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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 filed on 2/16/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It is suggested to amend claim 1 to place the steps in the temporal order which they would be performed. It is understood that one can claim process steps in any order and it does not affect the interpretation, unless explicitly claimed. However, in this instance it would help the reader comprehend the claim better, since the last two steps (temporally) are the first two steps claimed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 9, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sieradzki (U.S. PGPub 2021/0221067; already of record). Regarding claims 9 and 10:
Sieradzki teaches 3D printer with a build platform 100 and a temperature controller 500 (i.e. a heater). The temperature controller is for melting a meltable material (paragraph 0039). The remainder of claim 9 is seen as the material worked upon by the apparatus and the intended use of the apparatus (See MPEP 2112.01 I and 2114-2115). Since Sieradzki teach the required build platform and heater, then Sieradzki is capable of the intended use and using the desired material.
Regarding claim 12:
Sieradzki teaches a push mechanism 200 in Figures 1C and 1E.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hovel et al (U.S. PGPub 2012/0018115; herein Hovel), in view of Sieradzki. Regarding claim 1:
Hovel teaches depositing a separating layer 11 on a platform 10 (Figures 2-3). A component 16 is then build on the separating layer 11 (Figures 4-5). Then additional layers (separating layers 17 and 19) and components (second component and further components 20) are built on this first component (Figures 6-8). The first/bottom component 16 is seen as the claimed support structure, and the second component 18 is seen as the claimed printed object. After the printing is completed the separating layers 11/17/19 are melted via a laser or induction heater (Figure 8 and paragraphs 0052-0054). Thus forming a sliding film between the platform 10 and the first component 16. After, the component 18 is removed from the platform 10 (Figure 9).
Hovel does not teach heating the build platform itself to cause the melting, however, in the same field of endeavor Sieradzki teaches a similar process where one uses a heated build platform to cause a sliding film of meltable material to form on the build platform surface (Figures 1E and 2C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the heated build platform of Sieradzki in the process of Hovel, since it has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this instance there are only so many means by which to melt the meltable material, and a skilled artisan would be able to discern the appropriate means by which to melt the meltable material layer, and since the end results of the possible means is the same (a melted material layer on the surface) the selection is therefor obvious.
Regarding claim 4:
See seen in the Figures of Hovel, the separating layer 11 is selectively under the support structure.
Regarding claims 5 and 12:
Hovel is silent to pushing. In the same field of endeavor, Sieradzki teaches a push mechanism 200 in Figures 1C and 1E. Sieradzki also teaches any means of appropriate force can remove the part (paragraph 0041).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the pushing of Sieradzki, since it has been shown that removal means are equivalent for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06 II)
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Hovel and Sieradzki would teach that the platform would be cooled after removal, since there would be a process cycle time. Additionally, Sieradzki teaches active cooling in paragraph 0040.
Regarding claims 9 and 10:
See remarks regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 11:
Hovel teaches an applicator for the separating layer 11, paragraph 0044 and Figure 2.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hovel and Sieradzki, and in further view of Kline (U.S. PGPub 2015/0314527l already of record). Regarding claims 7:
Hovel and Sieradzki do not teach removal of the meltable material after the printing or the means of removal.
In the same field of endeavor Kline teaches using a blade to scrape the surface of the build platform to ensure a consistent print surface (paragraph 0042, plow 170 throughout the Figures).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the platform scraper of Kline since it allows for the creation of a consistent surface.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sieradzki, in view of Swanson et al (U.S. PGPub 2014/0178585; herein Swanson; already of record). Regarding claim 13, Sieradzki is silent to:
An opening in the housing for ejecting the object
In the same field of endeavor Swanson teaches using a door in the housing to allow for part removal (e.g. paragraph 0046)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the door of Swanson, since it allows for the removal of the printed object from the printer.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sieradzki, in view of Kline. Regarding claims14 and 15:
Sieradzki does not teach removal of the meltable material after the printing or the means of removal.
In the same field of endeavor Kline teaches using a blade to scrape the surface of the build platform to ensure a consistent print surface (paragraph 0042, plow 170 throughout the Figures).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the platform scraper of Kline since it allows for the creation of a consistent surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot, in part, because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding claims 9 and 10 as being anticipated, under 102, by Sieradzki. Since claims 9 and 10 are directed the material worked upon and the intended use of the apparatus (See MPEP 2112.01 I and 2114-2115) and since Sieradzki teach the required build platform and heater, then Sieradzki is capable of the intended use and using the desired material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743