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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10 and 12 are pending and the subject of this FINAL Office Action.
At this point in prosecution, the Examiner strongly encourages Applicants to claim their only disclosed jig with calibration marks disclosed in Figures 3-4 because the Examiner does not currently see any other possible path to allowability due to the vague (and potentially very broad) claims.
Applicants’ arguments in the Reply 12/16/2025 are addressed within the new grounds of rejection, below.
New Grounds of Rejections - 35 USC § 112- Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The claimed “plate-shaped jig” and “calibration marks” are too ambiguous to apply prior art without conjecture as to their scope. When the claims become so ambiguous that one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine their scope absent speculation, such claims are invalid for indefiniteness. see In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962). First, the relationship of the “jig” to the “board” is unclear. Claim 1 states that the “base plate” has “an upper surface . . . configured to hold a board”; yet, also “a jig fixed on the upper surface of the base plate.” In other words, the “upper surface” of the “base plate” has both a “board” and a “jig.” However, the specification never explains how this is configured.
As an initial matter, the specification never defined “board.” The claims and specification regularly state that a “board” can be attached to a base plate (e.g. 60 in Figure 1):
PNG
media_image1.png
452
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see e.g. para. 0102 (“Base plate 60 is formed in a flat plate shape, and a board (not illustrated) is placed on an upper surface thereof”)). But this “board” is never defined. A “board” is commonly understood as a flat usually rectangular piece of material. Yet, even this definition is vague. For example, what are the metes and bounds of “usually rectangular”? And the material encompassed is anything. Does cardboard apply here? The specification is completely silent. In other words, what is this “board” applicants chose to put in their claims? Applicants fail to provide any clear guidance to a skilled artisan. At best, some portions of the specification discuss “printed circuit board” (para. 0002) or “circuit board” (paras. 0013, 0015, 0017, 0019 & 0022). However, Applicants never clearly define “board” as a printed circuit board. Thus, the metes and bounds of “board” itself is unclear.
To this end, how this vague “board” relates to the generic “jig” is unclear because the “board” itself is unclear. For example, without a clear meaning to the “board,” it is impossible to determine how this vague “board” interacts with the “jig.” More particularly, can a cardboard “board” simultaneously be on a 3D printer base plate with a “jig”? Why would this board be present? What does it do? How about a wood board? Or an MDF board? Is the “jig” placed on the “board,” or vice versa? Are they placed next to each other? Do they overlap? Does one surround the other? None of this is addressed in the specification.
At best Applicants point to one vague paragraph in the specification: “Fig. 3 is a plan view of calibration jig 200 used when three-dimensional laminate shaping device 10 performs various calibration. In the present embodiment, for example, calibration jig 200 is formed of a rectangular glass plate having a size of 35 mm x 75 mm, and is fixed at a predetermined position on base plate 60, at least a position that does not interfere with placement of the board” (para. 0023). However, the mere mention of the “board” is to vaguely suggest that the “jig” (here specified as rectangular glass plate having a size of 35 mm x 75 mm, which is exemplary and not definitional) “is fixed at a predetermined position on base plate 60, at least a position that does not interfere with placement of the board”? What is that position? None are provided, much less any placement principle explained. Thus, even Applicants’ single argument fails to clarify the meaning of the claimed “board”-“jig” relationship.
Applicants’ other arguments repeatedly point to examples in the specification, then state that they are “non-binding examples,” with which the Examiner agrees. See MPEP § 2111(II) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” (quoting Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004))). If they are “non-binding examples,” then why cite them? In other words, providing examples with no explanation of how those examples provide a guiding principle to clarify the claim language fails to overcome the rejections.
Finally, it is not clear how the newly-added wherein clause in claim 1 affects the structure of the claimed 3D laminate shaping device. Specifically, the wherein clause states that “the multiple types of calibration marks include a first aligning mark [intended] for aligning a first printing position using the control device based on a first image of the first alignment mark when the first printing device prints the structural material.” Even if the intended use wherein clause affected the structure of the claimed device, still it is not clear what is meant by aligning when the first printing device prints the structural material (which is “laminated” “on the board”). Stated differently, what is this “structural material,” and how does its printing affect the jig and its alignment marks? Or to put it another way, what is the physical or structural relationship between the alignment marks, control device, first image and the structural material printed on the “board”?
Then one gets to “jig.” This commonly means a device used to maintain mechanically the correct positional relationship between a piece of work and the tool or between parts of work during assembly (e.g. as in woodworking). Yet, the specification only mentions optically maintaining the correct positional relationship between 3D printing components/tools and the “plate-shaped jig.” This requires a camera to optically determine the location of e.g. a ink drop in relation to a “calibration mark” (Fig. 4b). The specification never discloses a mechanical link between anything (e.g. print head) and the “plate-shaped jig.” For example, none of the 3D printing components/tools touch the “plate-shaped jig.” Finally, it is unclear if the “jig” is in addition to a print surface such as a platform. The specification simply never explains if the “jig” forms the print substrate/platform, or is separate from it. Without this critical component clearly defined and understood it is impossible to fairly apply prior art without guessing as to what this is.
As to “calibration marks” and “alignment marks,” the metes and bounds are unclear. The specification never defines the “marks,” including their structure or their composition. At best, the specification states they can be round or any other shape (para. 0053; Fig. 4). That is it. Applicants fail to explain how the marks are made (e.g. what materials, transparency, depth, length, width, etc.); or anything about their composition or structure. For example, what structures and/or compositions allow for calibration, and how? Is the “mark” merely an ink drop and not a pre-made mark (e.g. etching in a print platform)? In fact, the single example provided in Figures 3-4 (annotated below) merely shows circle at various locations of a “jig”:
PNG
media_image2.png
500
1074
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
262
330
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Not only is it impossible for a skilled artisan to determine how the various “marks” in these figures differ, it is also impossible to determine what exactly are these marks other than some sort of circle. A drawing fails to provide the kind of detail required to give life to the claimed “calibration mark,” much less distinguish it from the prior art. Finally, how is a “calibration mark” distinguishable from an “alignment mark”? Are they interchangeable, or do “aligning marks” form the makeup of a “calibration mark”? Thus, a skilled artisan is required to conjecture what is the “calibration mark.”
As an example of this fruitless endeavor, it is unclear if the alignment or calibration marks on the substrates in the figures of US 20070248892 meet the claimed invention. As another example, do the holes in the correction plates in US8163224 Figure 6? Or alignment marks M in US 20120303151? Many other prior art references contain “alignment markers” or “calibration markers” of various innumerable substances, locations, structures, etc. on various innumerable substrates for various intended uses (e.g. US 8571845; US 20140039658; US 20160221230; US 20160231648; US 20200089185; US 20160325562; US 20050229737; US 20160236279; US 20160339644; US 20180261472; US 20240059020; US 20200164588); do any of these meet the claimed invention of “calibration marks” on a “jig”?
In sum, the claimed “board,” “calibration marks” and “jig”-“plate” interaction are so unclear that it is impossible to apply prior art without conjecture as to their meaning.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 MELODY TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-1846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 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.
/YUNG-SHENG M TSUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743