for mechanical linkage; see MPEP 2141.01(a)), Thau discloses a known technique wherein arm unit 30 is of an L-shaped design, extending away from that of the second support column 28 in a direction substantially parallel to that of the build platform 16, whereupon a 90 angle or bend is experienced wherein the arm unit 30 becomes substantially parallel to the second support column 28, or perpendicular to the build platform 16, and travels towards that of the build platform 16 (a bent arm comprising a straight portion and an angled portion and being configured to translate via an actuation mechanism) (Fig 2 and ¶0031).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the device disclosed in Zhang by applying the known technique of a bent arm comprising a straight portion and an angled portion and being configured to translate via an actuation mechanism disclosed in Thau to the device disclosed in Zhang such that the bent arm is disposed externally to the build module housing and configured to couple to the shaft, the bent arm comprising a straight portion and an angled portion and being configured to translate via an actuation mechanism and cause the translation of the shaft that causes translation of the substrate in a direction with predictable results and resulting in an improved TEXT. MPEP 2143(D).
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1, Zhang in view of Thau teaches a device further comprising the top portion of fixing frame 2 (a base having a third side and an opposing fourth side, which base is configured at the third side to support a material bed utilized at least in part for the printing of the one or more three-dimensional objects, the substrate configured to reversibly engage with the base, which engagement is reversible to facilitate engagement and disengagement between the base and the substrate) (Zhang, Fig 1-4 and Translation, Pg 3).
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 1, although Zhang in view of Thau do not specify wherein the shaft is a hollow shaft, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the device taught by Zhang in view of Thau such that shaft (screw rod; see rejection of claim 1) is a hollow shaft, since it has been held that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)-(B).
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 1, Zhang in view of Thau teaches a device further comprising wherein the substrate comprises a hollow cavity at its second side (Zhang, see Fig 1-2).
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 1, Examiner notes that the limitation “wherein (I) the bent arm is configured to support a weight of at least about 500 kilograms, (II) the device is configured to translate the substrate at a precision having a value of at most about 2.0 microns, (III) the device is configured to translate the substrate facilitates the translational increments having a value of at most about 100 microns, or (IV) any combination of (I) and (II)” is a recitation of intended result. However, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and thus, an apparatus 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. MPEP 2114(II). Here, the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure (bent arm, substrate) of the claimed apparatus.
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 1, Zhang in view of Thau teaches a device wherein the bent arm is bent at a right angle, or substantially right angle (Zhang, Fig 1-4).
Regarding claims 10-11, as applied to claim 1, Examiner notes that the limitations “wherein the build module housing encloses an atmosphere having a pressure above an ambient atmosphere pressure external to the build module housing; and wherein the bent arm is disposed at the ambient atmosphere pressure” and “wherein the build module housing encloses an atmosphere that is more inert than an ambient atmosphere external to the build module housing; and wherein the bent arm is disposed at the ambient atmosphere” are recitations of intended result. However, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and thus, an apparatus 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. MPEP 2114(II). Here, the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure (build module housing, bent arm) of the claimed apparatus.
Regarding claim 13-14, as applied to claim 1, Examiner notes that the limitations “wherein the bent arm is configured to have a deflection of at most about ten microns per 100 kilogram force” and “wherein the build module housing has a structural stiffness of at least about 10 kilogram per micron of translation (a) of the shaft, (b) of the substrate, or (c) of the shaft and of the substrate” are recitations of intended result. However, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and thus, an apparatus 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. MPEP 2114(II). Here, the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure (bent arm, build module housing) of the claimed apparatus.
Regarding claim 15, as applied to claim 1, Zhang in view of Thau teaches a device further comprising a plurality of optical axis 34 (a plurality of guide shafts spaced from the shaft and configured to couple to the second side of the substrate) (Zhang, Fig 1-4 and Translation, Pg 3).
Regarding claim 16, as applied to claim 1, Zhang in view of Thau teaches a device wherein the fixing frame 2 (build module) housing includes a bottom plate 21 (guide plate configured to be (a) on the second side of the substrate and (b) stationary during the translation of the shaft) (Zhang, Fig 1-4).
Regarding claim 18, Zhang in view of Thau teaches a method of three-dimensional printing comprising a device operation process ((a) providing the device of claim 1; and (b) using the device to print the one or more three-dimensional objects) (Zhang, Fig 1-4 and Translation, Pg 3).
Regarding claims 19-20, while Zhang in view of Thau discloses a device operation process ((a) providing the device of claim 1; and (b) using the device to print the one or more three-dimensional objects) (Fig 1-4 and Translation, Pg ; see also rejection of claims 1 and 18), Zhang does not explicitly disclose a non-transitory computer readable medium in which program instructions are stored that, when read by one or more processors operatively coupled with the device of claim 1, cause the one or more processors to execute one or more operations comprising using the device to print the one or more three-dimensional objects nor at least one controller configured to (a) couple with a power source; (b) operatively couple to the device of claim 1; and (c) direct usage of the device to print the one or more three-dimensional objects.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus disclosed in Zhang in view of Thau to include a non-transitory computer readable medium in which program instructions are stored that, when read by one or more processors operatively coupled with the device of claim 1, cause the one or more processors to execute one or more operations comprising using the device to print the one or more three-dimensional objects and at least one controller configured to (a) couple with a power source; (b) operatively couple to the device of claim 1; and (c) direct usage of the device to print the one or more three-dimensional objects with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve motion stability and delivery load (Zhang, Translation, Pg 3).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN-214774026-U) in view of Thau (US 2019/0351609 A1), as applied to claim 1, and in view of Elgar (US 2018/0281236 A1).
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 1, Zhang in view of Thau does not specify a device further comprising at least one linear encoder configured to read marks inscribed on the shaft to facilitate the translation that is controlled by one or more controller.
However, in the same field of endeavor, controlling print platforms, Elder teaches a device wherein the motor exhibiting the linear motion may comprise a linear motor, a rotary motor (e.g., coupled to a conveyor or an escalator), an absolute encoder with motor, an incremental encoder with motor, or a stepper motor (at least one linear encoder configured to read marks inscribed on the shaft to facilitate the translation that is controlled by one or more controller) (¶0172) (known technique applicable to base device).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the device disclosed in Zhang in view of Thau by applying the known technique of at least one linear encoder disclosed in Elder to the device disclosed in Zhang in view of Thau with predictable results and resulting in an improved device. MPEP 2143(D).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN-214774026-U) in view of Thau (US 2019/0351609 A1), as applied to claim 1, and in view of Huang (CN-111267338-A).
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 1, Zhang in view of Thau does not specify a device wherein the bent arm is operatively coupled to a ball bearing screw operatively coupled to an actuator.
However, in the same field of endeavor, controlling print platforms, Huang teaches a ball screw linear module 5 is composed of a ball screw pair, a linear guide rail pair realize transmission, X direction grating scale, a Y direction grating ruler as position feedback element, the feedback linear displacement, as an example taking X direction ball screw linear module 2, ball bearing screw rod 21 the two ends by the bearing A22. B23 bearing support, one end of the coupler 24 connected to a closed loop stepper motor 1 and X, forming platform 7 fixedly installed on the nut seat 71, the nut seat 71 connected with the screw nut, so as to realize the X direction closed loop stepper motor 1 the rotating movement into straight line movement of the forming platform 7 (a ball bearing screw operatively coupled to an actuator) (known technique applicable to base device) (Fig 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the device disclosed in Zhang in view of Thau by applying the known technique of ball bearing screw operatively coupled to an actuator disclosed in Huang to the bent arm disclosed in Zhang in view of Thau with predictable results and resulting in an improved device. MPEP 2143(D).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN-214774026-U) in view of Thau (US 2019/0351609 A1), as applied to claim 1, and in view of Larch (DE-102018120291-B3).
Regarding claim 12, as applied to claim 1, while Zhang in view of Thau teaches a device wherein the bent arm is supported by a frame, Zhang in view of Thau does not teach a device wherein the frame having inhomogeneous density of stiffening elements; and wherein the stiffening elements comprise horizontal, vertical, or angled stiffening elements.
However, in the same field of endeavor, frame with stiffening elements, Larch teaches a device wherein the longitudinal ribs 82 and the frames 84 together form one with the skin of the container 80 integrally formed stiffening structure 87 the container skin 80 out (wherein the frame having a density of stiffening elements; and wherein the stiffening elements comprise vertical stiffening elements) (Fig 14) (known technique applicable to base device).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the device disclosed in Zhang in view of Thau by applying the known technique of a frame having a density of stiffening elements and wherein the stiffening elements comprise vertical stiffening elements disclosed in Larch to the frame disclosed in Zhang in view of Thau with predictable results and resulting in an improved device. MPEP 2143(D).
Although Zhang in view of Thau and Larch does not specify inhomogeneous density of stiffening elements, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the combination such that the ribs (stiffening elements) disclosed in Larch comprise inhomogeneous density, since it has been held that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)-(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record, Zhang in view of Thau, discloses a device for three-dimensional printing, the device comprising: a substrate having a first side and a second side opposing the first side, wherein one or more three-dimensional objects are printed above the first side of the substrate during the three-dimensional printing; a shaft configured to translate and couple to the second side of the substrate; a build module housing configured to accommodate the substrate, the one or more three-dimensional objects, and at least a portion of the shaft, the build module housing being configured to facilitate translation of the shaft from an interior of the build module housing to an exterior of the build module housing, the build module housing being stationary during the translation of the shaft relative to the build module; and a bent arm configured to couple to the shaft, the bent arm being disposed externally to the build module housing, the bent arm being configured to translate and cause the translation of the shaft that causes translation of the substrate in a direction (see rejection of claim 1).
The device as claimed is deemed novel and non-obvious because the prior art of record along with a further prior art search do not teach or suggest: wherein the bent arm comprises two different materials.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JaMel M Nelson whose telephone number is (571)272-8174. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM ET - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached on (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JAMEL M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights