DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 12/18/2025, claims 1-8 are pending. Claims 1-2 are currently amended. Claims 1-8 are considered in the current Office 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Previous Objections/Rejections
Previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment.
Previous 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 is withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment; however, new rejection has been established.
Previous 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 2-8 are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the sensor is fixed to one of either the movable unit or the heating unit, and the structure is fixed to the other, such that the structure is connected to one of the movable unit or the heating unit, whichever is not connected to the sensor”. The specification at most discloses “the detection mechanism 900 includes a sensor 910 fixed to the movable unit 700 and a structure 920 fixed to the heating unit 600 [0054]”. However, nothing in the specification supports the alternative embodiment where the sensor is fix to the heating unit while the structure is fix to the movable unit as recited in claim 2. Thus, this alternative embodiment limitation is considered as a new matter.
Claims 3-8 are rejected virtue by depending on a rejected claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2022/0324170 (“Reith et al” hereinafter Reith) and CN106392076 (“Shen et al” hereinafter Shen), machine translation provided.
Regarding Claim 1, Reith teaches a three-dimensional shaping apparatus (Figure 1B and abstract) comprising:
a discharge unit (Figure 1B, printhead 200) including a plasticizing unit (Figure 4 and [0083], the printhead 200 comprise a heater 206 that melt the printing material, which may be plastic [0047]. The function of melting solid plastic into a homogeneous liquid state is equivalent to the function of a plasticizing unit and thus reads upon the claimed limitations) including a first heater (Figure 4, heater 206) and configured to plasticize a material to generate a plasticized material ([0083]-[0084]) and a nozzle configured to discharge the plasticized material (Figure 4, nozzle 210 and [0084]);
a stage on which the plasticized material is stacked (Figure 1B, build plate 100);
a heating unit including a second heater (Figure 3B, active heater 303) configured to heat the plasticized material stacked on the stage ([0090], active heater 303 may be configured to generate heat, which may be directed towards the top surface of build plate 100 and/or the printed object 800), the heating unit being located above a tip of the nozzle at least when a three-dimensional shaped object is shaped (Figure 3A-3B, active heater 303 is part of the reflector unit 300 which is located above a tip of the nozzle 210).
Reith fails to teach a sensor configured to detect positional deviation of the heating unit relative to the discharge unit.
Shen teaches a sensor configured to detect positional deviation of the heating unit relative to the discharge unit (page 2, lines 16-18, a position detecting sensor capable of detecting a distance between the liquid outlet and the printing substrate to preheat the induction coil which indirectly measures the distance between the nozzle and the induction coil, which is a heating element).
Reith ([0066]) and Shen (page 5, lines 2-3) are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of manufacturing 3D object using thermoplastic materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus of Reith such that it discloses all of the above mentioned limitations as taught by Shen to preheat the printing substrate based on the detect distance and to facilitate the combination of layers during the modeling to ensure the molding quality of the 3D model (page 5, lines 33-36 and lines 46-53).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) and dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if overcomes the 35 USC 112(a) rejection and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art, whether taken alone or in combination fails to discloses the cumulative limitations of claim 2. Claims 3-8 are depended upon claim 2 and are allowed for the same reason.
The closest prior art, CN106392076 (“Shen et al” hereinafter Shen), discloses a 3D printing system and print head device with a position detecting sensor capable of detecting a distance between the liquid outlet and the printing substrate to preheat the induction coil (page 2, lines 16-18) which indirectly measures the distance between the nozzle and the induction coil, which is a heating element. Shen fails to teach “a structure including a wall portion that surrounds at least a part of the sensor when viewed in a direction in which the sensor extends, and the sensor is fixed to one of either the movable unit or the heating unit, and the structure is fixed to the other, such that the structure is connected to one of the movable unit or the heating unit, whichever is not connected to the sensor”. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious or motivated to modify the apparatus of Shen to includes above limitations.
The closest prior art, US2020/0406548 (“Yuwaki et al”) discloses a 3D device with a distance measurement unit140 includes a gauge head 150 and a gauge head movement amount detection unit 142 (see attached Figure 2). The sensor is fixed to a second fixture 53 which is then attached to the stage 30 and is movable in the z direction ([0037]) and measures the distance between the nozzle and the stage ([0005]). Yuwaki fails to teach “a structure including a wall portion that surrounds at least a part of the sensor when viewed in a direction in which the sensor extends, and the sensor is fixed to one of either the movable unit or the heating unit, and the structure is fixed to the other, such that the structure is connected to one of the movable unit or the heating unit, whichever is not connected to the sensor”. Furthermore, Yuwaki discloses a heating element that heats the entire chamber (Figure 1 and [0021]) and fails to teach “a heating unit including a second heater… located above a tip of the nozzle at least when a three-dimensional shaped object is shaped”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious or be motivated to modified the apparatus of Yuwaki such that the second heater is located above a tip of the nozzle without changing the operational principle of Yuwaki.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 has 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
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 XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754