Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/03/2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
High-precision mode is being interpreted aligned with the specification. The specification states “high-precision in the present embodiment, the first mode also corresponds to a low-speed mode in which a three dimensional shaped object is shaped at a low speed” [0057].
Low precision mode is interpreted as “high-speed mode in which a three dimensional shaped object is shaped at high speed” [0058].
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anegawa et al (US 2020/0338821 A1) in view of NPL by Bryla and Ali.
Regarding claim 1, Anegawa et al teaches a method for producing a three dimensional shaped object [abstract], the method comprising: a first step of receiving selection of a shaping mode of a three dimensional shaped object (s110); a second step of using a plasticizing section to plasticize at least a portion of a material to form a plasticized material [0054], the plasticizing section including a rotating flat screw and a barrel [0026-0027], the flat screw having a groove forming surface in which a groove is formed, the barrel having an opposing surface facing the groove forming surface and in which is formed a communication hole communicating with a nozzle [0026-0027, 0031, claim 1]; and a third step of ejecting the plasticized material from the nozzle toward a stage [0047, 0078], wherein in the second step, the plasticizing section is controlled in accordance with the shaping mode received in the first step [0047].
Anegawa et al does not explicitly disclose the shaping mode defining specific lamination conditions and control conditions of a plasticizing section to achieve (i) a shaping time to produce the three dimensional shaped object and (ii) a precision and a strength of the three dimensional shaped object. However, it is well known for conventional 3d printer programs such as slicer3d, ultimaker cura, superslicer, simplify3d have inputs to certain conditions. NPL Bryla discloses each slicer, even for the same process parameters and selected G-code parameters, creates a unique structure of the printed element, which surely affects its strength. Nevertheless, the authors confirmed that a detailed analysis of the generated G-code enables the adjustment of the slicers’ unique properties with similar geometric characteristics (under summary and final conclusions). Azo further concludes a key benefit of slicer software is its ability to easily customize prints through settings like wall thickness, print speed, and infill density. This enables users to optimize prints according to their requirements, balancing tradeoffs between quality, time, and material usage and the slicer software informs users about the total material volume and estimated print time required before starting a print. This allows better planning and resource allocation (under customization and material planning and print time estimation). Therefore, shaping time and precision and strength of the 3d shaped object are parameters that are build into the 3d printer program and can determine the estimated time required to print. Hence it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the shaping mode defining specific lamination conditions and control conditions of a plasticizing section to achieve (i) a shaping time to produce the three dimensional shaped object and (ii) a precision and a strength of the three dimensional shaped object since it is build into most 3d programs and in order to allow better planning and resource allocation.
Regarding claim 2, Anegawa et al discloses wherein the shaping mode includes at least one of a mode relating to shaping precision of the three dimensional shaped object (discharge amount [0028]) and a mode relating to shaping time of the three dimensional shaped object ([0033] discloses flow rate with is related to time).
Claim(s) 3-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anegawa et al (US 2020/0338821 A1) in view of NPL by Bryla and Ali, as applied to claim 1, in view of Cheng (US2021/0154910A1).
Regarding claim 3, Anegawa et al does not explicitly disclose wherein when a high-precision mode for shaping the three dimensional shaped object with high precision or a low-speed mode for shaping the three dimensional shaped object at low speed is selected as the shaping mode, then at least one of a number of rotations of the flat screw per unit time, a set temperature of a heating section that heats material supplied between the groove forming surface and the opposing surface, a set temperature of a cooling section for cooling the plasticizing section, or a number of times of rotation control of the flat screw per unit time differs compared to when a low-precision mode for shaping the three dimensional shaped object with low precision or a high-speed mode for shaping the three dimensional shaped object at high speed is selected as the shaping mode. However, Anegawa et al discloses “the control unit 500 controls the rotation of the flat screw 40 and the temperature of the heater 58 in accordance with the shaping data to melt the material and to generate the shaping material” [0042].
Further, Anegawa et al discloses “The barrel 50 is provided with a discharge amount adjustment mechanism 70 that adjusts a flow rate of the shaping material discharged from the nozzle 61” [0028]. Additionally, analogous 3d art, Cheng, discloses “The hopper discharge control apparatus 114 controls the discharge speed of the initial material at the discharge outlet 113 of the hopper 111. The hopper discharge control apparatus 114 shown in FIG. 1 is a single screw. Disposed at a position close to the discharge outlet, the hopper discharge control apparatus 114 is connected to a motor and a gearing apparatus (not shown in FIG. 1) that drive the hopper discharge control apparatus 114 to move. The rotational speed of the screw 114 is regulated through a driving mechanism, to control the discharge speed of the initial material at the discharge outlet 113. In addition, a mixing and conveying manner of the material can be controlled by disposing a pitch and a thread of a screw portion of the screw 114. Although the hopper discharge control apparatus 114 shown in FIG. 1 is a single screw, in some embodiments, the hopper discharge control apparatus may alternatively be twin screws, or a combination of twin screws and a single screw. In some embodiments, the hopper discharge control apparatus 114 may further include a common mechanism capable of controlling the discharge speed” [0192].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein when a high-precision mode for shaping the three dimensional shaped object with high precision or a low-speed mode for shaping the three dimensional shaped object at low speed is selected as the shaping mode, then at least one of a number of rotations of the flat screw per unit time, or a number of times of rotation control of the flat screw per unit time differs compared to when a low-precision mode for shaping the three dimensional shaped object with low precision or a high-speed mode for shaping the three dimensional shaped object at high speed is selected as the shaping mode since both Anegawa and Cheng teach discharge amounts and Cheng further states discharge amounts are based on the rotational speed. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 4, Anegawa does not explicitly disclose wherein when the high-precision mode or the low-speed mode is selected as the shaping mode, at least one of (1) decreasing the number of rotations, (2) decreasing the set temperature of the heating section, (3) decreasing the set temperature of the cooling section, or (4) increasing the number of times of the rotation control is performed compared to when the low-precision mode or the high-speed mode is selected. However, Anegawa discloses “the control unit 500 controls the rotation of the flat screw 40 and the temperature of the heater 58 in accordance with the shaping data to melt the material and to generate the shaping material” [0042] and analogous art, Cheng, discloses “the rotational speed of the screw 114 is regulated through a driving mechanism, to control the discharge speed of the initial material at the discharge outlet 113. In addition, a mixing and conveying manner of the material can be controlled by disposing a pitch and a thread of a screw portion of the screw 114” [0192]. Therefore, the combination of Anegawa and Cheng are teaching based on the precision mode, the rotation of the screw changes. MPEP 2144.05 states In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have discovered through routine experimentation when the high-precision mode or the low-speed mode is selected as the shaping mode, at least one of (1) decreasing the number of rotations, (2) decreasing the set temperature of the heating section, (3) decreasing the set temperature of the cooling section, or (4) increasing the number of times of the rotation control is performed compared to when the low-precision mode or the high-speed mode is selected since rotation of the screw decides the precision mode. It is within the skillset of one ordinary skilled in the art to experiment with decreasing/increasing the rotation to see the effect on the precision mode.
Regarding claim 5, Anegawa does not explicitly disclose wherein when the high-precision mode or the low-speed mode is selected, at least one of the set temperature of the heating section or the set temperature of the cooling section differs from when the low-precision mode or the high-speed mode is selected, so that in the plasticizing section a temperature gradient, which rises from the outer edge of the opposing surface toward the communication hole as viewed along a direction in which the groove forming surface and the opposing surface face each other, is reduced. However, Anegawa teaches “the flat screw 40 includes a groove forming surface 42 in which a groove 45 into which a material is supplied is formed on a side opposite to the upper surface 41 in a direction along the central axis RX” [0026]. Further, Cheng teaches “the method controls, by using a feedback system, the temperature of the first melt based on the monitored temperature. In some embodiments of the present invention, the temperature of the first melt in the nozzle remains approximately constant. In some embodiments of the present invention, the 3D printing method further includes: measuring the temperature of the first melt in the processing chamber; and controlling heating power and/or extrusion power for the first melt or the first initial material in the processing chamber according to the measured temperature” [0078]. Therefore, Cheng is teaching based on the speed (extrusion power) the temperature will differ in the extruder and vice versa. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included when the high-precision mode or the low-speed mode is selected, at least one of the set temperature of the heating section or the set temperature of the cooling section differs from when the low-precision mode or the high-speed mode is selected, so that in the plasticizing section a temperature gradient, which rises from the outer edge of the opposing surface toward the communication hole as viewed along a direction in which the groove forming surface and the opposing surface face each other, is reduced since the speed or precision mode controls the temperature of the chamber as taught by Cheng and Anegawa. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 6, Anegawa doesn’t explicitly teach wherein in the second step, at least one of the number of rotations, the set temperature of the heating section, or the set temperature of the cooling section is controlled so that a detection value of a pressure sensor that detects pressure in a flow path through which the plasticized material flows falls within a predetermined allowable range and when the high-precision mode or the low-speed mode is selected, the allowable range is narrowed compared with when the low-precision mode or the high-speed mode is selected. However, analogous art Cheng discloses “pressure sensor that works in a feedback system with temperature sensors” [0176]. The pressure and temperature sensors ensure the pressure and temperatures detected are in the allowable range and if not, the control switch will alter the sealing needle to engage with the nozzle in order to reach the required pressure and temperature. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated in the second step, the set temperature of the heating section is controlled so that a detection value of a pressure sensor that detects pressure in a flow path through which the plasticized material flows falls within a predetermined allowable range and when the high-precision mode or the low-speed mode is selected, the allowable range is narrowed compared with when the low-precision mode or the high-speed mode is selected since Cheng teaches using temperature and pressure sensors in a feedback system loop in order to ensure the printer works in the optimal fashion.
Regarding claim 7, Anegawa discloses wherein when the high-precision mode or the low-speed mode is selected, the number of rotations is smaller than when the low-precision mode or the high-speed mode is selected, in at least one of a case in which an outer shell region of the three dimensional shaped object is formed or a case in which an internal region that is inside the outer shell region of the three dimensional shaped object is formed (“shaping data is data which represents information related to a moving path of the nozzle 61 with respect to the shaping surface 310 of the stage 300, an amount of the shaping material discharged from the nozzle 61, a rotational speed of the driving motor 32 that rotates the flat screw 40, or the temperature of the heater 58 built in the barrel 50” [0041] and “the control unit 500 starts generating the shaping material. The control unit 500 controls the rotation of the flat screw 40 and the temperature of the heater 58 in accordance with the shaping data to melt the material and to generate the shaping material. “By the rotation of the flat screw 40, the material supplied from the material supply unit 20 is introduced into the groove 45 from the material introduction port 48 of the flat screw 40” [0042]. “In step S130, the control unit 500 controls the discharge amount adjustment mechanism 70 to communicate the first partial flow path 151 with the second partial flow path 152 of the communication hole 56, so as to start discharging the shaping material from the nozzle 61. By starting the discharge of the shaping material from the nozzle 61, shaping of the three-dimensional shaped object OB is started” [0043]. Therefore, Anegawa is teaching controlling the rotational speed of the flat screw dependent on the design needs and final products of the printed layer.
Regarding claim 8, Anegawa teaches the nozzle is moved relative to the stage [0021], but does not explicitly disclose the number of rotations in the second step is changed in accordance with the relative moving speed of the nozzle in the third step, and when the high-precision mode or the low-speed mode is selected, the control sensitivity of the number of rotations with respect to the moving speed is higher compared with when the low-precision mode or the high-speed mode is selected. However, Anegawa discloses “the control unit 500 controls operations of the shaping head 200 and the moving mechanism 400 by executing a program or a command read on the main storage device with the processor, thereby executing a shaping processing for forming the three-dimensional shaped object. The operations include movement of a three-dimensional relative position between the shaping head 200 and the stage 300. The control unit 500 may be constituted by a combination of a plurality of circuits instead of the computer” [0022]. Further Anegawa discloses “The shaping data is data which represents information related to a moving path of the nozzle 61 with respect to the shaping surface 310 of the stage 300, an amount of the shaping material discharged from the nozzle 61, a rotational speed of the driving motor 32 that rotates the flat screw 40, or the temperature of the heater 58 built in the barrel 50. The shaping data is generated by, for example, slicer software installed in a computer coupled to the three-dimensional shaping device 100” [0041] and “the control unit 500 starts generating the shaping material. The control unit 500 controls the rotation of the flat screw 40 and the temperature of the heater 58 in accordance with the shaping data to melt the material and to generate the shaping material” [0042]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the number of rotations in the second step is changed in accordance with the relative moving speed of the nozzle in the third step, and when the high-precision mode or the low-speed mode is selected, the control sensitivity of the number of rotations with respect to the moving speed is higher compared with when the low-precision mode or the high-speed mode is selected since Anegawa teaches nozzle is moved relative to the stage by the controller and the controller controls the rotation of the flat screw in accordance with properties of the material deposited including distance from the nozzle. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 9, Anegawa teaches wherein the heating section includes a first heating section and a second heating section (58A and 58B) that is closer to the communication hole than is the first heating section as viewed along a direction in which the groove forming surface and the opposing surface face each other and in the second step [0069], the first heating section and the second heating section are individually controlled in accordance with the shaping mode selected in the first step [0029].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Anegawa et al (US 2020/0338821 A1) in view of NPL by Bryla and Azo, as applied to claim 1, in view of Mehr et al (US 2018/0341248 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Anegawa doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the shaping date comprises an index indicative of a complexity of a filling pattern to form the three dimensional shaped object. However, analogous art, Mehr, discloses the complexity of the geometry of structures [0087] that uses index for control parameters [0180]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an index indicative of a complexity of a filling pattern to form the three dimensional shaped object as taught by Mehr et al into the method taught by Anegawa for the benefit of detecting defects and adaptive real time control of the additive manufacturing process (abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in light of newly cited references NPL by Bryla and Ali.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754