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 § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa et al. (JPH1016185A) in view of Vasic et al. (US 2021/0178750). Regarding claim 1, Nishikawa et al. disclose “a 3D screen printing printer for producing a component (Figure 1, title), comprising: a first roll (item 4) and a second roll (item 5), which are spaced apart from one another (Figure 1), and a printing form (item 1) which is fastened to the first roll and to the second roll (see the attachment to the rolls in Figure 1), is wound up on the first roll (Figure 1), has a longitudinal direction (Figure 1) and comprises a plurality of portions which are arranged next to one another in the longitudinal direction (items 2a and/or items 2b) and each have a template (paragraph 21) for a respective layer (15a, 15b, 15c) of the component (Examiner notes that a template for a respective layer is an intended use of the printer of Nishikawa et al.; the printer of Nishikawa et al. is more than capable of forming more than one layer), wherein the first roll and the second roll are configured to rotate (Figure 1: arrow) and thus to unwind the printing form from the first roll and wind it up onto the second roll (Figure 1), as a result of which the printing form is transported in a movement direction from the first roll to the second roll (paragraphs 11 and 22, arrow in Figure 1), wherein the printing form has a part which is stretched by the first roll and the second roll and extends in the movement direction from the first roll up to the second roll (Figure 1, paragraphs 13 and 14: predetermined or constant ‘tension’), wherein the longitudinal direction of the stretched part coincides with the movement direction (Figures 1 and 2) and the 3D screen printing printer is configured to press a printing paste through the stretched part (paragraph 1: screen printing method; paragraph 20: pushing force of squeegee).” Nishikawa et al. fail to disclose “a platform disposed between the first roll and the second roll, and under the printing form” or “wherein the platform is configured to move downward after the printing paste is pressed through the stretched part.” Examiner asserts that a platform for holding a substrate to be printed upon in a screen printer is implicit. Regardless, Vasic et al. disclose a screen printing process which includes a platform (item 5) for holding a substrate to be printed upon in a screen printing process (Figure 1), and disclose moving the table downwards in order to provide several printing layers one above the other, and/or to provide a complex three-dimensional structure. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the printer of Nishikawa et al. so that a table which supports the substrate to be printed is moved downward after a printing step so that several printing layers can be provided on top of each other and/or to provide a complex three-dimensional shape. Regarding claim 2, Nishikawa et al. further disclose “wherein at least two of the templates have a different form (Figure 2b, item 2b).” Regarding claim 3, no structure is recited which defines over the printer of Nishikawa et al. The screen printer of Nishikawa et al. is more than capable of printing using a ceramic printing paste. Regarding claim 4, Nishikawa et al. further disclose “wherein the printing form comprises a screen printing screen (item 1, paragraph 18).” Regarding claim 15, Nishikawa et al. further disclose “wherein the screen printing screen comprises a plastic sheet material (paragraph 16); and wherein the templates are formed by the plastic sheet material (paragraph 16).” Regarding claim 16, Nishikawa et al. further disclose “wherein the templates are an integral part of the screen printing screen (Figure 2).” Regarding claim 17, Nishikawa et al. further disclose “wherein the templates are fastened to the screen printing screen (Figure 2).”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 9:30AM-6:30PM, First Fridays: 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights