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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Bradway only discloses the pins contacting the inner surface of the hole of the clamping mechanism during the locking. However, this relies on an assumption that the locking plate (140) would stop its displacement once in immediate contact with the pins and not continue the lateral displacement until the pins are wedged by the fingers and the guide plate. Indeed, claim 5 infers as much “ generates sufficient clamping force to said locking plate without forcing said locking plate to stop its horizontal movement at the first pin it touches, thereby leaving the remaining pins un-clamped” [claim 5]. Moreover, the pins must be in contact with the inner surface of the holes of the guide plate (134) else the lateral movement of the locking plate would just result in lateral displacement of the pins themselves. Indeed, if the pins had no contact with the inner surface of the holes of guide plate (134), how would the guide plate act as a guide at all? Applicant further argues that the examiner has not produced a reference wherein the holes are a different shape than the pins, but Bradway explicitly discloses [Fig 6B]. The other various combinations of pins and hole shapes are just a change in shape, which is generally regarded as obvious, see MPEP 2144.04 IV. Applicant argues that changing the shape of the holes of the plate of Bradway (the fingers) to the various shapes claimed by applicant would eliminate the benefits of the fingers, but omission of an element and its function is generally obvious, see MPEP 2144.04 II A. Applicant argues against Hertz’s biasing mechanism does not act on a clamping mechanism, but it does act on a hydraulic seal that is similarly moved in a lateral direction in order to lock or allow the vertical movement of pins for a workpiece holder. One of ordinary skill in the art would certainly recognize the desirability of this feature in order to return the locking plate to its original position and maintain the position of the pins. As to applicant’s arguments in regards to the combination of Bradway and Gordon, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). However, for the sake of clarity, the examiner is suggesting that it would be obvious to configure the support plate and locking plate of Bradway and arranged the locking plate in between 2 support plates arranged in a u shape as suggested by Gordon.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bradway (US 2018/0281464).
As to claim 1, Bradway teaches an apparatus for supporting a build part produced in an additive manufacturing process, the apparatus comprising: a pin array including (100) [Fig 1-6B]; at least one support plate defining a plurality of parallel holes therethrough (plate supported by 131); and a like plurality of rigid elongated pins (132), each slidably extending through a corresponding one of said plurality of parallel holes and each including a tip at one end configured to contact a surface of the build part (120) and an opposite end adjacent a surface of the support plate [Fig 6A], each of the pins movable relative to said support plate by a force (compression spring 170) acting on the tip, as the pin array is moved toward the build part, to move the opposite end in a vertical direction away from said surface of the support plate; and a locking component configured to frictionally engage each of the plurality of elongated pins to frictionally resist movement in the vertical direction, said locking component including; a movable plate (140) defining a like plurality of parallel holes configured to receive the plurality of pins of the pin array therethrough, said movable plate supported for movement relative to said support plate in a direction transverse to the vertical direction of movement of the plurality of pin [0022]; and a translation mechanism operable to move said movable plate in the transverse direction to a clamping position so that the pins contact the walls of respective holes in the movable plate and in the support plate so that friction therebetween restricts movement of the pin in the vertical direction [0022, Fig 6B].
As to claim 4, Bradway teaches each pin of said pin array includes a biasing spring (224) configured to bias the opposite end of the pins toward the surface of the support plate [0020, 0022, 0023].
As to claim 6, Bradway teaches each pin has a circular cross- section and each hole has a non-circular shape and sized for friction-free movement of a corresponding pin therethrough [Fig 6B].
As to claim 19, Bradway teaches the translation mechanism includes a lever (138) pivotably mounted to a fulcrum and connected to said movable plate so that pivoting movement of said lever moves said movable plate in the transverse direction [Fig 6A, 0020].
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradway (US 2018/0281464) in view of Hertz (US 6726195).
As to claim 2, Bradway does not explicitly state a biasing element operable to resist movement of said movable plate in the transverse direction by said translation mechanism.
Hertz teaches a pin array for holding workpieces level [Abstract] wherein a movable sheet biased against movement in the transverse direction by a spring (922) in order to return the sheet to its original position and maintain the position of the pins [col 9 line 45-col 10 line 42, Fig 12]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Bradway and including a biasing element operable to resist movement of said movable plate in the transverse direction by said translation mechanism, as suggested by Hertz, in order to return the locking plate to its original position and maintain the position of the pins.
Claim(s) 3, 5, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradway (US 2018/0281464) in view of Gordon (US 5897108).
As to claims 3 and 20, Bradway teaches 3 support plates all with parallel holes and the movable plate disposed in between the top and bottom plate, but does not explicitly state a u shaped plate configuration and the translation mechanism is a lead screw.
Gordon teaches a pin work holder [Abstract] wherein a u-shaped plate with 2 prongs (formed by top plate 44, bottom plate 36 and frame 34) with a movable plate in disposed between for relative movement via screw (52) [Fig 3, col 5 line 29-56]. Gordon refers to this configuration as a “sandwich” and notes it allows for easy unlocking and provides strong, consistent, and level support [col 2 line 4-15, col 2 line 16-24]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Bradway and utilized this sandwich configuration (ie U shaped plate) with the middle movable plate displaced by a screw, as suggested by Gordon, as this configuration had proven successful at providing a strong, consistent, and level support.
While the sandwich structure of Gordon is not an integral plate, making integral or separable is generally regarded to be obvious, see MPEP 2144.04 V.
As to claim 5, Bradway depicts the pins as having a circular cross section [Fig 6B] but does not explicitly state that the pin and holes are both circular in gross section.
Gordon teaches a pin work holder [Abstract] wherein a u-shaped plate with 2 prongs (formed by top plate 44, bottom plate 36 and frame 34) with a movable plate in disposed between for relative movement via screw (52) [Fig 3, col 5 line 29-56]. Gordon refers to this configuration as a “sandwich” and notes it allows for easy unlocking and provides strong, consistent, and level support [col 2 line 4-15, col 2 line 16-24]. Bradway teaches the holes and pins are circular [col 5 line 5-17, Fig 1-4]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Bradway and utilized circular holes and pins, as suggested by Gordon, as this configuration had proven successful at providing a strong, consistent, and level support.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradway (US 2018/0281464) in view of Van Espen (US 2018/0086004).
As to claims 5, 7, 15-18, Bradway teaches the pins are circular and the holes have a non circular shape but does not teach that the pins and holes have a circular or diamond shape.
Van Espen teaches an apparatus for supporting articles during 3D printing [Abstract] wherein in pins [0054] are raised through matching holes [0050, 0054, Fig 1, 7A] and can have either a circular or polygonal (which would be inclusive of diamond) shape [0059, 0060, 0065, 0067-0070, 0013, Claim 12]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have made the holes and pins have a circular or diamond shaped, as suggested by Van Espen, as this had proven successful at providing support to objects during 3D printing. Furthermore, this would just be combining prior art elements according to known method to yield predictable results, see MPEP 2143 A. Further still, this feature amounts to a mere change in size or shape, which is generally regarded as obvious, see MPEP 2144.04 IV.
When the polygonal shape of Van Espen is imparted to the holes and pins of Bradway, the matching apertures and pins would result in 2 contacting surfaces when then displacement taught by Bradway is executed.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradway (US 2018/0281464) in view of Bidram (US 2019/0283973).
As to claims 5, 7 15-18, Bradway teaches the pins are circular and the holes have a non circular shape but does not teach that the pins and holes have a circular or diamond shape.
Bidram teaches an apparatus for supporting articles during transport wherein in pins (202) are raised through matching holes (210) [Abstract, Fig 2] and can have either a circular or polygonal (which would be inclusive of diamond) shape [0067, 0013, Claim 12]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have made the holes and pins have a circular or diamond shaped, as suggested by Bidram, as this had proven successful at providing support to objects during transportation [Abstract, 0004]. Furthermore, this would just be combining prior art elements according to known method to yield predictable results, see MPEP 2143 A. Further still, this feature amounts to a mere change in size or shape, which is generally regarded as obvious, see MPEP 2144.04 IV.
When the polygonal shape of Bidram is imparted to the holes and pins of Bradway, the matching apertures and pins would result in 2 contacting surfaces when then displacement taught by Bradway is executed.
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 ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights