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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (i.e., claim(s) 1-5) with traverse in the reply filed on 05/14/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the multiple groups can be searched and examined together without undue burden.
This is not found persuasive because:
The groups are directed to distinct inventions having different classifications which is sufficient prove of a search burden (See CTRS dated 03/18/2026);
The examination on the merits of apparatus claims differs from that of method claims which is sufficient prove of examination burden (See CTRS dated 03/18/2026);
Although there may be some overlap of the search for the Groups there is nothing to indicate that the search would be coextensive. In fact, the prior art applied to the elected group I below does not disclose all the limitations required by non-elected group II. Thus, the additional search and examination of non-elected Group would impose a serious burden.
Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
In response to Applicant response about the note, Examiner maintains that the materials worked upon by the apparatus and the manner of using/operating do not distinguish the claimed apparatus from prior art. See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115. For instance, a squeegee is capable of applying other materials not only mold material in powder, liquid, or slurry form.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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:
“hardening acceleration unit configured to …” in claim 1 with corresponding structure disclosed at least in at least [0020] and claims 2-3 of Applicant’s published application.
“the first temperature adjuster heats” in claim 2 with corresponding structure disclosed at least in at least [0021-0022] and Fig. 1 of Applicant’s published application.
“the second temperature adjuster heats” in claim 4 with corresponding structure disclosed at least in at least [0021-0022] and Fig. 1 of Applicant’s published application.
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.
Other claim interpretation:
Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claim(s) 1-5 is/are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under the following conditions. The process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (See MPEP 2114 II and 2115 for further details). For instance, the recitations “a thermoplastic shaping material to laminate the thermoplastic shaping material on the table” and “a mold material in a slurry form to laminate the mold material on the table” in claim 1 amount to intended use recitations. MPEP §§ 2114-2115.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anthony (US 20200246865) in view of Murao (US 20180111313).
Regarding claim 1, Anthony discloses a three dimensional shaping apparatus (P0052, Fig. 1) that performs additive manufacturing: Figs. 2-4), the three dimensional shaping apparatus comprising:
a table (12: P0054, Fig. 1);
a head (24: Fig. 1) configured to … and eject a thermoplastic shaping material (24 is configured for ejecting acrylic acrylates as material 22: P0061, 0104) to laminate the thermoplastic shaping material on the table (24 is capable of dispensing 22 layer-by-layer on the table: P0063, 0134, Figs. 2-4; furthermore, since the taught head and the claimed head are structurally equivalent, the taught head is expected to be capable of applying any material including a thermoplastic shaping material to laminate the thermoplastic shaping material on the table: See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115);
a squeegee (doctor blade 18: Fig. 1) configured to apply a mold material in a slurry form (16) to laminate the mold material on the table (P0059, 0134, Figs. 2-4; wherein the slurry material 16 can be mold material: P0001, 0019; furthermore, since the taught squeegee and the claimed squeegee are structurally and functionally equivalent, the taught squeegee is expected to be capable of applying any material including a mold material in a slurry form to laminate the mold material on the table: See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115); and
a hardening acceleration unit configured to accelerate hardening of the mold material laminated on the table (heaters 26 and 26’ configured for heating material and accelerating drying/curing of the laminated materials including 16 on the table: P0065, Figs. 3C-4).
PNG
media_image1.png
343
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Anthony discloses/meets all the limitations except for the head being configured to heat the thermoplastic shaping material.
In the same field of endeavor, three dimensional shaping apparatuses, Murao discloses the technique of configuring a head (206) ejecting thermoplastic shaping material such that it heats the thermoplastic shaping material for the benefit(s) of controlling the viscosity of the thermoplastic shaping material with high precision (P0157, 0192, Fig. 14).
One of ordinary skill in the art would also have been motivated to configure the head to head the thermoplastic shaping material for yielding the predictable benefit(s) of preventing clogging of the head.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Anthony in view of Murao by configuring the head such that it heats the thermoplastic shaping material for yielding the predictable benefit(s) of controlling the viscosity of the thermoplastic shaping material with high precision and/or preventing clogging of the head as suggested by Murao. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Regarding claim 2, Anthony further discloses wherein the hardening acceleration unit is a first temperature adjuster provided on the table (heater 26 can be provided on 12: P0065), and the first temperature adjuster heats the thermoplastic shaping material laminated on the table and the mold material laminated on the table (the heater 26 provided on 12 is configured for heating the entire build material cake: P0065, Figs. 3C-4).
Regarding claim 4, Anthony further discloses a storage tank (unlabeled tank/cylinder defining the build volume) configured to store the thermoplastic shaping material laminated on the table and the mold material laminated on the table (P0065, Fig. 1), wherein the hardening acceleration unit is a second temperature adjuster provided on a side surface of the storage tank (heater 26’ can be provided on the sides of the unlabeled tank/cylinder defining the build volume: P0065), and the second temperature adjuster heats the thermoplastic shaping material laminated on the table and the mold material laminated on the table (the heater 26’ provided on provided on the sides of the unlabeled tank/cylinder defining the build volume is configured for heating the entire build material cake which includes laminated materials 22 and 16 on 12: P0065, Figs. 3C-4).
Regarding claim 5, the combination further implicitly discloses/suggests wherein the thermoplastic shaping material is an oil and fat including a wax material, or a thermoplastic resin including polylactic acid (since the taught head and the claimed head of the combination are structurally and functionally equivalent, the taught head is expected to be capable of using any material including wax or polylactic acid as the thermoplastic shaping material: See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anthony (US 20200246865) in view of Murao (US 20180111313) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kritchman (US 20200398477).
Regarding claim 3, the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, fails to disclose, wherein the hardening acceleration unit is a blower configured to send air, and the blower blows the air to the thermoplastic shaping material laminated on the table and the mold material laminated on the table.
In the same field of endeavor, three dimensional shaping apparatuses, Kritchman discloses the technique of incorporating a blower configured to send air to all the materials laminated on a table for the benefit(s) of accelerating heating, drying, and/or solidifying/hardening of the materials laminated on the table (P0084, 0106, 0107, Fig. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of the combination in view of Kritchman by incorporating as the hardening acceleration unit a blower configured to send air to all the materials laminated on the table for yielding(s) the predictable benefit(s) of accelerating heating, drying, and/or solidifying/hardening of the materials laminated on the table as suggested by Kritchman.
Conclusion
Additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered to be pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure.
Penn (US 6169605) discloses a relevant 3D shaping apparatus (Figs. 1 and 7a-8c). Penn further discloses wax material as a known/suitable printable thermoplastic shaping material compatible with mold material (C12, L16-44).
Shonnan (JP 4374575B2 with English machine translation – FOR of record) discloses wax material as a known/suitable compatible with mold material (Claim 3, P0003)
Amaya (US 20150283646) discloses a relevant 3D shaping apparatus comprising temperature adjustment units (10, 20: P0019-0029, Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0625. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00-10:00 PM PT.
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.
JERZI H. MORENO HERNANDEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights