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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/16/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: "capable of keeping sealing the sliding hole" in line 9 should read "capable of keeping . Appropriate correction is required.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: movement driving mechanism in claim 1; and gas distribution mechanism in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2- 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 2 recites the limitation "the intermediate pressure rod is provided therein with an intermediate cavity..." in lines . However, lines 2-3 of the claim has established that the pressure rod assembly comprises intermediate pressure rods being arranged on two sides of the scraping plate. This is further supported by Figure 4 of the instant application showing two intermediate pressure rods (711) on the sides of scraping plate (42). Hence, it is unclear which pressure rod is being referred to in lines 3-4. Examiner has interpreted the limitation to refer to multiple intermediate pressure rods each having an intermediate cavity. This is further supported in lines 9-10 which references two intermediate cavities.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the gas distribution ports" in line 9. However, lines 7-8 of the claim has established only a singular gas distribution port (an end portion of the gas distribution pipe is provided with a gas distribution port). Hence, it is unclear what gas distribution ports are being referred to. Examiner has interpreted the limitation to refer to multiple gas distribution ports, as supported in Figure 4, reference (215).
Claims 3-6 are rejected for dependence on claim 2.
Claim 3 also recites the limitation "the intermediate pressure rod" in line 3 of the claim. However, the claim references “exhaust ports” (implying multiple intermediate pressure rods) in line 4; but also references “the intermediate pressure rod” (implying a single intermediate pressure rod) in line 6. Hence, claim 3 is rejected for same reasons as claim 2 and is interpreted to referent to multiple intermediate pressure rods.
Claims 4-6 are rejected for dependence on claim 3.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the sliding hole" in lines 5, 9 and 10. However, line 4 of the claim has established two sliding holes. Hence, it is unclear which sliding hole is being referred to thereafter. Examiner has interpreted the limitation to refer to multiple sliding holes, as supported in Figure 6, reference (221).
Claim 4 also recites the limitation "the gas distribution port" in lines 6, 10 and 11 and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2 above and is interpreted to refer to multiple gas distribution ports as established in claim 2.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the gas inlet" in line 11. However, line 5 of the claim has established two gas inlets. Hence, it is unclear which gas inlet is being referred to thereafter. Examiner has interpreted the limitation to refer to the established two gas inlets.
Claims 5-6 is rejected for dependence on claim 4.
Claim 5 also recites the limitation "the sliding hole" in lines 3, 5 and 8 and is rejected for the same reasoning as in claim 4 above; specifically, that claim 4 has established there being two sliding holes. Examiner has interpreted the limitation to refer to multiple sliding holes, as supported in Figure 6, reference (221).
Claim 6 is rejected for dependence on claim 5.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "R2" and "R02" in 5, 7, 12 and 17 and depends from claim 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as “R2” and “R02” have not been referenced in any proceeding claim (noting R2 and R02 are referenced in claim 8). However, Claim 9 also recites the limitations “the telescopic driving member”, “the reversing member”, “the moving plate” and “the gas distribution port” which are not referenced in the apparatus of claim 1; hence, it is unclear from which claim, claim 9 should depend as the method claims refer back to apparatus claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected for dependence on claim 9.
Claim 10 also recites the limitations "R2" and "R02" and components not referenced in apparatus claim 1 (i.e., the telescopic driving member, the reversing member, the gas distribution port, the moving pipe) and is reject for the same reasoning as claim 6; specifically, it is unclear from which claim, claim 10 should depend on from.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 7-8 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 1 is allowable for requiring:
“…a frame, and a feeding assembly, a receiving assembly, a scraping assembly, a bearing assembly, a scanning assembly and a spray assembly that are arranged on the frame,
wherein the feeding assembly comprises a feeding pump and a storage hopper, an input end of the feeding pump communicates with the storage hopper, and an output end of the feeding pump communicates with a feeding rod of the receiving assembly;
the bearing assembly comprises a bearing groove, a scraping plate, a molding cylinder provided on the scraping plate, a lifting plate arranged at a bottom of the molding cylinder, and a lifting driving member in transmission connection with the lifting plate, an outlet of the feeding rod leads to the bearing groove, the bearing groove is connected to the scraping plate, and the lifting driving member is configured to drive the lifting plate to ascend and descend in the molding cylinder;
the scraping assembly comprises a movement driving mechanism and a scraper, and the movement driving mechanism is configured to drive the scraper to move on the bearing groove and the scraping plate so as to scrape slurry into the molding cylinder;
the scanning assembly is arranged over the molding cylinder and is configured to scan and cure the slurry on the molding cylinder according to a preset pattern; and
the spray assembly comprises an atomizing box for atomizing a liquid, and a first spray pipe and a second spray pipe that communicate with the atomizing box, an outlet of the first spray pipe leads to the storage hopper, the feeding rod comprises a gas distribution pipe and a feeding pipe arranged at a middle portion of the gas distribution pipe, the output end of the feeding pump communicates with an upper end of the feeding pipe, a lower end of the feeding pipe faces the bearing groove, a gas inlet is provided in the gas distribution pipe, the second spray pipe communicates with the gas inlet, a gas distribution cavity running through two ends of the gas distribution pipe is provided in the gas distribution pipe, and the gas inlet communicates with the feeding pipe through the gas distribution cavity. “
The closest prior art, Song (CN114801167A), discloses a three-dimensional printing device (Figure 1), comprising: a frame (6 in Figure 1); a feed module; a forming module; and a movement module (paragraph 0008); wherein the feed and movement modules are mounted on the frame; the feed module includes includes a storage platform, a material bin, a feed pump, a discharge pump, and funnels (paragraph 0009); the forming module includes , a flexible cylinder, an upper fixed frame for the flexible cylinder (paragraph 0013); the movement module includes a lead screw, a slide rail, a slider, a movable block, and a lead screw support (paragraph 0012). However, Song fails to teach or suggest the device has the specific structure and components as claimed in the instant application.
Claims 7-8 are allowable at least for depending on claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Virak Nguon whose telephone number is (571)272-4196. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (and alternate Fridays) 7:30-5:00.
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 L Hindenlang can be reached at 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.
/VIRAK NGUON/Examiner, Art Unit 1741 2/20/2026