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 and species A1 and B2 within said Group I, encompassing claims 1-4 and 6-7 in the reply filed on 12 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5 and 8-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12 May 2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[00020]: change instances of “pully” to “pulley”
[00021] “‘upper surface’ 24“ is disclosed as being either “upper surface 12” or “an upper surface 24 of the 3d article 4 when it is partially formed”. Examiner recommends using a different name and reference character of the first instance of “upper surface 24” to better differentiate between itself and “upper surface 24 of the 3D article 4 when it is partially formed”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, L4: couple to [[the]] a vertical movement mechanism;
Claim 3, L3: that is orthogonal to the X-axis.
Claim 4, L1: blades extend along the X-axis between the two end portions.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Innes (US 20230089055).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 1, Innes discloses a three-dimensional (3D) printing system configured to manufacture a three-dimensional (3D) article comprising:
a vessel (“resin vessel” (6)) configured to contain a photocurable resin;
a build plate (“build plate” (10)) coupled to a vertical movement mechanism (“vertical movement mechanism” (16));
an imaging subsystem configured to selectively image over a build plane that is above the build plate (“imaging subsystem” (30));
a coating subsystem (“coating subsystem” (26)) including a coater blade (“coating blade” (42)) coupled to a horizontal movement mechanism (“linear bearings” (50));
a controller configured to operate the imaging subsystem and the coating subsystem to form a plurality of layers to fabricate the 3D article (“controller” (34), [0027]), for individual layers the controller is configured to:
operate the vertical movement mechanism to position an upper surface of the build plate or the 3D article one layer thickness below the build plane ([0027]);
operate the horizontal movement mechanism to translate the coater blade over the build plane and to provide a new layer of resin over the upper surface ([0027]); and
operate the imaging subsystem to selectively irradiate the new layer of resin in leveled wakes within the lateral regions ([0027]).
While Innes does not explicitly disclose that 3D printing system comprises a plurality (N) of coater blades which would define lateral regions therebetween, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that it has been held that “that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced” (See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). One would have been motivated to duplicate the number of coater blades for the purpose ensuring the top layer of resin in the vessel is level. The plurality of coater blades, arranged similarly to how “coater blade” (42) is arranged in Fig 3 except offset from one another, would create lateral regions between each set of two coater blades.
Regarding claim 2, Innes teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Innes teaches that the N coater blades are coupled to a support that moves with the N coater blades in unison during translation (“end portions” (44)).
Regarding claim 3, Innes teaches all limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. Additionally, Innes teaches that the support includes two end portions that are spaced apart along a lateral X-axis (X), the translation is along a lateral Y-axis (Y) that is orthogonal to the X-axis (“end portions” (44)).
Regarding claim 4, Innes teaches all limitations of claim 3 as set forth above. Additionally, Innes teaches that the N coater blades extend along the X-axis between the two end portions (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 6, Innes teaches all limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. Additionally, Innes teaches that motion of the support is constrained by two linear bearings (“linear bearings” (50), Fig 3).
Regarding claim 7, Innes teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Innes teaches that the controller is configured to operate the imaging subsystem concurrently with operating the horizontal movement mechanism ([0027]).
This provisional rejection might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the copending application was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the copending application and the claimed invention either were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement (See generally MPEP § 717.02).
Claim(s) 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chartrain et al. (US2021162657) (of record) in view of Mantell et al. (US20220347920) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Chartrain discloses a three-dimensional (3D) printing system configured to manufacture a three-dimensional (3D) article comprising:
a vessel (“vat” (102)) configured to contain a photocurable resin;
a build plate (“build platform” (110)) coupled to a vertical movement mechanism ([0033]);
an imaging subsystem configured to selectively image over a build plane that is above the build plate (“light source” (130) and “window” (142));
a coating subsystem including a plurality (N) of coater blades (“recoat blades” (310)) coupled to a horizontal movement mechanism ([0036] in that the recoat blades are moved within the vat), the N coater blades defining lateral regions therebetween (Fig 3A-D);
a controller configured to operate the imaging subsystem to form a plurality of layers to fabricate the 3D article ([0038]), for individual layers the controller is configured to:
operate the imaging subsystem to selectively irradiate the new layer of resin in leveled wakes within the lateral regions ([0038]).
While Chartrain does disclose that the vertical movement mechanism is operated to position an upper surface of the build plate or the 3D article one layer thickness below the build plate ([0033]) and the horizontal movement mechanism is operated to translate the N coater blades over the build plane and to provide a new layer of resin over the upper surface ([[0036]), Chartrain does not explicitly disclose that said mechanisms are operated by the controller that also is configured to operate the coating subsystem. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Mantell, which is within the additive manufacturing art, teaches that an 3D printing system comprising of an imaging subsystem (“radiation source” (108)) and a coating subsystem (“wipers” (112) and “actuators” (132)) can have both operated via a controller (“controller” (128)), said controller also regulating operations of the imaging subsystem, a horizontal movement mechanism (“actuators” (132)) and a vertical movement mechanism ([0011] with regards to “One or more actuators are operatively connected to support platform 136”). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the controller of Chartrain to regulate more processes as done in Mantell for the predictable result of ensuring control over the 3D printing system.
Regarding claim 7, modified Chartrain teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, given that the combined teachings of Mantell’s controller regulating multiple mechanisms ([0011]) with Chartrain’s controller, modified Chartrain teaches that controller is configured to operate the imaging subsystem concurrently with operating the horizontal movement mechanism.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chartrain et al. (US2021162657) (of record) and Mantell et al. (US20220347920) (of record) as set forth above in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1, and further in view of Merot et al. (US20060219163) (of record).
Regarding claim 2, modified Chartrain teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Chartrain teaches that the N coater blades move in unison during translation (Fig 3A-D). While Chartrain does not explicitly teach that the N coater blades are coupled to a support that moves with the N coater blades in unison during translation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Merot, which is within the stereolithography art, teaches that for the use of a coating blade (“blade reservoir” (1)) in a stereolithography machine, said coating blade is coupled to a support (“mounting bracket” (4) and all components between itself and “blade-reservoir” (1) in Fig 1-4) that moves with the coating blade (Fig 1). One would have been motivated to use the mounting bracket of Merot with Chartrain for the predictable result of connecting the coating blade to a movement mechanism (Fig 1-4), such a movement mechanism being well known in the art as admitted by applicant’s own specification ([00019]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Chartrain teaches all limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. Additionally, Merot teaches that the support includes two end portions (“adjusting blocks” (5,6)) that are spaced apart along a lateral X-axis (X), the translation is along a lateral Y-axis (Y) that is orthogonal to the X-axis (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Chartrain teaches all limitations of claim 3 as set forth above. Additionally, Chartrain teaches that the N coater blades extend along the X-axis between the two end portions (Fig 3A-D).
Regarding claim 6, modified Chartrain teaches all limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. Additionally, Merot teaches that the motion of the support is constrained by two linear bearings (“saddle” (14) and “recoater-rails” (2), Fig 1). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to employ two linear bearings for constraining support motion of modified Chartrain, given that, by applicant’s own admission in [0019], the use of “linear bearings for guiding motion” is a “well-known means of imparting motion” and therefore represents a conventional means of achieve predictable linear motion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER D BOOTH whose telephone number is (571) 272-6704. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/ALEXANDER D BOOTH/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights