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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/19/2025 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-16 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation the roller being rotatable about a longitudinal axis to carry out rolling. Claims 3-5 and 7-16 are rejected for indirectly/directly including all the limitations of claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-12, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisser (US2016/0214173 A1) in view of Ben-Zur (WO2018/203331 A1), and in view of Nakia (US 2020/0406558 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fisser discloses a layering device for preparation of layers being formed in additive manufacture (abstract), each layer formed by printing a mold wall to define a mold space and filling the mold space with a paste to form the layer [0027], the layering device comprising:
a mold wall roller (coater (18)) configured to roll the mold wall from above onto said upper extent to form a mold layer surface in a plane;
and a paste blade (34,36, 38) configured to spread the paste to fill the mold space and an adjustable mounting (travel unit [0027]) for the paste blade, therewith to adjust the paste blade into a same height and orientation with the roller, the adjustable mounting being structure to align the paste blade, the paste blade into said plane to smooth the paste into said plane, the paste thereby confined by an upper surface that is continuous with said mold layer surface [0027].
Fisser does not explicitly disclose an inkjet nozzle for 3d printing of said mold wall to define said mold space within, said mold wall having an upper extent. However, analogous art, Ben-Zur discloses the use of inkjet nozzles (claim 22). It is well known to use inkjet nozzles in additive manufacturing printing. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Fisser does not explicitly disclose the roller being rotatable about a longitudinal axis to carry out rolling. However, analogous layering device, Nakai, discloses a roller or a squeegee may be preferably used as the forming member. When a roller is used as the forming member, it is recommended to provide a rotating mechanism rotatable in one or both direction(s) for the forming member, to transfer the forming member as rotating the rotating mechanism when the powder layer 321 is formed [0058]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated disclose the roller being rotatable about a longitudinal axis to carry out rolling as taught by Nakai, into the layering device taught by Fisser and Ben-Zur for the benefit of efficiently transferring material.
Regarding claim 3, Fisser teaches the paste blade (34, 36, 38) and the mold wall roller ( 18) being mounted together on said adjustable mounting (figure 1).
Regarding claims 4-5, as for the limitation, the mounting comprises micro-adjustments; wherein one member of the group consisting of the paste blade and the mold wall roller is micro-adjustable on the mounting (Fisser teaches travel unit to move the roller and blades [0027], claims 3-4), the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 7, as for the claim limitation, configured such that the height of the mold wall roller over the layer and the height of the blade over the layer change together (Fisser teaches this in [0030-0031]; figures 2A-3B). Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 8, the claim limitation configured to carry out the tasks of smoothing of the mold after printing, filling and spreading of the paste inside the mold and smoothing of the paste in a single pass, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Fisser teaches smoothing in [0027].
Regarding claim 9, Fisser teaches further comprising an applicator (22, 24) for dispensing of said paste [0012]. Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the material worked upon as per MPEP §2115. Further, analogous layering art, Ben-Zur, discloses applicators for 3d printing and paste (pg. 4 lines 3-6). KSR states A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 10-11, Fisser doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the applicator comprises a slot die extending widthwise over the layering device; wherein the slot die is located on an adjustable mounting. However, analogous layering art, Ben-Zur depicts an applicator comprising a slot die extending widthwise over the layering device; wherein the slot die is located on an adjustable mounting (figure 12; pg. 18 lines 18-26) for the benefit of allowing for manufacture of two parts in parallel with high utilization of the print heads. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an applicator that comprises a slot die extending widthwise over the layering device; wherein the slot die is located on an adjustable mounting as taught by Ben-Zur into the apparatus taught by Fisser for the benefit of streamlining the manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 12, Ben-Zur disclose wherein the applicator is micro-adjustable pg. 15 lines 25-29). Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 15, Ben-Zur discloses wherein the applicator is a dispenser, and is movable from side to side (figure 12; pg. 18 lines 18-26).
Regarding claim 16, Fisser discloses wherein the paste comprises metal or ceramic powder in a carrier [0012]. Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the material worked upon as per MPEP §2115.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisser (US2016/0214173 A1) in view of Ben-Zur (WO2018/203331 A1), in view of Nakia (US 2020/0406558 A1), as applied to claim 9, and further in view of Fork et al (US 2012/0153211 A1).
Regarding claims 13-14, Fisser and Ben-Zur do not explicitly disclose wherein the applicator is positioned within a range of tens of microns of said plane; wherein the applicator is at a distance from said plane being 30 microns. Analogous art Fork et al, discloses the substrate would be positioned in close proximity to the applicator at a distance that is on the order of 10-1000 microns, referred to as the working distance [0029]. Applicant’s range of 30 microns overlap’s with Fork et al’s range. Further, MPEP 2144.05 states In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the applicator is positioned within a range of tens of microns of said plane since it has been' held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in light of newly cited reference Nakia (US 2020/0406558 A1). Further, the limitations are considered new matter. The 112(b) rejection is withdrawn in light the amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 pm.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754