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 .
Claims 1 and 3-13 are pending and under examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/2/2026 has been entered.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gottfried (GB 1,465,334) in view of Hull et al. (US 2002/0195747), hereinafter Hull.
*The Gottfried reference was cited on Applicant’s IDS and therefore, a second copy is not enclosed with this Office Action even though this is a foreign reference. A copy is already provided in the IFW (6 pages, filed 3/8/2024) and was provided by Applicant.
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 9, Gottfried discloses a device to produce a dry film, comprising: (a) a roller apparatus (Fig. 1-2) with a first roller (1) and a second roller (2) to form the dry film from a dry film material charge (pug) (p. 1, lines 15-27) and conveying dry film material between the first and second roller;
(b) a doctor blade (distributor 3) positioned within a roll nip (as shown in Fig. 1) movable in the roll nip formed between the first and second rollers, wherein the doctor blade is movable in a direction parallel to the rotational axis of the rollers (p. 1, lines 66-75 – “reciprocally traversable in a direction longitudinally of the rollers” would be describing movement in a direction parallel to the rotational axis and in a back-and-forth manner) as to remove dry film material from the dry film material charge, and regulate the height of the dry film material charge (p. 2, lines 6-12).
Gottfried further explains that the distance of the doctor blade from the rollers is adjustable and the speed is adjustable (p. 2, lines 6-12, and lines 54-57). Gottfried explains that the motor driving the distributor can be adjusted based on the amount of material as to adjust a speed between zero and higher speeds (Gottfried, p. 2, lines 6-33) and adjust the distance (Gottfried, p. 1, line 95-p. 2, line 5) of the distributor vertically with respect to the height of the material. Gottfried further teaches that an irregular distribution of material within the gap between the rollers will cause different temperatures of the material and thus irregular plasticization of the material (p. 1, lines 41-57) and may even cause the bearings or rollers to break, thus requiring regulation of the height of the material with the distributor (doctor blade).
Gottfried does not explicitly disclose that a collecting device for the dry film material that falls from the device as the blade levels the powder as it passes.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly have recognized that powder falling onto the floor or table holding the device would not be a desirable outcome as it would cause a mess that would necessitate cleaning. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have specified that there is a collecting device for collecting excess material provided at the end(s) of the roller as to have caught any powder that may fall from the device.
Additionally or alternatively to the above, Hull is concerned with the same problem as Gottfried above, the leveling of material into a uniform layer, and is applied for this aspect of leveling of a material across a bed in a similar or analogous manner to Gottfried’s doctor blade above even if the bed of material does not sit upon two rollers. Specifically, Hull describes a doctor blade (18) that transports material to create a uniform layer (see Fig. 3) and collects the material at a catch bin or collector (50) (Hull, par. 0045, 0051-0052), demonstrating that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of this issue with respect to the use of a doctor blade and excess material upon a pass of the blade.
Hull further explains that the excess build material can be recycled (Hull, par. 0045) which would advantageously save powder over discarding powder that has fallen to the floor or table and must be cleaned up and can then be re-used in a second layer or second process. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have specified that the device of Gottfried above further includes a container or catch bin at the end of the roller(s) as to have collected excess material in order to have recycled said material as is required in the claims.
Regarding claim 10, Gottfried/Hull discloses the subject matter of claim 9, and further discloses that the dry film material is replenished (abstract) when falling below a certain height below the doctor blade (Gottfried, p. 1, lines 15-28).
Regarding claims 11-12, Gottfried/Hull discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further describes that the roll nip has a distance between a center plane (between the rollers) and the rotational axes of each of the rollers that is equal to the radius of each of the rollers.
This is inherent with a “roll nip” as “a center plane” can be viewed as a vertical plane between the rollers, with the rotational axis of each of the rollers being at the center of each of the rollers. As such, the distance between the center plane and the center axis of the rollers viewed in this way would necessarily be the radius of each of the rollers.
Regarding claim 13, this claim is not further limiting as drafted as it relates to an intended use of the product produced by the device as the material worked upon by the claimed structure. The intended use of the structure worked upon by the claimed apparatus is not considered to be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114-2115.
Claim(s) 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gottfried (GB 1,465,334) in view of Hull (US 2002/0195747) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Knopp (US Patent No. 4,436,682)
Regarding claim 14, Gottfried/Hull as outlined above appears to disclose first and second shield elements, but these shield elements may not be considered to be provided for each of the first and second rollers, as the shield elements are placed between the rollers (See Gottfried, Fig. 2).
However, Knopp discloses a device that is similar to that ofGottfried in that it likewise introduces a powder material to a gap of rollers (Knopp, Fig. 1-2). Knopp describes a “hopper” that is placed into the gap and is designed to prevent the powder from touching the rollers (Knopp, 7:51-7:56) which function similarly to the “shield elements” as recited in the claim. The structure of the hopper is such that there are “side wall portions” (20a/b, 22a/b) that would correspond to where the claimed “shield elements” are located (Knopp, Figs. 1-2; 6:67-7:50).
While Knopp describes this element with respect to a “hopper,” this is similar to the gap in Gottfried above, in that the “hopper” is shaped to fit into the gap between the rollers.
As is shown in Knopp, Fig. 1, elements 20a and 22a, these side wall portions would protect the roller from contact with the powder most directly. This is likewise shown in Knopp, Fig. 2, at elements 20b and 22b.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the “hopper” of Knopp is analogous to the structure between the gap in the rollers in Gottfried above, which is functionally a “hopper” as it supplies the powder material to the gap between rollers. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in order to have likewise prevented the powder from touching the rollers (Knopp, 7:51-7:56), would have found it obvious to have modified Gottfried/Hull as to have included at least these corresponding structures from Knopp (20a/b, 22a/b) which map to the claimed “shield elements” as to have prevented the powder from contacting the rollers prior to being metered into the gap as is required in the claims.
Regarding claims 15-18, Gottfried/Hull/Knopp discloses the subject matter of claim 14, and further discloses that the shield elements can have vibrating elements (Knopp, 8:12-8:15) are both circular arcs that are inclined toward one another (Knopp, Fig. 1-2; 20a and 22a; 20b and 22b), and in Knopp, Fig. 2, would also have different distances from a plane spanned by the rotational axes of the first and second rollers which is what causes the gap to be metered between the rollers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner will address the arguments that still apply to the updated rejections above as claim 1 had a change in scope necessitating a change in the rejection.
In response, Examiner points out that Gottfried (Fig. 1) clearly shows the doctor blade (3) within the nip point and clearly would regulate the height of the powder (or dry film material charge) within the roll nip. Gottfried refers to this as the “pug” in the roller gap (see p. 2, lines 6-12). Fig. 2 of Gottfried shows an alternate view where one can see how the doctor blade moves between the rollers in a longitudinal or parallel direction to the rotational axis of each of the rollers. Applicant’s argument concludes that this element cannot be equated, but the claim as now drafted even more closely reads upon Gottfried. Gottfried clearly teaches moving the doctor blade parallel to the rotational axes of the rollers in a reciprocal manner while mounting the blade above the nip, as to allow the blade to be within the nip and to traverse the gap between the rollers.
Applicant argues that Gottfried’s arrangement is above the nip, but this is not the case, as Gottfried clearly teaches regulating the height of the material within the gap between the rollers, and warns of issues that may result if the “pug” (dry film material charge) is too high (see Gottfried, p. 1, line 36-line 74, line 82-p. 2, line 5). Accordingly, the rejection is updated as outlined above.
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 ANDREW D GRAHAM whose telephone number is (469)295-9232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM (CST).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/ANDREW D GRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742