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 .
Status of Claims and Application
This non-final action on the merits is in response to the application for patent received by the office on 17 January 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s 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. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) 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).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/414,301, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Independent claim 1, from which all other claims depend, includes the limitation, “. . . each of the bare and shrouded radiative heating elements being operable to heat directly at least some of the particulate matter at the build bed surface to a desired temperature profile . . . .” This limitation is not supported by the disclosure of the parent application. Accordingly, the effective filing date of this application is the filing date of the application, 17 January 2025.
Drawings
Figures 1, 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-13 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0257879 to Christopher S Huskamp (‘879 hereafter) in view of U.S. Patent 3,396,216 to Itoga et al. (‘216 hereafter), both references made of record by applicant disclosure and case law rationale.
Regarding claim 1, ‘879 teaches an apparatus for layer-by-layer formation of a three-dimensional object by the consolidation of particulate matter, the apparatus comprising: a working space having opposing bottom and top sides (Fig. 5 items 504 and 502); a build bed surface on said bottom side of the working space and upon which successive layers of said object are formed, the build bed surface comprising a printable area (Fig. 5 item 502); and a heater arrangement area on said top side of the working space and comprising a plurality of four or more spaced-apart bare radiative heating elements arranged on said top side of the working space, each of the radiative heating elements being operable to heat directly at least some of the particulate matter at the build bed surface to a desired temperature profile (Fig. 5 item504); and wherein, as viewed from the top side of the working space, said four or more spaced-apart bare radiative heating elements are comprised within a first group of spaced-apart bare radiative heating elements arranged beyond and around the perimeter of the build bed surface and within the heater arrangement area (Fig. 5 items 1-8 and paragraph 0023). ‘879 does not teach the use of shrouds as claimed.
In the closely related art of film heating and stretching, ‘216 teaches that it is known to provide an infrared heating element with a shroud (Fig. 3 items 6, 8 and 12) for the benefit of controlling the area to be heated by the heater. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘879 with those of ‘216 in order to add one or more shrouds taught by ‘216 to the bare heating elements of ‘879 for the benefit of heating precisely the areas the ordinary artisan desires to be heated and not heat areas where additional heat is not desired. Applicant is reminded that "[a] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, ‘879 teaches the apparatus wherein the first group consists of bare radiative heating elements (Fig 3 items 302 and 304).
Regarding claim 3, ‘879 does not teach shrouds. In the related art, ‘216 teaches the use of shrouds (Fig. 3 items 6, 8 and 12) for the benefit of controlling the area to be heated by the heater. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘879 with those of ‘216 in order to add one or more shrouds taught by ‘216 to the bare heating elements of ‘879 for the benefit of heating precisely the areas the ordinary artisan desires to be heated and not heat areas where additional heat is not desired.
Regarding claim 4, ‘879 teaches the apparatus wherein the first group comprises a first subgroup and a second subgroup of four radiative heating elements each (Fig 3 items 302 and 304 and paragraph 0023); wherein the build bed surface is of a rectangular shape bounded by a first pair of parallel sides and a second pair of parallel sides, the second pair of parallel sides being perpendicular to the first pair of parallel sides, and wherein said four or more spaced-apart bare radiative heating elements of the first group are arranged in a pattern that, as viewed from the top side of the working space, is symmetric about the center of the build bed surface (Fig 3 items 302 and 304 and paragraph 0023); wherein each of said four or more spaced-apart bare radiative heating elements of the first group is arranged within and near one of the inner corners of the heater arrangement area, and wherein two each of said shrouded radiative heating elements of the first subgroup are arranged along portions of each of the first pair of parallel sides and two each of said shrouded radiative heating elements of the second subgroup are arranged along portions of each of the second pair of parallel sides (Fig 3 items 302 and 304 and paragraph 0023). ‘879 does not teach shrouds. In the related art, ‘216 teaches the use of shrouds (Fig. 3 items 6, 8 and 12) for the benefit of controlling the area to be heated by the heater. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘879 with those of ‘216 in order to add one or more shrouds taught by ‘216 to the bare heating elements of ‘879 for the benefit of heating precisely the areas the ordinary artisan desires to be heated and not heat areas where additional heat is not desired.
Regarding claim 5, ‘879 does not teach shrouds. In the related art, ‘216 teaches the use of shrouds (Fig. 3 items 6, 8 and 12) for the benefit of controlling the area to be heated by the heater. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘879 with those of ‘216 in order to add one or more shrouds taught by ‘216 to the bare heating elements of ‘879 for the benefit of heating precisely the areas the ordinary artisan desires to be heated and not heat areas where additional heat is not desired. Further, ‘216 teaches that it is known to adjust the shrouded elements by means of a shutter element (Fig. 3 item 12). Applicant is reminded that "[a] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 6, ‘879 in view of ‘216 does not teach explicitly the arrangement claimed. However, since the heating elements of ‘879 are moveable and one possessed of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add one or more shrouded elements to the radiative heaters for the reasons set forth above, the ordinary artisan could arrange the prior art devices in the manner claimed, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange the heaters and shrouds for the purpose of achieving a desired temperature profile.
Regarding claim 7, ‘879 in view of ‘216 does not teach explicitly the arrangement claimed. However, since the heating elements of ‘879 are moveable and one possessed of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add one or more shrouded elements to the radiative heaters for the reasons set forth above, the ordinary artisan could arrange the prior art devices in the manner claimed, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange the heaters and shrouds for the purpose of achieving a desired temperature profile.
Regarding claim 8, ‘879 in view of ‘216 does not teach explicitly the arrangement claimed. However, since the heating elements of ‘879 are moveable and one possessed of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add one or more shrouded elements to the radiative heaters for the reasons set forth above, the ordinary artisan could arrange the prior art devices in the manner claimed, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange the heaters and shrouds for the purpose of achieving a desired temperature profile.
Regarding claim 9, ‘879 in view of ‘216 does not teach explicitly the arrangement claimed. However, since the heating elements of ‘879 are moveable and one possessed of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add one or more shrouded elements to the radiative heaters for the reasons set forth above, the ordinary artisan could arrange the prior art devices in the manner claimed, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange the heaters and shrouds for the purpose of achieving a desired temperature profile.
Regarding claim 10, ‘879 in view of ‘216 does not teach explicitly the arrangement claimed. However, since the heating elements of ‘879 are moveable and one possessed of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add one or more shrouded elements to the radiative heaters for the reasons set forth above, the ordinary artisan could arrange the prior art devices in the manner claimed, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange the heaters and shrouds for the purpose of achieving a desired temperature profile.
Regarding claim 11, ‘879 in view of ‘216 does not teach explicitly the arrangement claimed. However, since the heating elements of ‘879 are moveable and one possessed of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add one or more shrouded elements to the radiative heaters for the reasons set forth above, the ordinary artisan could arrange the prior art devices in the manner claimed, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange the heaters and shrouds for the purpose of achieving a desired temperature profile.
Regarding claim 12, ‘879 in view of ‘216 does not teach explicitly the arrangement claimed. However, since the heating elements of ‘879 are moveable and one possessed of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add one or more shrouded elements to the radiative heaters for the reasons set forth above, the ordinary artisan could arrange the prior art devices in the manner claimed, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange the heaters and shrouds for the purpose of achieving a desired temperature profile.
Regarding claim 13 , ‘879 in view of ‘216 does not teach explicitly the arrangement claimed. However, since the heating elements of ‘879 are moveable and one possessed of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add one or more shrouded elements to the radiative heaters for the reasons set forth above, the ordinary artisan could arrange the prior art devices in the manner claimed, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange the heaters and shrouds for the purpose of achieving a desired temperature profile.
Regarding claim 17, ‘879 teaches the apparatus wherein the build bed surface is of a rectangular shape bounded by a first pair of parallel sides and a second pair of parallel sides, the second pair of parallel sides being perpendicular to the first pair of parallel sides; wherein said bare and shrouded radiative heating elements, as viewed from the top side of the working space, are arranged in a pattern that is symmetric about the center of the build bed surface; and wherein the four or more spaced-apart bare radiative heating elements are arranged along portions of each of the second pair of parallel sides (Fig 3 items 302 and paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 18, ‘879 teaches the apparatus wherein the build bed surface comprises a printable area, and wherein the apparatus further comprises a second group of bare spaced-apart radiative heating elements arranged beyond and around the perimeter of the printable area and across the perimeter of the build bed surface, wherein the second group consists of bare radiative heating elements (Fig 3 items 302 and paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 19, ‘879 teaches the apparatus wherein the build bed surface comprises a printable area, and wherein the apparatus further comprises a second group of four bare spaced-apart radiative heating elements that are, as viewed from the top side of the working space, arranged within the perimeter of the printable area (Fig 3 items 302 and paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 20, ‘879 teaches the apparatus wherein the build bed surface comprises a printable area, wherein the apparatus further comprises a second group of a plurality of bare spaced-apart and/or shrouded radiative heating elements arranged beyond and around the perimeter of the printable area and across the perimeter of the build bed surface (Fig 3 items 302 and paragraph 0023).
Claim(s) 14 - 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘879 in view of ‘216 and case law rationale as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 5,390,228 to Niibe et al. (‘228 hereafter) made of record by applicant disclosure.
Regarding claim ‘879 in view of ‘216 does not teach the claimed arrangement of shroud passages. In the related art of heating, ‘228 teaches the apparatus wherein at least one of said radiation-absorbing shrouds is formed as a mesh comprising an array of two or more radiation-absorbing passages (Fig 8 items 124b and 124c) for the benefit of controlling the amount of heating provided. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘879 in view of ‘216 with those of ‘228 for the benefit of controlling the energy provided by radiant heaters.
Regarding claim 15, ‘879 in view of ‘216 does not teach passages as claimed. In the related art of heating, ‘228 teaches the apparatus wherein at least one of said radiation-absorbing shrouds comprises two or more sub-groups of radiation-absorbing passages, and the design of the passages for each sub-group of passages is specific to the respective sub-group of passages (Fig 8 items 124b, 124c, 125b and 125c) for the benefit of individually controlling a plurality of radiant heaters. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘879 in view of ‘216 with those of ‘228 for the benefit of controlling the energy provided by a plurality of radiant heaters.
Regarding claim 16, ‘879 in view of ‘216 does not teach passages as claimed. In the related art of radiant heating, ‘228 teaches the apparatus wherein at least one of said radiation-absorbing shrouds is formed as a mesh comprising an array of two or more radiation-absorbing passages (Fig 8 items 124b and 124c) for the benefit of controlling the amount of heating provided. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘879 in view of ‘216 with those of ‘228 for the benefit of controlling the energy provided by radiant heaters.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John P Robitaille whose telephone number is (571)270-7006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:00PM.
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.
/JPR/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights