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 with traverse of Group I claims 1-8 and 15-20 in the reply filed on 8/24/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction requirement does not establish a serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because a serious search burden would exist if restriction were not required for at least the following reasons: the inventions have a separate classification, one is an apparatus and one is a method, the inventions have divergent subject matter, the apparatus concerned with structural details of a printing apparatus while the method is concerned with steps to produce a 3D shaped article, and the inventions require a different field of search, the apparatus requires searching specific classifications and art areas regarding structural details while the method requires separate classification searches and different keyword searches.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
As per MPEP §2114(II), “A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Several claims recite limitations which dictate particular use of the apparatus, for example, an application unit applying material to a mask to add layers to a shaped article and first or second positioners making a movement after a particular application step is completed. While the prior art apparatus should be capable of applying material or moving in the claimed way, the prior art does not need to describe the exact steps of applying a layer and then moving the apparatus if the structure is otherwise the same and capable of performing those steps.
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.
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:
“Application unit” in claims 1 and 15 which is interpreted as being a doctor blade or equivalents thereof as described in [0014] of the specification as published
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 § 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.
Claims 1-8 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ott (DE102010004849A, see English translation provided) modified by O’Neil (US 2018/0134027.)
Regarding claim 1, Ott meets the claimed, A 3D screen-printing apparatus configured to produce at least one shaped article comprising multiple layers in a 3D screen-printing method, in which the shaped article is to be built up by sequentially creating of the multiple layers, (Ott [0035] describes a layer-wise additive manufacturing apparatus) the 3D screen-printing apparatus comprising: a printing table; (Ott [0061] describes a construction platform 47) a printing screen having a plurality of printing masks on the printing screen, each of the printing masks having a shape and dimensions that corresponds to one of the multiple layers of the shaped article; (Ott [0072] describes a dosing disc 15 which has a plurality of dosing bores 12) an application unit configured to repeatedly apply a printing material onto the printing screen and to work said material into each of the printing masks to add one of the multiple layers to the shaped article according to the shape of a respective said mask (Ott [0074] describes a scraper 9) a first positioner configured to increase distance between the printing table and the printing screen by way of a first relative movement after the application of the printing material; (Ott [0061] describe first lifting unit 46 for lifting the construction platform 47) and a second positioner configured to perform a second relative movement between the printing table and the printing screen after the application of the printing material, such that after the second relative movement each given one of the printing masks is in a position relative to the printing table that was occupied by a previous one of the printing masks prior to the second relative movement, (Ott [0072] describe the drive unit 35 rotates the metering disc 15 to align a new bore 12 with an outlet bore 8.)
Ott does not explicitly describe that the printing masks have different shapes and does not meet the claimed, wherein the given printing mask has a different shape than that of the previous printing mask in the position.
Analogous in the field of 3D printing, O’Neill also describes an additive manufacturing system which applies build material through apertures and meets the claimed, wherein the given printing mask has a different shape than that of the previous printing mask in the position (O’Neill [0049] and Figure 5 describe a control strip 42 which is a strip having a plurality of apertures 44 through which powdered build material is distributed. The apertures 44 on the control strip have different shapes as seen in Figure 5.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the bores of Ott with the multiple shaped apertures of O’Neill in order to control the shape of the dose of powder, see O’Neill [0048].
Regarding claim 2, Ott meets the claimed, The 3D screen-printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second positioner is configured so that the second relative movement between the printing table and the printing screen is performed within a plane defined by one of the printing table and the printing screen (Ott [0072] describe the drive unit 35 rotates the metering disc 15, see Figure 4 showing this is on the same horizontal plane as the disc 15 around the rotation axis 28.)
Regarding claim 3, Ott meets the claimed, The 3D screen-printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second positioner is configured to perform the second relative movement between the printing table and the printing screen as at least one of a rotatory and a translatory movement (Ott [0072] describe the drive unit 35 rotates the metering disc 15.)
Regarding claim 4, Ott meets the claimed, The 3D screen-printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the 3D screen-printing apparatus has a heater configured to control a temperature of at least one of the shaped article and an individual shaped-article layer (Ott [0065] describes a radiation unit 55 which melts powdered material to form a layer of the molded part.)
Regarding claim 5, Ott meets the claimed, The 3D screen-printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second positioner is configured to perform a rotatory relative movement between the printing table and the printing screen about a rotary axis, (Ott [0072] describe the drive unit 35 rotates the metering disc 15, see Figure 4 showing this is on the same horizontal plane as the disc 15 around the rotation axis 28) wherein the plurality of printing masks are arranged in the printing screen on at least one concentric circle about the rotary axis (Ott Figure 2 shows the bores 12 arranged in a circle around the metering disc concentric with the rotation axis 28.)
Regarding claim 6, Ott Figure 2 shows the bores 12 located in one concentric circle around the axis 28 but does not explicitly describe multiple concentric circles and does not meet the claimed, The 3D screen-printing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein a plurality of concentric circles about the rotary axis are provided in the printing screen, the plurality of printing masks being arranged on each one of the plurality of concentric circles. However, Ott [0032] and [0034] describe that using multiple metering bores or multiple application devices can be used for the purpose of applying additional volume of material or for creating the desired geometry of the molded part. As per MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B), mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Since Ott positively describes one concentric circle of bores and further contemplates the use of multiple sets of metering bores for increased volume or to match a desired shape, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to simply duplicate the concentric circle of bores already described in Ott for the purpose of achieving increased volume application, see Ott [0032] and [0024].
Regarding claim 7, Ott meets the claimed, The 3D screen-printing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein all of the printing masks arranged in the printing screen on a common concentric circle about the rotary axis, are identical regarding at least one of the layer geometry to be produced and the geometric alignment (Ott Figure 2 shows identical bores 12 in the concentric circle.)
Regarding claim 8, Ott meets the claimed, The 3D screen-printing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein all of the printing masks in the printing screen are equidistantly arranged on the common concentric circle about the rotary axis, wherein an angle between two of the printing masks corresponds to an integer division of a full circle (Ott [0021] describes bores are distributed with uniform angular spacing along the circumference of the full circle. Figure 2 shows there are 19 bores which means the angle between two of the bores 12 is 360° divided by the integer 19.)
Regarding claim 15, Ott meets the claimed, A 3D screen-printing apparatus configured to produce at least one shaped article defined as a sequence of layers by successive screen-printing of the layers, (Ott [0035] describes a layer-wise additive manufacturing apparatus) the 3D screen-printing apparatus comprising: a printing table; (Ott [0061] describes a construction platform 47) a printing screen having a plurality of printing masks arranged on a surface of the printing screen, each of the printing masks defining at least one recess having a shape and dimensions that correspond to one of the layers of the at least one shaped article; (Ott [0072] describes a dosing disc 15 which has a plurality of dosing bores 12) an application unit configured to apply and spread a printing material onto the printing screen, causing the printing material to pass through the screen only where the recesses are defined by the printing masks, creating a shaped layer of the at least one shaped article corresponding to each of the printing masks; (Ott [0074] describes a scraper 9 which applies material into the bores 12 for eventual distribution) a first positioner configured to move the printing table and the printing screen relative to one another by way of a first relative movement after each application of the printing material by the application unit; (Ott [0061] describe first lifting unit 46 for lifting the construction platform 47) and a second positioner configured to move the printing table with respect to the printing screen by way of a second relative movement after each application of the printing material by the application unit; (Ott [0072] describe the drive unit 35 rotates the metering disc 15 to align a new bore 12 with an outlet bore 8) wherein: the first relative movement is an increase in distance between the printing table and the printing screen, (Ott [0061] describes lifting unit 46 for lifting the construction platform 47) the second relative movement is a relative translatory or rotational movement between the printing table and the printing screen, such that each combination of the first relative movement and the second relative movement positions each given one of the printing masks in a position relative to the printing table that was occupied by a previous one of the printing masks prior to the combination of the first relative movement and the second relative movement, (Ott [0072] describe the drive unit 35 rotates the metering disc 15 to align a new bore 12 with an outlet bore 8).
Ott does not explicitly describe that the printing masks have different shapes and does not meet the claimed, wherein the given printing mask has a different shape than that of the previous printing mask in the position.
Analogous in the field of 3D printing, O’Neill also describes an additive manufacturing system which applies build material through apertures and meets the claimed, wherein the given printing mask has a different shape than that of the previous printing mask in the position (O’Neill [0049] and Figure 5 describe a control strip 42 which is a strip having a plurality of apertures 44 through which powdered build material is distributed. The apertures 44 on the control strip have different shapes as seen in Figure 5.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the bores of Ott with the multiple shaped apertures of O’Neill in order to control the shape of the dose of powder, see O’Neill [0048].
Regarding claim 16, Ott meets the claimed, The 3D screen-printing apparatus of claim 15, wherein the second positioner is designed in such a way that the second relative movement between the printing table and the printing screen is performed within a plane defined by one of the printing table and the printing screen (Ott [0072] describe the drive unit 35 rotates the metering disc 15, see Figure 4 showing this is on the same horizontal plane as the disc 15 around the rotation axis 28.)
Regarding claim 17, Ott meets the claimed, The 3D screen-printing apparatus of claim 15, wherein the 3D screen-printing apparatus further comprises a heater configured to control a temperature of at least one of the shaped article and an individual said shaped layer (Ott [0065] describes a radiation unit 55 which melts powdered material to form a layer of the molded part.)
Regarding claim 18, Ott meets the claimed, The 3D screen-printing apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the second positioner is configured to perform a rotatory relative movement between the printing table and the printing screen about a rotary axis, (Ott [0072] describe the drive unit 35 rotates the metering disc 15, see Figure 4 showing this is on the same horizontal plane as the disc 15 around the rotation axis 28) wherein the printing masks are arranged on the surface of the printing screen on at least one concentric circle about the rotary axis (Ott Figure 2 shows the bores 12 arranged in a circle around the metering disc concentric with the rotation axis 28.)
Regarding claim 19, Ott Figure 2 shows the bores 12 located in one concentric circle around the axis 28 but does not explicitly describe multiple concentric circles and does not meet the claimed, The 3D screen-printing apparatus according to claim 18, wherein the printing masks are arranged on the printing screen on a plurality of concentric circles about the rotary axis. However, Ott [0032] and [0034] describe that using multiple metering bores or multiple application devices can be used for the purpose of applying additional volume of material or for creating the desired geometry of the molded part. As per MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B), mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Since Ott positively describes one concentric circle of bores and further contemplates the use of multiple sets of metering bores for increased volume or to match a desired shape, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to simply duplicate the concentric circle of bores already described in Ott for the purpose of achieving increased volume application, see Ott [0032] and [0024].
Regarding claim 20, Ott meets the claimed, The 3D screen-printing apparatus according to claim 18, wherein all of the printing masks on the surface of the printing screen are arranged on a given one of the at least one concentric circle (Ott Figure 2 shows all the bores 12 are arranged in a concentric circle around the disc 15.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
KR-20110112087: see Figure 5 and the accompanying description thereof describing a powder dispensing apparatus with several concentric compartments that receive powder and then rotated to overlap with the discharge port to discharge the powder
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA BARTLETT whose telephone number is (571)272-4953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm 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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/V.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/John J DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights