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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/27/2026 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claims 8, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schittmayer-Schantl et al (EP 3064339; herein Schittmayer-Schantl, with machine translation), in view of Nauka et al (U.S. PGPub 2016/0121548; herein Nauka, already of record) and Kritchman et al (U.S. PGPub 2006/0054039; herein Kritchman, already of record). Regarding claim 8, Schittmayer-Schantl teaches:
A tray (Figure 1, support 7 and surface tempering device 8)
A base surface placeable on said tray (hydrophobically coated glass plate 1 with hydrophobic coating 2), said base surface comprising a material selected from the group consisting of (hydrophobically coated glass plate 1 with hydrophobic coating 2) and polyimide (optional)
A dispensing head having [a nozzle] configured to deposit a building material formulation onto said based surface (print head 5 with nozzle 5a)
The object is removable from said base surface (a natural end result of the process)
Schittmayer-Schantl is silent to:
A computerized controller configured to control said dispensing head to print a stack of layers defining the object, wherein said stack of layers defines the object in a manner that a topmost layer of the object is said bottommost layer of said stack
In the same field of endeavor Nauka teaches that an object can be printed in any orientation, including upside down (paragraph 0037).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the controller of Nauka, since printing upside down can have advantageous effects to the end part.
Schittmayer-Schantl and Nauka are silent to using an array of nozzles to extrude the building material.
However, in the same field of endeavor Kritchman teaches using an array of nozzles for printing (paragraph 0149).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the nozzle array of Kritchman, since it allows for compensation when a single nozzle goes down.
Regarding claim 13:
Wherein said bottommost layer of said stack is made of a modeling material formulation
The combination presented above teaches such a configuration since Nauka has been shown that printing upside down is obvious.
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is directed to the material worked upon by the apparatus, and since Schittmayer-Schantl teaches the claimed base surface, the combination would be capable of having such a contact angle.
Regarding claim 16:
The combination teaches claim 10. As previously discussed Kritchman teaches an array of nozzles. Kritchman also teaches using multiple material sources, as seen by the material supply units 152 in Figure 1, thus Kritchman is capable of printing different material formulations. Additionally, the combination presented above teaches such a configuration since Nauka has been shown that printing upside down is obvious.
Claims 8, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruff et al (U.S. PGPub 2017/0036403; herein Ruff), in view of Nauka and Kritchman. Regarding claim 8, Ruff teaches:
A tray (Figures 2-4, intermediate base structure 30)
A base surface placeable on said tray (coated print bed 20), said base surface comprising a material selected from the group consisting of glass (paragraph 0051 and polyimide (optional)
A dispensing head having [a nozzle] configured to deposit a building material formulation onto said base surface (heated nozzle 4)
The object is removable from said base surface (a natural end result of the process)
Ruff is silent to:
A computerized controller configured to control said dispensing head to print a stack of layers defining the object, wherein said stack of layers defines the object in a manner that a topmost layer of the object is said bottommost layer of said stack
In the same field of endeavor Nauka teaches that an object can be printed in any orientation, including upside down (paragraph 0037).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the controller of Nauka, since printing upside down can have advantageous effects to the end part.
Ruff and Nauka are silent to using an array of nozzles to extrude the building material.
However, in the same field of endeavor Kritchman teaches using an array of nozzles for printing (paragraph 0149).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the nozzle array of Kritchman, since it allows for compensation when a single nozzle goes down.
Regarding claim 13:
Wherein said bottommost layer of said stack is made of a modeling material formulation
The combination presented above teaches such a configuration since Nauka has been shown that printing upside down is obvious.
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is directed to the material worked upon by the apparatus, and since Ruff teaches the claimed base surface, the combination would be capable of having such a contact angle.
Regarding claim 16:
The combination teaches claim 10. As previously discussed Kritchman teaches an array of nozzles. Kritchman also teaches using multiple material sources, as seen by the material supply units 152 in Figure 1, thus Kritchman is capable of printing different material formulations. Additionally, the combination presented above teaches such a configuration since Nauka has been shown that printing upside down is obvious.
Claims 8 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al (U.S. PGPub 2018/0043617; herein Sugiyama), in view of Nauka and Kritchman. Regarding claim 8, Sugiyama teaches:
A tray (unlabeled bottom structure in Figure 2B)
A base surface placeable on said tray (Figure 2B, paragraph 0015, substrate 225), said base surface comprising a material selected from the group consisting of glass (paragraph 0038, the substrate can be glass) and polyimide (paragraph 0038, the substrate can be polyimide)
A dispensing head having [a nozzle] configured to deposit a building material formulation onto said base surface (Figures 2A/2B, 3D printer 201 with extruder die 202)
The object is removable from said base surface (a natural end result of the process)
Sugiyama is silent to:
A computerized controller configured to control said dispensing head to print a stack of layers defining the object, wherein said stack of layers defines the object in a manner that a topmost layer of the object is said bottommost layer of said stack
In the same field of endeavor Nauka teaches that an object can be printed in any orientation, including upside down (paragraph 0037).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the controller of Nauka, since printing upside down can have advantageous effects to the end part.
Sugiyama and Nauka are silent to using an array of nozzles to extrude the building material.
However, in the same field of endeavor Kritchman teaches using an array of nozzles for printing (paragraph 0149).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the nozzle array of Kritchman, since it allows for compensation when a single nozzle goes down.
Regarding claim 13:
Wherein said bottommost layer of said stack is made of a modeling material formulation
The combination presented above teaches such a configuration since Nauka has been shown that printing upside down is obvious.
Regarding claim 14, Sugiyama teaches:
Wherein said base surface comprises an adhesive and is attachable to said tray (paragraph 0015, substrate 225 is attached to unlabeled bottom structure with adhesive 224)
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is directed to the material worked upon by the apparatus, and since Sugiyama teaches the claimed base surface, the combination would be capable of having such a contact angle.
Regarding claim 16:
The combination teaches claim 10. As previously discussed Kritchman teaches an array of nozzles. Kritchman also teaches using multiple material sources, as seen by the material supply units 152 in Figure 1, thus Kritchman is capable of printing different material formulations. Additionally, the combination presented above teaches such a configuration since Nauka has been shown that printing upside down is obvious.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schittmayer-Schantl, Nauka, and Kritchman as applied above, and further in view of Sugiyama. Regarding claim 14:
Schittmayer-Schantl, Nauka, and Kritchman are silent to the adhesive.
In the same field of using glass printing surfaces Sugiyama teaches using an adhesive to connect the glass to the rest of the printer (paragraph 0015).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the adhesive of Sugiyama in order to attach needed parts together. 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 the ability to connect to things to together would be within the skill set of an ordinary artisan.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruff, Nauka, and Kritchman as applied above, and further in view of Sugiyama. Regarding claim 14:
Ruff, Nauka, and Kritchman are silent to the adhesive.
In the same field of using glass printing surfaces Sugiyama teaches using an adhesive to connect the glass to the rest of the printer (paragraph 0015).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the adhesive of Sugiyama in order to attach needed parts together. 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 the ability to connect to things to together would be within the skill set of an ordinary artisan.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/27/2026 have been considered but are moot 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.
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