DETAILED ACTION
Elections/Restrictions
1. This office action is a response to Applicant's election filed on 02/20/2026 without traverse of Group I, species I-1, claims 1-5 & 7 for further examination. Claims 6 & 8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/17/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections
5. 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 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.
6. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 1-5 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanihara et al. (US 2016/0043382 A1) hereinafter Tanihara (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Tanihara are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 1, Tanihara discloses a squeegee (30) that is moved relative to a base material (10) in a direction while a desired gap (d) is being formed between the squeegee (30) and the base material (10) to uniformly level a thickness of a powder layer including powder (P) supplied onto the base material (10) (abs; fig 1-3; clm 5), comprising:
a first portion (see fig 3, right side portion of 30) that vibrates in contact with the powder (P) on an upstream side (see fig 1-3) of a relative movement direction (see fig 1-3) of the base material (10) with respect to the squeegee (30) ([0013]; [0027]-[0036]; [0041]-[0054]; fig 1-3; clm 7 & 9); and
a second portion (see fig 3, left side portion of 30) that vibrates in contact with the powder (P) on a downstream side (see fig 1-3) of the relative movement direction (see fig 1-3) of the base material (10) with respect to the squeegee (30) ([0013]; [0027]-[0036]; [0041]-[0054]; fig 1-3; clm 7 & 9),
wherein the first portion (see fig 3, right side portion of 30) has a vibration direction (curvedly) that is different from a vibration direction (linearly) of the second portion (see fig 3, left side portion of 30) ([0013]; [0027]-[0036]; [0041]-[0054]; fig 1-3; clm 7 & 9).
Regarding claim 2, the recitation “the powder is crushed… the powder is flattened”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Tanihara since Tanihara meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of crushing and flattening the powder, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 2, Tanihara discloses a squeegee (30) (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the vibration direction (curvedly) of the first portion (see fig 3, right side portion of 30) can be a direction where the powder (P) is crushed, and the vibration direction (linearly) of the second portion (see fig 3, left side portion of 30) can be a direction where the powder (P) is flattened ([0013]; [0027]-[0036]; [0041]-[0054]; fig 1-3; clm 7 & 9).
As regards to claim 3, Tanihara discloses a squeegee (30) (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the vibration direction (curvedly) of the first portion (see fig 3, right side portion of 30) is a direction where a surface of the first portion (see fig 3, right side portion of 30) vibrating in contact with the powder (P) approaches and is separated from the base material (10), and the vibration direction (linearly) of the second portion (see fig 3, left side portion of 30) is a direction where the second portion (see fig 3, left side portion of 30) vibrates while a shortest distance (d) between a surface of the second portion (see fig 3, left side portion of 30) vibrating in contact with the powder (P) and the base material (10) is being maintained ([0013]; [0027]-[0036]; [0041]-[0054]; fig 1-3; clm 7 & 9).
As regards to claim 4, Tanihara discloses a squeegee (30) (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the vibration direction (curvedly) of the first portion (see fig 3, right side portion of 30) is a direction perpendicular to (curvedly) the base material (10) ([0013]; [0027]-[0036]; [0041]-[0054]; fig 1-3; clm 7 & 9).
As regards to claim 5, Tanihara discloses a squeegee (30) (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the vibration direction (linearly) of the second portion (see fig 3, left side portion of 30) is parallel to the relative movement direction of the base material (10) with respect to the squeegee (30) ([0013]; [0027]-[0036]; [0041]-[0054]; fig 1-3; clm 7 & 9).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 of this title, 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.
10. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
11. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanihara as applied to claim 1 above.
As regards to claim 7, Tanihara discloses a squeegee (30) (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the first portion (see fig 3, right side portion of 30) and the second portion (see fig 3, left side portion of 30) are vibrated at a frequency such that the thickness of the powder (P) having passed through the squeegee (30) is even (for example, frequency: 700 Hz, amplitude: 5 μm) ([0013]; [0027]-[0036]; [0041]-[0054]; fig 1-3; clm 7 & 9), however Tanihara does not disclose from 2 kHz to 300 kHz inclusive.
However, as disclosed by Tanihara the first portion (see fig 3, right side portion of 30) and the second portion (see fig 3, left side portion of 30) are vibrated at a frequency such that the thickness of the powder (P) having passed through the squeegee (30) is even. Therefore, although Tanihara does not explicitly disclose the claimed frequency, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Tanihara to use the frequency recited in the claim and it is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way as the frequency in the present application is a result-effective variable which can be optimized to achieve the optimum evenness/thickness of the powder.
Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Discovery of the optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
12. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanihara as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kojima et al. (US 2021/0351393 A1) hereinafter Kojima (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Kojima are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 7, Tanihara discloses a squeegee (30) (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the first portion (see fig 3, right side portion of 30) and the second portion (see fig 3, left side portion of 30) are vibrated at a frequency such that the thickness of the powder (P) having passed through the squeegee (30) is even (for example, frequency: 700 Hz, amplitude: 5 μm) ([0013]; [0027]-[0036]; [0041]-[0054]; fig 1-3; clm 7 & 9), however Tanihara does not disclose from 2 kHz to 300 kHz inclusive.
Kojima discloses a squeegee (2) that is moved relative to a base material (4) in a direction while a desired gap (d) is being formed between the squeegee (2) and the base material (4) to uniformly level a thickness of a powder layer including powder (3) supplied onto the base material (4) (abs; fig 1-2), comprising:
a first portion (2a) that vibrates in contact with the powder (3) on an upstream side (see fig 1-2) of a relative movement direction (see fig 1-2) of the base material (4) with respect to the squeegee (2) ([0034]-[0073]; fig 1-2); and
a second portion (2b) that vibrates in contact with the powder (3) on a downstream side (see fig 1-2) of the relative movement direction (see fig 1-2) of the base material (4) with respect to the squeegee (2) ([0034]-[0073]; fig 1-2),
wherein the first portion (2a) and the second portion (2b) are vibrated at a frequency from 2 kHz to 300 kHz inclusive ([0005]-[0006]; [0027]; [0029]; [0057]-[0059]; fig 1-2). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the first portion and the second portion are vibrated at a frequency from 2 kHz to 300 kHz inclusive in the squeegee of Tanihara, because Kojima teaches wherein the first portion and the second portion are vibrated at a frequency from 2 kHz to 300 kHz inclusive to adjust a thickness of the powder supplied onto the surface of the member by the powder supplier ([0005]-[0006]; [0027]; [0029]; [0057]-[0059]).
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: all references cited on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited excluding the above relied upon references.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is (571)270-7423. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.M..
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, Dah-Wei D. Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/Jethro M. Pence/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights