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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 9 and 10 are amended. Claim 8 is cancelled. Claim 15 is new. Claims 1-7 and 9-15 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends on pages 2-4 that: “Georgeson teaches the use of a compression device 160 for flattening beads extruded by the nozzle and that the compression device may be maintained at a high temperature for heating the newly formed beads to promote fusing between new beads and existing beads during the flattening process (Georgeson, Figs. 3 and 4; and [0067] and [0069]). However, in the process described in Georgeson, the pressure and heating are performed only on each layer formed from new beads extruded from the nozzle. That is, the pressure and heating are performed in Georgeson in a layer-by-layer fashion, which as discussed during the interview, differs from Applicant's claimed method, where, in step P, the pressure and heating are performed simultaneously on the whole modeled article obtained from step M. Accordingly, Applicant's instantly claimed method is not anticipated by Georgeson, and would not have been rendered obvious over Georgeson alone or in view of other secondary references”
However, the scope of the claim is not as narrow as the applicant asserts. Georgeson teaches that the entire article is compressed and heated (P0068-69) as instantly claimed. The process of Georgeson discloses that the compression and heating occurs throughout the process following material as it is deposited and therefore the entirety of each 2-dimensional layer is compressed (P0068, “…to maintain the compression device 160 behind the nozzle 150 at all times during extrusion of the material for flattening the material after extrusion onto the substrate 120”).
Further, if the entirety of the article is interpreted to be the final modeled article (before post processing), based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the application of the final layer that is compressed and heated meets the limitation that entire article is compressed and heated.
The examiner suggests adding claim language to emphasize that the compression is applied to the entire article at once.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Georgeson (US20200368970A1).
Regarding claim 1, Georgeson teaches a method for producing a resin sheet (ABS, fig.4, 342), the method comprising: Step M: discharging a melt or a precursor of a resin from a nozzle and solidifying the resin to form the sheet-shaped resin modeled article using the 3D printer (P0070); and Step P: applying pressure (p) to the entire sheet-shaped resin modeled article obtained from the step M (fig.4, 160, P0069-70) while heating at a heat temperature (P0069), and deforming the entire sheet-shaped resin modeled article to obtain a compressed sheet (P0069-70).
Regarding claim 12, Georgeson teaches the following step T after the step P, Step T: making a thickness of the compressed sheet obtained in the step P thin using one or more methods selected from the group consisting of cutting, machining, and grinding (machining, P0064).
Regarding claim 15, Georgeson teaches the sheet-shaped resin modeled article is formed in the step M by laminating plural layers (Fig.s 3 and 4, P0067-69, compression device 160).
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.
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 2-3, 5-7, 10-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgeson (US20200368970A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Schneider (EP1689574A2).
Regarding claim 2, Georgeson teaches heating (P0069) but is silent to the heat temperature being 80 C or higher.
Schneider, in the same field of endeavor, polymer shaping, teaches the continuously molded urethane sheet can be heated and maintained preferably at 80-110 degrees C (P0050).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have heated to 80 C or higher for the purpose of providing polymerization of the urethane into a solid compound under isobaric conditions as taught by Schneider (P0050).
Regarding claim 3, Georgeson teaches application of pressure (P0081) but is silent to the pressure (p) being 0.1 MPa or more.
Schneider teaches the pressure is 1-10 MPa (P0051) which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 MPa or more. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Schneiders pressure range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the pressure application for the purpose of ensuring a more efficient polymerization during heating as taught by Schneider (P0047-49).
Regarding claim 5, Georgeson is silent to the specific pressure applied.
Schneider teaches the pressure is 1-10 MPa (P0051) but is silent to a product of the pressure (p) measured in MPa and time (t) measured in seconds for applying the pressure (p) satisfies the following formula (i) Formula (i): 5 ≤ p*t ≤ 5000. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as time for pressure application through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality in the claimed time. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Schneider discloses the claimed invention except for the time of pressure application. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply pressure for an ideal amount of time based on the chosen material, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art One would have been motivated to optimize the time of pressure application for the purpose of achieving the desired compression.
Regarding claim 6, Georgeson is silent to step P performed under a reduced pressure atmosphere.
Schneider teaches a step before material dispersion is performed under a reduced pressure atmosphere (P0044-45).
Generally, no invention is involved in the broad concept of performing simultaneously operations which have previously been performed in sequence. In re Tatincloux, 108 USPQ 125.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed a step under a reduced pressure atmosphere for the purpose of equilibrating the polyurethane as taught by Schneider (P0039).
Regarding claim 7, Georgeson teaches the sheet-shaped resin modeled article is a modeled article of thermoset or thermoplastic polymeric material (P0070) but is silent to the sheet-shaped resin modeled article being a modeled article of polyurethane.
Schneider teaches the sheet-shaped resin modeled article being a modeled article of polyurethane (P0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used polyurethane to create the pad as in Schneider in the method of Georgeson as the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claims 10-11, Georgeson teaches the sheet-shaped resin modeled article is a modeled article of thermoplastic polymeric material (P0070) but is silent to the solidifying of the thermoplastic resin is performed by cooling.
Schneider teaches the sheet-shaped resin modeled article being a modeled article of polyurethane (P0039) that is cooled after processing (P0056-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have solidified polyurethane by cooling as in Schneider it would be obvious to solidify a thermoplastic by cooling as this is the inherent nature of a thermoplastic.
Regarding claims 13-14, Georgeson is silent to the resin sheet being a polishing pad, comprising; a polishing layer.
Schneider teaches the resin sheet is a polishing layer for a polishing pad (P0043).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the resulting sheet as a polishing pad or a polishing layer as the methods and materials taught by modified Georgeson result in extremely consistent sheet material in terms of composition, properties, thickness and surface uniformity, resulting in polishing pads which provide a high degree of polishing consistency and efficiency as taught by Schneider (P0037).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgeson (US20200368970A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kani (JP2005144870A).
Regarding claim 4, Georgeson is silent to a spacer is used in the step P.
Kani, in the same field of endeavor, polymer shaping, teaches a spacer is used in the step P (P0051, rubber sheet 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a spacer for the purpose of compressing a selected portion as taught by Kani (P0053).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgeson (US20200368970A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Yuwaki (US20200016832A1).
Regarding claim 9, Georgeson is silent to the melt or the precursor of the resin passes through a filter before discharged from the nozzle of the 3D printer.
Yuwaki, in the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, teaches wherein the melt or the precursor of the resin passes through a filter before discharged from the nozzle of the 3D printer in the step M (ABS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have passed the resin through a filter before discharge for the purpose of removing foreign substances in the shaping material (P0028) as taught by Yuwaki.
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 ERICA H FUNK whose telephone number is (571)272-3785. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00pm ET.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571) 270-7001. 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.
/E.H.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights