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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-11 in the reply filed on April 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-21 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-7 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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, 3-5 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zinniel (US 2009/0321972 A1) IDS 10/23/2024 in view of Berbiguier (EP 3 112 169 A1) with machine translation.
Regarding Claim 1, Zinniel discloses an apparatus for post-processing an additively manufactured polymer part (abs), comprising: a reservoir for containing a liquid solvent (Fig. 1 paragraph [0013] solvent storage tank – 24); a processing chamber in controllable fluid communication with the reservoir (Fig. 1 paragraph [0013] solvent storage tank – 24 is connected via a valve to the interior of vapor chamber – 18); and a controller configured to controllably post-process an additively manufactured polymer part located in the processing chamber (Figs. 1, 6 paragraph [0025] control panel – 40) by the solvent responsive to at least one parameter associated with the part (Fig. 2 paragraph [0015] drying chamber – 20 maintains temperature...This ensures that the reaction of the solvent vapor to the material of the object is consistent and controlled.).
However, Zinniel does not disclose that the reservoir is provided as a removable solvent cartridge.
In an analogous art, Berbiguier teaches a device for assisting in cleaning the fluidic circuit of a continuous inkjet printer (abs) where, in addition to ink cartridges inserted into the printer, solvent cartridges are also provided (Figs. 8A 8C paragraph [0109] with means to allow the cartridges to be positioned and held; ink cartridge – 30). Additionally, a solvent cartridge is also intended to be inserted in a cartridge case of the same type (Fig. 8C paragraph [0111] solvent cartridge – 40). This solvent cartridge is removable as is the ink cartridge (Figs. 8D, 11 paragraph [0134]).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Berbiguier into the disclosure of Zinniel, whereby an apparatus for post-processing an additively manufactured polymer part with a reservoir for containing a liquid solvent, as disclosed by Zinniel, would have this reservoir be provided as a removable solvent cartridge, as taught by Berbiguier.
The one with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated because it is now possible to pump clean solvent into an apparatus and send it through a post-processing circuit and it is possible to recover used solvent after the clean solvent has performed a cleaning and send it to a second container such that clean solvent and used solvent are separated (Fig. 8D paragraphs [0060] [0129]).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Zinniel and Berbiguier disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and Zinniel further discloses that the apparatus further comprises a solvent delivery system located upstream of the processing chamber and operably controllable by the controller for selectively receiving solvent from the reservoir and introducing a predetermined amount of solvent into the processing chamber (Fig. 4 paragraph [0018] the controller operates to provide a precisely measured amount of solvent – 32 through a valve…into vapor chamber – 18).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Zinniel and Berbiguier disclose all the limitations of claim 3 and Zinniel further discloses that the solvent delivery system further comprises a solvent dosing chamber with a solvent dosing pump (Fig.4 paragraph [0018] programmable logic controller (PLC) operates to provide precisely measured amount of solvent) and a dosing valve for controlled delivery of the predetermined amount solvent from the removable solvent cartridge of Berbiguier into the solvent dosing chamber (Fig. 4 paragraph [0018] precisely measured amount of solvent – 32 through a valve (such as a ball valve or another type of valve) into vapor chamber – 18, so as to maintain a fluid level of about 0.25 to 0.5 inches (0.63 to 1.27 centimeters). Moreover, Zinniel further discloses that the solvent delivery system further comprises a heating element configured to controllably heat the predetermined amount of solvent to a predetermined solvent temperature so as to cause the solvent to vaporize prior to entering the processing chamber (Figs. 1, 4 paragraphs [0014] [0018]. Heaters – 26, 28 and 29 are operated to form a vapor from solvent – 32 in vapor chamber – 18;
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Zinniel and Berbiguier disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Berbiguier further discloses a solvent recovery system configured to recover used solvent from the processing chamber, and wherein the solvent recovery system is fluidly connected with the removeable solvent cartridge such that the recovered used solvent can be returned thereto (Fig. 11 paragraph [0054] sending of the solvent into at least one part of the fluidic circuit and the recovery of this solvent after circulation into the container).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Zinniel and Berbiguier disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and where it would be obvious that Zinniel further discloses that its operating heaters are designed to elevate the temperature of the liquid solvent of a pre-determined temperature (Figs. 1. 2. 6 paragraph [0025] operating heaters – 26, 28, 29 to vaporise solvent – 32), and therefore, the one with ordinary skill would apply this feature to the removable solvent cartridge of Berbiguier. Also, while Zinniel does not explicitly mention that its operating heaters are electrical heating elements, it would be obvious to the one with ordinary skill to use these types of heating elements: It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Zinniel and Berbiguier disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Berbiguier further discloses that the removable solvent cartridge is coupled to the apparatus via a connection mechanism, (Fig. 11 paragraph [0100] each of the connection means – 112, 114 can be identical to the nozzle or nipple of a solvent cartridge – 40) and wherein the apparatus further comprises a third sensor configured to confirm to the controller that the removable solvent cartridge is properly coupled to the apparatus via said connection mechanism (Fig. 11 paragraph [0156] means – 100 may also include a means – 47 forming a pressure sensor, which allow the solvent pressure to be measured at the outlet of the pump – 41 which may indicate a blockage in one of the conduits through which the solvent flows) .
4 Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zinniel (US 2009/0321972 A1) IDS 10/23/2024 and Berbiguier (EP 3 112 169 A1) with machine translation as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gray (US 5,538,025) IDS 10/23/2024.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Zinniel and Berbiguier disclose all the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose a vacuum pump configured to apply negative pressure.
In an analogous art, Gray teaches that in a closed solvent cleaning system which comprises a closed chamber where an object to be cleaned, is held in the chamber where a solvent is introduced and cleaned (Col 3: l. 50 – Col. 4: l.14) along with a vacuum pump operably controllable by a controller and configured to apply a negative pressure to an interior of the processing chamber (Fig. 1 Col. 6: ll. 57-61 vacuum pump – 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Zinniel/Berbiguier to incorporate the teachings of Gray whereby an apparatus for post-processing an additively manufactured polymer part comprises a reservoir for containing a liquid solvent with a processing chamber in controllable fluid communication with the reservoir by a controller, as disclosed by Zinniel/Berbiguier, to also consider including a vacuum pump controllable by a controller and configured to apply negative pressure to the interior of the processing chamber, as taught by Gray. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated because this removes air and other non-condensable gases from the chamber prior to the introduction of the solvent (Col. 3: ll. 50-56).
5. Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zinniel (US 2009/0321972 A1) IDS 10/23/2024 and Berbiguier (EP 3 112 169 A1) with machine translation as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Priedeman (US 2005/0173838 A1) IDS 10/23/2024.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Zinniel and Berbiguier disclose all the limitations of claim 1 but are silent as to the controller further comprising a user interface configured to allow a user to input or select at least one parameter associated with the part.
Priedeman discloses a method for smoothing the surface of an additively manufactured polymer part to achieve a desired surface roughness (abstract, paragraph [0002] claims 1-3 rapid prototyping, three-dimensional objects) and further discloses the post-processing being automatically and selectively controllable in response to the interactive user selection of the material of the part (paragraph [0034] the features to be masked may be identified using a software algorithm that creates a digital representation of the surface area to be protected…) and the desired surface roughness (Figs. 4a- 5b, paragraphs [0031] [0037] …extent of the smoothing achieved for a given object…depending upon the exposure time, the solvent, the modeling material, and the initial surface condition of the object…; see figures 4a-5b for pre-distortion of object geometry using a pre-distortion algorithm , see also claim 20), the post-processing being achieved with the solvent from the reservoir (Fig. 3 paragraph [0028] vaporizer – 30 boils the solvent – 34 into a vapor zone – 36) and involving dissolving and redistributing an upper layer of the part (paragraph [0028] ….penetration of the solvent – 34 softens the modeling material at the object surface , so that the surface material may reflow. Reflowing of the material smooths the object surfaces…).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Zinniel/ Berbiguier by adding Priedeman’ s post-processing automatic and selectively controllable user interface. This automated post-processing would be advantageous because: the interactive system allows interaction between the user and the interface to produce the desired product (paragraphs [0034-35]). The software also allows to compensate for distortions due to the surface treatment which would be advantageous to produce the final produced object without distortions. (paragraph [0035]).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Zinniel, Berbiguier and Priedeman disclose all the limitations of claim 10 and Priedeman further discloses that the post-processing of the object (additively manufactured polymer part) is further responsive to a geometric property of the part including surface area, volume, dimension, and/or part complexity (Figs. 4a 4b 5a 5b paragraphs [0034] [0037] controlling surface area; where pre-distortion of object geometry obtains a desired final geometry of the object – 40 which would inherently include volume and dimensions).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose, teach or suggest that the removable cartridge which is fluidly connected to a solvent recovery system to recover used solvent, as recited by claim 5, comprises a first compartment for virgin solvent, and a second compartment for recovered used solvent, and wherein the solvent recovery system is fluidly connected with the second compartment via a diverter valve such that recovered used solvent can be returned to the second compartment of the removable solvent cartridge for safe disposal after the solvent has been used a pre-determined number of operations. See Figs. 1B, 1C below showing solvent cartridge and solvent dosing/heating system:
PNG
media_image1.png
647
1302
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While solvent cartridges are disclosed in analogous prior art references (see claim 1 and 5 rejections above) these do not have first and second compartments for virgin solvent and recovered used solvent via a diverter valve (Fig. 1C) so that recovered used solvent is returned to the second compartment (specification, paragraphs {0083] [0086]). Berbiguier, in contrast, disclose a separate ink cartridge and a solvent cartridge having only one solvent compartment and both situated in a common case each requiring an exchange of cartridges (Figs. 8D, 11 paragraphs [0112] [0123]) where the solvent cartridge is removable but there is no second compartment within the cartridge, as recited in claim 6, to recover the used recovered solvent but this is directed to a separate can or container (Fig. 9A paragraph [0074]) See Figs. 8D & 9A below:
PNG
media_image2.png
1015
655
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Additional prior art references included Pouzet (US 8,888,209 B2) which had a removable solvent cartridge and ink cartridge arrangement similar to Berbiguier (Fig. 2 Col. 2 ll. 26-34 solvent cartridge – 40 ink cartridge – 30) but no compartment for virgin and recovered solvent, Kitamura (JP 2015136933 A) with machine translation with a solvent cartridge/ink cartridge system similar to Berbiguier and Pouzet (Figs. 5, 6 paragraph [0035] solvent cartridge – 500 ink cartridge – 400 detachable from controller – 200) and Harris (WO 2009/047510 A1) (Fig. 1 p. 7 last paragraph where ink from the ink cartridge – 2 and solvent from the solvent cartridge – 3 are mixed), however, these references disclosed circulation systems with dedicated containers and/or solvent cartridges connected to them but without having a removable solvent cartridge comprising first and second compartments for virgin solvent and used recovered solvent in a device for cleaning additively manufactured polymer parts.
Claim 7 recites allowable subject matter through dependency on claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE K. SWIER whose telephone number is (571)272-4598. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8:30 am - 5:30 pm PST.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/WAYNE K. SWIER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights