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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-7 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-7 are 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.
Claim 1 first recites “modeling a support structure in at least a part of a support area” then recites “a first step of modeling a first support structure in the first support area under a first modeling condition, and modeling a second support structure in the second support area under a second modeling condition.” The limitations are not clearly related in that, it is not clear if the “first step” is intended to further limit the “modeling a support” step or comprises a separate step and resulting structure. As a result, the scope of the claimed method and required structure is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitations are interpreted such that the “modeling a support structure” comprises the subsequently recited “first step of modeling.” Claims 2-7 are indefinite based on their dependency.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “modeling an object by extruding a material onto a stage to deposit layers.” While the term “modeling” could be interpreted as forming a digital model (e.g. 3D CAD model), in view of the context of “by extruding,” the term “modeling” is interpreted as a step of depositing, forming, and/or fabricating.
Claim 1 recites “support structure” comprising first, second, and third support structures and a “support area” comprising first, second, and third support areas, but does not limit, for example, the orientation, shape, or location of such structures and areas with the exception that the third support area is located between the second support area and the object. In particular, it is noted that the claim does not recite a relation between the support area and the stage.
Finally, Claim 1 recites “modeling condition.” The claim does not provide any scope to modeling condition and therefore, any relevant parameter to a support structure (e.g. dimensions, location, material, mechanical strength, etc.) could be considered a modeling condition.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mark (US 20200114422).
With respect to Claim 1, Mark teaches a method of manufacturing a three-dimensional object, the method comprising steps of depositing (i.e. modeling) an object by extruding a composite material comprising metal onto a substrate (i.e. stage) to deposit layers, where in the stop of modeling the object also including modeling support structures to support the object with at least some of the support(s) located on a portion of the stage (i.e. a support area), wherein the support area may be divided into a plurality of areas including first, second and third areas, wherein the modeling of the support structures including modeling a first support structure in a first support area under a first modeling condition (e.g. location, layer, material), modeling a second support structure in a second support area under a second modeling condition or forming a space without extruding the material, a step of separating the support structure from the object, wherein a third support area is located between the second support area and the object, and wherein the first modeling condition and the second modeling condition are different from each other. (para. 4-21, 71, 77, 83-84, 98-100, 109, 149, 164, 217; Figs. 2-3, 14-16, 18-20, 25, 27-30). For example, Mark teaches Fig. 29, wherein each vertical column, horizontal structure, and/or space adjacent thereof of the overall support structures may be assigned as a separate support structure in a respective support area and parameters/conditions such as the specific location, layer, shape, length, material may be assigned as modeling conditions. Moreover, as the second support structure may be an empty “space,” such a selection would necessarily result in the first modeling condition and second modeling condition being different (that is, existence of a support vs. space/no support).
Thus, Mark teaches with sufficient specificity, first, second, and third support structures, in respective first, second, and third support areas, having first, second, and third modeling conditions anticipating the claim limitations.
With respect to Claim 2, Mark teaches, for example, in Fig. 29, wherein the modeling condition is a condition related to a type of the material (note, SH3 and SL2 comprising different materials) and also may be interpreted as wherein the modeling condition is different modeling pattern (e.g. the horizontal and vertical support pieces).
With respect to Claim 3, Mark teaches, for example, in Fig. 29, wherein the method comprising modeling a third support structure in the third support area, wherein in the first step, a space is formed in the second support area.
With respect to Claim 4, Mark teaches modeling a third support in a third support area (e.g. third column, horizontal structure, or release material layer)(see Fig. 29), wherein the object contains a first metal, wherein one or more of the support structures comprise a metal, and a ceramic release material comprising part of the support structure may be assigned as the second support structure, and teaches before the second step of removing the support, heating the object and the support structure to a sintering temperature of the object and support but lower than a sintering temperature of the ceramic, such that the ceramic material enables easier release/separation of the support structure from the object and teaches embodiments wherein the metal of the object and support structure are the same. (para. 15-21, 71, 77, 83-84, 98-100, 217). As the claim does not specify whether the first and second metal are different, the embodiment of Mark wherein the object metal and support structure metal are the same is deemed to anticipate the instant claim.
With respect to Claim 5, Mark teaches providing a support structure, in particular, for portions of the object that comprise overhanging or cantilevered elements. (para. 93-95; Figs. 27-29). As Mark teaches a method of manufacturing a three-dimensional object with this structure and arrangement, and is therefore, deemed to implicitly teach a “determining” step meeting the instant claim.
With respect to Claim 6, Mark teaches a method comprising a support structure and support area (see Fig. 29), the support area including a base area in contact with the stage, a contact area in contact with the object at an upper side or a lower side, and a body area different from the base area and the contact area, wherein the second support area is an area in the body area.
With respect to Claim 7, Mark teaches embodiments, see for example Fig. 29, wherein in the first step a space is formed in the second support area, and a position of the object with respect to the stage is such that the second support area space extends along a vertical direction (e.g. vertical columns of space between stage and object (Fig. 29). As Mark teaches a method of manufacturing a three-dimensional object with this structure and arrangement, and is therefore, deemed to implicitly teach a “determining” step meeting the instant claim.
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 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) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark (US 20200114422).
With respect to Claim 1, Mark teaches a method of manufacturing a three-dimensional object, the method comprising steps of depositing (i.e. modeling) an object by extruding a composite material comprising metal onto a substrate (i.e. stage) to deposit layers, where in the stop of modeling the object also including modeling support structures to support the object with at least some of the support(s) located on a portion of the stage (i.e. a support area), wherein the support area may be divided into a plurality of areas including first, second and third areas, wherein the modeling of the support structures including modeling a first support structure in a first support area under a first modeling condition (e.g. location, layer, material), modeling a second support structure in a second support area under a second modeling condition or forming a space without extruding the material, a step of separating the support structure from the object, wherein a third support area is located between the second support area and the object, and wherein the first modeling condition and the second modeling condition are different from each other. (para. 4-21, 71, 77, 83-84, 98-100, 109, 149, 164, 217; Figs. 2-3, 14-16, 18-20, 25, 27-30). For example, Mark teaches Fig. 29, wherein each vertical column and/or horizontal structure of the overall support structures may be assigned as a separate support structure in a respective support area and the specific location, layer, shape, length, material may be assigned as modeling conditions. Moreover, as the second support structure may be an empty “space,” such a selection would necessarily result in the first modeling condition and second modeling condition being different (that is, existence of a support vs. space/no support).
Thus, Mark teaches with sufficient specificity, first, second, and third support structures, in respective first, second, and third support areas, having first, second, and third modeling conditions meeting the claim limitations. In the alternative, Mark teaches a method of manufacturing a three-dimensional object, comprising extruding a metal-containing material to additively form an object, and comprising steps of providing a plurality of support structures, each support structure in a respective support area, the support structures that may comprise a metal and/or a ceramic release material, including structures having spaces, a plurality of support columns and horizontal portions, wherein the support structures selected to support the object, for example, overhanging features to prevent sagging during debinding and/or sintering processes, and one or more steps of removing support structures. (para. 4-21, 71, 77, 83-84, 98-100, 109, 149, 164, 217; Figs. 2-3, 14-16, 18-20, 25, 27-30). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on a desired object to be formed, to form three or more individual support elements (i.e. first, second, third etc. support structures) in respective support areas, wherein each individual support structure/element has unique modeling conditions, including one or more of dimensions, location, orientation, material or lack thereof, in order to sufficiently support the object during processing while minimizing waste and also for enabling easier support structure separation. See also MPEP 2144.05; Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.").
With respect to Claim 2, Mark teaches, for example, in Fig. 29, wherein the modeling condition is a condition related to a type of the material (note, SH3 and SL2 comprising different materials) and also may be interpreted as wherein the modeling condition is different modeling pattern (e.g. the horizontal and vertical support pieces).
With respect to Claim 3, Mark teaches, for example, in Fig. 29, wherein the method comprising modeling a third support structure in the third support area, wherein in the first step, a space is formed in the second support area.
With respect to Claim 4, Mark teaches modeling a third support in a third support area (e.g. third column, horizontal structure, or release material layer)(see Fig. 29), wherein the object contains a first metal, wherein one or more of the support structures comprise a metal, and a ceramic release material comprising part of the support structure may be assigned as the second support structure, and teaches before the second step of removing the support, heating the object and the support structure to a sintering temperature of the object and support but lower than a sintering temperature of the ceramic, such that the ceramic material enables easier release/separation of the support structure from the object and teaches embodiments wherein the metal of the object and support structure are the same. (para. 15-21, 71, 77, 83-84, 98-100, 217). As the claim does not specify whether the first and second metal are different, the embodiment of Mark wherein the object metal and support structure metal are the same is deemed to meet the instant claim.
In the alternative, Mark teaches embodiments wherein portions of a support structure may be made of a different material. (see, e.g., para. 149). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the support from a second metal material, having substantially similar density and/or shrinking characteristics, but lower cost, in order to more economically build an object from a desired first metal and a suitable support structure from a second, less expensive, metal material.
With respect to Claim 5, Mark teaches providing a support structure, in particular, for portions of the object that comprise overhanging or cantilevered elements. (para. 93-95). As Mark teaches a method of manufacturing a three-dimensional object with this structure and arrangement, and is therefore, deemed to implicitly teach a “determining” step meeting the instant claim. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to, before forming the object and supports, determine the need for a support structure, based on the object features such as overhanging portions, and provide one or more support structures in one or more support areas, including a “second support area,” in order to manufacture an object without unwanted sag or deformation during debinding and/or sintering. (see, e.g., para. 109).
With respect to Claim 6, Mark teaches a method comprising a support structure and support area (see Fig. 29), the support area including a base area in contact with the stage, a contact area in contact with the object at an upper side or a lower side, and a body area different from the base area and the contact area, wherein the second support area is an area in the body area.
With respect to Claim 7, Mark teaches embodiments, see for example Fig. 29, wherein in the first step a space is formed in the second support area, and a position of the object with respect to the stage is such that the second support area space extends along a vertical direction (e.g. vertical columns of space between stage and object (Fig. 29). As Mark teaches a method of manufacturing a three-dimensional object with this structure and arrangement, and is therefore, deemed to implicitly teach a “determining” step meeting the instant claim. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of teachings of Mark, to determine the number of support structure columns and intermediate spaces needed to support an object, for example the overhanging object element in Fig. 29, and select/determine a position of the object, stage, and space such that space extends in a vertical direction, in order to form an object while preventing unwanted sag during sintering, with a predictable result of success. (see also rejections of claims 1-6 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0162062, to Mark, having a similar disclosure to the above cited reference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A HEVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JOHN A HEVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights