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 .
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 1-10 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 1 recites “a support body forming step of forming, by stacking the layer, a support body, which is removed after the heat treatment, integrally with the first component” in line 8-10. “the layer” refers to the first component recited in line 5 or a layer containing support body material? Should it be “stacking the layer with a support body?” What is the meaning of “integrally”? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “in the aggregate, at least one of the first component and the second component includes an overhang portion overlapping with the other component from above, the overhang portion being spaced apart from the other component in a vertical direction” in line 14-18. The definition of “overlap” is one part lies on top of another part. The overhanging portion cannot overlap and space apart from the other component. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “the support body forming step includes a first step of forming, by stacking the layer containing the first inorganic powder and the first binder, a support main body portion that is a portion of the support body being not in contact with the first component and the second component in the aggregate” in line 23-27. This limitation is confusing because stacking the layer with a support main body meaning the support main body is in contact with the first component which is conflict with “not in contact with the first component and the second component”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyashita (US2020/0062978).
Regarding claim 1, Miyashita teaches a method for manufacturing a three-dimensional shaped object, comprising: forming a first layer containing a support body portion and an entity portion containing an inorganic powder and a binder followed by scanning the first layer with laser so that the inorganic particles in the first layer is joined; forming a second layer containing a support body portion and an entity portion containing an inorganic powder and a binder followed by scanning the second layer with laser so that the inorganic particles in the second layer is joined; repeating the layer forming steps until a 3D article is formed ([0068] to [0124]), which meets the first component forming step and the support body forming step as recited in claim 1. Fig. 9 of Miyashita shows the 3D shape of the final product, wherein the first and the second layer (counted from the bottom of the object) can be interpreted as the recited first component and the third and the fourth layer (counted from the bottom of the object) can be interpreted as the recited second component, and both components have an overhang portion that spaced apart from the other component. Fig. 9 of Miyashita also shows that the first component (i.e. a combination of the first- and second layer counted from the bottom of the object), the second component (i.e. a combination of the third- and the fourth layer counted from the bottom of the object) and the supporting portion are in contact with one another. Miyashita further discloses that a post heat treatment is performed to improve the joining strength between the particles ([0299]), which meets the limitation that the heat treatment is executed on an aggregate in which the first component, the second component, and the support body are combined to be in contact with one another. Miyashita discloses that the support body is removed after the post-treatment step ([0125]).
Miyashita discloses that the support body is formed in the aggregate to support the overhang portion from below between the first component and the second component (Fig. 9). Miyashita discloses a method of forming the support body, comprising: repeatedly forming a layer containing an entity portion containing an inorganic powder and a binder and a support main body portion containing an inorganic powder, wherein the support main body portion is in contact with the first component (i.e. a combination of the first- and second layer counted from the bottom of the object) and the second component (i.e. a combination of the third- and the fourth layer counted from the bottom of the object) in the aggregate, and a melting point of the inorganic powder in the supporting portion is higher than a melting point of the inorganic powder in the entity portion ([0049] to [0124]; [0213]; [0289]; Fig. 9), which meets the forming method for support body limitation recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Miyashita discloses that the inorganic material for the entire 3D product is made of the same element as a main component ([0140] to [0162]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Miyashita discloses that the composition may be different in different region of the 3D product ([0274]; [0289]), which include that a mass ratio of inorganic powder to binder in one layer is different from the mass ratio in another layer and meets the limitation recited in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Miyashita discloses that the particle size of the inorganic powder is 0.1-50 µm ([0152]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that some particles in the first component have different particles size from some particles in the second component and meets the recited limitation in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Miyashita discloses that the first component and the support main body portion are formed using the same material ([0212]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Miyashita discloses removing the first binder contained in the first component and the first binder contained in the support body by heating before forming the aggregate ([108] to [0124]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 8-10 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiaowei Su whose telephone number is (571)272-3239. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 5712721401. 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.
/XIAOWEI SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights