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 § 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)(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.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by YUASA et al. (EP 3922459-Google translation).
Regarding claims 8-9, discloses a method for manufacturing a modeled object
comprising a step of laminating a plurality of single-layer structures [0048]
wherein the plurality of single-layer structures are formed of strands (thread like) [0018] resin from extruding along a tool path (claim 14), the tool path includes folded portions as claimed (Figures 3a-6b).
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAYES et al. (2017/0136703-of record).
Regarding claims 3-4, HAYES et al. discloses a method for manufacturing a
modeled object comprising:
creating the object (102) via additive manufacturing [0042] using modeling data (156-Fig.2) prepared by selecting part of tool paths (162) from source data (computer (112)) [0033] that slices or sections the 3D model (116) into multiple model layers (126) (single-layer structures obtained by slicing a base structure at predetermined modeling pitches) [0044], wherein the selecting of tool path is performed to produce a road geometry (140) comprising raster-to-raster gap widths (146-Fig.3), [0051]. HAYES et al. is silent to the selecting is performed in such a way that the larger a change in shape between tool paths of upper and lower layers is in the source data, the shorter an interlayer spacing in the source data is made as claimed. However, HAYES et al. discloses the road geometry (140) depends on a variety of factors, such as material properties, the type of AM apparatus used, deposition conditions, deposition tip dimensions, and the like and discloses suitable raster-to-raster gap widths (interlayer spacing) may range from 0 to 5 inches [0058]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum tool path through routine experimentation because HAYES et al. teach the raster-to-raster gap widths or interlayer spacing can be varied depending on variety of factors such as material properties, the type of AM apparatus used, deposition conditions, deposition tip dimensions, and the like and discloses suitable raster-to-raster gap widths (interlayer spacing) may range from 0 to 5 inches [0058].
Regarding claims 5 and 10, HAYES et al. teach the base structure (102) (Fig.1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) US 10,467,821- teaches path data generation device for three-dimensional modeling.
b) US 10,471,665- teaches three dimensional printing with driving nozzle.
c) WO 2020/008165- teaches tool path data generation in additive manufacturing.
d) US 2021/0316367- teaches fabrication of porous scaffolds using additive manufacturing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STELLA KIM YI whose telephone number is (571)270-5123. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 EST.
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 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.
STELLA YI
Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/STELLA K YI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742