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 .
Claims 1-12, 25-26, and 38-43 are 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.
Claim 12 is 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 12 recites the limitation "the low-absorbance support material" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 11 teaches of a low-absorbance support material. However, claim 12 is dependent upon claim 1 and not claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 11-12, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HUANG (US 2021/0114290 A1).
Re: 1, HUANG discloses (see [0016, 0017], 3D fabrication system) a method for selective thermoplastic electrophotographic process additive manufacturing, the system comprising:
applying a high-absorbance support material 106 and a low-absorbance part material 104 adjacent to one another;
applying radiated energy to the high-absorbance support material and low-absorbance part material such that the high-absorbance support material selectively absorbs the radiated energy and transfers heat to the low-absorbance part material.
(HUANG teaches of forming a thermal support (106) formed from a first set of particles (102) beneath and in relatively close proximity to asset of particles (102) forming a feature (104); and receiving energy to heat the particles (102),wherein the particles (102) forming the thermal support (106) may beat a relatively higher temperature than the particles (102) forming the feature (104) during formation of the thermal support (106) and the feature (104), see [0030-0033], see energy absorbing agent (212) (liquid, ink, pigment, dye) that can be applied to form the thermal support (106), the thermal support (106) may facilitate the melting and fusing of the particles (102) forming the feature (104), thermal support (106) are to be formed to raise the temperature of the particles from which the feature (104) is formed to a sufficient level for intended fusing (see claims 1, 7, 12-13; paragraphs [0009], [0012], [0020]-[0022]; figures 1-2). See teaching by HUANG in [0016], wherein, the build material can be of polymer, plastic, ceramic, nylon, metal, or combinations thereof, and further in [0033] regarding the types of energy supply system 206 that can be light (visible, infrared, or both), in form of heat, in the form electromagnetic energy, combinations thereof. Wherein, would encompass the concept of a thermoplastic electrophotographic process.)
Re: 11 (upon 1), further comprising a low-absorbance support material. (see also teaching by HUANG regarding feature 104 can be separated from the thermal support 106 by intermediate section 108, which may be at least one layer of unfused particles 102, see [0020]. Wherein, a layer of unfused particles acting as a support material.)
Re: 12 (upon 1), wherein: the high-absorbance support material is generally printed in contact with the low-absorbance part material; and the low-absorbance support material is generally printed not in contact with the low- absorbance part material. (see also teaching by HUANG regarding feature 104 can be separated from the thermal support 106 by intermediate section 108, which may be at least one layer of unfused particles 102, see [0020]. Wherein, a layer of unfused particles acting as a support material.)
Re: 26, HUANG teaches of a method for selective thermoplastic electrophotographic process additive manufacturing (see teaching in claim 1 above), the system comprising:
applying a high-absorbance support material 106 and a low-absorbance part material 104 adjacent to one another;
applying radiated energy to the high-absorbance support material and low-absorbance part material such that the high-absorbance support material selectively absorbs the radiated energy and transfers heat to the low-absorbance part material;
further comprising a low-absorbance support material 108 (see teaching in claim 11 above);
wherein the high-absorbance support material is generally printed in contact with the low-absorbance part material;
and the low-absorbance support material is generally printed not in contact with the low- absorbance part material (see teaching in claim 12 above).
(It is noted that claim 26 is a combination of claims 1, 11, and 12, see teaching by HUANG above. Wherein, the operation of device taught in HUANG would include the claimed steps, particularly in light of the placement of the different materials would encompass the claimed placements.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3-6, and 41-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG as applied to claims 1 and 26 above, and further in view of VELAMAKANNI (US 2023/0000596 A1).
HUANG does not teach of the particular features of claims 3-6.
Re: 3 (upon 1), wherein the low-absorbance part material is substantially transparent. (VELAMAKANNI)
Re: 4 (upon 1), wherein the low-absorbance part material comprises a polyester. (VELAMAKANNI)
Re: 5 (upon 1), wherein the low-absorbance part material comprises a polyamide. (VELAMAKANNI)
Re: 6 (upon 1), wherein the low-absorbance part material comprises a polycarbonate. (VELAMAKANNI)
However, in relevant reference, VELAMAKANNI (US 2023/0000596 A1) teaches of the use of transparent or substantially transparent polymeric material that include polycarbonate, polyamide, polyester, see [0026]. Wherein, also cured via curing lamp, see [0039, 0091] or visible light curing, see[0145], and in an additive manufacturing process, see [0118, 0135].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of HUANG with the use of the particular material as taught by VELMAKANNI as known materials used in additive manufacturing, particularly in light of the known properties of said material. This is seen under KSR, see MPEP 2143, regarding the combining prior art elements (of the materials taught by VELMAKANNI) according to known methods (taught in HUANG) to yield predictable results, of materials used in additive manufacturing, particularly via curing radiation.
Re: 41 (upon 26), wherein the low-absorbance part material is substantially transparent. (see teaching by VELAMAKANNI above as this is the same limitation as claim 3.)
Re: 42 (upon 26), wherein the low-absorbance part material comprises a polyester. (see teaching by VELAMAKANNI above as this is the same limitation as claim 4.)
Re: 43 (upon 26), wherein the low-absorbance part material comprises a polyamide. (see teaching by VELAMAKANNI above as this is the same limitation as claim 5.)
Claim(s) 2, 7, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG as applied to claims 1 and 26 above, and further in view of JAKER (US 2015/0028523 A1).
HUANG does not teach of the particular features of claims 2, 7, and 40 of the particular claimed materials.
Re: 2 (upon 1), wherein the high-absorbance support material comprises carbon black.
However, in relevant reference, the teaching JAKER, see [0157], of carbon black being a known infrared absorbing material, functioning as black pigment for support material.
It would have been obvious for obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the materials for high absorbance support material of HUANG with carbon black as taught by JAKER, as this is seen under KSR, see MPEP 2143, regarding the combining prior art elements (of the use of carbon black as taught by JAKER) according to known methods (taught in HUANG) to yield predictable results, particularly regarding the materials used in additive manufacturing, particularly via curing radiation.
Re: 7 (upon 1), wherein the high-absorbance support material comprises an infrared absorbing additive. (See teaching by JAKER regarding carbon black, see [0157] above for claim 2 with the same obviousness reasoning for the combination.)
Re: 40 (upon 26), wherein the high-absorbance support material comprises carbon black. (see JAKER teaching for claim 2 above.)
Claim(s) 8-10 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG as applied to claims 1 and 26 above, and further in view of JAKER (US 20150028523 A1) and KABALNOV (US 2018/0015664 A1).
HUANG does not teach of the particular features of claims 8-10.
Re: 8 (upon 1), wherein the high-absorbance support material comprises at least 0.5 percent by weight carbon black.
The JAKER and KABALNOV references being relevant to the HUANG reference in regards to known materials particularly used in additive manufacturing. See JAKER, regarding the use of carbon black known for its infrared absorbing material, and used as black pigment for support material, see [0157]. Further, see KABALNOV teaches of a 3D printing process [0001], and of the build material that can include polycarbonate, polyester, polyamides, see [0021], wherein, the use of black IR ink, that can be of carbon black, with 5wt%, see table 4, [0134].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the materials of HUANG with the use of carbon black for support material as taught by JAKER and further of the percentage of the carbon black used in additive manufacturing as taught by KABALNOV, as this is seen under KSR, see MPEP 2143, regarding the combining prior art elements (of the materials taught by JAKER and KABALNOV) according to known methods (taught in HUANG) to yield predictable results, of the use carbon black in additive manufacturing, particularly via curing radiation.
Re: 9 (upon 1), wherein the high-absorbance support material comprises at least 1.0 percent by weight carbon black. (see teaching by JAKER and KABALNOV for claim 8 above which is also applicable for this claim.)
Re: 10 (upon 1), wherein the high-absorbance support material comprises at least 2.0 percent by weight carbon black. (see teaching by JAKER and KABALNOV for claim 8 above which is also applicable for this claim.)
Re: 38 (upon 26), wherein the low-absorbance support material has an absorption of less than 5 percent of the absorption of the high-absorbance support material. Wherein, teaching of the modification of the carbon black amount as taught by KABALNOV above would influence the difference of absorption compared between the materials. Further, KABALNOV shows the influences of the absorbance impact upon the materials based upon the amounts of the fusing agents, see Figures. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the amount of absorbance material as taught by KABALNOV into the modified HUANG to the desired absorbance rate of the materials.
Claim(s) 25 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG as applied to claims 1 and 26 above, and further in view of KIMBLAD (US 2017/0326789 A1).
Re: 25 (upon 1),wherein the high- absorbance support material is further printed on top of the low-absorbance part material to assist in fusing a clear skin coat on the part beneath the high-absorbance support material.
Re: 39 (upon 26), wherein the high-absorbance support material is further printed on top of the low-absorbance part material to assist in fusing a clear skin coat on the part beneath the high-absorbance support material
Regarding claims 25 and 39, these are seen as operation regarding the placement of the materials used as layers in forming the parts in relation to the support material, the HUANG reference does not specifically show this arrangement. However, it would be recognized as additional known operations of the layers of the support material above the part material, see the printing arrangements as seen in KIMBLAD in Figs. 4-9. The formation of a clear skin coat is seen as one result that can be formed with the layering operations.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process of HUANG with the manner of laying the support over the part as seen in KIMBLAD as one manner of operation in forming the desired object, as this is seen under KSR, see MPEP 2143, regarding the combining prior art elements (of the operation taught by KIMBALD) according to known methods (taught in HUANG) to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 form, of particular note:
GANAPATHIAPPAN (US 2017/0247553 A1) teaches of 3D printing with known use of inks and material sets for 3D printing. With the use of dyes for low absorbance in the visible light range, see [0010, 0012, 0015], and of carbon black that is known for use. See teaching of polymer, see [0038], used that include polyester, polycarbonate, nylon, polyethylene.
CHAKRABORTY (US 2021/0186820 A1) teaches of 3D printing [0041] with curing, [0037] that includes via light, heat, radiation, etc. The polymer can be polycarbonate, polyester, polyamide, see [0061]. Wherein, the materials are known alternatives
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 5.
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, Xiao S Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744