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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/06/25 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no support in disclosure indicating the cycle is repeated until a prestored hardness is reached. Paragraph 0067 teaches storing data and instructing but does not teach prestoring hardness.
Claim 34 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. It is not clear what the applicant means by the cycle is repeated until a prestored hardness is reached. For examination of purposes it is considered as the cycle is repeated until a predetermined hardness is reached.
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 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaya Ishida et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2018/0093326, here after Ishida), further in view of Yohai Dayagi et al (U.S. Patent Application: 2016/0229128, here after Dayagi, Takahiro Kitano et al (U.S. Patent Application: 2003/0054668, here after Kitano). Document#1 is used for evidence of inherency.
Claim 34 is rejected. Ishida teaches a method of hardening a layer of a
product, the layer formed from a composition(paste) [0071], the product being formed
on a print tray(plate) [0291] comprising: providing the print tray for the product; on said
print tray, forming a layer from a composition(paste), said forming comprising: printing a first mold(1A,5) to define one layer of said product [fig. 2]; and filling said first mold with a composition(paste) material(1B), thereby forming a first layer [fig. 3, 0050-0052, 0065-
0069]. Ishida also teaches placing the layer in reduced pressure [0085-0086], which in
fact reducing pressure means to apply vacuum and should be in an enclosure(chamber). Applying vacuum in chamber means sealing the layer in a sealing
enclosure (in order to provide and keep reduced pressure), applying vacuum to the
sealing enclosure, retaining the vacuum inherently fora predetermined duration, and
removing the vacuum following said retaining (to remove the layer from the chamber
and add more layers on it). Ishida teaches using acetone as solvent [0168], and apply
reduced pressure (such as 1.83x10-4 MPa) [0130], where the acetone would boil in this
condition even without heating or at room temperature (see Document #1). Ishida also
teaches printing successive further layers, each over a respective preceding layer, for
each layer repeating said printing a mold, filling with paste [fig. 6-8, fig. 11, 0093], but
does not teach repeating drying process for each layer. Dayagi teaches a method of
printing 3-D object and teaches drying step after disposing each layer and prior to
disposing next layer [claim 32]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Ishida where
the drying process is done after disposing each layer and prior to depositing next layer,
because it is suitable way to print 3-D object. Ishida does not teach lowering the sealing enclosure around the printed(paste) product. Kitano teaches removing solvent from a printed liquid [fig. 30, 0005] using a vacuum chamber and also teaches lowering a
sealing enclosure (vacuum or under pressure chamber) over the product to enclose
printed layer which in fact the product is in a layer formation position, and sealing
enclosure around product [fig. 11, fig. 12, 0085, 0086, 0065, 0061, 0062], applying
vacuum, to remove the liquid(drying), which in fact the vacuum retains for a
predetermined duration (to remove liquid), to form uniform film[abstract] and removing
the vacuum, raising the sealing enclosure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of
Ishida and Dayagi where the extraction of liquid from is done by method of Kitano,
because it helps building the material uniformly. Ishida also teaches extracting liquid
multiple times [0088, 0092- 0093], therefore the layers become harder and harder in
each evaporation cycle as the solvent remove from them to reach a predetermined
hardness (by removing entire solvent for example). Therefore, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a
method of Ishida, Dayagi and Kitano when the solvent removal step in each layer-by-
layer process performs partially, because it helps to avoid deformation of layers. It is
also obvious to print other layers and repeat it to dry and build the material in each layer
uniformly such as said sealing, applying and removing the vacuum and removing the
seal, as duplication of process has no patentable significance unless a new and
unexpected result is produced. [MPEP 2144.V1.B]. therefore forming successive further layers, each over a respective preceding layer, for each layer repeating said printing a mold, filling with paste, sealing around said paste material and mold, applying a vacuum, removing the vacuum and removing the seal; thereby to form a molded layered product, said repeating comprising, for at least some of said layers, carrying out a cycle of said sealing, applying and removing the vacuum and removing the seal a plurality of times, and wherein said cycle is repeated on a respective layer until a prestored hardness is reached(drying until the layer has enough hardness).
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10-11, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaya Ishida et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2018/0093326, here after Ishida), further in view of Yohai Dayagi et al (U.S. Patent Application: 2016/0229128, here after Dayagi, Takahiro Kitano et al (U.S. Patent Application: 2003/0054668, here after Kitano), and Ofer Ben-Zur et al (WO 2018/203331, here after Ben-Zur). Document#1 is used for evidence of inherency.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected. Ishida teaches a method of hardening a layer of a
product, the layer formed from a composition(paste) [0071], the product being formed
on a print tray(plate) [0291] comprising: providing the print tray for the product; on said
print tray, forming a layer from a composition, said forming comprising: printing a first
mold(1A,5) to define one layer of said product [fig. 2]; and filling said first mold with a
composition(paste) material(1B), thereby forming a first layer [fig. 3, 0050-0052, 0065-
0069]. Ishida also teaches placing the layer in reduced pressure [0085-0086], which in
fact reducing pressure means to apply vacuum and should be in an enclosure(chamber). Applying vacuum in chamber means sealing the layer in a sealing
enclosure (in order to provide and keep reduced pressure), applying vacuum to the
sealing enclosure, retaining the vacuum inherently fora predetermined duration, and
removing the vacuum following said retaining (to remove the layer from the chamber
and add more layers on it). Ishida teaches using acetone as solvent [0168], and apply
reduced pressure (such as 1.83x10-4 MPa) [0130], where the acetone would boil in this
condition even without heating or at room temperature (see Document #1). Ishida also
teaches printing successive further layers, each over a respective preceding layer, for
each layer repeating said printing a mold, filling with paste [fig. 6-8, fig. 11, 0093], but
does not teach repeating drying process for each layer. Dayagi teaches a method of
printing 3-D object and teaches drying step after disposing each layer and prior to
disposing next layer [claim 32]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Ishida where
the drying process is done after disposing each layer and prior to depositing next layer,
because it is suitable way to print 3-D object. Ishida does not teach lowering the sealing enclosure around the printed(paste) product. Kitano teaches removing solvent from a printed liquid [fig. 30, 0005] using a vacuum chamber and also teaches lowering a
sealing enclosure (vacuum or under pressure chamber) over the product to enclose
printed layer which in fact the product is in a layer formation position, and sealing
enclosure around product [fig. 11, fig. 12, 0085, 0086, 0065, 0061, 0062], applying
vacuum, to remove the liquid(drying), which in fact the vacuum retains for a
predetermined duration (to remove liquid), to form uniform film[abstract] and removing
the vacuum, raising the sealing enclosure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of
Ishida and Dayagi where the extraction of liquid from is done by method of Kitano,
because it helps building the material uniformly. Ishida also teaches extracting liquid
multiple times [0088, 0092- 0093], therefore the layers become harder and harder in
each evaporation cycle as the solvent remove from them to reach a predetermined
hardness (by removing entire solvent for example). Therefore, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a
method of Ishida, Dayagi and Kitano when the solvent removal step in each layer-by-
layer process performs partially, because it helps to avoid deformation of layers. It is
also obvious to print other layers and repeat it to dry and build the material in each layer
uniformly such as said sealing, applying and removing the vacuum and removing the
seal, as duplication of process has no patentable significance unless a new and
unexpected result is produced. [MPEP 2144.V1.B]. Ishida does not teach spreading the paste with a blade. Ben-Zur teaches a method of making a 3-D article by printing a mold and depositing paste (cast material) within it and spreading it with a blade [fig. 15].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Ishida when the paste material is spread with a blade, because Ben-Zur teaches it is suitable method for applying paste within the mold structure.
Claim 3 is rejected. Ishida does not teach smoothing process after forming first
layer and prior to printing second mold. Ben-Zur teaches a method of making 3-D article
by printing a mold filling paste in it, and teaches and smoothing first layer after forming
and prior to printing second mold layer thereby to form said second layer on a finished
surface of said first layer [page 4, lines 19-22]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of
Ishida and smoothing first layer after forming and prior to printing second mold layer,
because it is suitable to smooth the first layer and remove excess material prior to
printing the second mold and second paste layer.
Claim 6 is rejected. Ishida does not teach the mold printing material has a mold
melting point which is lower than a melting point of said paste (cast material). Ben-Zur
teaches a method of making a 3-D article by printing a mold and depositing paste (cast
material) within it. Ben-Zur teaches the mold printing material has a mold melting point
which is lower than a melting point of said paste (cast material) [page 4 lines 24-25]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention was made to have a method of Ishida when mold melting point which is lower
than a melting point of cast material, because Ben-Zur teaches it is another alternative
and suitable method for making for making hardening layer from paste that Ishida
teaches.
Claim 7 is rejected for the same reason claim 6 is rejected. The warm air
temperature has to be lower than mold melting point, otherwise the mold would be
melted prior to forming the paste layer.
Claim 8 is rejected for the same reason claim 4 is rejected, and Kitano teaches
draw remaining liquids from said paste [0006], which indicates the vacuum is of
sufficiently low pressure.
Claim 11 is rejected. Kitano teaches removing solvent with reduced pressure, but
does not teach the vacuum time. However, the duration of reduced pressure(vacuum) is
a result effective variable and has to be optimized. A very short time vacuum will not
result in drying and evaporation of the solvent from the layer. A very long-time vacuum
process also is not economically interested. Therefore, it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of
Ishida, Dayagi, Kitano, and Ben-Zur when the vacuum duration is within the claimed range pressure, because it is a result effective variable and has to be optimized.
Claim 15 is rejected. Kitano teaches using a nozzle to print[fig.30], but does not
teach using a squeegee. Ben-Zur teaches a method of making 3-D article by printing a
mold filling paste in it, and teaches filling mold with a paste material comprises using a
squeegee to spread paste material into the mold [page 5 lines 8-11]. Therefore, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was
made to have a method of Ishida and comprises using a squeegee to spread said paste
material into said mold, because it is suitable method for spreading paste material into a
mold.
Claim 16 is rejected as Ishida teaches at least two different paste materials in
different layers [0150, 0151].
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaya
Ishida et al (U.S. Patent Application: 2018/0093326, here after Ishida), Yohai Dayagi et
al (U.S. Patent Application: 2016/0229128, here after Dayagi, Takahiro Kitano et al (U.
S. Patent Application: 2003/0054668, here after Kitano), Ofer Ben-Zur et al (WO 2018/203331, here after Ben-Zur), and further in view of Daniel
Gunther et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2016/0311167, here after Gunther).
Claim 4 is rejected. Kitano does not teach heating the layer with warm air.
Gunther teaches heating each(further) layer with warm air prior to drying(sealing) to
quickly removing solvent vapors [0039, 0051]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of
Ishida, Dayagi, Kitano, and Ben-Zur when applying warm air, because it helps removing solvent vapor.
Claim 5 is rejected. Although Gunther does not teach to apply said duration of
applying warm air to layer, however it is a result effective variable and has to be
optimized. A very short time will not result in drying and evaporation of the solvent from
the layer (as itis a kinetic process and requires time). A very long time from applying
warm air to the layer is not economically interested. Therefore, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a
method of Ishida, Dayagi, Kitano, and Ben-Zur when the drying time with warm air is within the claimed range, because it is a result effective variable and has to be optimized.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argument regarding limitation of spreading the paste with blade is not persuasive as Ben-Zur teaches it (see claim rejection above). Regarding claim 34, the drying and removing solvent repeated until desirable hardness(predetermined) is achived.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718