CTNF 19/077,076 CTNF 92159 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim(s) 3-5 and 7 is/are 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 3 recites the limitation “a grid interval of the sacrificial layer is larger than at least a line width of the object in contact with the sacrificial layer” which is indefinite. The scope of the term “a line width of the object” is unclear. Is a line the object a physical line or an imaginary line? The claim does not set forth how a line width of the object in contact with the sacrificial layer is manufactured. Is the object formed by ejecting the first material in a layer by layer, line by line, or both? Thus, the claimed language merely recites a result obtained without providing a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim. See MPEP §§ 2173.03 and 2173.05 (g). The limitation has been examined below as best understood in view of Applicant’s disclosure. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 3 and therefor including all the limitation thereof. Claim 5 recites the limitation “the sacrificial layer has a higher sliding property than the object” which is indefinite. The scope of the term “sliding property” is unclear. It is also unclear how Applicant provides higher sliding property to the sacrificial layer. Applicant’s claim and disclosure fails to disclose/describe how Applicant provides the higher sliding property to the sacrificial layer than the object. Thus, the claimed language merely recites a result obtained (higher sliding property) without providing a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim. See MPEP §§ 2173.03 and 2173.05 (g). Claim 5 cannot be evaluated with respect to prior art at this time because the Examiner cannot reasonably apprise the scope of the claimed invention and cannot make a proper comparison between the claim and the prior art due to the 112 (b) issues explained above. Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein in the step of forming the sacrificial layer having the grid shape, grid-shaped layers shaped by lines having different angles in the same layer are stacked” which is indefinite. The inconsistent use of singular and plural layer(s) makes the scope of the claim unclear. Are the grid-shaped layers different sacrificial layers? Which layer of the grid-shaped layers is applicant referring to when reciting “the same layer”? The language “lines having different angles” is unclear. Lines do not have angles. Applicant’s claim and disclosure fails to disclose/describe how Applicant the lines define different angles. Are the angles defined in the intersection between the lines or between the lines and a reference direction (e.g. X direction)? The claimed language makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. Claim 7 cannot be evaluated with respect to prior art at this time because the Examiner cannot reasonably apprise the scope of the claimed invention and cannot make a proper comparison between the claim and the prior art due to the 112 (b) issues explained above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Burke (US 20210053275) alone or further in view of Sadusk (US 20140371895) applied as evidentiary reference . Regarding claim 1, Burke discloses a method for manufacturing a three-dimensional object (, the method comprising: a step of forming one or more sacrificial layers (900) by ejecting a first material onto a stage (P0159-0161: Figs. 9C); a step of forming an object (950) by ejecting a second material onto the sacrificial layer (P0159-0161: Figs. 9C); and a step of separating the object and the sacrificial layer (P0162, Fig. 10B), wherein the first material and the second material are different materials (P0159-0160), and in the step of forming the sacrificial layer, the sacrificial layer (900), which includes a recessed portion (openings/gaps) into which a part of the object enters (implicit), is formed at least in a portion in contact with the object (the printing of 900 is performed such that 900 includes openings/gaps in at least portion/top 980 of 900 in contact with 950 in order to provide adhesion between 900 and 950; P0160-0161, Figs. 9A-C; while Burke does not explicitly mention that that a part of 950 enters the openings/gaps of 900, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand/recognize that a part/segment of 950 is expected to enter the openings/gaps of 900 via gravity and the requirement that openings need to provide adhesion via their interface). Additionally, since the steps of Burke and Applicant are patentably indistinct except for the claimed result, the result that a part of the object enters into the recessed portion(s) is inherent: See MPEP § 2112). Furthermore, as evidenced by Sadusk (US 20140371895), a part of a 3D printed object is expected to slightly enter/drop in openings/gaps of a raft specially when providing adhesion (P0003, 0135). Thus, Burke discloses the method substantially as claimed by applicant. PNG media_image1.png 298 351 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Burke further discloses wherein in the step of forming the sacrificial layer, the sacrificial layer (900) having a grid shape (920) is formed on the stage (P0160, Fig. 9B). Burke further discloses/suggests grid-shaped layers (980, 970, 960) as the sacrificial layer(s) (900), each grid-shaped layer having lines with different angles with respect to a horizontal/X direction (P0161, Figs. 9B-C) . PNG media_image2.png 282 239 media_image2.png Greyscale Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke as applied to claim 2 above, alone or further in view of Taniuchi (US 20160121552) . Regarding claims 3-4, Burke fails to explicitly disclose that a grid interval of the sacrificial layer is larger than at least a line width of the object in contact with the sacrificial layer. However, Burke explicitly discloses that a size of the gap/opening (grid interval) of the sacrificial layer and/or a size of thickness/diameter (line width) of the sacrificial layer in contact with the object and/or the object are result effective variables controlling the adhesion between the raft and the printed part and explicitly discloses to increase the of size gaps/openings the top layer 980 of raft 900 to decrease the amount of surface area at the interface and therefore adhesion between raft 900 and part 950 (P0161). 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 method of Burke by increasing the grid interval (gap) of the sacrificial layer to at least a line width of the object in contact with the sacrificial layer or at least 1.86 times or more the line width of the object for yielding the predictable result(s) of decreasing the amount of surface area at the interface and decreasing/optimizing adhesion between the sacrificial layer and the object. See MPEP § 2144.05 II. Alternatively, in the same field of endeavor, methods for manufacturing a three-dimensional object, Taniuch discloses the technique of making an interval (opening) of a sacrificial layer (fist layer of support material 55) larger than at least 3.0 line widths (54) of an object layer (second layer of 54 in contact with the sacrificial layer: Fig. 5 and accompanying text) for the benefit(s) of improving accuracy (P0010). 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 method of Burke in view of Taniuch by increasing the grid interval (gap) of the sacrificial layer to at least three line widths of the object in contact with the sacrificial layer for yielding the predictable result(s) of decreasing/optimizing adhesion between the sacrificial layer and the object and/or improving accuracy as suggested by the teachings of Burke and Taniuch. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke as applied to claim 1 above, alone or further in view of Tsunoya (US 20230061480) . Regarding claim 6, Burke fails to disclose wherein a groove is provided in the stage, the method further comprising: a step of filling the groove of the stage with the first material by ejecting the first material into the groove before forming the sacrificial layer. In the same field of endeavor, methods for manufacturing a three-dimensional object, Tsunoya discloses the technique of providing a grove in the stage (P0041, Figs. 1-2) and a step of filling the groove of the stage with a first material by ejecting the first material into the groove before forming a sacrificial layer (10), and in the step of forming the sacrificial layer (10), the sacrificial layer is formed on the stage in which the groove is filled with the first material for the benefit(s) of facilitating removal of the sacrificial layer from the stage (P0068-0085, Figs. 9-14). Tsunoya further discloses/suggest the technique of providing the sacrificial layer a higher sliding property than the object (P0085-0087, Figs. 13-14). 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 method of Burke in view of Tsunoya by providing a grove in the stage and a step of filling the groove of the stage with the first material by ejecting the first material into the groove before forming a sacrificial layer, and in the step of forming the sacrificial layer, the sacrificial layer is formed on the stage in which the groove is filled with the first material for the benefit(s) of facilitating removal of the sacrificial layer from the stage as suggested by Tsunoya. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II. Conclusion 07-96 Additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered to be pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Yakubov (US 20150314534) discloses a relevant method (Figs. 10A-G and accompanying text) and relevant sacrificial layers (Figs. 9A and 10D). Ishida (US 20170209929) discloses a relevant method (Figs. 7A-8 and accompanying text text) 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 Application/Control Number: 19/077,076 Page 2 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 19/077,076 Page 3 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 19/077,076 Page 4 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 19/077,076 Page 5 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 19/077,076 Page 6 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 19/077,076 Page 7 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 19/077,076 Page 8 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 19/077,076 Page 9 Art Unit: 1743
Prosecution Insights