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 Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a roller… configured for rotating to carry the flowable resin to an application site within the build area” (lines 11-13) is considered to be a statement of the intended use of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). Therefore, for the purposes of this Office action, any drum that is capable of rotating and supporting resin will be considered to meet the 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 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.
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.
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, 3-5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasukochi (WO 2015/093032, machine translation relied upon) in view of Russell (US 2005/0280185).
Regarding claim 1, Yasukochi discloses an apparatus for forming a three dimensional object from a material that is cured by energy rays (page 1, top). The object is formed on a work plate located above the object (figure 3, reference numeral 13), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a build platform, connected to a plate rotation mechanism (page 6, middle, figure 3, reference numeral 12), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a support assembly. Resin is supplied by a supply nozzle onto the lower surface of the build platform (page 7, bottom, figure 3, reference numeral 15). The level of the resin is regulated by a rotating drum (figure 1, reference numeral 35) having an irradiating unit (figure 1, reference numeral 40) to cure the material forming the object (page 7, top) that is located inside the drum (page 7, middle). The drum applies pressure to the resin (page 7, bottom), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of the drum configured for rotating to carry flowable resin. The drum is made from a material that transmits light radiation from the irradiation unit (page 7, top), indicating that the roller must be below the exposure site since the roller is below the build area. The resin can flow under the influence of gravity (page 10, bottom), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of the resin being flowable. Yasukochi does not explicitly disclose a carriage having a track that positions the roller and resin supply.
Russell teaches an additive manufacturing apparatus having horizontal slide rails ([0053], figure 5a, reference numeral 46) that support a gantry assembly (figure 5a, reference numeral 40) having a spreader in the form of a roller ([0055], figure 5c, reference numeral 58) and a powder dispenser assembly ([0056], figure 5b, reference numeral 61). The position of the slide rails are precisely controlled [0054].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Yasukochi with rails of Russell. One would have been motivated to do so since Russell teaches a rail system that allows precise control of the position of printing components.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,343,390 (hereafter referred to as Knecht ‘390). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, Knecht ‘390 claims an apparatus comprising a support assembly having a build platform with a build area defined below the build platform, a track extending through the build area, a deposition mechanism mounted on the track and configured for producing a three dimensional object on the build platform using a flowable resin in a layer by layer technique, the deposition mechanism comprising a carriage engaged with the track and configured for movement along the track through the build area, a vat mounted on the carriage and configured to contain a flowable resin, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a supply, a roller configured to be partially submerged within the flowable resin in the vat, wherein the roller is rotatably mounted on the carriage and configured for rotating to carry the flowable resin to an application site within the build area for application to produce the three dimensional object as the carriage passes through the build area, and an exposure device mounted on the carriage and configured for emitting electromagnetic waves through an outlet toward an exposure site within the build area to solidify applied resin applied by the roller to produce the three dimensional object, wherein the roller is permeable to electromagnetic waves and the outlet of the exposure device is positioned below the exposure site such that the electromagnetic waves pass through the roller in travelling from the exposure device to the exposure site (claim 1).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,618,270 (hereafter referred to as Knecht ‘270). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, Knecht ‘270 claims an apparatus comprising a support assembly having a build platform with a build area defined adjacent to the build platform, a deposition mechanism configured for producing a three dimensional object on the build platform using a flowable resin in a layer by layer technique, the deposition mechanism comprising a carriage configured for movement through the build area, a vat mounted on the carriage and configured to contain the flowable resin, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a supply, a roller configured to be partially submerged in the resin, wherein the roller is rotatably mounted on the carriage and configured for rotating to carry the flowable resin to an application site within the build area for application to produce the three dimensional object as the carriage passes through the build area, an exposure device mounted on the carriage and configured for emitting electromagnetic waves (claim 1), wherein the roller is permeable to the waves and the waves pass through the roller to travel to the exposure site (claim 10). The deposition mechanism is mounted on a track extending through the build area (claim 16).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-26 of U.S. Patent No. 10,899,122 (hereafter referred to as Knecht ‘122). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, Knecht ‘122 claims an assembly comprising a support assembly having a build platform defining a build area for producing a three dimensional object on the build platform, a deposition mechanism configured for producing a three dimensional objection on the build platform using a flowable resin in a layer by layer technique, the deposition mechanism comprising a carriage configured for movement relative to the build area, a vat mounted on the carriage and configured to contain a flowable resin, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a supply, a roller configured to be partially submerged in the flowable resin in the vat, wherein the roller is rotatably mounted on the carriage and is configured to pass through the build area during movement of the carriage to carry the flowable resin to the application site for application to produce the three dimensional object as the carriage passes through the build area, and an exposure device mounted on the carriage and configured for emitting electromagnetic waves within the build area to solidify applied resin to produce the three dimensional object (claim 13). The roller is permeable to the electromagnetic waves, and the exposure device has an outlet configured for emitting the electromagnetic waves towards the exposure site, wherein the outlet is positioned such that the electromagnetic waves pass through the roller in travelling from the outlet to the exposure site (claim 19). The exposure device has an outlet through which the waves pass (claim 20). The deposition mechanism is mounted on a track that extends through the build area (claim 23). The build platform is located above the roller (claim 25).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 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, Philip Louie can be reached at 571-270-1241. 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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights