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
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (2021/0114306) in view of Wood (2020/0147864) and Kao (2015/0314505).
Regarding claims 1-3, Yamazaki discloses a method for a 3D printing, comprising the steps of:
plasticizing a material by the melting unit 30 with a drive motor 32, a flat screw 40, and a barrel 50, and sending the plasticized material toward a nozzle opening 69 of a nozzle 60;
forming a layer on a stage 300 by moving the nozzle 60 relative to the stage 300 while ejecting the plasticized material from the nozzle opening 69, [0020]; and
stopping the ejection of the plasticized material from the nozzle opening during a movement time in which the nozzle relatively moves with respect to the stage from an ejection stop position to an ejection restart position that is positioned in the same layer as the ejection stop position, [0047],
wherein in the third step ejection of the plasticized material from the nozzle opening is stopped by adjusting an opening area by a discharge amount adjustment mechanism 70 of a flow path through which the plasticized material flows toward the nozzle opening [0047], and
wherein the control time includes 1) a discharge start time for starting an operation of the discharge amount adjustment mechanism 70 at the discharge start, and 2) a discharge stop time including a time for stopping the operation of the discharge amount adjustment mechanism 70, [0047].
However, Yamazaki fails to discloses the step of controlling of the movement of the nozzle during a first movement time and a second movement time such that the difference between the two times (times when the nozzle is moving while NOT ejecting material) is within a predetermined range, and that a rotational speed of the screw is reduced during the movement time of the third step to suppress an increase in pressure upstream of the opening area of the flow adjusted in the third step.
Wood discloses a 3D printing method including a plurality of Travel Move steps, where the printer stops extruding and moves to the start point of the next layer before resuming extrusion [0004], and providing a slicing software such as Gcode [0055] and determining where the start and end points of the travel moves, wherein the printer moves faster during Travel Moves [0055]-[0056].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Yamazaki’s method with the step of controlling the speed and/or the time during the non-extruding period between one printing to the next as taught by Wood in order to reduce or eliminate unwanted surface material effects caused by material leaking/oozing out of the nozzle during the non-printing Travel Move time period. In regarding to the range of difference between a first movement time when the nozzle travels during injection and a second movement time when the nozzle travels during non-injection time period, this would have been obvious matter of routine optimization in view of Yamazaki and Weed in order to optimize the printing time and the travel time so that the material can be printed appropriately with minimal surface material effects caused by material oozing out of the nozzle.
Regarding to the newly added limitation that “a rotational speed of the screw is reduced during the movement time of the third step to suppress an increase in pressure upstream of the opening area of the flow adjusted in the third step”. Kao discloses an injection method, comprising that after the mold cavity 3 has been filled with the molten plastic 6A, the control unit 441 controllably reduces the operating speed of the variable-frequency motor 442 to slow down the rotation of the screw rod 43 and thus facilitate gradual pressurization, such that the force of delivering the molten plastic 6A equals the force generated from the backflow pressure. The resultant state of stable pressure enables the mold cavity 3a to maintain a specific level of pressure therein [0027], [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve Yamazaki’s method by reducing the rotational speed of the screw as the ejection of the material from the nozzle opening is stopped as taught by Kao to facilitate gradual pressurization and to controllably reducing the rotation speed of the variable-frequency motor to stabilize the pressure in the injection barrel and the pressure in the mold cavity and to enhance the tightness of the contact and coupling between the molten plastic and the metallic material.
Regarding claim 4, Yamazaki further discloses that the control unit 500 generates the data and dividing the shape of the 3D shaped article into layers each having a predetermined thickness [0044], wherein by under control of the control unit 500, a shaping material from a discharge unit 60 provided on the shaping unit 200 towards the stage 300 while driving the moving mechanism 400 to change a relative position between the discharge unit 60 and the stage 300, [0020], wherein
the moving mechanism 400 is implemented by a three-axis positioner that moves the stage 300 in three axial X, Y and Z directions [0022], or to change the relative position between the discharge unit 60 and the shaping surface 311 by moving the shaping unit 200 without moving the stage 300 instead of moving the stage 300. The moving mechanism 400 may be configured to change the relative position between the discharge unit 60 and the shaping surface 311 by moving both the stage 300 and the shaping unit 200 [0022].
Regarding claims 5-6, wherein the control unit 500 acquires that shaping data from a computer coupled to the 3D shaping device 100, so that intermediate data including a first partial route, a second partial route, or more partial routes, the map of the route, the discharge of the material, the moving time, the control time, the moving speed, etc. can be generated and carried out by using three-dimensional CAD software or three-dimensional CG software, and dividing the shape of the three-dimensional shaped article into layers each having a predetermined thickness in an STL format or AMF format created by slicer software such as a G code, an M code. Thus, the start and the stop of the discharge of the shaping material can be controlled with high accuracy, and shaping accuracy can be improved [0054]-[0060].
Regarding claim 7, wherein thermoplastic material is converted to a plasticized and melted state by the rotation of the flat screw 40 connected to a drive motor 32 and the heating of the heater 58 in the melting unit 30, and the thermoplastic material is discharged from the nozzle 61; rotation axis of the drive motor 32 is coupled to an upper surface 41 side of the flat screw 40 and is driven under the control of the control unit 500, which could including the controlled speed of the motor [0023], [0027].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 have 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.
The newly added limitation that “a rotational speed of the screw is reduced during the movement time of the third step to suppress an increase in pressure upstream of the opening area of the flow adjusted in the third step”. This limitation is disclosed by Kao (‘505) in which after the mold cavity 3 has been filled with the molten plastic 6A, the pressure in the mold cavity 3 increases instantly to therefore generate a backflow pressure. The control unit 441 controllably reduces the operating speed of the variable-frequency motor 442, such that the rotation of the screw rod 43 slows down, and in consequence the force of pressurizing and delivering the molten plastic 6A equals the force generated from the backflow pressure. Hence, by controllably reducing the rotation speed of the variable-frequency motor 442 to stabilize the pressure in the injection barrel 41 and the pressure in the mold cavity 3, the molten plastic 6A in the mold cavity 3 cools and takes shape steadily, to not only effectuate pressure stabilization but also enhance the tightness of the contact and coupling between the molten plastic 6A and the metallic material 8, [0027], [0029].
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 Thu-Khanh T. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30.
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.
/Thu Khanh T. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights