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 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, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busgen et al (WO 2017001325; herein Busgen, using US 2018/0186058 as the English equivalent for citing, both already of record ), 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, Busgen teaches:
A tray (Figure 1, base plate 5)
A base surface placeable on said tray, said base surface comprising a material selected from the group consisting of glass and polyimide (paragraph 0070, the base plate 5 can have a polyimide coating)
A dispensing head having [a nozzle] configured to selectively deposit, via inkjet technology, droplets of a liquid building material formulation onto said based surface (Busgen teaches using ink jetting in paragraphs 0027-0030, 0063, and 0095)
The object is removable from said base surface (a natural end result of printing)
Busgen 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.
Busgen 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 ink jet printing (paragraphs 0074, 0124, 0149, 0150).
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 Busgen teaches the claimed base surface material, 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.
Regarding claim 17:
As previously discussed Busgen teaches polyimide.
Regarding claim 18:
The tray of Busgen would be at room temperature when not in use.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busgen, Nauka, and Kritchman as applied above, and further in view of Sugiyama et al (U.S. PGPub 2018/0043617; herein Sugiyama, already of record). Regarding claim 14:
Busgen, Nauka, and Kritchman are silent to the adhesive.
In the same field of endeavor Sugiyama teaches using an adhesive to connect a print surface 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 7/7/2026 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights