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 II, claims 11-12, 15, 17-19, in the reply filed on 09 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 and 22-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09 June 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
APPARATUS FOR SURFACE TREATMENT OF 3D PRINTED PARTS FOR BIOPROCESSING EQUIPMENT
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.
Claims 11-12, 15, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Smith et al. (US 7,768,619 B2).
Regarding claim 11, Smith discloses an apparatus for surface treatment of parts (title/abstract), which is capable of treating 3D printed parts for bioprocessing equipment, the apparatus comprising:
an elastomeric resurfacing tool 12 comprising a contact surface 16, wherein the contact surface comprises a negative shape of a surface to be treated of a part (FIG. 1; 2:28+);
pistons 50, equated with the pressure source, configured to apply pressure to the surface using the contact surface; and
heated oil, equated with the claimed heat source, configured to apply heat to the contact surface (FIG. 1-2; 2:28+, 3:9+).
Regarding claim 12, Smith discloses the heat source comprises an activatable heating element (2:45); and/or wherein the heat source comprises a pump 30 configured to supply heated fluid to the apparatus (2:47+).
Regarding claim 15, Smith discloses ambient oil, equated with the claimed cooling source, configured to cool the contact surface (2:56+).
Regarding claim 18, Smith discloses the resurfacing tool comprises a housing 14 with a hollow interior, equated with the claimed inflatable void (FIG. 1; 2:28+).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 7,768,619 B2) as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Schulman (US 2,575,734 A).
Regarding claim 17, Smith does not appear to expressly disclose the thicknesses of the various parts of the press 12.
However, Schulman discloses a similar inflatable press (FIG. 1; 1:25+) wherein the impervious flexible diaphragm 20 which has the contact surface has a thinner wall thickness than the platen 12 and rim member 18 (FIG. 1)
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Smith to include the wall thicknesses of Schulman, in order to provide adequate rigidity to the housing and flexibility to the diaphragm.
Regarding claim 19, Shulman discloses the flexible diaphragm is silicon polymer, e.g. silicone (1:41).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Alriksson; Johan et al.
US 20250178277 A1
Achten; Dirk et al.
US 10300660 B2
Hikmet; Rifat Ata Mustafa et al.
US 11718017 B2
Regen; Thomas et al.
US 10307937 B2
Antesberger; Timothy Eugene et al.
US 11833604 B2
Jara Rodelgo; Alvaro et al.
US 11446872 B2
WADA NORIYA et al.
JP 2003039199 A
BOK H K et al.
US 20080178797 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin A Schiffman whose telephone number is (571)270-7626. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-530p EST.
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 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.
/BENJAMIN A SCHIFFMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights