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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species A, corresponding to species claims 2-6, 9-12, and 17 and wherein the carrying surface is a roller, in the reply filed on 10/14/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 1 is allowable. Species claim 7, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, require all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement for species claim 7, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 08/14/2025, is hereby withdrawn and claim 7 is hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Species claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/14/2025.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6, line 2 recites "the image". The term is not previously used in this claim or its parent claims(s), and does not have proper antecedent basis, making it unclear what element is being referenced.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujita (JP 2022018944A, with text citations to attached translation).
Regarding claim 8, Fujita teaches a deposition mechanism (100a in Fig. 6) configured for producing a three-dimensional object on a build platform (object 200 on platform 2) using a resin in a layer-by-layer technique (para. 0096), with a build area defined adjacent to the build platform (area above 307), the deposition mechanism comprising:
a carriage configured for movement through the build area (carrier belt 111a configured with rollers 151, 152, 156 per para. 0122 and as shown in Fig. 6);
a supply of the resin in flowable form mounted on the carriage (supply 112a with resin per paras. 0040-0041 and para. 0112); and
a carrying surface (surface of carrier 111a) comprising a flexible screen (mesh belt of para. 0118 is a type of flexible screen) configured for moving to carry the resin on an outer surface of the flexible screen from the supply (para. 0120) to an application site within the build area for application to produce the three-dimensional object as the carriage passes through the build area (para. 0118),
wherein the flexible screen is configured for emitting electromagnetic waves (mesh belt 111a is configured for emitting EM waves since a mesh has openings through which EM waves can be emitted) to at least partially solidify the resin applied by the carrying surface to produce the three-dimensional object (This feature does not limit the claimed apparatus because a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In the instant case, Fujita teaches all structural limitations recited in the claim. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). See MPEP 2114.II for further information).
Regarding claim 19, Fujita teaches an applicator (100a in Fig. 6) configured for applying a resin (paras. 0040-0041 and para. 0112) to produce a three-dimensional object on a build platform (object 200 on platform 2) in a layer-by-layer technique (para. 0096), with a build area defined adjacent to the build platform (area above 307), the applicator comprising:
a carrying surface (surface of carrier belt 111a) configured to be in communication with a supply of the resin (as shown in Fig. 6 and per para. 0112), the carrying surface comprising a flexible screen (mesh belt of para. 0118 is a type of flexible screen) configured for moving to carry the resin on an outer surface of the flexible screen from the supply (para. 0120) to an application site within the build area for application to produce the three-dimensional object (para. 0118),
wherein the flexible screen is configured for emitting electromagnetic waves (mesh belt 111a is configured for emitting EM waves since a mesh has openings through which EM waves can be emitted) to at least partially solidify the resin applied by the carrying surface to produce the three-dimensional object (This feature does not limit the claimed apparatus because a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In the instant case, Fujita teaches all structural limitations recited in the claim. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). See MPEP 2114.II for further information).
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 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita, as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Kobashigawa (US PG Pub 2021/0252782).
Regarding claim 9, Fujita does not teach this feature.
However, Kobashigawa teaches a very similar deposition mechanism as Fujita (e.g. Figs. 1 or 6-7) and further teaches that the carrying surface may be configured as either an endless belt or a roller having a cylindrical shape and configured to rotate to carry the resin from the supply to the application site (para. 0026).
Per MPEP §2143.I, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2143.I (rationale B) and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
In view of Kobashigawa’s teachings and KSR rationale B, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace Fujita’s belt configuration with Kobashigawa’s roller configuration for the carrying surface to predictably obtain suitable alternative means for carrying resin.
Regarding claim 17, Fujita does not teach these features.
However, Kobashigawa teaches a very similar deposition mechanism as Fujita (e.g. Figs. 1 or 6-7) and further teaches that the carrying surface may be configured as either an endless belt or a roller configured to rotate to carry the resin from the supply to the application site (para. 0026).
Kobashigawa does not teach the roller has a polygonal shape with at least three substantially flat sides, wherein the roller is configured to rotate to carry the resin from the supply to the application site.
However, it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B. “The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the
particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.” In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
In view of Kobashigawa’s teachings and the above considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace Fujita’s belt configuration with a roller having a polygonal shape with at least three substantially flat sides for the carrying surface to predictably obtain suitable alternative means for carrying resin.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita, as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Paakkonen (US PG Pub 2024/0246104).
Regarding claim 18, Fujita does not teach this feature.
However, Paakkonen teaches the flexible endless belt has a thin coating on the outer surface thereof, the thin coating adding a functional property to the carrying surface (release coating of para. 0249).
In view of Paakkonen’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Paakkonen’s thin functional coating with Fujita’s flexible screen to predictably obtain improved release of the resin material from the carrying surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7, and 20 are allowed.
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 10-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. all intervening claims.
Regarding claims 1 and 20, the prior art of record does not teach, suggest, or render obvious a deposition mechanism or applicator, with the features recited in claims 1 and 20, respectively, and comprising in particular:
a carrying surface configured for moving to carry the resin from the supply to an application site within the build area for application to produce the three-dimensional object; and
a flexible screen positioned below the carrying surface, such that the carrying surface overlays the flexible screen, and the flexible screen and the carrying surface have conforming shapes,
wherein the flexible screen is configured for emitting electromagnetic waves, and the carrying surface is permeable to the electromagnetic waves,
in combination with the other limitations in claims 1 and 20, respectively.
Regarding claims 10-15 the prior art of record does not teach, suggest, or render obvious a deposition mechanism having the features recited in each of the claims, in combination with the limitations in the base claim and all intervening claims.
The closest prior art of record for claims 1-7, 10-15 and 20 are Driessen (US PG Pub 2014/0353878, previously made of record), Feller (US PG Pub 2018/0264724, previously made of record), Liu (US PG Pub 2021/0358342, previously made of record), Fujita, made of record herein, and Kobashigawa, made of record herein.
The teachings of Driessen, Feller, and Liu related to the claims have been summarized in the written opinion of international application PCT/US 23/21195, previously made of record, and the teachings of Fujita and Kobashigawa related to the claims have been summarized in the rejections above.
None of the references of record listed in Section 26 teaches or renders obvious, alone or in combination, the features listed above for claims 1, 10-15, and 20.
Conclusion
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 on 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.
/JIMMY R SMITH JR./Examiner, Art Unit 1745