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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-11 are pending. Claims 1-2 and 11 are the subject of this FINAL Office Action.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the species of slice condition information and shaping path condition of claim 2 in the reply filed on 09/23/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 3-10 are withdrawn as drawn to unelected species.
Claim Interpretations
Neither the claims nor specification clearly define and distinguish a “shaping layer” from any other layer of a 3D printer. Therefore, the “shaping layer” is any 3D printed layer.
New Grounds of Rejections - 35 USC § 112- Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 1-2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claims 1 and 11, the “shaping path” of the second slice layer is confusing. Claims 1 and 11 require two incompatible “shaping paths” of the second slice layer. First, the claims state “the shaping path generation condition information includes correspondence information defining, for each combination of the type of the first virtual slice layer and the type of the second virtual slice layer a shaping path generation condition to apply when generating the shaping path of the second virtual slice layer.” Yet, later the claims state “when generating the shaping path of the second virtual slice layer, the generation unit selects, from the correspondence information, the shaping path generation condition corresponding to the combination of the type of the first virtual slice layer, and the type of the second virtual slice layer and generates the shaping path of the second virtual slice layer based on the selected shaping path generation condition.” Thus, within each claim, there are two different shaping path generation techniques for the same second slice layer because “corresponding” is broader than “defined by.”
Furthermore, it is unclear what is selected because there are multiple selecting steps. In both claims, the last step requires “when generating the shaping path of the second virtual slice layer, the generation unit selects, from the correspondence information, the shaping path generation condition corresponding to the combination of the type of the first virtual slice layer, and the type of the second virtual slice layer and generates the shaping path of the second virtual slice layer based on the selected shaping path generation condition.” Within this last step there is a select step, but there is also another select step before this: “when the first virtual slice layer corresponds to the raft layer of the support body and the second virtual slice layer corresponds to a virtual slice layer corresponding to the shaped body, the shaping-path-generation condition selected from the correspondence information specifies a lowest adhesion condition among shaping path generation conditions defined for interfaces between adjacent virtual slice layers, such that adhesion between the raft layer and the shaped body is lower than adhesion at other interfaces.” Thus, it is not clear which “selection” is referenced in the last step.
Finally, as a general matter, it is not clear why the last step is recited in the claims. Both claims already require “the shaping path generation condition information includes correspondence information defining, for each combination of the type of the first virtual slice layer and the type of the second virtual slice layer a shaping path generation condition to apply when generating the shaping path of the second virtual slice layer.” Adding the last step only seems to restate the former step, assuming the “corresponding” part is intended to be a restatement of the “correspondence information” step previously recited. This is because the “shaping path generation condition” already includes, per the previous step, “correspondence information” which is “the combination of the type of the first virtual slice layer, and the type of the second virtual slice layer,” and already “generates the shaping path of the second virtual slice layer based on [the correspondence information].”
In sum, one reading the claims would be confused as to what is being claimed in the last step.
In claims 1 and 11, the scope of “substantially full fill” is unclear because “substantially” is vague, and never defined. The spec fails to define “substantial.” In common parlance, “substantially” means of considerable importance, size, or worth. What is a “considerable full fill”? Is it at least 10% full? 50% full? How is it different from “partial fill,” which encompasses 0.001% to 99.9%? It is simply impossible to put any meaningful scope of “substantially full fill.”
New Grounds of Rejection - 35 USC § 112- Written Description
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
As an initial matter, Applicants have failed to point to the portions of the specification that support their claim amendments.
The full scope of the new matter added by the amendments to claims 1 and 11 is not supported by the specification or original claims. Specifically, Applicants add the following to the claims: “when the first virtual slice layer corresponds to the raft layer of the support body and the second virtual slice layer corresponds to a virtual slice layer corresponding to the shaped body, the shaping-path-generation condition selected from the correspondence information specifies a lowest adhesion condition among shaping path generation conditions defined for interfaces between adjacent virtual slice layers, such that adhesion between the raft layer and the shaped body is lower than adhesion at other interfaces.” Neither the specification nor the original claims recited “adhesion,” much less the word “lowest” in relation to adhesion. See MPEP § 608.01(o). At best, the specification discusses simply adding a raft layer between “shaping surface” 21 ad “slice layer L”: “Here, the slice layer L serving as the raft layer among N slice layers L is a layer, as a base of the slice layers L of another layer, formed between the shaping surface 21 and another layer, and is a layer filled with the shaping material X. Another layer is an individual slice layer L stacked on the raft layer among the N slice layers L, and specifically, is a slice layer L of a part or all of the first solid layer, the shaping layer, the second solid layer, and the support layer. When another layer is stacked on the shaping surface 21 to be in contact with the shaping surface 21, another layer may not be easily peeled off from the shaping surface 21. In this case, another layer may not be accurately fixed. In addition, in this case, residual stress may remain in another layer. To solve these problems, a layer stacked between another layer and the shaping surface 21 is the slice layer L of the raft layer” (para. 0033). This paragraph proceeds to provide an example in which “The slice layer L serving as the support layer is a layer in which the infill is included in the region surrounded by the outline of the support layer, and in which a region not filled with the infill is present in the region. In other words, the slice layer L serving as the support layer is a layer in which the filling rate of the infill in the region is less than 100%. Further, the slice layer L serving as the support layer can be rephrased as one or more layers including the shaping material X forming an inside of the support body” (id.) Another paragraph discusses “When the first slice layer is the raft layer and the second slice layer is the solid layer, in step S180, the generation unit 563 generates the shaping path of the second slice layer such that the contact area between the shaping path of the first slice layer and the shaping path of the second slice layer decreases” (para. 0088). In this specific way “the data generation device 50 can generate the three-dimensional shaping data capable of reducing an interlayer strength between the raft layer and the first solid layer. In other words, the data generation device 50 can generate the three-dimensional shaping data for easily removing the raft layer from the shaped body without the sintering step” (id.) In other words, the only possible disclosure of “correspondence information specifies a lowest adhesion condition among shaping path generation conditions defined for interfaces between adjacent virtual slice layers, such that adhesion between the raft layer and the shaped body is lower than adhesion at other interfaces” is the specific step of specifying the contact area between the shaping path of the first slice layer (raft) and the shaping path of the second slice layer (shaped body) decreases. This single example fails to support all of the possible innumerable iterations of the generic “lowest adhesion condition among shaping path generation conditions defined for interfaces between adjacent virtual slice layers, such that adhesion between the raft layer and the shaped body is lower than adhesion at other interfaces.” Thus, at best, the specification supports this specific technique for reducing interlayer strength between raft layer and shaped body layer, but no other.
The new phrases “substantially full fill” and “partial fill” do not find support in the specification. First, neither “substantially full fill” nor “partial fill” is ever recited in the specification. See MPEP § 608.01(o). At best, the specification describes an infill technique. “The slice layer L serving as the solid layer is a layer in which an inside of a region surrounded by the outline of the slice layer L of the solid layer is filled with the infill substantially with no gap. In other words, the slice layer L serving as the solid layer is a layer in which a filling rate of the infill in the region is 100%” (para. 0033). In contrast, “the slice layer L serving as the shaping layer is a layer in which the infill is included in the region surrounded by the outline of the shaping layer, and in which a region not filled with the infill is present in the region. In other words, the slice layer L serving as the shaping layer is a layer in which the filling rate of the infill in the region is less than 100%” (id.) There is simply no support for the full scope of “substantially full fill” versus “partial fill”; rather, only 100% infill (no gaps between extruded beads) or less than 100% infill (gaps between extruded beads).
Prior Art
The following prior art teaches to reduce contact between layers to reduce interlayer strength: EP 0655317 A1 (Abstract, paras. 0011, 0014-19); US 6790403 (“In extrusion based systems, a variation of applying release material in layers has been implemented, in which the release material is applied in short bead segments (termed “perforations”) between the support structure and the model under construction. The perforations reduce adhesion of the support layer by limiting the area of contact with the model, to aid in the removal of breakaway supports.”); US 20060054039 (para. 0116); US 20040222561 (para. 0010).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 MELODY TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-1846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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, Heather Calamita can be reached at 571-272-2876. 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.
/YUNG-SHENG M TSUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1684
Prosecution Insights