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 § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 discloses that “the first movement time being the movement time in a first case where a movement distance, which is a distance from the ejection stop position to the ejection restart position, is a first distance” and “the second movement time being the movement time in a second case where the movement distance is a second distance shorter than the first distance”. It is unclear how the first and second distances defines the movement time(s) of the nozzle. Are these the times for the nozzle to travel these distances?
It is also unclear if “the movement distance” in claim 1, page 2, lines 7-8 is referring to “a movement distance” in line 4. It not, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Clam 4 recites “the second case”. It is unclear if this is the same or different than the second case in claim 1. In claim 1, the movements of the nozzle are in the same layer, while in claim 4, the nozzle is moved in a vertical distance, or from layer to layer.
Clarifications and/or corrections are required.
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).
Regarding claims 1-3, Yamazaki discloses a method for a 3D printing, comprising the steps of:
plasticizing a material by the melting unit 30 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.
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 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].
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