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, claims 1-25 in the reply filed on 10 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 26-28 have been cancelled by Applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15, 17, 18, 20 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ben-Zur et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0402042 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Ben-Zur et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0014], [0038], [0065], [0075], [0076] and [0080]; Figures 3A, 3B, 4, 8 and 9) teaches a process (see paragraphs [0038] (method of additive manufacture) and [0014] (process allows for several items to be manufactured) of Ben-Zur et al), including (a) fabricating a loaded base connector grid on a build platform of an additive manufacturing apparatus, wherein the loaded base connector grid includes a base connector grid and a plurality of parts thereon and/or therein (see Figures 3A, 3B, 4, 8 and 9; paragraphs [0065] (using additive manufacturing to make a mold (i.e., a base connector grid)), [0080] (mold building station 18 uses additive manufacturing to make a mold (i.e., a base connector grid)), [0075] (table assembly 109 (i.e., build platform) having process tray 109c for supporting a mold (i.e., base connector grid)) and [0065] (filling a space in the mold (i.e., a base connector grid) with a paste to make a layer of a part; apparatus operates on multiple parts separately) of Ben-Zur et al); (b) removing the loaded base connector grid from the build platform (see paragraph [0076] (trays 109c may be disconnected from assembly 109 (I.e., build platform) to allow the parts to be removed for later stages of the process, including removing the mold (i.e., base connector grid)) of Ben-Zur et al); and (d) separating the plurality of parts from the base connector grid (see paragraph [0076] (trays 109c may be disconnected from assembly 109 (I.e., build platform) to allow the parts to be removed for later stages of the process, including removing the mold (i.e., base connector grid)) of Ben-Zur et al).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, see paragraph [0065] (apparatus operates on multiple parts simultaneously) of Ben-Zur et al.
Regarding claim 20, see Figure 4, paragraph [0075] (process tray 109c for supporting a mold (i.e., a base connector grid); process tray 109c has four edges (i.e., borders)) of Ben-Zur et al.
Regarding claim 25, see paragraph [0076] (trays 109c may be disconnected from assembly 109 (i.e., build platform) to allow parts to be removed) of Ben-Zur et al.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben-Zur et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0402042 A1) as applied to claims 15, 17, 18, 20 and 25 above, and further in view of Forster-Romswinckel et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0100775 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Ben-Zur et al does not teach (1) the manufacture of dental appliances. Forster-Romswinckel et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0031] and [0075]) teaches a process (see paragraph [0031] (additive manufacturing) of Forster-Romswinckel et al), including the manufacture of dental appliances (see paragraph [0031] (additive manufacturing of dental appliances) of Forster-Romswinckel et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture dental appliances in the process of Ben-Zur et al in view of Forster-Romswinckel et al in order to manufacture various types of 3D objects, including dental and orthodontic applications (see paragraph [0075] of Forster-Romswinckel et al).
Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben-Zur et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0402042 A1) as applied to claims 15, 17, 18, 20 and 25 above, and further in view of Van Meer (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0201228 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Van Meer teaches a process (see paragraph [0002] (method for designing a customized apparatus (i.e., part) or a mold for such apparatus (i.e., part) and a computer program implementing the method) of Van Meer), including (i) providing a digital model of the plurality of parts (see claim 10 (receiving data relating to a 3D digital model of an apparatus (i.e., part)) of Van Meer); (ii) determining a configuration of the plurality of parts on the build platform (see claim 10 (determining a geometric transformation mapping the generic morphology to a specific user’s morphology) of Van Meer); (iii) creating a digital model of a base connector grid (see claim 10 (receiving data relating to a 3D digital model of the mold) of Van Meer); (iv) processing the digital model of the plurality of parts and the digital model of the base connector grid to form processed data for use by an additive manufacturing apparatus (see claim 10 (generating a 3D digital model of the customized apparatus (i.e., part) and mold) of Van Meer); and (v) transmitting the processed data to the additive manufacturing apparatus (see claim 14 (using an additive manufacturing process) of Van Meer), and these steps would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the process of Ben-Zur et al in view of Van Meer in order to provide the data needed by an additive manufacturing apparatus.
Regarding claim 24, see paragraph [0002] (computer program implementing the method) of Van Meer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are allowable over the prior art references currently of record.
Claims 19, 21 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art references currently of record, disclose, suggest or teach a process of additively manufacturing a plurality of parts, including the steps of (b) removing a loaded base connector grid from a build platform and transferring the loaded base connector grid to a filtration basket set over and/or within a resin recovery bin, (c) removing the filtration basket including the loaded base connector grid from the resin recovery bin, and (e) removing the loaded base connector grid from the filtration basket (as recited in claim 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Knapp et al (U.S. Patent No. 5,454,069 A) is of interest (see Figures 5(a)-5(c); col. 6, lines 53-65 (SLA system provides underlying support in the form of a grid on a build platform) and col. 7, line 56 to col. 8, line 11 (the base (in the form of a grid) is made of three sections) of Knapp et al).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEO B. TENTONI whose telephone number is (571)272-1209. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:00 ET M-F.
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, Christina A. Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
LEO B. TENTONI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/LEO B TENTONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights