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 13 June 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. No claims are added, or cancelled. Claim 1 is amended.
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
In support of the patentability of the instant claims applicant has argued that the previously and above prior art does not teach independent claim 1 as instantly amended. Specifically, applicant argues that the previous and above prior art combination does not teach an apparatus where the platform and reservoir base are separately removable from a 3D printer. Examiner is unpersuaded. The previously and above cited ‘797 reference teaches that the reservoir base and platform are completely separable while engaged with the 3D printing apparatus (see ‘797 at paragraph 0036). This is the only structural relation necessary to enable the newly claimed intended use of separate removability.
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
Prosecution Insights