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
Claims 1-16 are pending and are presented for this examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 05/10/2024 and 06/19/2024 and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-2, 4-8 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima (US20130244040A1) in view of Meiners (US20040056022).
As for claims 1 and 12, Oshima discloses a production process and a production device (Figure 7) comprising:
A carrier (110)
A first support structure (tray 10A-1 having tray body 13 and pillar 14) additively manufactured on the carrier by laser melting a metal powder, the first support structure having multiple pillars (14) and a length of the pillar (14) being greater than a maximum width of the pillar is expected.
A first component (shape object 22) additively manufactured on the tray body (13) and pillars (14) by laser melting the same metal powder
Since shape object 22 can be easily take out from the tank(109) [0046] without being bound to the tray 10A-1 due to the presence of binding prevention layer 21-0 (Figure 11), instant claim 1 required detaching step and claim 13 required wherein clause is met.
Oshima differs from instant claims 1 and 12 such that it does not disclose heating the carrier above 400 degree C.
Meiners discloses selective laser sintering of metallic substances wherein a heating plate (5) serves as a substrate (i.e. carrier) plate for building a metallic object component. The heating plate is heated at least 500 degree C during high melting of metallic powdered substance for reducing the danger of tensions or cracking in the object component. (Abstract last two line)
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made to heat the carrier of Oshima at least 500 degree C as suggested by Meiners, in the process of Oshima for the benefit of reducing the danger of tensions or cracking in the object component.
As for claims 2 and 13, the fact Oshima discloses shape object 22 can be easily taken out from the tank(109) ([0046]) and separated from the tray 10A-1 due to binding prevention layer 21-0, it meets instant claimed wherein clause.
As for claim 4, the fact Oshima discloses binding prevention layer 21-0 separates the tray 10A-1 from the shape object 22 suggested an intended breaking point between the shape object 22 and the tray
As for claim 14, the binding prevention layer 21-0 reads on claimed tool attachment.
As for claims 5-7, Figures 7 and 11 illustrate both tray body 13 and multiple pillars 14 having the length corresponding to more than 4 time the maximum width of the tray body 13 and pillar 14. Tray body 13 extends axially and pillar 14 extends radially between shape object 22 and carrier 110. Pillars 14 take up less than 70% of a volume delimited by the tray 10A-1.
As for claim 8, Figure 11 illustrates tray 10A-1 in reversed U shape having a contour without a filling.
As for claims 10 and 15, before removing the shape object 22 from tray 10A-1, additively manufacturing a carrying structure 10A-1 on the carrier 110 by laser melting the same metal powder, additively manufacturing a second support structure 10A-2 with tray body 23 and pillar 24 on the carrying structure 10A-1 by laser melting the metal powder,
And additively manufacturing a second shape object 32 on the second support structure 10A-2 by laser melting the metal powder, the second shape object 32 not having any direct contact with the first shape object 22. (Figure 11)
As for claims 11 and 16, before removing the shape object 22 from tray 10A-1, additively manufacturing a further carrying structure 10A-2 on the carrier 110 by laser melting the same metal powder, additively manufacturing a further support structure 10A-3 with tray body 33 and pillar 34 on the further carrying structure 10A-2 by laser melting the metal powder,
And additively manufacturing a further shape object 42 on the further support structure 10A-3 by laser melting the metal powder, the further shape object 42 not having any direct contact with the second shape object 32. (Figure 11)
Claim(s) 1,3, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shioya (US20170066083) in view of Meiners (US20040056022).
As for claims 1, 3 and 12, Shioya discloses a production process and a production device comprising (Figure 1):
A carrier(40)
Additively manufacturing a first support structure (20) and removal member (30) on the carrier (40) having multiple struts (Figure 8A), the length of the struts being greater than the maximum width of the struts.
Additive manufacturing a first component (10) on the support member (2) and removal member (30) by laser melting the same metal powder of forming the first support structure.
Removing the removal member, and the support structure from the first component (10) by twisting the removal member using a hexagonal wrench.[0086] Hence, instant claim 3 is met.
Shioya differs from instant claims 1 and 12 such that it does not disclose heating the carrier above 400 degree C.
Meiners indicated instant claimed feature would have been obvious to one skill in the art as indicated in the rejection of Oshima in view of Meiners above.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima (US20130244040A1) in view of Meiners (US20040056022) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Wang (NPL document “A Review of the Application of Additive Manufacturing in Prosthetic and Orthotic Clinics from a Biomechanical Perspective” published on September 2020).
As for claim 9, Oshima discloses a additive manufacturing a shape object but does not disclose the shape object is in the form of a hemispherical shell.
Changes in size or shape and in sequence of adding ingredients are not patentably distinct from prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Wang further discloses AM technologies in prosthesis and orthosis fabrication such as prosthetic socket which is a cup-like structure that fits around the residual limit of amputees is well known in the AM art.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made to make complex shape object of Oshima into a prosthetic socket which is a cup like structure as suggested by Wang, in the process of Oshima in view of Meiner when prosthetic socket is desired because Wang teaches AM technologies in prosthesis and orthosis fabrication saves time and labor cost while still have the flexibility to manufacture complex structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNY R WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5515. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNY R WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights