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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant is reminded of the duty under 37 CFR 1.56(a) to disclose information material to patentability, such as (a) Office Actions and prior art related to the claimed invention which have been cited during prosecution of any related filings, (b) prior foreign or domestic filings by Applicant(s) which are related to the claimed or disclosed invention and which constitute prior art, (c) related brochures, dissertations, or other research publications, including that which has been authored by one or more inventors listed under this application or by other individuals under which or along which one or more inventors may have been working, and (d) any other relevant prior art Applicant may be aware of, including since the filing of any previous information disclosure statement (IDS).
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on 19 December 2024 is acknowledged. A reply to this Office action should identify exactly where the preliminary amendment, or any further amendment made with respect thereto, draws support from the specification as originally filed.
Priority
A claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. However, this claim is not in compliance with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994). However, the disclosure of the prior-filed application(s) fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for reasons set forth under the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections below.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for claimed subject matter (see 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o)).
In particular, numerous recitations added to the pending claims by the preliminary 19 December 2024 amendment raise new matter issues as set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections below. The specification is objectionable in this instance due to these claim recitations lacking proper antecedent basis in the specification.
If it is alleged, in response to this Office action, that any of these claim recitations are in fact implicitly supported by the specification as originally filed despite not being actively recited thereby, then an amendment should be made adding such claim recitations to appropriate portions of the specification without adding new matter. Any such amendments should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of such implicit support. Otherwise, the recitations at issue should be removed from the claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-12 and 14-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “Claim” at line 1 of each dependent claim should be changed to “claim”.
The term “and” ending line 5 of claim 10 and ending line 3 of each of claims 12, 16, 17, and 19 should be deleted.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement for containing subject matter not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In particular:
The specification as originally filed recites numerous features which may be based on the geometry of a build, including for example whether to exclude certain steps, calculating maximum retraction force or advancement speed, and modifying target interstitial pressure, a displacement curve, build speed, an extent of overlap between and/or duration of build cycle phases, etc.
However, by the 19 December 2024 amendment, the instant claims recite numerous features based on geometry of a build (or build layer) which are not recited explicitly and differ in scope at least in part from the above features disclosed by the specification, thereby not being fully supported thereby. These claimed actions performed based on geometry which lack explicit or implicit support include:
the claim 1 and claim 13 injecting at an injection rate based on geometry;
the claim 2 and claim 15 retracting at acceleration rates proportional to geometry (or green strength);
the claim 4 deriving an evacuation rate proportional to geometry;
the claim 5 deriving injection rate proportional to geometry;
the claim 6 estimating retraction force proportional to geometry;
the claim 7 and claim 9 calculating overlap duration proportional to geometry;
the claim 11 calculating build parameters based on geometry;
the claim 14 and claim 18 calculating injection rate proportional to geometry;
the claim 16 deriving build geometry; and
the claim 20 retracting at a retraction rate based on geometry.
The specification as originally filed also neither recites nor otherwise supports:
the claim 2 increase in acceleration rate based on greater feature size;
the claim 4 and claim 17 peeling at a first separation rate, let alone by evacuating at a first evacuation rate;
the claim 10 and claim 19 deriving characteristic size of features;
the claim 10 and claim 19 overlap duration proportional to characteristic size of features;
the claim 11 deriving geometry from a model;
the claim 11 evacuating at a first evacuation rate;
the claim 12 calculating cross-sectional area from a build model;
the claim 12 calculating overlap duration proportional to cross-sectional area;
the claim 17 and claim 19 deriving minimum feature size; and
the claim 17 deriving evacuation rate based on feature size;
The claim 1, 13, and 20 recitation of curing to form a fist build layer “against” the separation membrane differs at least in part in scope from the originally disclosed recitation that the build “adheres” to the separation membrane ([00101] at p. 47) and is in turn not fully supported thereby or otherwise by the specification as originally filed. See at least MPEP § 2163.05(I) regarding new matter arising from broadening of claim scope.
The claim 1, 13, and 20 recitation of a build layer “coupled” to the build platform differs at least in part in scope from the originally disclosed recitation that the build “adheres” to the build platform ([00101] at p. 46) and is in turn not fully supported thereby or otherwise by the specification as originally filed. See again MPEP § 2163.05(I) as relevant.
The claim 3 and claim 16 calculating pressure based on cross-sectional area of the build is considered new matter for the same or similar reasons as set forth for new matter issue (a) above, and also since such an area is only mentioned with respect to excluding a step of injecting air (p. 50 [00111]) as opposed to calculating pressure.
The claim 5 tracking retraction force and modulating retraction rate to maintain retraction force below maximum retraction force is considered new matter due to this recitation’s difference in scope, at least in part, from the originally disclosed accessing maximum retraction force, measuring retraction force during retraction, and adjusting acceleration or velocity of the build platform based on the retraction force ([00115] at p. 53).
While the specification outlines a step of accessing target advancement speed based on resin viscosity and build geometry ([00121] at pp. 57-58), the specification as originally filed neither recites nor otherwise supports the claim 8 calculating target advancement speed inversely proportional to resin viscosity.
While the specification at p. 30 [0069] describes a geometry “(e.g., feature sizes)” of a build, the specification as originally filed neither recites nor otherwise supports the broader claim 20 characterization of a geometry as representing “characteristics” (in general) of build layer features.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment is required, preferably with language taken directly from the specification as originally filed and with identification from exactly where support exists therefor.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In particular:
An antecedent basis issue exists for each claimed instance of the terms “based on”. In particular:
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear in the claim 1 pressurization phase whether it is the previously recited injecting or the previously recited first injection rate that is “based on” a first geometry.
It is similarly unclear in claim 3 whether the recitation of “based on a first cross-sectional area” refers back to the previously recited calculating or the previously recited pressure, or in other words whether the calculating is performed based on the area, or whether basis on the area is descriptive of the pressure.
A second instance of “based on” exists in claim 3 which is considered indefinite for these same or similar reasons.
Recitations of “based on”, three times in claim 11 and once in claims 13, 16, 17, and 20, are each considered indefinite for the same or similar above reasons, since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear in each of claims 1, 13, and 20 whether “opposite the separation membrane” refers back to the first layer of the build or to the build platform. If the latter of these is intended, then this would further lack antecedent basis since while a build platform is recited previously, a disposition thereof “opposite the separation membrane” is not previously recited.
The claim 1 and claim 13 relaminating “to” the build window lacks antecedent basis, in particular since while lamination is recited previously, this previous lamination is recited as being “over”, not “to” the build window.
The claims 1, 13, and 20 recitations of relaminating/laminating by evacuating/depressurizing “following separation of the separation membrane from the first layer of the build” each lacks antecedent basis, in particular since no such “separation of the separation membrane form the first layer of the build” is previously recited or otherwise necessarily implied.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear in each of claims 1, 13, and 20 whether “following separation of the separation membrane from the first layer of the build” refers back to the previously recited evacuating/depressurizing, or to the relaminating/laminating which takes place by the evacuating/depressurizing.
The “deriving” recited by each of claims 4, 5, 16, 17, and 19 is confusing in that it is neither specified nor otherwise clear exactly what the recited features (i.e. rate, geometry, size) are being derived from and exactly what this derivation entails.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear whether the claim 4 recitation of “proportional to the first geometry” describes how the previously recited deriving is performed (i.e. deriving to be proportional), or is descriptive of the first evacuation rate.
This same or similar issue exists also for the claim 8 calculating speed “inversely proportional to a viscosity”, the claim 10 calculating overlap duration “proportional to the first characteristic size”, and the claim 14 and claim 18 calculating injection rate “proportional to the geometry”.
The claim 5 recitation of “deriving the first injection rate proportional to the first geometry” is confusing. Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear whether “proportional to the first geometry” describes how the deriving is performed (i.e. deriving the rate “to be” proportional”) or describes the first injection rate. If the latter scenario is intended, then further antecedent basis issue exists in that although a first injection rate is previously recited, none is recited that is “proportional to the first geometry” in the manner claimed.
These same or similar issues exist also for the claim 7, 9-10, and 12 recitations of “the” first overlap duration proportional to the first geometry, in addition to the claim 14 calculating “the” first injection rate proportional to the geometry and the claim 19 recitation of “the” first overlap duration proportional to the first characteristic size.
The claim 5 and claim 14 recitations of “to overcome adhesion of the separation membrane to the first layer of the build” each lacks antecedent basis due to no such adhesion being recited or otherwise necessarily implied previously.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment is required, preferably with language taken directly from the specification as originally filed and with identification from exactly where support exists therefor.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of each of U.S. Patent No. 12,186,979, 11,660,807, 11,123,919, 11,123,918, and 10,723,069, taken individually, and further in view of Schultheiss et al. (US 2017/0297261).
The patented claims of each of the above patents, individually or collectively recite steps which clearly correspond to the instantly claimed advancing, exposing/curing, pressurizing/inflating, retracting, and laminating steps, but whereby recitations are not made of a basis on geometry, cross-section, and/or build layer features for the instantly recited injection rate/pressure, retraction rate/force, evacuation rate, overlap, duration, etc. However, Schultheiss discloses remarkably similar subject matter in which such advancing, exposing/curing, pressurizing/inflating, retracting, and laminating steps are also performed, and whereby during a detachment procedure, injection pressure and/or amount (each related at least in part to injection rate), changes in retraction speed, and/or negative pressure application are controlled based on forces acting on the build window, separation membrane, build platform, and/or a last-solidified build layer (see at least [0057], [0058], [0078], [0083]-[0089], and [0135]-[0136], including for example instances in which pressure is controlled and/or further air is admitted), said forces believed to be related at least in part to a geometry, cross-section, and/or feature size of the build layer from which said detachment takes place. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Schultheiss into the patented claims of each of the above patents, in turn to arrive at what is instantly claimed, based for example on the improvement expected to result therefrom with respect to preventing damage to the article being manufactured or to features/layers thereof by controlling various parameters to avoid excessive forces during the manufacturing process. Noting also, for example with respect to build layer feature characteristics, that changes in aesthetic design, size/proportion, and shape are considered generally obvious absent unexpected results (MPEP §§ 2144.04(I,IV(A,B))), it would further have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have reached claimed conditions with respect to acceleration rate, duration, and/or overlap, based on the claimed geometry, cross-section, and/or feature size, through routine optimization utilizing the above Schultheiss teachings as a guide for similarly preventing damage during the manufacturing process (see MPEP 2144.05(II) regarding optimization in this regard).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schultheiss et al. (US 2017/0297261).
Claims 2-3, 7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultheiss et al. (US 2017/0297261) as applied to at least claim 1.
As to claim 1, Schultheiss teaches an additive manufacturing method using a fig. 3, 4, and/or 7-8 system comprising build platform 52, separation membrane 44/46, and build window 36/38 (see these corresponding components in the fig. 1, 3, 4, 7, and 8 embodiments and their corresponding description). In at least figs. 7-8 and 10-12, steps are disclosed corresponding to each of the claimed advancing, exposing, pressurizing in the claimed interstitial region, retracting, relaminating, advancing again, and exposing again (see at least the corresponding description of figs. 7-8 and 10, in addition for example to [0047], [0123], and [0135]-[0136] for pressurizing, [0126] and [0137] for retracting, [0129]-[0130] for a laminated condition, and [0131] for advancing). During a detachment procedure, injection pressure and/or amount (each related at least in part to injection rate), changes in retraction speed, and/or negative pressure application are controlled based on forces acting on the build window, separation membrane, build platform, and/or a last-solidified build layer (see at least [0057], [0058], [0078], [0083]-[0089], and [0135]-[0136], including for example instances in which pressure is controlled and/or further air is admitted), said forces believed to be related at least in part to a geometry of the build layer from which said detachment takes place.
While Schultheiss is believed to be capable of the claim 2-3 change in accelerate rate and pressure for example via at least the [0058] control of changes in retraction speed (related at least in part to changes in acceleration) and the above-cited pressure control based on force (believed to correspond at least in part to build layer geometry), disclosure is not made of an increase in acceleration rate or pressure specifically for a subsequently formed layer with greater size features or cross-sectional area. However, it is noted with respect to build layer feature characteristics that changes in aesthetic design, size/proportion, and shape are considered generally obvious absent unexpected results (MPEP §§ 2144.04(I,IV(A,B))), any of which would be expected to impact measured force in Schultheiss and, in turn, changes in retraction speed and pressure as discussed above. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have reached the claimed conditions through routine optimization of the Schultheiss technique using the above teachings as a guide so as to prevent damage during retraction (see MPEP 2144.05(II) regarding optimization in this regard).
Schultheiss teaches negative pressure application (related at least in part to evacuation rate) based on the above-cited measured force (see at least [0087]), which is believed to correspond to the claim 4 deriving and evacuating.
The above-cited Schultheiss teachings with respect to controlling injection rate are believed to correspond to the claim 5 deriving and injecting.
The Schultheiss control of retraction based on force to prevent damage (see at least [0058]) is believed to correspond to the claim 6 estimating, retracting, tracking, and modulating.
The above-cited Schultheiss method is believed to either disclose or be capable of providing an overlap/duration according to claims 7 and 9-12 (see at least the above citations, in addition to the [0129]-[0130], [0135], and [0137] performing of certain steps individually or together), but is not believed to disclose a step specifically of calculating such an overlap based on build geometry or cross-sectional area. However, it is noted with respect to step duration and overlap duration that changes in the order/timing of performing prior art process steps is considered generally obvious absent unexpected results (MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(C)). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have reached the claimed conditions through routine optimization of the Schultheiss technique using the above teachings as a guide, including for example to optimize cycle time while preventing damage to the article being formed (see MPEP 2144.05(II) regarding optimization in this regard).
Schultheiss is believed to comprise the claim 8 calculating and advancing, specifically of a speed inversely proportional to viscosity based on the above-cited speed control based on force which would be directly impacted by viscosity.
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schultheiss et al. (US 2017/0297261).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultheiss et al. (US 2017/0297261) as applied to at least claim 13.
As to claim 13, Schultheiss teaches an additive manufacturing method using a fig. 3, 4, and/or 7-8 system comprising build platform 52, separation membrane 44/46, and build window 36/38 (see these corresponding components in the fig. 1, 3, 4, 7, and 8 embodiments and their corresponding description). In at least figs. 7-8 and 10-12, steps are disclosed corresponding to each of the claimed advancing, exposing, pressurizing in the claimed interstitial region, retracting, and relaminating (see at least the corresponding description of figs. 7-8 and 10, in addition for example to [0047], [0123], and [0135]-[0136] for pressurizing, [0126] and [0137] for retracting, [0129]-[0130] for a laminated condition, and [0131] for advancing). During a detachment procedure, injection pressure and/or amount (each related at least in part to injection rate), changes in retraction speed, and/or negative pressure application are controlled based on forces acting on the build window, separation membrane, build platform, and/or a last-solidified build layer (see at least [0057], [0058], [0078], [0083]-[0089], and [0135]-[0136], including for example instances in which pressure is controlled and/or further air is admitted), said forces believed to be related at least in part to a geometry of the build layer from which said detachment takes place.
The above-cited Schultheiss teachings with respect to controlling injection rate are believed to correspond to the claim 14 and claim 16 calculating, deriving, and injecting.
The above-cited Schultheiss control of retraction speed based on force so as to prevent damage (see at least [0058]) is believed to correspond to the claim 15 retracting at a given acceleration rate.
The above-cited Schultheiss negative pressure application (related at least in part to evacuation rate) based on the above-cited force (related at least in part to geometry/feature size) is believed to correspond to the claim 17 deriving and evacuating.
Schultheiss discloses a second advancing, exposing, and pressurizing corresponding to those of claim 18 (see at least fig. 10 in addition to at least the above citations), which also comprise the above-cited control of injection rate, believed to comprise each of the claimed calculating and injecting.
The above-cited Schultheiss method is believed to either disclose or be capable of providing an overlap/duration according to claim 19 (see at least the above citations, in addition to the [0129]-[0130], [0135], and [0137] performing of certain steps individually or together), but is not believed to disclose a step specifically of calculating such an overlap based on build layer feature size. However, it is noted with respect to step duration and overlap duration that changes in the order/timing of performing prior art process steps is considered generally obvious absent unexpected results (MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(C)). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have reached the claimed conditions through routine optimization of the Schultheiss technique using the above teachings as a guide, including for example to optimize cycle time while preventing damage to the article being formed (see MPEP 2144.05(II) regarding optimization in this regard).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schultheiss et al. (US 2017/0297261).
As to claim 20, Schultheiss teaches an additive manufacturing method using a fig. 3, 4, and/or 7-8 system comprising build platform 52, separation membrane 44/46, and build window 36/38 (see these corresponding components in the fig. 1, 3, 4, 7, and 8 embodiments and their corresponding description). In at least figs. 7-8 and 10-12, steps are disclosed corresponding to each of the claimed curing, inflating, retracting, and laminating (see at least the corresponding description of figs. 7-8 and 10, in addition for example to [0047], [0123], and [0135]-[0136] for pressurizing, [0126] and [0137] for retracting, [0129]-[0130] for a laminated condition, and [0131] for advancing). During a detachment procedure, injection pressure and/or amount (each related at least in part to injection rate), changes in retraction speed, and/or negative pressure application are controlled based on forces acting on the build window, separation membrane, build platform, and/or a last-solidified build layer (see at least [0057], [0058], [0078], [0083]-[0089], and [0135]-[0136], including for example instances in which pressure is controlled and/or further air is admitted), said forces believed to be related at least in part to a geometry of the build layer from which said detachment takes place.
Interview Request
Applicant’s Representative is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly should there be any questions or outstanding issues arising from the instant Office action, particularly if it is believed that a discussion will help to advance prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atul P. Khare whose telephone number is (571)270-7608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Christina A. Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/Atul P. Khare/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights