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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed on 08/06/2026 are acknowledged and entered. According to the Amendments to the claims, claims 1,4, 6, 7, 9, 18 and 20 has /have been amended, claims 2-3 ,10, 12-17 and 19 has /have been cancelled, claims 21-25 has /have been added. Accordingly, claims 1, 4-9, 11, 18 and 20-25 are pending in the application. An action on the merits of claims 1, 4-9, 11, 18 and 20-25 are as follow.
The previous objections to the drawings, 112(b) Claim Rejections are withdrawn in accordance with applicant's amendment to the claims with no new matter added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/13/2026, 07/02/2026 and 08/05/2026 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1. 97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 18 and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akino (JP 08 156106 A) in view of Ridenour (US 5,293,771) and Park et al. (US 2003/0132207 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Akino discloses a shaping apparatus comprising:
a nozzle (the resin supply nozzle 2, [0009], Fig 1) that is configured to supply shaping material to a build target surface (see Fig 1);
a light source (the light irradiation optical system are integrated is automatically controlled, [0009], Fig 1) that is configured to emit a beam which is irradiated onto the
build target surface and forms a milt pool in which the shaping material is molten on the
build target surface (component to flow out into a fluid pool, [0011]);
a controller (automatically controlled with a computer, [Abstract]), wherein
the controller is configured to control a supply aspect of the shaping material supplied from the nozzle (automatically forming a three-dimensional shape by computer control, [0001]).
Akino discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose: a nozzle that is configured to supply shaping material to a build target surface (taught by Akino already) from each of a plurality of ports;
an actuator that is configured to perform a relative movement of the nozzle and the build target surface along a movement direction; and
wherein the plurality of ports of the nozzle are arranged along an arrangement direction intersecting the movement direction,
the shaping material supplied from the plurality of ports of the nozzle forms a material supply area that extends along the arrangement direction, and
the controller is configured to control a supply aspect of the shaping material supplied (taught by Akino already) from each of the plurality of ports of the nozzle.
Ridenour further teaches a material supply system (see source 31, 32 and 33, Fig 1), and a nozzle that is configured to supply shaping material to a build target surface (taught by Akino already) from each of a plurality of ports (see material supply ports connected to 31-33, Fig 1);
Park et al. further teach a system with a computer numerical control (CNC) controller (see Abstract) and an actuator (a table adapted to conduct a three-dimensional movement, table 104, [0020, 0042], Fig 8) that is configured to perform a relative movement of the nozzle and the build target surface (“the nozzle and the build target surface” taught by Akino already) along a movement direction (a laser device 100 for irradiating a laser beam, a table 104 for conducting a rotating movement and a three-dimensional movement, [0042]);
wherein the plurality of ports of the nozzle (taught by Akino in view of Ridenour already) are arranged along an arrangement direction intersecting the movement direction (Clearly, the controller is capable of control “the plurality of ports of the nozzle are arranged along an arrangement direction intersecting the movement direction” as claimed; see MPEP 2112.01),
the shaping material supplied from the plurality of ports of the nozzle forms a material supply area (taught by Akino in view of Ridenour already) that extends along the arrangement direction (Clearly, the shaping material supplied from the plurality of ports of the nozzle forms a material supply area is capable of “extends along the arrangement direction” as claimed; see MPEP 2112.01), and
the controller (taught by Akino in view of Park et al. already) is configured to control a supply aspect of the shaping material supplied from each of the plurality of ports of the nozzle (Clearly, the controller is capable of “control a supply aspect of the shaping material supplied from each of the plurality of ports of the nozzle” as claimed; see MPEP 2112.01. Note: “each of the plurality of ports of the nozzle” taught by Akino in view of Ridenour already).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify/ add Akino with Ridenour’s further teaches a nozzle that is configured to supply shaping material to a build target surface from each of a plurality of ports; because Ridenour teaches, in Col 2 line 19-22, of providing an excellent controller to control the various valves of the selector valve means for processing convenience during operation; and further modify Akino in view of Ridenour with Park’s further teaching of an actuator that is configured to perform a relative movement of the nozzle and the build target surface along a movement direction; and
Wherein the plurality of ports of the nozzle are arranged along an arrangement direction intersecting the movement direction, the shaping material supplied from the plurality of ports of the nozzle forms a material supply area that extends along the arrangement direction, and the controller is configured to control a supply aspect of the shaping material supplied from each of the plurality of ports of the nozzle; because Park teaches, in [Abstract], of providing a control system to control a laser device and a table for processing convenience during laser treatment.
Claim 4, wherein the controller is configured to control the actuator and the nozzle based on data related to a shaped object that is built by the shaping apparatus (a three-dimensional object 6 of a manufacturing target is formed while it is laminated, [Abstract], Akino; and a computer numerical control (CNC) controller; and driving a laser device adapted to irradiate a laser beam and a table adapted to conduct a three-dimensional movement and rotation, [0020], Park et al.).
Claim 5, wherein the data related to the shaped object is data related to a three-dimensional data of the shaped object (see Fig 1, Akino).
Claim 18, wherein the controller is configured to control the nozzle to change a size of the material supply area of the shaping material along the arrangement direction (the resin supply nozzle 2 and the light irradiation optical system are integrated is automatically controlled, [0009], Fig 1, Clearly, “the controller is” capable of “configured to control the nozzle to change a size of the material supply area of the shaping material along the arrangement direction” as claimed, Fig 1, Akino; see MPEP 2112.01).
Claim 20, wherein the controller (controller 22, Fig 1. Note: taught by Akino already) is configured to select which one of more of the ports (see material supply ports connected to 31-33, Fig 1) supply the shaping material (a first gas source 31, a second gas source 32, and a gas tank 33, Fig 1. Note: “the shaping material” taught by Akino already) from among the plurality of ports (see Fig 1, Ridenour).
Claim 21, wherein the controller is configured to control the supply aspect of the shaping material supplied from each of the plurality of ports of the nozzle by controlling a supply amount per unit time of the shaping material for each of the plurality of supply ports of the nozzle (In operation, the circuit of FIG. 1 is controlled by the controller 22, which preferably is a central processing unit or CPU to control the various valves of the selector valve means 24, Col 2 line 18-22, Ridenour).
Claim 22, wherein the controller is configured to control the supply aspect of the shaping material supplied from each of the plurality of ports of the nozzle by controlling an opening degree of each of the plurality of supply ports of the nozzle (automatically controlled with a computer or the like by controlling flowing conditions automatically, Abstract, Akino).
Claim 23, wherein the controller is configured to control the supply aspect of the shaping material supplied from each of the plurality of ports of the nozzle by controlling which of the plurality of supply ports of the nozzle supply the shaping material (A controller 22 controls a group of selector valves 24, Col 1 line 59, Fig 1, Ridenour).
Claim 24, wherein the controller is configured to control the supply aspect of the shaping material supplied from each of the plurality of ports of the nozzle by controlling which of the plurality of supply ports of the nozzle supply the shaping material (Valves 27, 28, and 29 are connected between the manifold and a first gas source 31, a second gas source 32, and a gas tank 33, respectively, Col 1 line 65-67, Fig 1, Ridenour).
Claim 25, wherein the controller is configured to control the supply aspect of the shaping material supplied from each of the plurality of ports of the nozzle by controlling which of the plurality of supply ports of the nozzle supply the shaping material (Valves 27, 28, and 29 are connected between the manifold and a first gas source 31, a second gas source 32, and a gas tank 33, respectively, Col 1 line 65-67, Fig 1, Ridenour).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akino in view of Ridenour and Park et al. as shown above, further in view of Saito (JPH 091674 A).
Regarding Claims 6-10, Akino in view of Ridenour and Park et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above, except does not disclose Claims 6-9.
Saito further teaches a system (shaping apparatus 2, [0012], Fig 1), and Claim 6, wherein the shaping apparatus (where laser 4 work on container 38, [0012, 0016], Fig 1) includes an optical condenser (convex lens 20 and the convex lens, 24, [0014], Fig 1) which emits the beam from the light source, and
the controller is configured to change an intensity distribution of the beam (the intensity of the laser light is changed, [0004]. Note: “the controller” taught by Akino already) within a predetermined plane at an exit surface side of the optical condenser (see Fig 1).
Claim 7, wherein the actuator relatively moves the build target surface on which a target portion for shaping (a table adapted to conduct a three-dimensional movement, table 104, [0020, 0042], Fig 8, Park et al.) is set by performing the relative movement of the nozzle and the build target surface (a polishing pad 10 to be polished is mounted on the table 104, [0042], Fig 8, Park et al. to provide a three-dimensional object fabrication method which has dimensional accuracy and shape stability, [0006], Fig 1, Akino).
Claim 8, wherein the controller is configured to change the intensity distribution of the beam in the predetermined plane (the intensity of the laser light is changed, [0004], Fig 1) while supplying the shaping material to the target portion (the resin supply nozzle 2 at an appropriate flow rate, [0009], Fig 1, Akino).
Claim 9, wherein the controller is configured to change the intensity distribution of the beam in the predetermined plane (the intensity of the laser light is changed, [0004], Fig 1) in a period during which the relative movement of the nozzle and the build target surface occurs (a laser device 100 for irradiating a laser beam, a table 104 for conducting a rotating movement and a three-dimensional movement, [0042], Park et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Akino in view of Ridenour and Park et al. with Saito’s further teaching of Claims 6-9; because Saito teaches, in [Abstract], of providing a photo-setting molding method in which optimal curing diameter and curing depth can be obtained at each part in each layer of a product.
Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akino Ridenour and Park et al. as shown above, further in view of Jones et al. (US 2015/0140230 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Akino in view of Ridenour and Park et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above, except does not disclose Claim 11.
Jones et al. further teach Claim 11, wherein the shaping apparatus is a Directed Energy Deposition (DED)-type shaping system (the processing head 200 may be utilized to provide other processes… including additive manufacturing, 3D printing, and directed energy deposition, Fig 2, [0137, 0180]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Akino in view of Ridenour and Park et al. with Jones et al.’s further teaching of Claim 11; because Jones et al. teach, in [0007], of providing a machine tool with a clamping mechanism and different processing heads for processing convenience during operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-14 and 16-21 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action as stated above.
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The prior art used under the Non-Final Rejection been able to cover all the limitations of the amended claims.
A. The applicant's argument on Remarks, namely “Applicant respectfully submits that none of the applied references discloses the amended independent claim 1 combination of features including "the shaping material supplied from the plurality of ports of the nozzle forms a material supply area that extends along the arrangement direction, and the controller is configured to control a supply aspect of the shaping material supplied from each of the plurality of ports of the nozzle."”, and “the Office Action stated that Ridenour teaches a plurality of material supply ports ("see material supply ports connected to 31-33, Fig. l" (Office Action pages 16-17)). First, there is no reason or suggestion to apply the teachings of Ridenour, which discloses a "gas leak sensor system" that "detects the presence of gas leaking into any one of a plurality of test spaces for example, refrigeration gas into a refrigeration case" (see Abstract) to the three-dimensional object manufacturing devices of Akino and Park et al. Ridenour does not disclose or even relate to the supply of a shaping material from a nozzle having a plurality of ports. The Office Action thus relies on impermissible hindsight to modify Akino/Park et al. to have a nozzle with a plurality of ports based on any teaching of Ridenour. Second, Ridenour does not disclose that (i) the gases supplied from the first gas source 31, the second gas source 32 and the gas tank 33 form an area that extends along a direction intersecting a relative movement direction and (ii) a controller controls a supply aspect of the gases supplied from the first gas source 31, the second gas source 32 and the gas tank 33. Applicant thus respectfully submits that Ridenour does not disclose or render obvious the above-quoted feature of Applicant's amended claim 1”.
The examiner’s response: The new combination of Akino (JP 08 156106 A) in view of Ridenour (US 5,293,771) and Park et al. (US 2003/0132207 A1) teach exactly a shaping apparatus as claimed, fully discloses all the recited limitations of independent Claim 1 as set forth in this office action shown above. Regarding the First argument: In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Regarding the Second argument: It is noted that "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection. Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANGYUE CHEN whose telephone number is 571/272-8224. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 EST.
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, supervisor Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571/270-5569, supervisor Steven Crabb can be reached on 571/270-5095, or supervisor Edward Landrum can be reached on 571/272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571/273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866/217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800/786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571/272-1000.
/KUANGYUE CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights