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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/4/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Matoba teaches The central axis of the inlet (the exit of 1) and the outlet (the exit below 3) are offset from each other such that the central axis of the inlet and outlet are offset from one another, however, there is some amount of overlap, but this is a mere rearrangement of part which is generally regarded as obvious, see MPEP 2144.04 V. Particularly since the inlet and outlet were offset. Applicant argues that this is not just a mere rearrangement of part because this allows intermittent supply, but Matoba repeatedly discusses intermittent supply provided by the rotor so this feature would be present. Moreover, as to the clogging prevention, the only areas of the specification that discuss anti-clogging are [0065, 0086] which attributes the feature to a coating and [0122, 0123] which attributes it to the inclined wall which is also present in Matoba, see the inclined wall next to (18, 39) [Fig 3]. Hence, both features would be present in Matoba and neither appear to be a result of the lack of overlap between the entry and exit. Furthermore, applicant argues that the feature is just not disclosed in the Mottin reference, but the there clearly is no overlap from the figure.
PNG
media_image1.png
485
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to the sliding feature, the examiner reiterates applicant has also not argued any reason why the part (19) identified by the examiner as the sliding member would not meet the newly added limitations regarding the sliding member as its noted to be in contact with the rotor which must be a sliding contact or the rotor would be unable to rotate and would block and press at least somewhat the material to the rotor. Applicant has never explained why the bottom surface of 19 is not in sliding contact with the periphery of rotor 17 as Fig 3 of Matoba plainly depicts. As to the pressing feature, 19 acts as a barrier and would press the material to the rotor ie the supplying mechanism at least somewhat particularly when it was positioned above the portions of the rotor that were in between the blades (ie sections like that next to numeral 38). It is unclear what applicant is suggesting by the quote included from the translation of Matoba as the selected quote is vague, but quotes for example on page 4 recite “a contact member that contacts the surface of the rotor and divides the internal space into an inlet side and outlet side” are unambiguous and render applicant’s interpretation untenable.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matoba (JP 59214605).
As to claim 1, Matoba teaches a material supply device for supplying a material to a plasticizing unit that plasticizes the material to generate a plasticized material, the material supply device comprising: a housing having first structure (2) and 2nd structure (1) above the first, the first structure with an inlet through which the material is fed from the 2nd unit and an outlet (the bottom opening proximate to 23, 3) into the plasticizing unit [Fig 3], and configured to accommodate the material; and a supply mechanism (17) provided in the first structure, positioned above the outlet, and configured to intermittently supply the material to the outlet, wherein the 2nd housing has an inclined wall (1 tapered, funnel portion of 1) that defines an accommodation space for the material above the supply mechanism and is inclined such that a volume of the accommodation space is reduced downward, and the supply mechanism (17) at least partially overlaps the inclined wall when viewed from a vertical direction [Fig 3]. Matoba teaches a sliding contact member configured to be in sliding contact with the outer periphery of the rotation member (19) and bias the outer periphery of the rotation member toward the rotation axis [Fig 3]. Matoba recites repeatedly that 19 is a contact member (Page 6, 8, 12) and would have to be in sliding contact with the rotor in order to allow the rotor to rotate [Fig 3] and would block excess material to the rotor.
The central axis of the inlet (the exit of 1) and the outlet (the exit below 3) are offset from each other such that the central axis of the inlet and outlet are offset from one another, however, there is some amount of overlap, but this is a mere rearrangement of part which is generally regarded as obvious, see MPEP 2144.04 V. Particularly since the inlet and outlet were offset.
As to claim 2, Matoba teaches a motor (6, 7), wherein the supply mechanism is a rotation member that is rotated about a rotation axis intersecting the vertical direction by the motor, and the rotation member has a recessed portion (39) on an outer periphery thereof [Fig 3].
As to claim 3, Matoba teaches the 2nd structure has a narrowed portion in which the volume of the accommodation space is reduced by the inclined wall, and the rotation axis is positioned between a center of the narrowed portion and a center of the outlet when viewed from the vertical direction [Fig 3].
This claim is interpreted as the rotation axis must be in an area demarcated by the axis of the narrowed portion and the center axis of the outlet and would be inclusive of these to axes.
As to claim 4, Matoba teaches the rotation member rotates clockwise when viewed from a direction in which the center of the narrowed portion is positioned on a left side and the center of the outlet is positioned on a right side in a direction along the rotation axis (ie when viewed from the opposite side as depicted in Fig 3) [Fig 3].
As to claim 5, Matoba teaches a sliding contact member configured to be in sliding contact with the outer periphery of the rotation member (19) and bias the outer periphery of the rotation member toward the rotation axis [Fig 3].
As to claim 7, Matoba teaches an inclination angle of the inclined wall with respect to a horizontal direction is approximately 45° [Fig 3].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matoba (JP 59214605) in view of Hayashi (US 2020/0238432).
As applied to claim 6, Matoba does not explicitly force applied to the outer periphery of the rotation member by the sliding contact member is between 0.1 N and 19. As the sliding member contacts the rotational member (17) it would apply some force to the rotational member and given its placement and configuration near identical it would apply the same force to the rotation member.
Hayashi teaches a sliding contact member (43) in contact with a rotational member (41) that is capable of preventing the gravity induced deposition of the powder in order to dose the deposition powder and/or intermittently stop the deposition [Fig 2, 0042-0044, 0050]. As (43) prevents the powder from falling due to gravity it must contact the rotational member with a force equal to about 9.8 N (the force of gravity). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Matoba and had the force applied to the outer periphery of the rotation member by the sliding contact member is 9.8 N, as suggested by Hayashi, in order to dose the deposition powder and/or intermittently stop the deposition.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matoba (JP 59214605) in view of Xu (CN 110682460).
As to claim 8, Matoba does not explicitly state at least one treatment of a microdimple treatment and a fluorine coating treatment is performed on at least a part of an inner wall of the housing.
Xu teaches a an apparatus for storing and plasticating rubber polymer [Abstract, Background] wherein the a storage bin (1, 12) and housing (4) wherein a fluoride coating ie Teflon is applied to the inner wall of housing which would prevent adherence and dirt accumulation (Teflon is well known for antistick properties) [Fig 1, Claim 6]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Matoba and included a fluorine coating treatment is performed on at least a part of an inner wall of the housing, as suggested by Xu, as this had proven successful in similar storage/plasticating devices and prevented adherence and dirt accumulation.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matoba (JP 59214605) in view of Lieberwirth (US 2020/0324337).
As to claim 9, Matoba does not explicitly state the plasticizing unit.
Lieberwirth teaches a plasticating device [Abstract] wherein a metering unit (16) delivers resin powder to a plasticating unit homogenizes the feed into molten, extrudable material [0029, 0035, 0042, 0043, 0054-0058, 0062-0065, 0083, Claim 23, Fig 3]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Matoba and had a plasticizing unit, as suggested by Lieberwirth, in order to plasticate and homogenize the material into molten, extrudable material.
Claims 1-5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matoba (JP 59214605) in view of Mottin (WO 2017/103392).
As to claim 1, Matoba teaches a material supply device for supplying a material to a plasticizing unit that plasticizes the material to generate a plasticized material, the material supply device comprising: a housing having first structure (2) and 2nd structure (1) above the first, the first structure with an inlet through which the material is fed from the 2nd unit and an outlet (the bottom opening proximate to 23, 3) into the plasticizing unit [Fig 3], and configured to accommodate the material; and a supply mechanism (17) provided in the first structure, positioned above the outlet, and configured to intermittently supply the material to the outlet, wherein the 2nd housing has an inclined wall (1 tapered, funnel portion of 1) that defines an accommodation space for the material above the supply mechanism and is inclined such that a volume of the accommodation space is reduced downward, and the supply mechanism (17) at least partially overlaps the inclined wall when viewed from a vertical direction [Fig 3]. Matoba teaches a sliding contact member configured to be in sliding contact with the outer periphery of the rotation member (19) and bias the outer periphery of the rotation member toward the rotation axis [Fig 3]. Matoba recites repeatedly that 19 is a contact member (Page 6, 8, 12) and would have to be in sliding contact with the rotor in order to allow the rotor to rotate [Fig 3] and would block excess material to the rotor.
The central axis of the inlet (the exit of 1) and the outlet (the exit below 3) are offset from each other such that the central axis of the inlet and outlet are offset from one another, however, there is some amount of overlap, but this is a mere rearrangement of part which is generally regarded as obvious, see MPEP 2144.04 V. Particularly since the inlet and outlet were offset.
Additionally, Mottin teaches an apparatus wherein a material supply device has an inlet from the material tank (9a) and an outlet (10a) are offset from one another [Fig 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Matoba and utilized an inlet and outlet that are offset from one another, as suggested by Mottin, as this configuration had proven successful at providing powder material to 3D printing apparatus.
As to claim 2, Matoba teaches a motor (6, 7), wherein the supply mechanism is a rotation member that is rotated about a rotation axis intersecting the vertical direction by the motor, and the rotation member has a recessed portion (39) on an outer periphery thereof [Fig 3].
As to claim 3, Matoba teaches the 2nd structure has a narrowed portion in which the volume of the accommodation space is reduced by the inclined wall, and the rotation axis is positioned between a center of the narrowed portion and a center of the outlet when viewed from the vertical direction [Fig 3].
This claim is interpreted as the rotation axis must be in an area demarcated by the axis of the narrowed portion and the center axis of the outlet and would be inclusive of these to axes.
As to claim 4, Matoba teaches the rotation member rotates clockwise when viewed from a direction in which the center of the narrowed portion is positioned on a left side and the center of the outlet is positioned on a right side in a direction along the rotation axis (ie when viewed from the opposite side as depicted in Fig 3) [Fig 3].
As to claim 5, Matoba teaches a sliding contact member configured to be in sliding contact with the outer periphery of the rotation member (19) and bias the outer periphery of the rotation member toward the rotation axis [Fig 3].
As to claim 7, Matoba teaches an inclination angle of the inclined wall with respect to a horizontal direction is approximately 45° [Fig 3].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matoba (JP 59214605) in view of Mottin (WO 2017/103392), as applied to claims 1-5, 7, in further view of Hayashi (US 2020/0238432).
As applied to claim 6, Matoba does not explicitly force applied to the outer periphery of the rotation member by the sliding contact member is between 0.1 N and 19. As the sliding member contacts the rotational member (17) it would apply some force to the rotational member and given its placement and configuration near identical it would apply the same force to the rotation member.
Hayashi teaches a sliding contact member (43) in contact with a rotational member (41) that is capable of preventing the gravity induced deposition of the powder in order to dose the deposition powder and/or intermittently stop the deposition [Fig 2, 0042-0044, 0050]. As (43) prevents the powder from falling due to gravity it must contact the rotational member with a force equal to about 9.8 N (the force of gravity). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Matoba and had the force applied to the outer periphery of the rotation member by the sliding contact member is 9.8 N, as suggested by Hayashi, in order to dose the deposition powder and/or intermittently stop the deposition.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matoba (JP 59214605) in view of Mottin (WO 2017/103392), as applied to claims 1-5, 7, in further view of Xu (CN 110682460).
As to claim 8, Matoba does not explicitly state at least one treatment of a microdimple treatment and a fluorine coating treatment is performed on at least a part of an inner wall of the housing.
Xu teaches a an apparatus for storing and plasticating rubber polymer [Abstract, Background] wherein the a storage bin (1, 12) and housing (4) wherein a fluoride coating ie Teflon is applied to the inner wall of housing which would prevent adherence and dirt accumulation (Teflon is well known for antistick properties) [Fig 1, Claim 6]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Matoba and included a fluorine coating treatment is performed on at least a part of an inner wall of the housing, as suggested by Xu, as this had proven successful in similar storage/plasticating devices and prevented adherence and dirt accumulation.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matoba (JP 59214605) in view of Mottin (WO 2017/103392), as applied to claims 1-5, 7, in further view of Lieberwirth (US 2020/0324337).
As to claim 9, Matoba does not explicitly state the plasticizing unit.
Lieberwirth teaches a plasticating device [Abstract] wherein a metering unit (16) delivers resin powder to a plasticating unit homogenizes the feed into molten, extrudable material [0029, 0035, 0042, 0043, 0054-0058, 0062-0065, 0083, Claim 23, Fig 3]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Matoba and had a plasticizing unit, as suggested by Lieberwirth, in order to plasticate and homogenize the material into molten, extrudable material.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights