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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/06/20026, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-11 are pending.
In view of the amendment, filed on 01/06/2026, the following rejections are withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on 10/23/2025.
Rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 20210154910) in view of Steele (US 2017/0173892)
Rejection of claims 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US ‘910) in view of Steele (US ‘892) and further in view of Sasagawa (US 20200101661).
Claim Interpretation
Claim 6 recites “when a position of the plunger is out of a predetermined range, the processor controls the pressure adjustment assembly to move the plunger by a predetermined amount in a direction approaching the predetermined range during shaping” is a contingent clause. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP 2111.04. II. To render the claimed system obvious, the prior art only needs to teach that the system has the structure so that “the control unit controls the pressure adjustment unit to move the plunger by a predetermined amount in a direction approaching the predetermined range during shaping.”
Claim 7 recites “when the processor is further configured to change the dispensing amount from the first dispensing amount, which is zero, to the second dispensing amount, the processor controls the dispensing amount adjustment assembly to increase the area of the opening in the stepwise manner” is a contingent clause. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP 2111.04. II. To render the claimed system obvious, the prior art only needs to teach that the system has the structure so that “the control unit controls the dispensing amount adjustment unit to increase the area of the opening.”
Claim 8 recites “when the processor is further configured to change the dispensing amount from the first dispensing amount to the second dispensing amount, the processor controls the dispensing amount adjustment assembly to change the area of the opening, and then controls the pressure adjustment assembly in a stepwise manner to adjust the pressure of the flow path in a stepwise manner” is a contingent clause. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP 2111.04. II. To render the claimed system obvious, the prior art only needs to teach that the system has the structure so that “the control unit controls the dispensing amount adjustment unit to change the area of the opening, and then controls the pressure adjustment unit in a stepwise manner to adjust the pressure of the flow path in a stepwise manner.”
New Grounds of the Rejections
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. (US 2019/0061243) in view of Saito et al. (US 2019/0030820).
As to claim 1, Saito et al. (US ‘243) disclose a three-dimensional shaping device comprising: a plasticizing assembly (a shaping material production section 30, ¶ [0138] and a plasticization means that the material is heated and melted, ¶ [0349]) including a screw (flat screw 40, ¶ [0141] - ¶ [0143]) and a barrel (a screw case 31, ¶ [0140]), the plasticizing assembly (30) being configured to plasticize a material to generate a plasticized material (plasticization means to heat and melt the material - ¶ [0349]);
a nozzle (nozzle 61, ¶ [0137]) configured to receive the plasticized material from the plasticized assembly via a flow path (flow path 65a, ¶ [0147] - ¶ [0148]), the nozzle (nozzle 61, ¶ [0137]) having a nozzle opening (the discharge port 62, ¶ [0148]) and configured to dispense the plasticized material from the nozzle opening (the discharge port 62, ¶ [0148]) toward a stage (shaping stage section 200, ¶ [0148]);
PNG
media_image1.png
547
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a dispensing amount adjustment assembly (a shaping material supply device 60a, ¶ [0138]) including a valve (a butterfly valve 72a, ¶ [0151]) and a valve driver (a valve drive portion 74a, ¶ [0151]), the dispensing amount adjustment assembly (60a) being configured to communicate with the nozzle opening (the discharge port 62, ¶ [0148]), be provided at a first position in the flow path (the first flow path 65a, [0151]), and adjust a dispensing amount of the plasticized material from the nozzle opening (the discharge port 62, ¶ [0148]) by controlling the valve (a butterfly valve 72a, ¶ [0151]) and the valve driver (a valve drive portion 74a, ¶ [0151]) to change an area of an opening formed in the flow path (flow path 65a, ¶ [0147] - ¶ [0148]);
PNG
media_image2.png
340
452
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a pressure adjustment assembly (the purge section 80, ¶ [0152]) including a purging mechanism (¶ [0152] and ¶ [0172]), a plunger driver (a purge drive portion 84, ¶ [0172]), and a branch flow path (a delivery path 82, ¶ [0172]), the pressure adjustment assembly (the purge section 80, ¶ [0172]) being configured to adjust pressure of the flow path (a delivery path 82, ¶ [0172]) through the branch flow path (a delivery path 82, ¶ [0172]) by controlling the purging mechanism (¶ [0152] and ¶ [0172]) and the plunger driver (a purge drive portion 84, ¶ [0172]), the branch flow path (a delivery path 82, ¶ [0172]) being coupled to a second position in the flow path (flow path 65a, ¶ [0147] - ¶ [0148]), the second position being located at a downstream side than the first position along a flowing direction of the plasticized material (see the below annotated Fig. 6);
a memory (a main memory and a nonvolatile memory in the control section 300, ¶ [0154]) configured to store a program and shaping data for forming a three-dimensional object (¶ [0184] – [0185] and ¶ [0274] - ¶ [0275]); and
a processor (a control section 300 such as a CPU, ¶ [0154]) configured to receive the shaping data and execute the program (see ¶ [0154] and ¶ [0228]) so as to control the dispensing amount adjustment assembly (a shaping material supply device 60a, ¶ [0138]) and the pressure adjustment assembly (the purge section 80, ¶ [0172]), wherein when the processor (a control section 300 such as a CPU, ¶ [0154]) is further configured to, based on the shaping data, change the dispensing amount from a first dispensing amount to a second dispensing amount (The control section 300 drives the discharge unit 110a to discharge the shaping material to a position of coordinates on the shaping pedestal 220 depending on a shaping data, thereby executing a shaping process of shaping a three-dimensional shaped object, ¶ [0154]),
the processor (a control section 300 such as a CPU, ¶ [0154]) controls the dispensing amount adjustment assembly (a shaping material supply device 60a, ¶ [0138]) to change the area of the opening, and then controls the pressure adjustment assembly (the purge section 80, ¶ [0172]) to adjust the pressure of the flow path (flow path 65a, ¶ [0147] - ¶ [0148]),
the second dispensing amount is a dispensing amount when the plasticized material is dispensed from the nozzle opening (the discharge port 62 at a tip, ¶ [0148]), and
Further, Saito et al. (US ‘243) disclose the control section (300) drives the discharge unit 110a to discharge the shaping material to a position of coordinates on the shaping pedestal 220 depending on a shaping data, thereby executing a shaping process of shaping a three-dimensional shaped object (see ¶ [0154]). However, Saito et al. (US ‘243) is silent on explicitly disclosing when a predetermined period of time, which is defined by the shaping data, elapses in a state where the dispensing amount is zero, the processor controls, based on the shaping data, the dispensing amount adjustment assembly (60a) to increase the area of the opening in a stepwise manner, as claimed in claims 1 and 9.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of Applicant’s Invention, to modify controlling the plasticized material dispensing device, as suggested by Saito et al. (US ‘243), so when a predetermined period of time, which is defined by the shaping data, elapses in a state where the dispensing amount is zero, the processor controls, based on the shaping data, the dispensing amount adjustment assembly (60a, ¶ [0138]) to increase the area of the opening in a stepwise manner in order to improve the workability of the apparatus so to be capable of forming a highly accurate shape by adjusting a discharge amount of the material from the nozzle and stopping the discharge of the material with good response, as suggested by Saito et al. (US ‘243): see ¶ [0013] and ¶ [0014]).
Regarding pressure adjustment assembly (the purge section 80, ¶ [0152]), Saito et al. (US ‘243) discloses a purging mechanism and further discloses the purge section can include a plunger pump (¶ [0172]), however, is silent on explicitly disclosing the purging mechanism is a plunger, as claimed in claims 1 and 9.
In the analogous art, Saito et al. (US ‘820) discloses a three-dimensional modeling apparatus that produces a three-dimensional object comprising an ejection unit (110A) that includes a material supply section (20), a plasticization section (30), and a head section 60C. (See ¶ [0031] and ¶ [0072])
PNG
media_image3.png
307
455
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Further, a head section 60C comprises a pressure changing section 75 including an ejection control mechanism 70C (¶ [0073]), wherein the pressure changing section 75 includes a flow path 76, a rod 77, a rod driving unit 78 in which a rod 77 fits within the flow path 76. (¶ [0068])
As to claims 1 and 9, Saito et al. (US ‘820) teach a pressure adjustment assembly (a pressure changing section 75, ¶ [0073]) including a plunger (a rod 77, ¶ [0068]), a plunger driver (78, ¶ [0068]), and a branch flow path (76, ¶ [0068]), wherein the pressure adjustment assembly (a pressure changing section 75, ¶ [0073]) being configured to adjust pressure of the flow path (65, ¶ [0039]) through the branch flow path (76, ¶ [0068]) by controlling the plunger (77, ¶ [0068]) and the plunger driver (78, ¶ [0068]), the branch flow path (76, ¶ [0068]) being coupled to a second position in the flow path (65, ¶ [0039])
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of Applicant’s Invention, to modify the pressure adjustment assembly, as taught by Saito et al. (US ‘820), through providing a plunger for the pressure adjustment assembly to move within a branch flow path in order to improve controlling a start timing and stop timing of ejection of the molten material from the nozzle and the ejection amount of molten material with a high precision, as suggested by Saito et al. (US ‘820): ¶ [0006].
As to claim 2, Saito et al. (US ‘243) disclose the nozzle (nozzle 61, ¶ [0137]) and the stage (a shaping stage section 200, ¶ [0137]) are moved relative to each other, and when a relative speed between the nozzle and the stage is changed, the processor changes the dispensing amount, ¶ [0331]).
As to claim 3, Saito et al. (US ‘243) teach controlling the dispensing amount adjustment assembly (a shaping material supply device 60a, ¶ [0138]) to change the area of the opening before the relative speed is changed (¶ [0331] - ¶ [0332]); and control the pressure adjustment assembly (the purge section 80, ¶ [0152]) to adjust the pressure of the flow path (65a) after the area of the opening is changed and before the relative speed is changed (¶ [0329] - ¶ [0332]).
As to claim 4, Saito et al. (US ‘243) disclose the processor (a control section 300 such as a CPU, ¶ [0154]) is further configured to determine a timing of changing the area of the opening by the dispensing amount adjustment assembly (a shaping material supply device 60a, ¶ [0138]) and a timing of adjusting the pressure of the flow path by the pressure adjustment assembly (the purge section 80, ¶ [0152]) according to at least one of a type of the plasticized material, a temperature of the plasticized material, and a degree of change in the relative speed (¶ [0329] - ¶ [0332]).
As to claim 5, Saito et al. (US ‘243) teach the processor (a control section 300 such as a CPU, ¶ [0154]) is further configured to determine the pressure of the flow path to be adjusted by the pressure adjustment assembly (a shaping material supply device 60a, ¶ [0138]) according to a degree of change in the area of the opening (¶ [0033] and (¶ [0294]).
As to claim 6, Saito et al. (US ‘243) disclose the processor (a control section 300 such as a CPU, ¶ [0154]) is further configured to cause the purging mechanism (¶ [0152] and ¶ [0172]) to move in the branch flow path (a delivery path 82, ¶ [0172]), and the processor (a control section 300 such as a CPU, ¶ [0154]) is further configured to determine that a position of the purging mechanism (¶ [0152] and ¶ [0172]) is out of a predetermined range based on the shaping data (see ¶ [0154] and ¶ [0228]) such that the processor controls the pressure adjustment assembly (the purge section 80, ¶ [0152]) to move the purging mechanism (¶ [0152] and ¶ [0172]) by a predetermined amount, which is defined by the shaping data, in a direction approaching the predetermined range, which is defined by the shaping data, during shaping the three-dimensional object. (¶ [0184] – [0185] and ¶ [0274] - ¶ [0275])
As to claim 7, Saito et al. (US ‘243) disclose the processor (a control section 300 such as a CPU, ¶ [0154]) is further configured to change the dispensing amount from the first dispensing amount, which is zero (when the nozzle is closed, ¶ [0024]), to the second dispensing amount, such that the processor (a control section 300 such as a CPU, ¶ [0154]) controls the dispensing amount adjustment assembly to increase the area of the opening (opening of the nozzle, ¶ [0030] - ¶ [0033]) in the stepwise manner.
As to claim 8, Saito et al. (US ‘243) disclose the processor (a control section 300 such as a CPU, ¶ [0154]) is further configured to change the dispensing amount from the first dispensing amount to the second dispensing amount, such that the processor (a control section 300 such as a CPU, ¶ [0154]) controls the dispensing amount adjustment assembly (a shaping material supply device 60a, ¶ [0138]) to change the area of the opening (opening of the nozzle, ¶ [0030] - ¶ [0033]), and then controls the pressure adjustment assembly (the purge section 80, ¶ [0152]) in a stepwise manner to adjust the pressure of the flow path in a stepwise manner (¶ [0207]).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. (US 2019/0061243) in view of Saito et al. (US 2019/0030820), as applied to claims 1-9 above, and further in view of Sasagawa (US 20200101661).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings of Saito et al. (US ‘243) in view of Saito et al. (US ‘820) disclose all the claimed subject matter of claims 1-9, however, fail to teach the predetermined amount is an amount of change in a line width due to the movement of the plunger is kept within 5%. However, predetermined amount due to the movement of the plunger is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Sasagawa teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention that controlling the movement of the plunger in order to control predetermined amount percentage ([0099]). Therefore, controlling the predetermined amount percentage can be achieved by controlling the movement of the plunger and the smoothness of the material plasticized. ([0099]). For that reason, the predetermined amount percentage would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the predetermined amount percentage cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the smoothness of the plasticized material in the apparatus of Cheng to obtain the predetermined amount percentage (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings of Saito et al. (US ‘243) in view of Saito et al. (US ‘820) disclose all the claimed subject matter of claims 1-9, however, fail to teach the line width is a size in a second direction of the plasticized material dispensed onto the stage in a plan view when the nozzle moves in a first direction orthogonal to the second direction with respect to the stage to dispense the plasticized material.
Sasagawa teaches the line width is a size ([0098] movement distance by the plunger 153) in a second direction of the plasticized material dispensed onto the stage in a plan view when the nozzle moves in a first direction orthogonal to the second direction with respect to the stage to dispense the plasticized material ([0097] plunger 153 moves in X direction which is orthogonal to the Y or Z direction that nozzle is moved by the movement mechanism with respect to the table 110 to dispense the plasticized material as discussed in [0042]).
Cheng and Sasagawa are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of extrusion apparatus. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the piston in Cheng to incorporate movement distance as taught by Sasagawa, in order to better adjusting the amount of a modeling material that is ejected (Sasagawa, [0097]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 01/06/2026, with respect to claim(s) 1-11 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.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-6215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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 D. 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.
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1754 02/20/2026