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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 and 19-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 11, 13-14 and 25-26 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.
Claim 11 recites “wherein a second curing unit of the at least two curing units” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction or clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted to be “further comprising a second curing unit adjacent to the…”.
Claim 13 recites “further comprising a controller programmed to synchronize…and the curing unit”. It is unclear whether this controller is the same as the controller recited in claim 1. In addition, this controller performs the function already performed by the controller in claim 1. Appropriate correction or clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, this is interpreted to be the same controller as claim 1 (which would create a 112(d) issue, see below). Claim 14 is rejected due to dependency to claim 13.
Claim 25 recites ““further comprising a controller programmed to…”. It is unclear whether this controller is the same as the controller recited in claim 1. Appropriate correction or clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, this is interpreted to be the same controller as claim 1 (which would create a 112(d) issue, see below). Claim 26 is rejected due to dependency to claim 25.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitations of claim 8 are recited in claim 1 and the limitations of claim 13 are recited in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Regarding claim 1, the mounting apparatus is interpreted as NOT invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as interpreted in light of the specification, as the rebuttable presumption of invocation has been overcome, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a mounting apparatus will be applied.
Regarding claims 13-14, the term controller programmed to is considered as to NOT invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as being interpreted in light of the specification, and will be interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-8, 10-14, 19-25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng (US 2019/0202127), and in view of Yuwaki et al. (US 2020/0406547, hereinafter Yuwaki) and further in view of Okamoto et al. (US 2019/0160738, hereinafter Okamoto).
Regarding claim 1, Ng discloses a 3D printing apparatus (see additive manufacturing apparatus of abs, [0051], Fig. 2C), comprising:
a build platform (see platform 102 of [0051] and Fig. 2C) having an upper surface (see surface where materials - powder 116 of [0067] - are deposited) with a longitudinal axis (see width direction in zx- or zy-planes), the upper surface configured to extend in a longitudinal direction thereof (see Fig. 2C, the platform 102 extends in the xy plane, either the x direction or the y direction can be considered a longitudinal direction, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art);
a mounting apparatus (see support 104b of [0088], see Fig. 2C), the mounting apparatus configured to move relative to the build platform (see 102 of [0067] – the mounting apparatus moves with respect to the stage) configured to move relative to the build platform (printhead assembly 103 of [0061] moves relative to the build platform in the negative y-axis – see also [0091] which indicates that the moves across the platform 102 in the positive y-direction in a first scanning motion);
a powder distributor (see powder dispenser 106 of [0086] and Fig. 2C), the powder distributor configured to move along the longitudinal direction (considered the negative y-axis direction) and deposit powder (see powder of title; one or more powder dispensers 106 of [0055] – manner of operation / intended uses satisfied) on the upper surface of the build platform (see Fig. 2C, the upper surface is where the powder is deposited);
an inkjet printhead (see [0114] – the binder material dispenser 110 - of which the reference recognizes there may be several, see 110a and 110b of [0055] - can dispense the binder material by ink-jetting - Fig. 2C) mounted on and located over the upper surface of the build platform, the inkjet printhead configured to deliver a binder (see binder material dispenser 110a of [0055]) on the deposited powder (the binder material dispenser 110a is to the left / after / downstream the powder dispenser 106 in Fig. 2C),
a curing unit (see thermal curing module 112b and UV curing module 112a, which make up energy delivery system/s 112 of [0085]) mounted on the mounting apparatus and located over the upper surface of the build platform (see Fig. 2C), the curing unit being configured to irradiate the delivered binder with radiation (heat from thermal or UV sources is considered a type of radiation) to cure the delivered binder;
the mounting apparatus (see support 104b) configured to move at least the inkjet printhead (see binder material dispenser 100) a perpendicular direction (see x-axis direction and y-axis direction which are perpendicular to one another, where the binder material dispenser moves perpendicular to the longitudinal negative y-axis direction) to deliver binder with the deposited powder by the powder distributor; and
the curing unit (see energy delivery system 112 of [0085] and Fig. 2C) configured to follow (manner of operation / intended uses of the recited structures that the apparatus of the prior art is capable of – when the binder material dispenser / inkjet printing head moves in the positive x direction, the energy delivery system / curing unit approaches the delivered powder from the powder distributor after the powder is on the stage) the inkjet printhead to cure the delivered binder in the direction of movement of the inkjet printhead during each pass;
the powder distributor (106) being separate from the mounting apparatus (104b) and configured to move separately from and synchronized with the mounting apparatus (manner of operation / intended uses that the apparatus of the cited prior art is capable of).
PNG
media_image1.png
264
491
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ng fails to disclose wherein the build platform is configured to move in a direction parallel to the longitudinal direction and in the Z-direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, the mounting apparatus is configured to move in the longitudinal direction and a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, and move the build platform in a Z-direction and a direction substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis in response to movement of at least one of the powder distributor, the inkjet printhead, and the curing unit to perform synchronous operations.
Yuwaki discloses a three-dimensional shaping device (see title) comprising a discharging nozzle a stage and a shaping control unit ([0015]) for dispensing powder and binders ([0087]). The device includes a second drive unit 60 which includes a first linear actuator 61 that moves the discharge unit 200 in the X direction and a second linear actuator 62 that moves the discharge unit 200 along the Y direction on a mounting apparatus ([0022] and Fig. 1 which shows the linear actuators on a mounting apparatus). The second drive unit 60 also includes a linear actuator that moves the stage 30 along the X direction and a linear actuator that moves the stage 30 along the Y direction ([0022]). Further, the shaping control unit 120 controls the first drive unit 50 to move the stage in the Z direction ([0067], also see [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have incorporated the mounting apparatus, the control unit and the second drive unit including the respective linear actuators for moving the discharge unit in the X and Y direction and the stage in the X, Y and Z direction. One would have been motivated to do so because this is combining known movement mechanisms for discharge unit and stage in a 3D printing apparatus (Yuwaki) with a known 3D printing apparatus (Ng) to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Ng/Yuwaki do not explicitly disclose that the control unit synchronizes the movement of the plurality of claimed build platform, printhead, curing unit and stage. However, it is well-known that a control unit in a 3D printing apparatus is responsible for synchronizing and controlling all the respective devices to precisely form a 3D printed object (i.e. moving the nozzle/stage into the right position prior to dispensing the material onto the stage at that position and curing the material). Okamoto discloses a method for producing a 3D article (see title and abstract) and explicitly teaches that a control unit which controls a stage, a first composition discharging section and a second composition discharging section such that they’re driven and operated in a cooperative manner ([0054]).
It would have been obvious to have modified Ng/Yuwaki’s control unit so that it can be used to synchronize and control all the respective devices by driving and operating them in a cooperative manner as taught by Okamoto. One would have been motivated to do so to precisely control the printing of the 3D printed object.
With regards to moving the build platform in a Z-direction and a direction substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis in response to movement of at least one of the powder distributor, the inkjet printhead, and the curing unit to perform synchronous operations, absent of a showing of criticality, the particular movement of the respective devices during the dispensing operation is a mere design choice that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the purpose of the 3D printing apparatus of Ng/Yuwaki/Okamoto is to dispense powder at a particularly position on the stage, dispense binder onto said powder and then curing the powder with the binder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that any particular order of movement of the movable dispensing unit and stage is a mere design choice which ultimately positions the discharge unit with respect to the stage at a desired location with a desired height between the discharge unit with the stage.
Regarding claim 2, the combination Ng / Yuwaki / Okamoto discloses wherein the curing unit comprises a first UV curing unit (see UV curing module of Ng Fig. 1D) configured to irradiate the delivered binder with UV radiation.
Regarding claim 3, the combination Ng / Yuwaki / Okamoto discloses wherein one of the mounting apparatus and the build platform (see Ng’s support 104, which represents the mounting apparatus) is further configured to move in a second direction, and the second direction is opposite the first direction (see negative x direction of [0092]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination Ng / Yuwaki / Okamoto is interpreted as moving as recited as a manner of operation / intended uses of the recited structures (see negative x direction of [0092]), where the reference Ng need not actually do anything to meet the limitations of the structure of the recited features. Applicant has not recited the structures in a controller claim directing the functions of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 5, the combination Ng / Yuwaki / Okamoto discloses further comprising a second curing unit (see Ng’s one or more energy delivery systems 112 / 112a / 112b of [0055] and Fig. 1D) adjacent to the inkjet printhead opposite the first curing unit.
Regarding claim 6, this limitation is a constraint on the article worked upon / manner of operating that the combination Ng / Yuwaki / Okamoto is interpreted as capable of, rather than a functional limitation of the structure of the apparatus and the apparatus of Ng. Ng is interpreted as capable of accepting UV-curable binder into its inkjet printhead source. Ng recognizes that UV curing may be desired, see UV curing module 112a of Fig. 1D.
Regarding claim 7, the combination Ng / Yuwaki / Okamoto discloses wherein the inkjet printhead is configured to deposit the UV curable binder based on a position thereof along the first direction (see Ng in the rejection of claim 1 above – the relationship between the first direction, see direction of motion of Ng Fig. 1C and the UV curable binder based on can be met by most any correlative relationship – including no correlative relationship).
Regarding claim 8, see rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the combination Ng / Yuwaki / Okamoto discloses wherein the powder distributer (see rejection of claims 1 and 8 above) is further configured to distribute a second powder layer on the first powder layer along a second direction opposite to the first direction along the longitudinal direction of the build platform during a second pass of the mounting apparatus in the second direction after the delivered binder is cured during the first pass (see [0092]), and
wherein the inkjet printhead is further configured to deliver a second binder layer on the second powder layer, via the inkjet printhead, during the second pass in the second direction ([0092]).
The Ng reference fails to disclose wherein the powder distributor being between two inkjet printheads on the mounting apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have multiple inkjet printheads and a powder distributor in the additive manufacturing apparatus of Ng and to move the powder distributor to be between the inkjet printheads to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so was an exercise in rearrangement of essential working parts – see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) regarding the obviousness of rearrangement of essential working parts. Like In re Japikse, the movement of the powder distributor to be between the inkjet printheads did not modify the operation of the device. Furthermore, like In re Kuhle, the placement of the powder distributor was a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 11, the combination Ng / Yuwaki / Okamoto discloses further comprising a second curing unit (see Ng’s one or more energy delivery systems 112 / 112a / 112b of [0055] and Fig. 1D) adjacent to the inkjet printhead opposite the first curing unit.
Therefore, it meets the limitation wherein a second curing unit is mounted on the mounting apparatus adjacent to the inkjet printhead opposite the first curing unit (most anywhere in the apparatus can be considered opposite, near – this is not a specific ordering of the structures encountered by the powder as the support moves as a structural limitation of the apparatus), the second curing unit configured to apply radiation to cure the second binder layer during the second pass (the apparatus of Ng is interpreted as so configured – see [0092]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination Ng / Yuwaki / Okamoto discloses further comprising a movable shaft (see shaft below structure build platform as discussed in Ng [0079] – rail 125c, as shown in Fig. 1C) configured to move the build platform in a third direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (the apparatus of Ng is capable of translational movement of the build platform in the recited up-down direction).
Regarding claim 13, see rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, similar to the analysis in claim 1, absent of a showing of criticality, the particular movement of the respective devices and the speed of movement during the dispensing operation is a mere design choice that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the purpose of the 3D printing apparatus of Ng/Yuwaki/Okamoto is to dispense powder at a particularly position on the stage, dispense binder onto said powder and then curing the powder with the binder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that any particular order of movement of the movable dispensing unit and stage, as well as the particular speed of movement, are mere design choices which ultimately positions the discharge unit with respect to the stage at a desired location with a desired height between the discharge unit with the stage.
Regarding claim 19, the combination Ng / Yuwaki / Okamoto is interpreted as meeting the recited limitation wherein the mounting apparatus and the build platform are configured to deposit a first layer of the powder (see first layer of material matrix of Ng [0091]) when the one of the mounting apparatus and the build platform moves in the first direction(see positive x-direction, Id.);
the mounting apparatus and the build platform are configured to deposit a second layer of the powder when the one of the mounting apparatus and the build platform moves in the second direction, after the first layer has been deposited (see [0092], this function is disclosed, even where it would get full patentable weight in a controller limitation), and
the powder distributor, the inkjet printhead and the curing unit operate in synchronization (interpreted as collocated movement) with one another in response to actuation of the powder distributor to being distributing both the first layer of powder in the first direction and the second layer of powder in the second direction (this is a type of manner of operating / intended use of the recited structures rather than a constraint on the structural features of the apparatus that the apparatus of Ng is interpreted as fully capable of).
Regarding claim 20, the combination Ng / Yuwaki / Okamoto is interpreted as capable of processing multiple types of materials as fed into respective printheads / nozzles / outlets (see Ng [0118]). Therefore, the structures of Ng are interpreted as capable of meeting the recited functional limitations that are NOT interpreted as limiting the structural features of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 21, the combination Ng / Yuwaki / Okamoto discloses the remainder of the claimed subject matter regarding the first and second directions is interpreted as a manner of operating or intended uses of the recited structural limitations which the reference Ng is interpreted as capable of.
Regarding claim 22, the mounting apparatus for moving the build platform of Ng/ Yuwaki / Okamoto (see rejection of claim 1 and Fig. 1 of Yuwaki) meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a conveyorized build platform which is capable of the function wherein the mounting apparatus remains stationary while the printing platform moves in the x and y directions.
Regarding claim 23, the combination Ng / Yuwaki / Okamoto is interpreted as capable of the function wherein the mounting apparatus moves in the in the first and second directions (see x and y directions of Figs. cited in the rejection of claim 1 above with regards to Ng) while the building platform remains stationary (manner of operating / intended use – the platform of Ng is interpreted as remaining stationary in z-axis for the construction of an individual layer).
Regarding claim 24, the combination Ng / Yuwaki / Okamoto is interpreted as capable of operating in a manner recited; wherein one of the mounting apparatus and the build platform that is configured to move in the first and second directions is further configured to move with varying speeds for synchronizing operations (the structures of the reference Ng - see rejection of claim 1 above regarding the mounting apparatus invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as parallel / orthogonal rails in its xy positioning system – this reference’s structures are capable of the recited motions at different speeds as disclosed in the combination and as a manner of operation / intended use of the recited structures) of the powder distributor, the printhead and the curing unit in response to actuation of the powder distributor to begin distributing powder.
Regarding limitations recited in claim 24, which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed 3D printing apparatus, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim.
Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claims 25 and 26, similar to the analysis in claim 1, absent of a showing of criticality, the particular movement of the respective devices and the speed of movement during the dispensing operation is a mere design choice that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the purpose of the 3D printing apparatus of Ng/Yuwaki/Okamoto is to dispense powder at a particularly position on the stage, dispense binder onto said powder and then curing the powder with the binder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that any particular order of movement of the movable dispensing unit and stage, as well as the particular speed of movement, are mere design choices which ultimately positions the discharge unit with respect to the stage at a desired location with a desired height between the discharge unit with the stage.
Regarding claim 27, this claim is a combination of claim 1 with additional limitations directed to a second powder distributor, inkjet printhead and curing unit mounted on the same mounting apparatus.
Ng discloses a 3D printing apparatus (see additive manufacturing apparatus of abs, [0051], Fig. 2C), comprising:
a build platform (see platform 102 of [0051] and Fig. 2C) having an upper surface (see surface where materials - powder 116 of [0067] - are deposited) with a longitudinal axis (see width direction in zx- or zy-planes), the upper surface configured to extend in a longitudinal direction thereof (see Fig. 2C, the platform 102 extends in the xy plane, either the x direction or the y direction can be considered a longitudinal direction, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art);
a mounting apparatus (see support 104b of [0088], see Fig. 2C), the mounting apparatus configured to move relative to the build platform (see 102 of [0067] – the mounting apparatus moves with respect to the stage) configured to move relative to the build platform (printhead assembly 103 of [0061] moves relative to the build platform in the negative y-axis – see also [0091] which indicates that the moves across the platform 102 in the positive y-direction in a first scanning motion);
a powder distributor (see powder dispenser 106 of [0086] and Fig. 2C), the powder distributor configured to move along the longitudinal direction (considered the negative y-axis direction) and deposit powder (see powder of title; one or more powder dispensers 106 of [0055] – manner of operation / intended uses satisfied) on the upper surface of the build platform (see Fig. 2C, the upper surface is where the powder is deposited);
an inkjet printhead (see [0114] – the binder material dispenser 100 - of which the reference recognizes there may be several, see 110a and 110b of [0055] - can dispense the binder material by ink-jetting - Fig. 2C) mounted on and located over the upper surface of the build platform, the inkjet printhead configured to deliver a binder (see binder material dispenser 110a of [0055]) on the deposited powder (the binder material dispenser 110a is to the left / after / downstream the powder dispenser 106 in Fig. 2C),
a curing unit (see thermal curing module 112b and UV curing module 112a, which make up energy delivery system/s 112 of [0085]) mounted on the mounting apparatus and located over the upper surface of the build platform (see Fig. 1C), the curing unit being configured to irradiate the delivered binder with radiation (heat from thermal or UV sources is considered a type of radiation) to cure the delivered binder;
the mounting apparatus (see support 104b) configured to move at least the inkjet printhead (see binder material dispenser 100) a perpendicular direction (see x-axis direction and y-axis direction which are perpendicular to one another, where the binder material dispenser moves perpendicular to the longitudinal negative y-axis direction) to deliver binder with the deposited powder by the powder distributor; and
the curing unit (see energy delivery system 112 of [0085] and Fig. 2C) configured to follow (manner of operation / intended uses of the recited structures that the apparatus of the prior art is capable of – when the binder material dispenser / inkjet printing head moves in the positive x direction, the energy delivery system / curing unit approaches the delivered powder from the powder distributor after the powder is on the stage) the inkjet printhead to cure the delivered binder in the direction of movement of the inkjet printhead during each pass;
the powder distributor (106) being separate from the mounting apparatus (104b) and configured to move separately from and synchronized with the mounting apparatus (manner of operation / intended uses that the apparatus of the cited prior art is capable of).
Ng discloses the platform and mounting apparatus with attached structures as disclosed / rejected with regards to claim 1, and includes disclosure directed to multiple powder distributors, inkjet printheads and curing units (see Figs. 1C-D; 2C). Additionally, see rejection of claim 1 above, which notes each of the structures.
It would have been obvious to duplicate the structures of the powder distributor, inkjet printhead, and curing unit as attached to the same structures as originally disclosed in the 3D printing apparatus of Ng to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so was an art recognized modification (second powder dispenser 106b of [0070], second binder material dispenser 110b, second curing unit / energy delivery system 112b of [0055]; see additionally Figs. 3A-C) and because doing so was a mere duplication of essential working parts. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) regarding the obviousness of duplications of essential working parts. To take the embodiment of Fig. 3A-C with multiple of each structure and combine it with the embodiment of Fig. 2C with the powder distributor movement and the inkjet printhead movements in perpendicular directions would have been within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
264
491
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ng fails to disclose wherein the build platform is configured to move in a direction parallel to the longitudinal direction and in the Z-direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, the mounting apparatus is configured to move in the longitudinal direction and a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, and move the build platform in a Z-direction and a direction substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis in response to movement of at least one of the powder distributor, the inkjet printhead, and the curing unit to perform synchronous operations.
Yuwaki discloses a three-dimensional shaping device (see title) comprising a discharging nozzle a stage and a shaping control unit ([0015]) for dispensing powder and binders ([0087]). The device includes a second drive unit 60 which includes a first linear actuator 61 that moves the discharge unit 200 in the X direction and a second linear actuator 62 that moves the discharge unit 200 along the Y direction on a mounting apparatus ([0022] and Fig. 1 which shows the linear actuators on a mounting apparatus). The second drive unit 60 also includes a linear actuator that moves the stage 30 along the X direction and a linear actuator that moves the stage 30 along the Y direction ([0022]). Further, the shaping control unit 120 controls the first drive unit 50 to move the stage in the Z direction ([0067], also see [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have incorporated the mounting apparatus, the control unit and the second drive unit including the respective linear actuators for moving the discharge unit in the X and Y direction and the stage in the X, Y and Z direction. One would have been motivated to do so because this is combining known movement mechanisms for discharge unit and stage in a 3D printing apparatus (Yuwaki) with a known 3D printing apparatus (Ng) to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Ng/Yuwaki do not explicitly disclose that the control unit synchronizes the movement of the plurality of claimed build platform, printhead, curing unit and stage. However, it is well-known that a control unit in a 3D printing apparatus is responsible for synchronizing and controlling all the respective devices to precisely form a 3D printed object (i.e. moving the nozzle/stage into the right position prior to dispensing the material onto the stage at that position and curing the material). Okamoto discloses a method for producing a 3D article (see title and abstract) and explicitly teaches that a control unit which controls a stage, a first composition discharging section and a second composition discharging section such that they’re driven and operated in a cooperative manner ([0054]).
It would have been obvious to have modified Ng/Yuwaki’s control unit so that it can be used to synchronize and control all the respective devices by driving and operating them in a cooperative manner as taught by Okamoto. One would have been motivated to do so to precisely control the printing of the 3D printed object.
With regards to moving the build platform in a Z-direction and a direction substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis in response to movement of at least one of the powder distributor, the inkjet printhead, and the curing unit to perform synchronous operations, absent of a showing of criticality, the particular movement of the respective devices during the dispensing operation is a mere design choice that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the purpose of the 3D printing apparatus of Ng/Yuwaki/Okamoto is to dispense powder at a particularly position on the stage, dispense binder onto said powder and then curing the powder with the binder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that any particular order of movement of the movable dispensing unit and stage is a mere design choice which ultimately positions the discharge unit with respect to the stage at a desired location with a desired height between the discharge unit with the stage.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng (US 2019/0202127), and in view of Yuwaki et al. (US 2020/0406547, hereinafter Yuwaki) and further in view of Okamoto et al. (US 2019/0160738, hereinafter Okamoto) and Kimblad (WO 2017/153463).
Regarding claim 9, the Ng reference discloses wherein two powder distributors (see powder dispensers 106 of [0055]) are mounted on the mounting apparatus adjacent to the inkjet printhead.
The combination Ng / Yuwaki / Okamoto fails to disclose wherein the inkjet printhead being between the two powder distributors on the mounting apparatus.
Kimblad discloses an additive manufacturing apparatus (see title, abs) with multiple powder distributors (see Figs. 2 – powder deposition units 15a and 15c between which is a binding unit 15b connected to a binder reservoir – see pp. 16) adjacent the printhead (see printing apparatus 20 / printhead with five carriages on a common rail 26, Id.), the inkjet printhead being between the two powder distributors on the mounting apparatus (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the multiple re-powder distributors with a binder distributor therebetween as in Kimblad to the additive manufacturing apparatus mounting apparatus of Ng to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so had the benefit that it allowed for the increased throughput of the system.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng (US 2019/0202127), and in view of Yuwaki et al. (US 2020/0406547, hereinafter Yuwaki) and further in view of Okamoto et al. (US 2019/0160738, hereinafter Okamoto) and Miller (US 2017/0225500).
Regarding claim 22, the combination Ng / Yuwaki / Okamoto fails to disclose wherein the building platform is a conveyorized building platform configured to move in the first and second directions while the mounting apparatus remains stationary.
Miller discloses an additive manufacturing apparatus (see title, abs) and further discloses wherein a conveyor belt moves while the mounting apparatus (see print head) remains stationary ([0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to position the moving conveyor belt and stationary print head of Miller and to combine the print head with the additive manufacturing apparatus mounting apparatus of Ng to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so enabled the transportation of manufactured product in the manufacturing plant for further processing.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng (US 2019/0202127), and in view of Yuwaki et al. (US 2020/0406547, hereinafter Yuwaki) and further in view of Okamoto et al. (US 2019/0160738, hereinafter Okamoto), Ederer (DE 102019000796), and Kimblad (US 2017/0326789).
Regarding claim 26, the combination Ng / Yuwaki / Okamoto / Ederer discloses wherein the controller is configured to independently adjust speeds of the movements of the powder distributor, the inkjet printhead and the first curing unit (see rejection of claims 1 & 25 as presented above).
However, the combination Ng / Yuwaki / Okamoto / Ederer fails to disclose wherein the inkjet printer begins delivery of the binder before the powder distributor has completed deposition of the powder on the upper surface of the build platform / and / or the first curing unit begins irradiating the delivered binder before the inkjet printer completes delivery of the binder on the deposited powder.
Kimblad discloses an additive manufacturing apparatus (see title, abs) with a platform (13 of [0044]) wherein the controller (see data-processing apparatus 20 of [0064]) controls the apparatus such that the powder is distributed before the binder is deposited and the process is completed iteratively ([0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the deposition of powder before the deposition of binder as in the controller / data-processing apparatus functions of Kimblad to the additive manufacturing apparatus controller functions of Ng to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so was an exercise in combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR Rationale A) and was an exercise in use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (KSR Rationale C – the improvement comprising not curing the powder until it is all deposited from a given layer of deposition).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAO SI ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-5343. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights