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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that while the present application has at least three (3) related foreign filings or publications in other countries which cite prior art relevant to the pending claims, no prior art has been added to the record by Information Disclosure Statement pursuant to 37 CFR 1.56(a). Applicant is reminded of the duty under 37 CFR 1.56(a) to disclose information material to patentability, such as (a) prior foreign or domestic filings by Applicant(s) which are related to the claimed or disclosed invention and which constitute prior art, (b) Office Actions and/or prior art relevant to the claimed or disclosed invention which have been cited by a foreign or domestic patent office during prosecution of related foreign or domestic filings by Applicant(s), (c) related brochures, dissertations, or other research publications, including that which has been authored by one or more inventors listed under this application or by other individuals under which or along which one or more inventors may have been working, and (d) any other relevant prior art Applicant may be aware of, including since the filing of any previous information disclosure statement (IDS).
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on 24 July 2024 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: the claim 3 compression assembly, claim 4 compression frame and driving assembly, claim 5 first driving member, claim 6 synchronous mechanism, claim 8 guide member, claim 11 second driving assembly, and the claim 12 second driving member.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At line 1 of claim 1, “wherein” after the comma should be deleted.
The term “wherein” should be added to claim 1 at line 3 after the semi-colon “;” to the beginning of line 7, and to claim 18 prior to “when” at line 8.
After the term “apart” at line 4 of claim 1 and in each of claims 6, 7, 12, and 18, “from one another” should be added.
The term “and” ending line 6 of claim 1 should be deleted.
The term “wherein” should be added to claim 2 at line 3 after “and”.
At lines 3-4 of claim 3, “, and is movable closes” should be changed to “and being movable closer”.
At line 5 of claim 4 and in the 2nd to last line of each of claims 5 and 8, “close” should be changed to “closer”.
At lines 1-2 of claim 6, it is believed that “first driving assembly” should be changed to “at least one lifting lead screw”.
In the last line of claim 6, it is believed that “an axis of the lifting lead screw” should be changed to “a respective axis of the lifting lead screws”.
The comma at line 4 of claim 11 should be deleted.
It is believed that “an” at line 4 of claim 11 and at line 5 of claim 13 should each be changed to “the”.
It is believed that “above described” at line 3 of claim 15 should be deleted.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment is required.
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.
Claims 6, 7, 11-13, and 15-17 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. In particular:
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear in claim 6 exactly how the previously recited “at least one lifting head screw” relates to the “plurality of lifting lead screws”, in particular whether the at least one lifting head screw is being further limited to a plurality of such screws, or whether the at least one lifting head screw may be construed as distinct therefrom. A suggested correction appears under objection (h) above.
In the final two lines of claim 6, the recitation of each of the lifting lead screws configured to be driven to rotate “about an axis of the lifting lead screw” is confusing. It is unclear which screw is being referenced in the recitation of an axis of “the” (singular) lifting lead screw. A suggested correction appears under objection (i) above.
The claim 11 recitation of a “second” driving assembly lacks antecedent basis, in particular since no “first” driving assembly is recited previously. If it is intended for claim 11 to depend from claim 4, which recites such a first driving assembly, then a fully supported amendment should be made to this effect.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear if or exactly how the claim 11 line 4 and claim 13 line 5 recitation of “an” axis of the second reel relates to the claim 1 recitation of such an axis in the 3rd to last line thereof. If these are the same axis, then a suggested correction to this effect appears under objection (k) above.
Similar to indefiniteness issue (c), claim 12 recites a “second” driving member, master synchronous wheel, slave synchronous wheel, and synchronous belt without any “first” such member, wheel(s), and belt being previously recited. If claim 12 is intended to depend from 7 which first recites such components, then a fully supported amendment should be made to this effect.
The claim 15 line 3 recitation of an “above described” sequence lacks antecedent basis, in particular since no such sequence is recited previously. A suggested correction appears under objection (l) above.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application No. 18/832,550 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims recite each of the instant claim 1 and claim 18 3D printer comprising a release film replacing device with a winding assembly having first and second reels configured in the manner claimed. See at least copending claim 1 in addition to at least copending claims 2-7 as pertinent also to the instant dependent claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-3, 11, 13, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zitelli et al. (US 2017/0129175).
As to claim 1, Zitelli teaches a release film replacing device comprising a winding assembly having first and second opposed reels 12 connected to what may be construed as a rack of tank assembly 25 (see at least figs. 1, 4A-F and their corresponding description), the reels configured in the manner claimed, including for the claimed winding and unwinding of release film 13.
Zitelli’s above device further comprises the claim 2 plate taking the form, for example, of a bottom, horizontally extending portion of tank 10 as depicted in fig. 1, and/or of mask 26 Zitelli further teaches the claim 3 compression assembly taking the form, for example, of a bottom of assembly 25 over which film 13 passes, believed to be movable in the manner claimed by way of disassembly of the various components as depicted for example in figs. 4C-D. The claim 11 driving assembly is believed to be met by one or more of Zitelli’s stepper motors 27.
As to claim 18, Zitelli teaches a 3D printing apparatus comprising a release film replacing device with a winding assembly having first and second opposed reels 12 connected to what may be construed as a rack of tank assembly 25 (see at least figs. 1, 4A-F and their corresponding description), the reels configured in the manner claimed, including for the claimed winding and unwinding of release film 13, and the claimed slidable connection provided to the rack as depicted for example by the fig. 4A-F representation and corresponding description.
Zitelli’s above-cited device further comprises the claim 19 plate taking the form, for example, of a bottom, horizontally extending portion of tank 10 as depicted in fig. 1, and/or of mask 26.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zitelli as applied to at least claim 11, and further in view of Arai et al. (US 2018/0065302).
While Zitelli discloses a controller in association with one or more of the fig. 5-10 irradiation means, the claim 13 use of a controller in association with one or more of the above-cited reels is not believed to be disclosed. However, for a 3D printing apparatus employing a similar release film, Arai teaches a fig. 32 control scheme representation that includes a film controlling unit for the fig. 27, 29, 31 embodiment. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Arai into Zitelli so as to provide such a controller for Zitelli’s winding device as well, in particular to facilitate active, real-time control of release film movement and/or automation thereof.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10, 12, 14-17, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and to overcome objections and § 112(b) rejections set forth above, provided that the above-cited double patenting rejection is also overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The above-cited Zitelli publication is believed to be among the closest prior art of record, with other notable prior art including US 11,130,286 (figs. 27, 29, 31), US 2017/0291355 (figs. 1-3), US 2016/0332386 (figs. 2, 4-8), and US 5,306,446 (figs. 2-3).
While Zitelli discloses a 3D printing apparatus comprising a release film replacing device formed with a winding assembly having first and second reels, neither Zitelli nor the other prior art of record discloses these various claimed components in combination with:
(1) the claim 4 driving assembly installed on the claim 2 plate and connected to the claim 4 compression frame of the claim 3 compression assembly, with the driving assembly configured to drive the compression frame to move close to or farther away from the claimed release film;
(2) the claim 12 driving member master synchronous wheel, slave synchronous wheel and synchronous belt configured in the manner claimed, including with the driving member installed on the claim 2 fixed plate, with the slave wheel sleeved and fixed on an end of the claimed second reel; or
(3) the claim 14, 20 screen assembly arranged between the claimed release film and the claim 2 fixed plate and comprising a printing screen, with a side of the printing screen provided with the claimed screen mounting plate configured in the manner claimed and insertable and fixedly connected to a wall of the claimed first mounting slot formed in the fixed plate.
Rejections 2-4
It is noted that while not outlined herein for the sake of brevity, a rejection is also applicable over a number of additional references of record or hereby added to the record which likewise anticipate, or render obvious, one or more of the pending claims. For example:
US 11,130,286 (figs. 27, 29, 31), US 2017/0291355 (figs. 1-3), US 2016/0332386 (figs. 2, 4-8), and US 5,306,446 (figs. 2-3) are each believed to anticipate at least claims 1 and 18 due to their respective disclosures of a 3D printing apparatus comprising a release film replacing device with first and second reels, in addition to what may be construed as a rack, all configured in the manner presently claimed. These references do not, however, disclose recitations of at least claims 4, 12, 14, and 20 as set forth under the reasons for indicating allowable subject matter above.
These references should be addressed in reply to this Office action via amendment and/or remarks.
Interview Request
Applicant’s Representative is encouraged to contact the Examiner upon review of the instant Office action so as to discuss the claimed invention, the above prior art rejection and other applicable prior art, and how it is believed that the crux of the claimed and disclosed invention distinguishes over the prior art as a whole, particularly if it is believed that such a discussion will help to advance prosecution.
Conclusion
See at least the abstract and figures of the additional prior art hereby made of record, which additional prior art is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be relied upon in subsequent rejections against claimed subject matter, but is not believed to disclose recitations of at least claims 4, 12, 14, and 20 as set forth under the reasons for indicating allowable subject matter above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atul P. Khare whose telephone number is (571)270-7608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Christina A. Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/Atul P. Khare/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742