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 .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This non-final action on the merits is in response to the application for patent received by the office 16 August 2023. Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 3 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0063096 to Pitz et al. (‘096 hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, ‘096 teaches a three-dimensional-object printing apparatus comprising: a head unit including a head configured to eject liquid toward a workpiece and a drive substrate configured to generate a drive signal for driving the head (Fig 2 items 5 and 19); and a robot including a distal-end arm supporting the head unit and a distal-end joint located at the distal-end arm and enabling the head unit to rotate around a distal-end rotation axis, the robot being configured to change a position and an orientation of the head relative to the workpiece, wherein the distal-end rotation axis is located between the head and the drive substrate as viewed in an ejection direction in which the head ejects liquid (Fig 2 items 1, 19 and 13).
Regarding claim 2, ‘096 teaches the three-dimensional-object printing apparatus wherein the distal-end rotation axis is located between the head and the drive substrate as viewed in a direction parallel to the distal-end rotation axis (Fig 2 items 5, 4c and 19).
Regarding claim 3, ‘096 teaches the three-dimensional-object printing apparatus wherein the distal-end rotation axis is located between the head and the drive substrate in the ejection direction as viewed in a direction parallel to the distal-end rotation axis (Fig 2 items 5, 4c and 19).
Regarding claim 4, ‘096 teaches the three-dimensional-object printing apparatus wherein the ejection direction is parallel to a vertical axis when the distal-end rotation axis is located between the head and the drive substrate in the ejection direction as viewed in the direction parallel to the distal-end rotation axis (Fig 2 items 5, 4c and 19).
Regarding claim 5, ‘096 teaches the three-dimensional-object printing apparatus wherein the head includes a plurality of nozzles configured to eject liquid, a plurality of pressure chambers associated with the plurality of nozzles and communicating with the nozzles, and a plurality of drive elements associated with the plurality of pressure chambers and configured to change pressure in the pressure chambers, and the drive signal is a pulse signal supplied to the plurality of drive elements (paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 6, ‘096 teaches the three-dimensional-object printing apparatus wherein the head includes a plurality of nozzles configured to eject liquid, and a direction in which the plurality of nozzles is arranged intersects the distal-end rotation axis (Fig 2 items 5, 4c and 17).
Regarding claim 7, ‘096 teaches the three-dimensional-object printing apparatus wherein during a print operation in which the head ejects liquid toward the workpiece while the robot is changing the position of the head relative to the workpiece, the distal-end joint rotates around the distal-end rotation axis (paragraphs 0011 and 0034).
Regarding claim 13, ‘096 teaches the three-dimensional-object printing apparatus wherein a distance between the distal-end rotation axis and a center of gravity of the head is shorter than a distance between the distal-end rotation axis and a center of gravity of the drive substrate as viewed in a direction parallel to the distal-end rotation axis, when mass of the head is larger than mass of the substrate (Fig 2 items 5, 4c and 19 – examiner’s note: since the prior art head (5) is directly attached to the distal end effector and the substrate (19) is not, the claimed positional limitation is met by the prior art in most normal operating circumstances. See examiner’s comment elsewhere regarding intended use and relative position of robot components.).
Regarding claim 14, ‘096 teaches a three-dimensional-object printing apparatus comprising: a head unit including a head configured to eject liquid toward a workpiece and a drive substrate configured to generate a drive signal for driving the head (Fig 2 items 5, 4c and 19); and a robot including a distal-end arm supporting the head unit and a distal-end joint located at the distal-end arm and enabling the head unit to rotate around a distal-end rotation axis (Fig 1 item 2), the robot being configured to change a position and an orientation of the head relative to the workpiece, wherein the distal-end rotation axis is located between a center of gravity of the head and a center of gravity of the drive substrate as viewed in an ejection direction in which the head ejects liquid (paragraph 0034 Fig 2 items 5, 4c, and 19).
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.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘096 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0201029 to Dennis R Mathis (‘029 hereafter).
Regarding claim 8, ‘096 teaches the three-dimensional-object printing apparatus wherein the robot further includes a base portion, a first arm, a second arm, and a third arm, the base portion and the first arm are coupled to each other via a first joint configured to rotate around a first axis, the first arm and the second arm are coupled to each other via a second joint configured to rotate around a second axis parallel to the first axis, the second arm and the third arm are coupled to each other via a third joint configured to rotate around a third axis parallel to the second axis, the third arm and the distal-end arm are coupled to each other via the distal-end joint configured to rotate around the distal-end rotation axis, , and the first axis and the distal-end rotation axis intersect each other (Fig 1 item 2). ‘096 does not teach an extending arm as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor roboticized printing, ‘029 teaches a robot with an arm segment that is extendable (Fig 5 item 224) for the benefit of enlarging the work-envelope of the robot. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘096 with those of ‘029 for the benefit of printing within an enlarged print-envelope.
Regarding claim 9, ‘096 teaches the three-dimensional-object printing apparatus wherein the three-dimensional-object printing apparatus performs a print operation in which the head ejects liquid toward the workpiece while the robot is changing the position of the head relative to the workpiece, in a state in which the head and the drive substrate are aligned in a direction parallel to the third axis (Fig 2 items A, 4c 19). Note: the alignments of various structural elements of the claimed apparatus are regarded as a recitation of intended use of the claimed invention. Since the cited prior art is generally movable multi-axis robot, it is presumed that the prior art apparatus may be arranged in the claimed manner.
Regarding claim 10, ‘096 in view of ‘029 teaches the three-dimensional-object printing apparatus wherein an extension ratio of the third joint is 50% or more during the print operation. Note: the alignments of various structural elements of the claimed apparatus are regarded as a recitation of intended use of the claimed invention. Since the cited prior art is generally movable multi-axis robot, it is presumed that the prior art apparatus may be arranged in the claimed manner.
Regarding claim 11, ‘096 teaches the three-dimensional-object printing apparatus wherein during a print operation in which the head ejects liquid toward the workpiece while the robot is changing the position of the head relative to the workpiece, the head is not located vertically above the drive substrate (paragraphs 0011 and 0034). Note: the alignments of various structural elements of the claimed apparatus are regarded as a recitation of intended use of the claimed invention. Since the cited prior art is generally movable multi-axis robot, it is presumed that the prior art apparatus may be arranged in the claimed manner.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘096 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0256985 to Yukata Shiojiri Kobayashi (‘985 hereafter).
Regarding claim 12, ‘096 does not teach a particular spatial arrangement of drive substrate, In the related art of printing, ‘895 teaches and integrated substrate and head with a vertical orientation (Fig 2 items 18 and 24) for the benefit of forming a compact, cartridgized ejector assembly. One possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have been possessed to combine the teaching of ‘096 with those of ‘985 for the benefit of adapting an easily changed or replaced cartridge onto a robotic printing assembly. In adopting this combination, the ordinary artisan would necessarily meet the limitation of the three-dimensional-object printing apparatus wherein a distance between the distal-end rotation axis and a center of gravity of the head is larger than a distance between the distal-end rotation axis and a center of gravity of the drive substrate as viewed in a direction parallel to the distal-end rotation axis, when mass of the head is shorter than mass of the substrate, since the vertical configuration of the ejector/substrate assembly would place the substrate closer to the proximal end of the end-effector than the ejector.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John P Robitaille whose telephone number is (571)270-7006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:00PM.
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.
/JPR/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743