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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 9/2/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ewald et al (WO 2018/194688; herein Ewald, already of record), in view of Hakkaku et al (US 2018/0147786; herein Hakkaku). Regarding claim 1, Ewald teaches:
An ejection head, configured to eject the shaping material (printhead 46)
A carriage, configured to hold the ejection head (dispensing carriage 48)
A main scan driving part, configured to cause the ejection head to perform a main scan operation of ejecting the shaping material while moving in a main scanning direction set in advance (paragraph 0015, the carriage 48 moves bidirectionally)
A flattening member having a flattening roller, configured to flatten a layer formed of the shaping material (roller 16)
Ewald does not explicitly state what is included in the main scan driving part, but there is a strong assumption that something is guiding the carriage in the correct direction during the motion. However, in the same field of endeavor Hakkaku teaches a main scanning driving part that includes guide rails 13 and a drive belt 15 to move a carriage 5.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the rails and belt of Hakkaku, since it has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this instance since it is clear there is some form of guide and driving member implied by Ewald, it would be entirely within the wheelhouse of a skilled artisan to look at the rails and belt of Hakkaku to see how to explicitly move the carriage of Ewald.
The combination further teaches:
Wherein the flattening member is held by the guide member movably in the main scanning direction outside the carriage, and is coupled to the carriage so as to move together with the carriage in the main scan operation
As seen in the Figures of Ewald the dispensing carriage 48 is separate but coupled to the carriage 12 holding the roller 16, thus the roller 16 is outside of the carriage 48 but moves when the carriage 48 moves.
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches:
Wherein the drive mechanism includes: a belt member, having an annular shape stretched along a moving range of the carriage in the main scanning direction (As previously discussed Hakkaku teaches belt 15)
The drive mechanism is configured to move the carriage in the main scanning direction by rotationally moving the belt member (paragraph 0043, motor 16 rotationally drives the belt 15)
The flattening member is configured to move in the main scan direction together with the carriage by not being directly connected to the belt member, being held by the guide member movably in the main scanning direction, and being coupled to the carriage (There are only so many ways to combine such features in the prior art, since Ewald and Hakkaku teach all the features, the manner in which they are combined would have been obvious to a skilled artisan since it has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).)
Regarding claim 3, Ewald teaches:
Wherein the flattening member is coupled to the carriage, so that a position of the flattening roller in a vertical direction is capable of being adjusted without changing an inclination of the carriage with respect to a horizontal direction (Figures 6A and 7A and paragraph 0017, the roller 16 can be moved vertically, this is done while no change occurs to the carriages)
Regarding claim 6, Ewald teaches:
Wherein the flattening member (roller 16) further includes:
A rotation motor, configured to generate a driving force for rotating the flattening roller (paragraph 0025, the roller is rotated continuously during processing, thus there is some form of motor causing the rotation)
A roller moving motor, configured to generate a driving force for moving the flattening roller in a vertical direction (As previously discussed the roller 16 can move vertically, this there is some form of motor to allow for such controlled vertical movement)
Regarding claim 7, Ewald teaches:
Wherein the flattening member is disposed only on one side in the main scanning direction with respect to the carriage (As seen in Figures 6A-8B the roller 16 is disposed as claimed).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ewald and Hakkaku as applied above, and further in view of Bedal et al (US 6136252; herein Bedal). Regarding claim 4, Ewald and Hakkaku are silent to:
Wherein the flattening member is coupled to the carriage, so that the inclination of the carriage with respect to the horizontal direction is capable of being adjusted without changing the position of the flattening roller in the vertical direction
In the same field of endeavor Bedal teaches angling the print head inclined to the horizontal direction and using a planarization roll that does not move vertically (Figures 1-5, dispensing head 12, planarizer 14, column 4, line 66 through column 5, line 7, column 9, lines 17-40, and column 9, line 60 through column 10, line 18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the angled dispensers of Bedal, since it allows for more efficient printing.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ewald and Hakkaku as applied above, and further in view of Ederer et al (US 2022/0288849; herein Ederer). Regarding claim 5, Ewald and Hakkaku are silent to:
Wherein the flattening member is coupled to the carriage by being coupled to the carriage by an attraction force of a magnet
In the same field of endeavor Ederer teaches using a magnet to attach various parts to the printer (including a recoating roller) (paragraphs 0048, 0060, 0080, 0082)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use Ederer teaches that magnets are equivalent to other known attachment means (paragraph 0060), thus magnets are equivalent for the same known function of attaching one part of a printer to another (see MPEP 2144.06 II).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm..
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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights