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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “nozzle” in line 3 should be “nozzles”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-13 and 15-17 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Dependent claims not rejected separately are rejected due to their dependency.
Claims 9-11, 13, and 15-17 are seen as vague and indefinite due to the phrase "substantially C-shaped." What does the word "substantially" add to the phrase when "C- shaped" would mean the exact same thing due the how "shaped" can be interpreted. Below are different C-shaped shapes, all of which would fall under the BRI of C-shaped, so what does "substantially" add that does not already exist under the BRI of C-shaped?
PNG
media_image1.png
763
1712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the reservoir" at the end of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 depends on claim 9, which depends on claim 4, then 3, then 2, then 1. None of which claim a reservoir. However, claims 5 and 8 are the only preceding claims that claim a/the reservoir. It appears that claim 9 should depend on claim 5, which would solve the antecedent basis issue at hand.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the liquid". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears claims 10 and 12 have the same issue with dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ji (CN 11259021, with machine translation, already of record). Regarding claim 1:
A tank containing a liquid photopolymer resin (Throughout the Figures, light-transmitting member 30 and cylinder liner 21)
A rigid base on which an object is configured to be printed (Figures 8b-8d, the end surface of guide 19 contacting the resin)
An arm connected to the rigid base to move the rigid base relative to the tank (Figures 8b-8d, the rest of guide 19)
A first light source configured to emit light to the tank to form the object on the rigid base (Throughout the Figures, light beam 39 from light source 37)
A first pair of rollers configured to receive the object therebetween, the first pair of rollers being configured to pull the object in a direction out of the tank (Throughout the Figures, guide mechanism 10)
A first post-processing station configured to receive a first end of the object while a second end of the object is being formed in the tank (Figure 8d shows removal of the guide 19 from the printed part (paragraph 0035). Figure 4 shows and intensified light beam 78 additionally curing material (paragraph 0029) and Figure 8e shows where an intensified light beam 78 curing carbon fiber 77 to the printed material (paragraph 0035). These are possible post-processing stations in Ji)
Regarding claim 2, Ji teaches:
Wherein the first post-processing station includes a second light source configured to emit light to the object (The removal station of Ji would be in a room with a light, or the previously discussed intensified light beam of Figure 4 or 8e)
Regarding claim 3, Ji teaches:
Wherein a second post-processing station configured to receive the first end of the object while the second end of the object is being formed in the tank (As seen in Figures 4, 8d, and 8e these occur while the part is still being formed in the tank)
Regarding claim 4, Ji teaches:
Wherein the second post-processing station is disposed upstream of the first post-processing station in a printing direction of the object (The station of 8e would be upstream from a guide removal station)
Regarding claim 19, Ji teaches:
Wherein the first pair of rollers is disposed upstream of the second post-processing station (As seen in Figure 4 there is a first pair of rollers before/upstream of the light 78)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 5 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji, in view of Hocker (US 2017/0259507). Regarding claim 5, Ji is silent to:
Wherein the second post-processing station includes a reservoir configured to store a liquid to be sprayed on the object
In the same field of post-processing stations in 3D printers Hocker teaches a cleaning spray station (paragraph 0157, which would naturally have said reservoir)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a the post-processing station of Hocker, since it would clean the printed part.
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 is the material worked upon by the apparatus and the material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus is viewed as recitation of intended use and is given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (Please see MPEP 2112.01 I and 2114-2115 for further details). Since the art teaches the required reservoir, then said reservoir would be capable of holding the desired liquid.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji and Hocker as applied above, and in further view of Crabtree et al (GB 2597240; herein Crabtree). Ji and Hocker are silent to claims 6-8. Regarding claims 6-8:
Claims 6-8 are being treated together as a liquid recycling device.
In the same field of post-processing stations in 3D printers, Crabtree teaches using a condensing step (Abstract and throughout), a drain, and reuse of the collected liquid (Figure 1, drain 112 and compartment 114b for recovered solvent).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the liquid recycling device of Crabtree, since it removes waste and recycles liquid for further use in the printer.
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji, in view of Pieger et al (US 2020/0269373; herein Pieger). Regarding claims 9 and 15:
Ji holds the claimed parts, but is silent to the use of C-shaped frames as the needed shape.
In the same field of 3D printers, Pieger teaches using a C-shaped frame to hold parts in a 3D printer (paragraph 0055 and Figure 4A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the C-shaped frame of Pieger to hold the needed parts in Ji, since shape is 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 (MPEP 2144.04 IV B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13, 16-18, and 20 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743