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 final action on the merits is in response to the request for continued examination including remarks received on 02 February 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. No claims are added, amended, or cancelled.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170246797 to Lambrecht et al. (‘797 hereafter) in view of CN107160683A to Chang et al. (‘683 hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, ‘797 teaches a three-dimensional (3D) printing system for converting
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘683 teaches an additive manufacturing apparatus with multiple reservoirs and build surfaces (Fig 1 items 4 and 5). It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the removable base and fluidly independent reservoir of ‘797 with the multiple reservoirs and build surfaces of ‘683 for the benefit of increasing productivity of a single additive manufacturing machine.
Regarding claim 2, ‘797 teaches the 3D printing system wherein the base is adapted to couple onto a body of the curing light engine of the 3D printer (Fig 1 items 10 and 14).
Regarding claim 3, ‘797 teaches the 3D printing system wherein each sealable reservoir stores a unique printing material (paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 4, ‘683 teaches the 3D printing system wherein each build surface is adapted to independently build a 3D printed object while being positioned on the same horizontal plane as each other build surface (Fig 1 items 5). Examiner notes that build surfaces are built upon rather than effectuating a build process on their own. Accordingly, examiner has interpreted this limitation to refer to the ability of each of the plurality of build surfaces to have an independent object built upon it. 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 ‘797 with those of ‘683 for the benefit of increasing productivity of a single additive manufacturing apparatus.
Regarding claim 5, ‘683 teaches the 3D printing system wherein the build surfaces are arranged parallel to one other (Fig 1 items 5). 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 ‘797 with those of ‘683 for the benefit of increasing productivity of a single additive manufacturing apparatus.
Regarding claim 9, ‘797 teaches the 3D printing system wherein one or more of the reservoirs includes a handle (paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 15, ‘797 teaches the 3D printing system wherein each reservoir includes a membrane adapted to enhance durability when exposed to highly corrosive print materials insofar as the prior art reference is taught to possess suitable corrosion resistance to photopolymer resin to function (Fig 1 the walls of reservoir 40 is, as disclosed adequate for storing photopolymer material used). Examiner notes that “enhance durability” and “highly corrosive” are terms of degree dependent on the material worked upon.
Regarding claim 17, ‘797 teaches the 3D printing system wherein each of the plurality of reservoirs are independently removable and securable to the removable reservoir base (Fig 1 items 14 and 40).
Regarding claim 18, ‘797 teaches the 3D printing system further comprising a second removable platform including a single build surface (Fig 3 item 60).
Regarding claim 19, ‘797 teaches the 3D printing system further comprising a second reservoir configured to secure a single reservoir adapted to register with the single build surface of the second removable platform (Fig 1 item 40).
Regarding claim 20, ‘797 teaches the 3D printing system wherein one or more of the plurality of reservoirs is sealable (paragraph 0030).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘797 in view of ‘683 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0046779 to Pax et al. (‘779 hereafter).
Regarding claim 6, ‘797 in view of ‘683 does not teach a temperature sensor. In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘779 teaches the 3D printing system wherein an interior of the platform includes a temperature sensor (paragraph 0030) for the benefit of monitoring the temperature of the build platform. 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 ‘797 in view of ‘683 with those of ‘779 for the benefit of monitoring the temperature of the build platform.
Regarding claim 7, ‘797 in view of ‘683 does not teach an overheat protection sensor. In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘779 teaches the 3D printing system wherein an interior of the platform includes an overheat protection sensor (paragraph 0030) for the benefit of monitoring the temperature of the build platform. 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 ‘797 in view of ‘683 with those of ‘779 for the benefit of monitoring the temperature of the build platform.
Regarding claim 8, ‘797 in view of ‘683 does not teach heating elements. In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘779 teaches the 3D printing system wherein an interior of the platform includes a heating element adapted to heat one or more of the build surfaces (paragraph 0016) for the benefit of controlling the temperature of the build platform. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teaching of ‘797 in view of ‘683 with those of ‘779 for the benefit of controlling the temperature of the build platform.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘797 in view of ‘683 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0282544 to Paul Holt (‘544 hereafter).
Regarding claim 10, ‘797 in view of ‘683 does not teach anodized aluminum etched platforms. In the same field of endeavor, stereolithography, ‘544 teaches the 3D printing system wherein the platform includes a hard anodized aluminum with a laser-etched pattern to optimize adhesion (paragraph 0082) for the benefit promoting adhesion. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teaching of ‘797 in view of ‘683 with those of ‘544 for the benefit of promoting adhesion.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘797 in view of ‘683 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0370136 to Klaus Stadlmann (‘136 hereafter).
Regarding claim 11, ‘797 in view of ‘683 does not teach stackable reservoirs. In the same field of endeavor, stereolithography, ‘136 teaches the 3D printing system wherein the reservoirs are stackable (Fig 2a, the cartridges are shown to have flat bases and tops, meaning one could stack them) for the benefit of storing and shipping greater quantities of material. 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 ‘797 in view of ‘683 with those of ‘136 for the benefit of shipping and storing greater quantities of material.
Claim(s) 12-14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘797 in view of ‘683 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0173203 to Freer et al. (‘203 hereafter).
Regarding claim 12, ‘797 in view of ‘683 does not teach a detection device.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘203 teaches the 3D printing system wherein the reservoirs include a detection device configured to be detected by the 3D printer for detecting when the reservoir is coupled to the 3D printer (Paragraph 0032) for the benefit of tracking/ verifying the provenance of build material. 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 ‘797 in view of ‘683 with those of ‘203 for the benefit of tracking/verifying build material.
Regarding claim 13, ‘683 does not teach a detection device. In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘203 teaches the 3D printing system wherein the detection device includes an RFID tag (Paragraph 0032) for the benefit of tracking/ verifying the provenance of build material. 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 ‘797 in view of ‘683 with those of ‘203 for the benefit of tracking/verifying build material.
Regarding claim 14, ‘797 in view of ‘683 does not teach a writable detection device. In the same field of endeavor, ‘203 teaches the 3D printing system wherein the detection device is writable and adapted to store information about the reservoirs (Paragraph 0038) for the benefit of tracking/ verifying the provenance of build material. 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 ‘797 in view of ‘683 with those of ‘203 for the benefit of tracking/verifying build material.
Regarding claim 16, ‘797 in view of ‘683 does not teach a writable detection device. In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘203 teaches the 3D printing system wherein the information about the reservoirs includes one or more of: an amount of print material stored within one or more of the reservoirs; a type of print material stored inside one or more of the reservoirs (paragraph 0028); or a number of remaining print cycles for one or more of the reservoirs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has advanced several arguments in support of the patentability of the instant claims. They are:
Examiner has not provided any teaching suggestion or motivation to combine the ‘797 and ‘683 references.
The modification of ‘797 with the teachings of ‘683 would render ‘797 inoperable for its intended purpose.
The references teach away from the combination of ‘797 in view of ‘683.
‘797 in view of ‘683 fails to teach every limitation of the claimed invention.
Regarding the first argument, examiner is unpersuaded that the previous and above rejection of claims on grounds of obviousness is “conclusory and unsupported” (Applicant remarks of 02 Feb 2026, Pg. 7 paragraph 1) because examiner merely “identifies the benefit of combining the cited references” (Applicant remarks of 02 Feb 2026, Pg. 7 paragraph 2). The motivation to combine references is expressly stated in the references themselves: “The purpose of the invention is to provide a multiple laser light source forming a 3D printer, which can perform batch printing, high printing efficiency.” (‘683, Summary of Invention, paragraph 1 [emphasis examiner’s]).
Next, applicant argues that the combination of ‘797 in view of ‘683 would destroy the function of the apparatus taught by ‘797. Specifically, applicant argues, without evidence, that combination would render inoperable the centrifugal drying and ejector function of ‘797. This argument is not persuasive. First, spinning and then ejecting objects is not the intended purpose of the apparatus of ‘797 – forming objects via stereolithography is its purpose. No evidence of record would suggest that this function is at all hampered by the inoperability of ejector or spin components of the prior art invention. In the case of the centrifugation component of the prior art invention, ‘797 discloses it as a preferred embodiment, but also explicitly teaches that drip-drying is also acceptable: “[b]y means of such a locking mechanism and rotation of the coupling rod, it is possible, after completion of a shaped body, to position it above the fluid bath and to allow surplus fluid to drip off [emphasis examiner’s] (paragraph 0032, ‘792). Similarly, the ejector function is disclosed as one possible embodiment which may be employed or not (paragraph 0070). In any event, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant next argues that the teaching of ‘797 of an apparatus which employs isolated cartridgized build volumes in employed in series while ‘683 teaches parallel build volumes which are fluidly connected for build material supply constitutes a teaching away. This argument is not persuasive because “the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (See MPEP 2145 (X)(D)(1)).
Finally, applicant argues that the applied prior art combination of ‘797 in view of ‘683 does not teach all of the limitations of the claimed apparatus. Applicant argues that the ‘783 does not teach that the reservoir is fluidically independent expressly and that ‘683 teaches the opposite, that the reservoirs are connected to a common resin supply. Examiner is unpersuaded. ‘797 teaches that the build volume cartridge is sealed (paragraphs 0029 and 0030). That is, the build volume cartridge of ‘797 is complete and independent, including being filled with a supply of resin for use exclusively within the build volume container. ‘683 is relied upon to teach that multiple build stages and reservoirs in a single assembly are known in the prior art. One possessed of ordinary skill at the time would have been motivated by these teachings to essentially duplicate the build container volumes of ‘797 since it has been held that duplication of working parts of an apparatus involves only routine skill in the art In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B)). Here again, applicant is reminded that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
No Arguments are persuasive.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 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