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 .
This Final Action is in response to the Applicant’s claim amendment received on 9/26/2025, in response to the Non-Final Action mailed on 06/27/2025.
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 3-6 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.
Claim 3 recites “the wall” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim limitation. Furthermore, it is also vague and indefinite as it is unclear what wall applicant is referring to.
Claim 5 recites “the at least one hole” in line 2. However, claim 5 depends upon 3 and 1 which does not disclose having any one hole. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner considers “a hole in the fabrication platform”.
Claim 6 recites “the cover” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim limitation.
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 (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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1- 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2024/0075687 A1) in view of Tochimoto et al. (US 6,799,959 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al. teach a vat for a three-dimensional printer for handling high viscosity resin (see abstract; [0007]-[0099]), the vat comprising:
a first vat portion including a resin receiving space (Figs. 1-15, item 100 as supply unit) , and a piston member that pushes resin received in the resin receiving space upwardly through at least one hole formed in a cover portion (Figs. 1 -15, item 122 – piston rod operated in vertical direction, and a cover portion as 111; [0059]-[0069]); and a second vat portion disposed on one side of the first vat portion and including a fabrication platform for supporting a structure fabricated using resin supplied from the first vat portion ( see Figs. 1 – 15 item 300 as a second vat for 3D modeling including a fabrication platform “WH” as work holder; [0072]-[0077] describes the 300 as the 3D modeling unit for forming the object).
Lee et al. teach having a recoater blade which has at least a first blade which reciprocate between the first one side of the first and second vat portions and the other side of the first and second vat portions (see Figs. 1-15, item 210), however fails to teach the blade portion including a second blade, the first and second blades including blade edge surfaces inclined at a predetermined non-vertical angle in a direction symmetrical to each other.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing, Tochimoto teaches the blade portion including a second blade, the first and second blades including blade edge surfaces inclined at a predetermined non-vertical angle in a direction symmetrical to each other (Fig 13 items 51Ba and 5aBb; col 14 lines 60 to col 15 lines 65). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention to modify the blade as taught by Lee et al. with further including two blades with inclined edges, as taught Tochimoto, for the benefit of efficiently forming each layer for forming desired shaped 3D printed object.
As for claim 2, Lee et al. further teach wherein the piston member includes: a support portion formed in the form of a plate having a cross-sectional area equal to an area the first vat portion (Figs. 1-15, the supply unit 100 includes a support portion 113 known as “pressing plate” which have a cross-sectional area equal to an area the first vat portion; [0062]-0063]) and supporting a resin received in the resin receiving space; and a drive shaft connected to a bottom portion of the support portion to raise and lower the support portion to a height of a bottom surface of the cover portion (see Figs 1-15 item 122 -piston rod is raised or lowered; [0061]-[0062]).
Claim 3 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear what “wall” is being referred to. As Lee et al. further teach a DLP focal length fixed to a top surface of the wall ([0071]-[0075]).
Claim 5 recitation pertaining to intended use of the blade portion where first blade feeds and second blade covers residual resin would have been intended use of the apparatus or configured to perform specific operation of layering, and would have been obvious over the combination as it teaches all the elements of the claim limitation. It is noted that claim as written fail to provide further structure that distinguishes the first and second blade applications.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2024/0075687 A1) in view of Tochimoto et al. (US 6,799,959 B1) and further view of Schmidt-Petersen (US 2024/0190073 A1) and OKAZAKI (US 2017/0274590 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teach all the limitation to the claim invention as discussed above, however, fails to teach wherein the cover portion is formed as a multilayer structure including a base portion; and a slideable portion disposed on top of the base portion.
Schmidt-Petersen teach wherein the cover portion is formed as a multilayer structure including a base portion (see Figs 3-4 item 54 cover which is multilayer including 53, 52; [0085]) however, fail to teach a slidable portion disposed on top of the base portion. In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing, OKAZAKI teach including a shutter (slidable portion) for opening/closing unit (see [0036]), for the purpose of discharging materials.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to configure the cover as taught above by the combinations with having a slidable portion as taught by OKAZAKI, for the purpose of efficiently dispensing materials.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The above prior arts, Lee et al. (US 2024/0075687 A1) in view of Tochimoto et al. (US 6,799,959 B1), fail to teach wherein the blade edge surfaces include a heating member extending along a longitudinal direction of the blade surfaces for heating said resin that is applied or recovered during a blading process of said blade portion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 - 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2012/0201960 A1.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 PM).
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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743