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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The references disclosed within the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 11, 2024, has been considered and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 25-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 25, the phrase, “generally positioned between adjacent layers of the particulate polymer” is indefinite. It is unclear if the absorber is positioned between the adjacent layers of particulate polymer or not.
Claims 26-39 are rejected as being dependent on instant claim 25.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
4. 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
5. Claims 7, 21-22, 24, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkinson et al. (U.S. 2014/0314613).
Hopkinson teaches a method of producing 3D molded parts, comprising, applying particulate construction material onto a construction field in a defined layer by means of a coater, see claim 1, Fig. 1, applying one or more absorbers, see claim 25, [0025], heating the layer by a first heating step to a basic temperature which is within the window of particulate sintering as defined, see claims 1 and 6 (and [0005]).
Hopkinson does not appear to explicitly teach a first and second region, where the first region has a strength greater than the second; however, substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner are expected to have substantially identical properties. In the present case the 3D moulded part is carried out using material and process conditions which are substantially identical to those disclosed by applicants. Therefore the 3D moulded part discussed above would be expected to meet the claimed first and second region, where the first region has a strength greater than the second, as in claim 7, 21. In claim 7, the phrase, “joined by sintering” introduces a process limitation to the product claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure having a 3D moulded part. The reference suggests such a product because Hopkinson teaches a method of producing 3D molded parts, comprising, applying particulate construction material onto a construction field in a defined layer by means of a coater, see claim 1, Fig. 1, applying one or more absorbers, see claim 25.
Concerning claim 22, Hopkinson discloses the article may further comprise a second print head for providing a second radiation absorbent material. [0038]
Concerning claim 24, Hopkinson discloses the particulate material may comprise at least one of a polymer [0040].
Concerning claim 26, although Hopkinson does not explicitly disclose the thickness of each of the layers, thickness modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim Objection
6. Claims 23 are 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. The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited 3D moulded part further including where different absorbers have different absorption maxima.
The prior art does not teach motivation or suggestion for modification to make the invention as instantly claimed.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lawrence Ferguson whose telephone number is 571-272-1522. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9:00 AM – 5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frank Vineis, can be reached on 571-270-1547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/LAWRENCE D FERGUSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights