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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, and 12 are pending. Claims 7, 9-10, and 12 remain withdrawn.
In view of the amendment, filed 09/25/2025, the following rejections are withdrawn from the previous Office Action mailed 06/30/2025:
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Prior art rejections are updated in response to claim amendments.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-5 recite both structure and intended use. In claim 1, limitations directed to the color and clear inkjet heads configured to eject color/clear ink are treated as claim limitations defining structure of the apparatus (inkjet heads). Recitation of “the color inkjet head is configured to eject the color ink to be layered in a vertical direction to color and form a molded object” and “the clear inkjet head is configured to eject the clear ink to compensate a layering amount of the color ink” include recitations of intended use of the inkjet heads. Therefore, prior art which is capable of performing the intended use (ejecting ink) would meet the claim. Similarly, claim 1 recites the structure of “an input part including a keyboard or a mouse.” As indicated previously, the specification clearly describes that the operator performs a step to input a given compensation amount of the clear ink that they deem appropriate and thus limitations directed to a compensation amount being input or set using the input part in claims 1-3 and 5 are recitations of intended use of the input part.
MPEP 2114 sets forth that a manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art if the prior art teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. An apparatus claim must be distinguished from the prior art on a structural basis. Furthermore, MPEP 2115 sets forth that material or articles worked upon do not limit apparatus claims. In this application, recitations of a configuration to eject “color ink” and “clear ink” do not impart further structure to components of the apparatus already configured to eject or otherwise work on ink. Absent specific definition, an inkjet head that ejects ink is not further distinguished in terms of structure based on a color of the ink used.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/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.
Amended claim 1 recites “a processor configured to…set the compensation amount of the clear ink in the each layer according to an impact frequency of the color ink in the each layer….” As has been previously established, the specification describes that the compensation amount is input/set by the operator inputting a numerical value to the computer using a keyboard/mouse. The specification discloses that the processor calculates a thickness and a reference value but that the setting of the compensation amount according to an input frequency is done by the operator/user of the molding device. See, e.g., [0012], [0014], [0051], [0053], [0082]. Applicant’s remarks indicate that support for the amendments is found in [0048]-[0049] and [0052]-[0054], but these paragraphs repeat that the operator inputs the compensation amount, including that “the operator can set the amount of the clear ink for the compensation according to the impact frequency of the color ink…” in [0053]. Claim 1 also recites that the compensation amount is to be input via the keyboard/mouse (claim 2 as well). As such, adequate support for the processor configuration as recited is not found in the original disclosure.
The indicated dependent claims are rejected for the reasons provided above.
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(s) 1-5 is/are 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.
Amended claim 1 recites “an input part…configured to input a compensation amount of the clear ink for each layer…” as well as “a processor configured to…set the compensation amount of the clear ink in the each layer according to an impact frequency…”. The specification describes that the inputting of the compensation amount via the input part is what sets the compensation amount according to the impact frequency, as set forth above. As such, having essentially the same function recited twice (inputting or setting a compensation amount, both “input” and “set” being used interchangeably in the specification), where one instance is to be performed by a person using a keyboard/mouse and the other is performed by the processor is unclear in view of the specification.
The indicated dependent claims are rejected for the reasons provided above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al., US 20170151726 A1, in view of Arad, WO 2020250230 A1 (both of record).
Regarding claim 1, Ikeda discloses a molding device (3D printer, Fig. 1, [0037]-[0038]), comprising: a color inkjet head configured to eject a color ink (color heads 10Y-10K of inkjet head 10, Fig. 1, [0038], [0043]), wherein the color inkjet head is configured to eject the color ink (ejects the ink, [0043]) to be layered in a vertical direction to color and form a molded object (used to form layers, [0035]; see vertically layered object 70, Fig. 2 and colored region P, [0082]); a clear inkjet head configured to eject a clear ink (clear head 10CL of inkjet head 10, Fig. 1, [0038]), wherein the clear inkjet head is configured to eject the clear ink (configured to eject the ink, [0043]) to compensate a layering amount of the color ink (see layered object 70, Fig. 2, with clear ink layer 70(CL) forming supplementary region Q, [0082]);
Wherein each layer forming the molded object has a reference thickness (each layer 70 has a predetermined thickness, [0082]-[0083], [0094]-[0095]); and
A processor (controller 20, Fig. 1, [0094]) configured to: calculate, in the each layer, a thickness of the color ink in the vertical direction corresponding to a color concentration for coloring the molded object (a colored ink determination unit 21 of the controller 20 determines the discharge amount of color inks necessary to realize a predetermined color tone, [0078], [0096], [0108]; the discharge amount indicating a thickness of the same ink, [0036]),
calculate a reference value of the compensation amount of the clear ink in the each layer in the vertical direction by subtracting the thickness of the color ink from the reference thickness of each layer (a calculation unit 23 subtracts the color ink amount from the predetermined amount to determine the supplementary/clear ink amount, [0097]-[0099], [0108]; see also description of the height of the colored region P being supplemented with the supplementary region Q of clear ink to make the thicknesses of the layered objects 70 uniform irrespective of color tone, such that although the thicknesses of the colored regions P may vary, the thickness of the layered objects 70 are set to a predetermined thickness by adjusting the thickness of the supplementary/clear region Q to fulfill the disclosed relationship, [0082]-[0083]), wherein the reference value of the compensation amount of the clear ink corresponding to the color concentration of a color image for coloring the molded object (the color concentration being based on a color image to be printed, [0078]) is calculated (met with the previous limitation of calculating the reference value corresponding to the desired color tone by subtraction), and
set the compensation amount of the clear ink in the each layer (after receipt of the calculation result, the discharge control unit 24 supplements the clear ink in an amount that corresponds to the calculated amount, [0099], i.e., the compensation amount was set so that it could be discharged for the supplementing via the control configuration as described) according to an impact frequency of the color ink in the each layer (the calculated/compensation amount being based on an amount of the color ink discharged in a given location, [0097]-[0099], i.e., an impact frequency; see also that the height/thickness of a layer corresponds to a discharge amount of ink per unit area, [0036]), such that an impact frequency of the clear ink becomes low for each layer where an impact frequency of the color ink in coloring and forming the object is high (the clear ink being jetted to supplement the amount of color ink to achieve a constant total ink amount, [0098]-[0099], and as such a lower amount of clear ink is jetted in the same location where a color concentration is high (where there is more color ink), i.e., a lower impact frequency of the clear ink, or amount of clear ink discharged to a given location, where color concentration is high; see also [0013] describing discharging dots of the supplementary ink onto dots where no color ink is discharged), and the impact frequency of the clear ink becomes high for each layer where the impact frequency of the color ink is low (the clear ink being jetted to supplement the amount of color ink to achieve a constant total ink amount, [0098]-[0099], and as such a higher amount of clear ink being jetted in the same location where a color concentration is low (where there is less color ink), i.e., a higher impact frequency of the clear ink where color concentration is low).
Ikeda discloses that the information regarding a predetermined discharge amount of ink for setting the thickness of each layered object 70 to a predetermined thickness irrespective of the color tone can be input by an operator ([0094]), suggesting a need for an operator to input information to the control unit. However, Ikeda does not explicitly disclose an input part including a keyboard or a mouse configured to input a compensation amount of the clear ink. Ikeda does not disclose a display, wherein the reference value calculated by the processor is displayed on the display.
Note that in view of the present specification, the configuration of the input part “to input a compensation amount of the clear ink” requires only the normal functionality of a computer keyboard or mouse to be used by an operator to input information to the computer. Note that “wherein the reference value calculated by the processor is displayed on the display” relates to an intended use of the display and requires only the structural capability of the display to display a calculated value.
In the analogous art, Arad discloses a three-dimensional printing system (Abstract) including an input part including a keyboard or a mouse (user interface 150 including input devices such as a mouse, keyboard, [0046], Fig. 1) that allow a user to input information or instructions for controlling printing of 3D objects ([0046]). Arad further discloses a control arrangement (Fig. 2) including a configuration to calculate an amount of material consumption for one or more materials required based on printing parameters ([0074], including based on layer thickness) and to display the calculated information on a display to a user ([0081]). Arad discloses these modules being provided in a computing device ([0083]).
Since Ikeda describes having an operator input information to the system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the molding device included an input part including a keyboard or a mouse in order to provide a means for enabling the operator to predictably input information or instructions for 3D printing, as taught by Arad. In the case that it was not necessarily present, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include a display and to specify that the reference value calculated by the processor is displayed on the display, in order to provide the calculated information regarding the material amount for a specified molding process visibly to the user, as taught by Arad. The processor of Ikeda already performed the calculation, and displaying this information to the user according to the ordinary use of a computerized display would have been beneficial for informing the user of the printing conditions, ensuring the inkjet heads were supplied with an appropriate amount of ink to complete a given build process, and/or to ensure the user’s input met process specifications.
Regarding claim 2, modified Ikeda teaches the device of claim 1. Claim 2 does not recite further structure to the molding device of claim 1. Claim 2 further defines an impact frequency of the color ink as corresponding to the color concentration, and then relates the compensation amount to the color concentration, reflecting a similar relationship to that specified in claim 1 (less clear ink where the color concentration is high, more clear ink where the color concentration is low). The compensation amount being input by using the input part is directed to an intended use of the input part including the keyboard or mouse to input a given value.
As set forth above, Ikeda discloses the clear ink being used to compensate for a change in the amount of color ink to achieve a constant thickness, or a constant amount of ink in a given area (Ikeda, [0036], [0095]-[0099]). Ikeda describes clear ink being discharged where color ink is not discharged, so that thickness changes are prevented (Ikeda, [0013]). As such, the combination discloses a lower amount of clear ink being jetted in the same location where a color concentration is high (where there is more color ink), and a higher amount of clear ink jetted in the same location where a color concentration is low (where there is less color ink). Therefore, the combination reads on the claimed device in terms of required structure, as set forth above, and Ikeda further describes the capability of the structure, if it were so instructed by an operator using the input part, to perform an equivalent ejection process with a compensation amount of the clear ink being such that the resulting impact frequency of the clear ink is inversely related to the color concentration and associated color ink amount.
Regarding claim 3, modified Ikeda teaches the device of claim 1. Claim 3 does not recite further structure to the molding device of claim 1. Claim 3 recites a further limitation of the specific compensation amount, in that by its input, a thickness of each layer forming the molded object stays constant. As noted above, the specification describes that a specific compensation amount is selected and input by an operator using the device. Therefore, the claim requires at most that the molding device is capable of processing the compensation amount such that a thickness of the each layer stays constant. Ikeda discloses the application of clear ink with respect to color ink such that a thickness remains constant (e.g., [0010], [0082]). Therefore, the prior art device had the capability to process information including the compensation amount such that the layer thickness stays constant.
Regarding claim 5, modified Ikeda teaches the device of claim 1. Claim 5 does not recite further structure to the molding device of claim 1. Claim 5 recites a step of operating the device in terms of inputting the compensation amount, a step which is to be performed by an operator ([0016]). The specification describes that virtually divided regions may be designated by the operator by selecting an arbitrary region on a color display of the PC, or may be derived by a compensation amount input processing unit ([0059]). Ikeda further discloses a plurality of virtually divided regions for which the compensation amount is input (layered objects 70, Fig. 6, [0100], including regions (i), (ii), and (iii) having compensation amounts 0, 0, and Q, respectively). Accordingly, the device had the capability of accepting multiple compensation amounts for a plurality of regions.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al., US 20170151726 A1, in view of Arad, WO 2020250230 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kunio et al., WO 2018079416 A1, with citations to Kunio made to corresponding English publication US 20190240914 A1 (documents of record).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ikeda discloses the device of claim 1. Ikeda discloses the processor (controller 20) but does not explicitly disclose that it is provided in an information processing unit, i.e., a computer. However, such processors were known in the art as typically provided in a computing device, as taught by Arad (computing device, [0083]; see also [0037]). Therefore, in the case it was not already present, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further specify for the combination that the processor was provided in an information processing unit as a known structure for implementing data processing modules, as taught by Arad.
The combination set forth above discloses the display (Arad: display module, Fig. 2). The combination does not explicitly disclose the display is a display on which the color image for coloring the molded object is displayed, i.e., is a color display capable of displaying the color image.
In the analogous art, Kunio discloses a shaping system including a control PC (Abstract, Fig. 1a). Kunio teaches providing the control PC with a color display 308 (Fig. 3, [0065], [0069], [0074]) with a screen 410 (Fig. 4) for showing a preview of a shaped object ([0069], [0074], [0081]). Kunio teaches the display is useful for checking the intended decoration of an object ([0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of the combination to specify that it was a color display capable of displaying the color image in order to provide the user with a color preview of the colored object to be formed by the device for visualizing and checking features of the object to be formed, as taught by Kunio.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (pp. 9-10) that Ikeda aims to smooth out thickness variations and that the amount of clear ink to be filled is based on the thickness. Applicant argues that Ikeda fails to discuss the technical concept of “impact frequency.” As such, Applicant argues that Ikeda fails to disclose the presently claimed processor configuration including the configuration to “set the compensation amount…according to an impact frequency…”. Applicant associates the concept of “impact frequency” with an amount of the ink (p. 8).
This argument is not found persuasive. Ikeda associates a thickness of an ink/layer with an amount of ink in a given area (e.g., [0036], [0094]-[0100]). An amount of ink discharged by inkjet heads to a given area corresponds to an impact frequency. The present specification also uses the compensation amount to maintain a constant thickness (e.g., [0014], [0050]). A layer thickness is dependent on an amount of material deposited in a given area for forming the layer (see Ikeda [0100], Fig. 6).
Applicant argues (pp. 10-11) that Arad does not address an impact frequency; however, Arad was not relied on for this limitation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm ET.
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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754