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 Non-Final Rejection is in response to the Applicant’s claim amendment received on 02/26/2026, in response to the Final Rejection mailed on 02/26/2026.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 broadly identifies use of plant-based fiber for powder bed in 3D printing and use of binder for forming the article. Claim broadly states control of temperatures without further providing details of specific type of binder, plant-based fiber, and/or temperatures. Thus, claim 1 is considerably broad, and is similarly rejected as shown below.
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 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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKAMOTO et al (US 2021/0001558 A1) in view of Bredt et al. (US 2006/0208388 A1) in view of Feng et al. (US 2019/0054690 A1) and Discekici et al. (US 2022/0119620 A1).
Regarding claims 1 - 4, OKAMOTO et al. teach
a three-dimensional shaping method for shaping a three-dimensional shaped object (see abstract; Figs. 1 -6 shows binder jetting process where powder is laid and binder jetted on the powder layer), the three-dimensional shaping method comprising:
a shaping step of shaping the three-dimensional shaped object by repeating at least a first step and a second step among three steps including the first step (see [0005]-[0045], [0033] discloses stacking is performed by repeating a downward movement of the shaping table 9 by predetermined distance), the second step, and a third step,
the first step being supplying a powder containing a cellulosic material to form a powder layer above a shaping surface at which the three-dimensional shaped object is to be shaped ([0043][0047]; Fig. 1-6 shows supply portion supplies shaping material to the shaping table 9), the second step being dispensing a liquid containing a binder to at least a part of the powder layer formed in the first step ([0050] discloses head discharges liquid to the shaping region P of the layer while supply unit moves in the X1 direction), the third step being heating the powder layer to which the liquid is dispensed in the second step at a predetermined first temperature ([0038] discloses various heating devices used, [0053], [0054]) however, fails to explicitly teach including plant-fiber in the powder as claimed and wherein the first temperature is lower than a boiling point of the binder, higher than a melting point of the binder, and lower than a predetermined second a temperature at which the discoloration of the plant-derived fiber material in the powder occurs.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing and binder jetting to form a printed object, Bredt et al. teach the powder material including particulates such starch as wood powder, cellulose, textile fibers, which can be in fiber form (see [0109][0106], [0055][0035]) in which liquid binders are added ([0039-[0053]), for the purpose of producing organic product having desired mechanical properties with improved strength, stiffness, and other mechanical properties (see [0043]). It would have been obvious to substitute the powder material including plant-based fibers/powders as taught by Bredt with OKAMOTO’s powder, for the purpose of organic product having desired mechanical properties with improved strength, stiffness, and other mechanical properties (see [0043]).
However, OKAMOTO and Bredt et al. fail to teach wherein the first temperature is lower than a boiling point of the binder, higher than a melting point of the binder, and lower than a temperature at which thermal decomposition of the fiber material occurs.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing via binder jetting, Feng et al. teach suggest optimizing powder bed materials parameter including melting point, process window temperature, melt viscosity, particle size distribution (see [0012],[0016]0[0017]), for the benefit of efficiently forming 3D object without defects (see [0017]). One ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention at the time of the effective filing of the applicant’s invention to have modified the first temperature of the powder bed, as suggested by Feng, for the benefit of for the benefit of efficiently forming 3D object without defects (see [0017]), however, Feng et al. is silent as to having the first temperature is lower than a boiling point of the binder, higher than a melting point of the binder, and lower than a temperature than a predetermined second temperature at which the discoloration of the plant-derived fiber material in the powder occurs. However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05(II).
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing including powder bed, Discekici et al. teach optimizing powder bed temperature by using lower temperatures that allows for reduced oxidation of the polymer build material in the powder bed thereby reducing any unnecessary oxidation/yellowing issues at temperatures higher than 200 oC ([0035], [0022]). Discekici et al. teaches dispensing binder materials in the powder bed ([0026]) in additional to pore-promoting compound and control of temperature bed to prevent yellowing/oxidizing issues (see [0025][0026][0047]). (The Examiner notes that claim 1 is silent to specific plant-based material or temperature range for the powder bed).
It would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success since Feng et al. or Discekici et al., specifically teach maintaining temperature in the powder bed which would also include the binder material temperatures as discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method taught by OKAMOTO et al., Feng and Discekici et al. such that the first temperature is lower than a boiling point of the binder, higher than a melting point of the binder, and lower than a temperature at which thermal decomposition of the fiber material occurs, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce defect (to prevent discoloration of the plant-derived fiber material) and overburn and also further benefit of achieving desired strength in the product.
As for claims 8 – 10 , OKAMOTO further shows wherein the first step is a step of forming the three-dimensional shaped object above the shaping surface by moving a layer formation unit parallel to the shaping surface (Figure 1 shows rollers 6 including 6A next to 6B), the second step is a step of dispensing the liquid to the powder layer by a liquid dispensing unit configured to dispense the liquid and move above the powder layer in parallel to the shaping surface (Figure 1 shows head 3A and 3B for jetting materials), and a moving speed of the layer formation unit in the first step is slower than a moving speed of the liquid dispensing unit in the second step ([0005] discloses that controller is configured to control the layer forming and moving portion, the unit, and the shaping table, thus speed could be optimized controlled; [0025]); wherein the layer formation unit is a roller or a squeegee (Figure 1 item 6A, 6B as rollers); wherein the liquid dispensing unit is a printer head ([0005], [0013], [0014], [0017], [0028], [0034]).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKAMOTO et al (US 2021/0001558 A1) in view of Bredt et al. (US 2006/0208388 A1) in view of Feng et al. (US 2019/0054690 A1) in view of Discekici et al. (US 2022/0119620 A1) and in further view of DADVAR (US 2022/0315495 A1).
Regarding claim 5, OKAMOTO et al, Bredt et al., Feng et al. and Discekici et al. teach all the limitation to the claim invention as discussed above, however, fail to teach an impregnation step of impregnating the three-dimensional shaped object after shaping in a resin.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to binder jetting, DADVAR teaches using cellulose powder for binder jetting (see [0061][0062][0063]) discloses impregnation step of impregnating the three-dimensional shaped object after shaping in a resin ([0090]-[0095]) for the benefit of increasing the density of the 3D printed article, to have sufficient strength, durability and water-proof properties (see [0091]-[0095]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention to further combine above with step of impregnating the three-dimensional shaped object after shaping in a resin, as taught by DADVAR, for the benefit of obtaining a 3D printed article with increased the density of the 3D printed article, strength, durability and water-proof properties (see [0091]-[0095]).
Claim(s) 6 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKAMOTO et al (US 2021/0001558 A1) in view of Bredt et al. (US 2006/0208388 A1) in view of Feng et al. (US 2019/0054690 A1) and Discekici et al. (US 2022/0119620 A1) in further view of Eom et al. (US 2018/0319087 A1).
Regarding claim 6 – 7 , OKAMOTO et al, Bredt et al., Feng et al., teach all the limitation to the claim invention as discussed above, however, fail to teach wherein the powder layer includes a shaping region that is at least a part of the three-dimensional shaped object and a non-shaping region that is not a part of the three-dimensional shaped object, and the shaping region includes an outline region constituting an outline and an infill region constituting an infill and wherein the second step is a step of dispensing the liquid to at least the outline region.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing, Eom et al. teach various 3D printing processes that uses toolpath data and includes infill region and perimeter region of a 3D model as determined from the toolpath data (130) ([0036]), the perimeter region of a 3D model defines the outer surface of 3D printed object different from that of the infill region (see [0036]).
Therefore, based on the type of 3D printing, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention to have modified the process of binder jetting as taught above, with further creating a toolpath data for forming the 3D printed object (including infill, perimeter/outline), regions as discussed by Eom et al., for efficiently producing a physical model of the object.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKAMOTO et al (US 2021/0001558 A1) in view of Bredt et al. (US 2006/0208388 A1) in view of Feng et al. (US 2019/0054690 A1) and Discekici et al. (US 2022/0119620 A1) in view of Pompe et al. (US 2015/0232667 A1).
Regarding claim 11, OKAMOTO, Bredt, Fend, and Discekici teach all the limitations to the claim invention as discussed above, however, fail to teach using paraffin wax as the binder, the second predetermined temperature is about 150 oC.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing, Pompe et al. teach using paraffin wax as the binder (see [0232] discloses using paraffin wax), for the benefit of evaporation at low temperatures rather then the more difficult-to-control burnout of polymer-based binder (see [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention to modify 3D printing process taught by OKAMOTO, Bredt, Fend, and Discekici, with further including paraffin wax, as the binder, as taught by Pompe et al., for the benefit of being able to remove unwanted binder with thermal evaporation at lower temperatures. Furthermore, though Pompe et al. fails to teach
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 8-10 have been considered, however, are rejected under new grounds for the amended claim subject matter. Furthermore, the Examiner would like to take a moment to response to few arguments that currently applies to the reference applied OKAMOTO et al (US 2021/0001558 A1) in view of Bredt et al. (US 2006/0208388 A1) in view of Feng et al. (US 2019/0054690 A1).
The Applicant mainly argued that the independent claim 1 recites in part, the third step being heating the powder layer to which the liquid is dispensed in the second step at a predetermined first temperature to prevent discoloration of the plant-based fiber material. It was mainly argued that Okamoto relates to 3D printing of powder layers, and applying binder, to selected regions of the powder material layers, and a heater that sinters the shaping material. Okamoto fails to teach plant-fiber.
Applicant alleged that Bredt though teaches using plant-based fiber, however, fails to teach the third step being heating the powder layer to which the liquid is dispensed in the second step at a predetermined first temperature to prevent.
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s arguments are considered, however, are not found persuasive since claim 1 as written is still broad as such it does not identify specific plant-based fiber, not it identify the build temperatures. (i) Claim broadly written, the examiner has identified, that the use of plant-based fiber for powder bed would have been obvious over OKAMOTO et al (US 2021/0001558 A1) in view of Bredt et al. (US 2006/0208388 A1) in view of Feng et al. (US 2019/0054690 A1). The Examiner also identified that once binder is dispensed, it is shown by the prior art to optimize the temperature of the build surface based on the material properties.
In the rejection provided above, the examiner provided that Bredt et al. teach the powder material including particulates such starch as wood powder, cellulose, textile fibers, which can be in fiber form (see [0109][0106], [0055][0035]) in which liquid binders are added ([0039-[0053]), for the purpose of producing organic product having desired mechanical properties with improved strength, stiffness, and other mechanical properties (see [0043]). It would have been obvious to substitute the powder material including plant-based fibers/powders as taught by Bredt with OKAMOTO’s powder, for the purpose of organic product having desired mechanical properties with improved strength, stiffness, and other mechanical properties (see [0043]).
The examiner also provided, Feng et al. teach suggest optimizing powder bed materials parameter including melting point, process window temperature, melt viscosity, particle size distribution (see [0012],[0016]0[0017]), for the benefit of efficiently forming 3D object without defects (see [0017]). The Examiner currently provided Discekici et al. (US 2022/0119620 A1), pertaining to 3D printing including powder bed, teach optimizing powder bed temperature by using lower temperatures that allows for reduced oxidation of the polymer build material in the powder bed thereby reducing any unnecessary oxidation/yellowing issues at temperatures higher than 200 oC for specific polymers ([0035], [0022]). Discekici et al. teach similar to the Applicant’s invention dispensing binder materials in the powder bed ([0026]) in additional to pore-promoting compound and control of temperature bed to prevent yellowing/oxidizing issues (see [0025][0026][0047]). (The Examiner notes that claim 1 is silent to specific plant-based material or temperature range for the powder bed therefore, similarly rejected.).
One ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention at the time of the effective filing of the applicant’s invention to have modified the first temperature of the powder bed, as suggested by Feng and Discekici et al., for the benefit of for the benefit of efficiently forming 3D object without defects/discoloration.
Conclusion
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