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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Unclear exactly what is intended by the term “is a minimum volume necessary for printing of one layer” as this is defined by a variable object dependent on the type of additive process, see MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thompson (US 2020/0406543).
As to claim 1, Thompson teaches a method of printing a three-dimensional object, the method comprising: providing at least a first printing material and a second printing material separated in at least a first material tank and a second material tank [0058];providing a build platform (14) ;printing the three-dimensional object at least partially onto the build platform with the first printing material [0068-0073]; cleaning the three-dimensional object in tank (628) [0068,0072]; and printing the three-dimensional object at least partially onto the build platform with the second printing material [0068-73].
As to claims 3, Thompson teaches the cleaning the three-dimensional object comprises: providing one or more cleaning tanks (628) with a cleaning solution [0068, 0072]; providing one or more air knifes phrased as air nozzles [0074]; providing one or more standing waves of cleaning solution via an ultrasonic transducer [0073]; cleaning the three-dimensional object by exposing it to the one or more standing waves of cleaning solution via ultrasonic transducer while immersed in the cleaning compartment [0073]; and drying the cleaned three-dimensional object by exposing it to the one or more air knifes [0073].
As to claims 4-6, Thompson teaches at least one of the first material tank (622, 624, 626), the second material tank (622, 624, 626), or at least one of the cleaning tanks (617) is horizontally movable as they are all arranged on a rotatable disk with the cleaning tank in between a first and 2nd material tank [Fig 8, 9].
As to claim 8, as the materials may be different compositions, the first printing material and the second printing material differ in their mechanical properties [0058].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thompson (US 2020/0406543) and evidenced by Pedzy (Ultrasonic Frequency Selection)
As to claims 2, Thompson teaches the cleaning the three-dimensional object comprises: providing one or more cleaning tanks (628) with a cleaning solution [0068, 0072]; providing one or more air knifes phrased as air nozzles [0074]; providing one or more standing waves of cleaning solution via an ultrasonic transducer [0073]; cleaning the three-dimensional object by exposing it to the one or more standing waves of cleaning solution via ultrasonic transducer while immersed in the cleaning compartment [0073]; and drying the cleaned three-dimensional object by exposing it to the one or more air knifes [0073].
The examiner notes that providing standing waves is an inherent property of ultrasonic cleaning. Evidentiary reference Pedzy notes “All ultrasonic cleaners distribute their scrubbing action in a series of horizontal bands which are known as standing waves.” The ultrasonic bath of Thompson would expose the object to multiple standing waves.
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.
Claim(s) 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 2020/0406543) in view of Van Esbroeck (US 2015/0137426).
As to claim 7, Thompson teaches the build platform is vertically [0024] but does not explicitly state that it is horizontally movable.
Van Esbroeck teaches a method of additive manufacturing [Abstract] wherein build platform (70) is movable both horizontally and vertically as “far less friction is encountered by laterally sliding the printed object” [0063, claim 12, Fig 6A, 6B]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Thompson and utilized a build platform that was movable both horizontally and vertically, as suggested by Thompson, in order to dislodge the part with less friction.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 2020/0406543) in view of Ames (US 2023/0172314).
As to claim 9, Thompson does not explicitly state the first printing material has a Shore A hardness greater than or equal to 70 and less than or equal to 80 after printing of the three- dimensional object is complete.
Ames teaches a method of 3D printing footwear [0027] wherein the end product has shore A hardness between 50-120 (an overlapping range) [0030] and allows for customized footwear with the desired properties [0037, 0038]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Thompson and made the first material have a shore A hardness within the recited range, as suggested by Thompson, in order to produce custom footwear with the desired properties.
As to claim 10, Thompson does not explicitly state the first printing material has a the first printing material has an elongation at break greater than or equal to 240 % and less than or equal to 360 % after printing of the three- dimensional object is complete.
Ames teaches a method of 3D printing footwear [0027] wherein the end product has an elongation of 280% [0030] and allows for customized footwear with the desired properties [0027, 0037, 0038]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Thompson and made the elongation be 280% as suggested by Thompson, in order to produce custom footwear with the desired properties.
As to claim 14, Thompson does not explicitly state the 2nd printing material has an elongation at break greater than or equal to 50 % after printing of the three- dimensional object is complete.
Ames teaches a method of 3D printing footwear [0027] wherein the end product has an elongation of 280% [0030] and allows for customized footwear with the desired properties [0027, 0037, 0038]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Thompson and made the elongation be 280% as suggested by Thompson, in order to produce custom footwear with the desired properties.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 2020/0406543) in view of BASF (Ultrasint TPU01 for HP Jet Fusion Printers).
As to claim 11, Thompson does not explicitly state the first printing material has a tear strength greater than or equal to 20 kN/m and less than or equal to 30 kN/m after printing of the three- dimensional object is complete.
BASF teaches a material utilized in 3D printing that allows for printing “footwear” and “sports and leisure” products with “a high level of detail” [Product Description] and has tear strength of 21 kN/m [Mechanical properties]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Thompson and made the tear strength be 21 kN/m, as suggested by BASF, as materials with this property had proven successful at producing 3D printed footwear with high detail.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 2020/0406543) in view of Cammage (US 2022/0073686).
As to claim 12, Thompson does not explicitly state the second printing material has a Shore D hardness greater than or equal to 68 and less than or equal to 74 after printing of the three- dimensional object is complete.
Cammage teaches a compositions for creating sports shoes [0002] or othering sporting components wherein the Shore D hardness is 50-80 shore D an overlapping range with the instant invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Thompson and made the 2nd material have a hardness of 50-80, as suggested by Thompson, as this range had proven successful at creating satisfactory footwear.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 2020/0406543) in view of Coats (US 2004/0135292).
As to claim 12, Thompson does not explicitly state the second printing material has a Shore D hardness greater than or equal to 68 and less than or equal to 74 after printing of the three- dimensional object is complete.
Miyakawa teaches a method of 3D printing [Abstract] wherein the 3D object has a shore D hardness in a range of 60-80, an overlapping range to the claimed invention, as this was the ideal for shoes [0069]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Thompson and made the 2nd material have a hardness of greater than 60, as suggested by Miyakawa, as this range allowed for a the successful production of shoes.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 2020/0406543) in view of Kondo (US 2022/0340742).
As to claim 13, Thompson does not explicitly state the second printing material has a tensile modulus greater than or equal to 1000 MPa and less than or equal to 1200 MPa after printing of the three-dimensional object is complete.
Kondo teaches a method of 3D printing [Abstract] wherein the material has a tensile modulus in the range of 1000 MPa to 1200 MPa, tensile modulus X Examples 7, 9, 12, 15 and tensile modulus z examples 10, 13, 30 [Table 1 ]. These physical properties are prevent warpage [0010]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Thompson and utilized a material with a tensile modulus in the range of 1000 MPa to 1200 MPa, as suggested by Kondo, in order to prevent the material from warping after print.
Claim(s) 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 2020/0406543) in view of Hull (US 5059359).
As to claim 15, Thompson does not explicitly state a filling level of the first printing material in the first material tank is controlled by a control means to maintain a constant filling level.
Hull teaches a method of 3D printing [Abstract] wherein the surface of the resin is maintained at a constant level in order to allow high resolution printing [col 15 line 14-35, col 16 line 9-20]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Thompson and included a control means to maintain a constant filling level, as suggested by Hull, in order to ensure printing resolution.
As to claim 16, Thompson does not explicitly state a filling level of the first printing material in the first material tank is greater than or equal to 0.5mm and less than or equal to 4 mm. However, Thompson notes that “the layer increment can be variable, with a larger layer increment being used to speed the process in portions of a component not requiring high accuracy, and a smaller layer increment being used where higher accuracy is required, at the expense of process speed” [0047]. It is well settled that the determination of the optimum value of a result effective variable, in this case layer thickness, is within the skill of one practicing art, see MPEP § 2144.05 II. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the layer thickness/filing level to 0.5mm and less than or equal to 4 mm, as suggested by Thompson, in order to obtain the desired degree of accuracy and speed.
As to claim 17, Thompson teaches the filling level of the first printing material in the first material tank is a minimum volume necessary for printing of one layer [Fig 1, 2].
Additionally, Hull teaches a method of 3D printing [Abstract] wherein the surface of the resin is maintained at a constant level in order to allow high resolution printing [col 15 line 14-35, col 16 line 9-20] and the fill level is a minimum volume necessary for printing of a 1 layer as the layer extends from the working surface of the tray to the surface of the resin [Fig 5]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Thompson and included a control means to maintain a constant filling level and the filling level of the resin is a minimum volume necessary for printing of one layer , as suggested by Hull, in order to ensure printing resolution.
As to claim 18, Thompson does not explicitly state the control means comprises an overflow dam.
Hull teaches a method of 3D printing [Abstract] wherein the build tray is equipped with a dam (the protrusion from the bottom surface) and an overflow reservoir [Fig 5]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Thompson and included a dam and overflow reservoir, as suggested by Hull, as this configuration had demonstrated success in 3D printing applications and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable result, see MPEP 2143 A .
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 2020/0406543) in view of Hull (US 5059359), as applied to claims 15-18 above, and in further view of Mbodji (US 2022/0363806). This is an alternative rejection of claim 16
As to claim 16, Thompson does not explicitly state a filling level of the first printing material in the first material tank is greater than or equal to 0.5mm and less than or equal to 4 mm. However, Thompson notes that “the layer increment can be variable, with a larger layer increment being used to speed the process in portions of a component not requiring high accuracy, and a smaller layer increment being used where higher accuracy is required, at the expense of process speed” [0047]. It is well settled that the determination of the optimum value of a result effective variable, in this case layer thickness, is within the skill of one practicing art, see MPEP § 2144.05 II. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the layer thickness/filing level to 0.5mm and less than or equal to 4 mm, as suggested by Thompson, in order to obtain the desired degree of accuracy and speed.
Additionally, Mbodji teaches a method of 3D printing [Abstract] including 3D printing shoes [0139] wherein each layer is 1mm-5mm thick to allow for quick printing [0135]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Thompson filled the vat to between 1-4 mm, as suggested by Mbodji, as this allowed for quick printing of shoe components.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 2020/0406543) in view of Hull (US 5059359), as applied to claims 15-18 above, and in further view of Whetsell (US 2024/0246292).
As to claim 19, Thompson does not explicitly state that the control means comprises a non-contact fill level sensor, the non-contact fill level sensor comprising an ultrasonic transducer and/or a laser.
Whetsell teaches a method for 3D printing [Abstract] wherein a laser/ultrasonic level sensor is utilized in order to control the level of the tank [0033] which allows for automated start of the print job once the desired level within the tank has been reached [0033]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Thompson and included a laser/ultrasonic level sensor, as suggested by Whetsell, in order to maintain the desired resin level within the build area and allow for automated start of the part printing.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 2020/0406543) in view of Hull (US 5059359), as applied to claims 15-18 above, and in further view of Zortrax (Inkspire2 The staple of refined resin 3D printing and post-processing system).
As to claim 20, Thompson does not explicitly state the level sensor is a weight sensor.
Zortrax teaches 3D printing machine [Page 3] wherein a resin management system with a weight sensor [Page 5] allows for the printer to recognize how much resin is available in the vat for automated printing without stop [Page 8]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Thompson and included a weight sensor in the level control system, as suggested by Zortrax, in order to allow for effective resin management.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights