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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-7 are pending and the subject of this NON-FINAL Office Action. This is the first action on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112- Indefiniteness
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 1-7 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.
The steps required by claim 1 are too ambiguous to apply prior art without conjecture as to their scope. When the claims become so ambiguous that one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine their scope absent speculation, such claims are invalid for indefiniteness. see In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962). First, Claim 1 states “(a) supplying a composition from a supply unit to a stage intermittently or continuously, wherein the composition comprises an inorganic binder in which the inorganic material has been
dispersed or an organic coating surrounding the inorganic material.” It is unclear what “inorganic material” is referenced because “the inorganic material” lacks antecedent basis.
Next, step b) recites
(b) degreasing an organic binder or organic coating by applying heat to the composition on a stage using a degreasing laser, and thermally coagulating the degreasing composition using a thermal coagulation laser to form a thermally coagulated composition, the thermal solidification laser and the degreasing laser each being spaced apart from the stage and each being disposed above the stage, the degreasing laser being different than the thermal solidification laser, a thermal solidification laser moving mechanism moves the thermal solidification laser in at least two orthogonal horizontal directions relative to the stage, and a degreasing laser moving mechanism moves the degreasing laser in at least two orthogonal horizontal directions relative to the stage.
It is unclear if “an organic binder” is the same as in step a, or another due to the use of “an” instead of “the.” If, in fact, this is a different organic binder, then its is also unclear because this phrase is no different from the “organic binder” of step a. Furthermore, “an” only modifies “organic buffer”; thus, it is also unclear if “organic coating” is the same as or different from step a. Finally, it is unclear what is “the thermal solidification laser” because it lacks antecedent basis.
Next, in step c):
(c) acquiring information on the geometric state of the thermally solidified composition, acquiring information on the arrangement or shape of the thermally solidified composition by photographing the thermally solidified composition on the stage using a photographing device, acquiring information for acquiring information on the geometrical state of a thermally coagulated composition based on photographing data obtained from a photographing device, [missing conjunction] the information on the geometric state of the thermally solidified composition including locations of cracks or pores.
It is unclear what is meant by “acquiring information for acquiring information.” This is simply nonsensical. Next, the clause lacks a conjunction to indicate whether all subclauses are required (e.g. “and”), or only one (e.g. “or”). Finally, “coagulation laser” is entirely unclear as it is never used in the art, nor described in the specification.
Next, in step d), it is unclear what “composition is “thermally cured” because this lacks antecedent basis. Specifically, step d) states “removing at least a portion of the thermally cured composition from the stage.”
Finally, in step e):
(e) controlling the supply unit and the thermal solidification laser to repeat the supply and thermal solidification of the composition, and control the supply unit and the thermal solidification laser based on the acquired information, controlling the position of the supply unit and the position of the thermal solidification laser relative to the stage based on information about the geometrical state of the thermally solidified composition, [missing conjunction] controlling the degreasing laser to perform degreasing.
First, just like in step c), here the clause lacks a conjunction to indicate whether all subclauses are required (e.g. “and”), or only one (e.g. “or”). Even more, it is unclear what is repeated in step e). “[R]epeat the supply and thermal solidification of the composition” lacks antecedent basis. There is no “thermal solidification” step recited in claim 1. Nor is there a “supply and thermal solidification” single step (implied by “”the” before both steps). Finally, step f) conflicts with step e) in that step f) requires repeating steps a-c, which would be potentially duplicative of “repeat the supply and thermal solidification of the composition” in step e) depending on what step e) means exactly. Thus, it is unclear what is required in step e).
In sum, claim 1 requires so much conjecture as to its metes and bounds that prior art cannot be applied fairly.
This is a DIV of US 17/273578 in which similar controller-based claims were prosecuted. Applicants have been put on notice as to the prior art potentially relevant to this case because US 17/273578, as best the Examiner can determine, included similar claims.
Additionally, US 12479027 and US 11998981 may become relevant to double-patenting based on amendments to the claims to clarify the metes and bounds.
Claim Objection
The Specification never uses the phrase “thermal coagulation laser.” This phrase is simply never used in the specification. Nor “coagulation.” It seems that this phrase was a mis-translation, and may be meant as “thermal solidification laser.”
Prior Art
The following prior art teaches conventional use of ultrasonic waves to determine part density: US 4728364; US 20050173380; US 20180029300; US 9933393.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELODY TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-1846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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.
/YUNG-SHENG M TSUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights