SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR POST-CURING PARTS PRINTED WITH STEREOLITHOGRAPHY ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING TECHNIQUES

§103 §112

DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE 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 .Allowable Subject Matter Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments have been fully considered. 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. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: 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 of carrying out his invention. Claim 1-10 and 12-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In reference to claim 1, the limitation PNG media_image1.png 160 598 media_image1.png Greyscale is not supported by the specification. The specification discloses that the platform is a tray and the platform/tray is removable. There is support for a drawer that holds a removable tray/platform. “the 3D-printed object situated within a platform (such as a tray) of the drawer system” “drawer system enables a platform, such as tray or tray mesh 448, to entirely slide out of chamber 400” There is no support for a drawer that holds a platform that holds a tray as claimed. Note: Claim 2-10 and 12-15 are also rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1. 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-10 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. In reference to claim 1, the claim refers to a platform and a tray as distinct elements, however, the specification does not support this reading of the claims. This causes confusion and it is unclear what the intended structure is. Is there a platform and a tray? Or is the tray and the platform the same element? The specification discloses that the platform is a tray and the platform/tray is removable. “the 3D-printed object situated within a platform (such as a tray) of the drawer system” “drawer system enables a platform, such as tray or tray mesh 448, to entirely slide out of chamber 400” Note: Claim 2-10 and 12-15 are also rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1. 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baichtal (NPL 20171) as evidenced by GiorgiQ (NPL 20172) – Both references refer to the same prior art product. In reference to claim 1, Baichtal discloses PNG media_image2.png 200 400 media_image2.png Greyscale See photo and “UV light box” and “The enclosure is made out of 12mm MDF and 3mm cast acrylic” PNG media_image3.png 200 400 media_image3.png Greyscale See photo and “the circuit board fits into a tray sliding on drawer sliders, allowing a resist-covered board to be placed in a carrier and slid back in.” The structure shown in Baichtal is the same as the structure illustrated by Applicant (see annotated drawing below): PNG media_image4.png 522 1363 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 586 1363 media_image5.png Greyscale See also the original instruction manual of GiorgiQ which shows an animation of the drawer opening and shows the drawer slider in more detal (copied, below) PNG media_image6.png 576 768 media_image6.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 576 768 media_image6.png Greyscale PNG media_image7.png 200 400 media_image7.png Greyscale “UV light” The product shows that a tray sliding on drawer sliders, but does not disclose the tray is removable. It is obvious, however, that the tray is removable, because it would be obvious to a person of skill in the art that the tray can be slid out from the drawer slides. In reference to claim 2, see photo. In reference to claim 3-4, see photo; the cover is integrated into the face of the drawer. PNG media_image8.png 625 469 media_image8.png Greyscale In reference to claim 5, see photo. See also the original instruction manual of GiorgiQ which shows an animation of the drawer opening and shows a handle the drawer slider in more detal (copied, below) PNG media_image9.png 404 302 media_image9.png Greyscale In reference to claim 7-9, see photo and “the pairs are above and the pair below” in the GiorgiQ reference and the titles of both references show that the UV LEDs are above and below. Election/Restrictions Newly submitted claim 16-21 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The inventions are directed to related apparatuses. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants. Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 16-21 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03. To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. 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 NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 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, Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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. /NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744 1 https://hackaday.com/2017/11/11/uv-light-box-cures-both-sides-of-a-pcb/ 2 https://www.instructables.com/UV-Two-sided-Exposure-Box/