The arguments and amendments submitted 07/02/2026 have been fully considered. In light of amendments made, all prior USC § 112(b) rejections are hereby withdrawn. The merits of the claims, are discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 8-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 8 and 19 each recite “a flexible display screen configured for moving to carry the resin on an outer surface of the flexible display screen". However, Applicant has not pointed out where this feature is supported, and a written description of this feature is not found anywhere in the disclosure. Therefore, this feature is unsupported new matter. The only descriptions of a flexible display screen are in paras. 0190-0191 and Figs. 57-59 in the PG Pub for the instant disclosure. For the embodiment described in those sections, the flexible display screen does not carry the resin on an outer surface of the flexible display screen (e.g. 270 in Figs. 57-59), but rather the resin is carried on an outer surface of roller 42. Dependent claims fall herewith.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 8, 13-15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su (CN 111231321A, previously made of record on an IDS filing, with text citations to the translation also previously made of record) in view of He (CN 108608642A, with text citations to attached translation).
Regarding claims 8, 13-15, and 18, Su teaches a deposition mechanism configured for producing a three- dimensional object on a build platform using a resin in a layer-by-layer technique, with a build area defined adjacent to the build platform (abstract, paras. 0066-0070, and Fig. 9; furthermore, this preamble recitation involves intended use and therefore does not limit the claimed apparatus), the deposition mechanism comprising:
a carriage configured for movement through the build area (46, 47 in Fig. 9);
a supply of the resin in flowable form mounted on the carriage (paras. 0066-0068); and
a carrying surface (coating film 45) comprising a flexible screen (cotton or yarn materials of para. 0067 fall under BRI of a flexible screen) configured for moving to carry the resin on an outer surface of the flexible screen from the supply to an application site within the build area (paras. 0067-0068) for application to produce the three-dimensional object as the carriage passes through the build area (paras. 0068, 0070-0071).
Su does not teach that the flexible screen is a flexible display screen, and
wherein the flexible display screen is configured for emitting electromagnetic waves to at least partially solidify the resin applied by the carrying surface to produce the three-dimensional object.
However, He teaches a flexible display screen (flexible OLED display screen 8 with projection part 82 in Figs. 2-3 and 1st embodiment description on pg. 4), which is configured for emitting electromagnetic waves (“The embodiment of the OLED display screen 8 is made by organic light-emitting diode display screen, comprising a self-luminous organic electroluminescent diode” per pg. 4) to at least partially solidify a resin and which is useful for producing a three-dimensional object (bottom of pg. 4).
He further teaches that the “OLED display screen by its own characteristics make 3D printing effect is good, the printing precision is high and the energy consumption is less and the contrast
higher than the LCD display screen. The OLED display screen of process is simple, so that the photo-curing production technique of three-dimensional printer simply, and it is good for storing and transporting, and it greatly reduces the production cost” (near bottom of pg. 5).
Per MPEP §2143.I, applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2143.I (rationale D) and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
In view of He’s teachings and/or KSR rationale D, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize He’s flexible OLED display screen in Su’s deposition mechanism to predictably obtain the benefits taught by He as cited above. Furthermore, by utilizing Su’s flexible OLED display screen as the carrying surface in Su’s deposition mechanism, the functions of resin application and solidification can be performed by a single component, thus simplifying the production of 3D objects and the layout/footprint of the apparatus used.
Regarding claim 19, Su teaches an applicator configured for applying a resin to produce a three- dimensional object on a build platform in a layer-by-layer technique, with a build area defined adjacent to the build platform (abstract, paras. 0066-0070, and Fig. 9; furthermore, this preamble recitation involves intended use and therefore does not limit the claimed apparatus), the applicator comprising:
a carrying surface (coating film 45) configured to be in communication with a supply of the resin (paras. 0066-0068), the carrying surface comprising a flexible screen (cotton or yarn materials of para. 0067 fall under BRI of a flexible screen) configured for moving to carry the resin on an outer surface of the flexible screen from the supply to an application site within the build area (paras. 0067-0068) for application to produce the three-dimensional object (paras. 0068, 0070-0071).
Su does not teach that the flexible screen is a flexible display screen, and
wherein the flexible display screen is configured for emitting electromagnetic waves to at least partially solidify the resin applied by the carrying surface to produce the three-dimensional object.
However, He teaches a flexible display screen (flexible OLED display screen 8 with projection part 82 in Figs. 2-3 and 1st embodiment description on pg. 4), which is configured for emitting electromagnetic waves (“The embodiment of the OLED display screen 8 is made by organic light-emitting diode display screen, comprising a self-luminous organic electroluminescent diode” per pg. 4) to at least partially solidify a resin and which is useful for producing a three-dimensional object (bottom of pg. 4).
He further teaches that the “OLED display screen by its own characteristics make 3D printing effect is good, the printing precision is high and the energy consumption is less and the contrast
higher than the LCD display screen. The OLED display screen of process is simple, so that the photo-curing production technique of three-dimensional printer simply, and it is good for storing and transporting, and it greatly reduces the production cost” (near bottom of pg. 5).
Per MPEP §2143.I, applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2143.I (rationale D) and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
In view of He’s teachings and/or KSR rationale D, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize He’s flexible OLED display screen in Su’s applicator to predictably obtain the benefits taught by He as cited above. Furthermore, by utilizing Su’s flexible OLED display screen as the carrying surface in Su’s applicator, the functions of resin application and resin solidification can be performed by a single component, thus simplifying the production of 3D objects and the layout/footprint of the apparatus used.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 20 are allowed for the reasons indicated in Sections 24-28 of the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claims 8-19, Applicant presents an argument that Fujita does not teach the feature of a flexible display screen added to claims 8-19 by the present amendment. However, this argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection for claims 8 and 19 over Su in view of He, necessitated by the present amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM R SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9-6 MST.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/JRS/
Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/GEORGE R KOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights