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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2,3,5-7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hakkaku et al. (US 2018/0222120 A1).
Regarding claim 1 and 7, Hakkaku et al. teach a shaped-object manufacturing device and manufacturing that shapes a three-dimensional shaped object (see Figs 9A- 10A; [0017]-[0168]), the shaped-object manufacturing device comprising: a liquid storage (platform with walls) that retains a liquid (Figs 9A – 10A, item 104 and 54); an ejector (102) that ejects an ink to the liquid ([0142]-[0146]); and a roller (Fig. 9A – 10A item 410 - roller) for flattening that comes into contact with the ink retained by a liquid surface of the liquid ([0146]).
As for claims 2 and 8, Hakkaku et al. further teach wherein the roller (410) is provided to be relatively movable with respect to the liquid storage ([0146] discloses roller planarizes, and the platform is movable see [0135],[0043],[0044]) and when viewed from the liquid storage, the roller rotates so that a portion in contact with the ink is oriented in a direction of the relative movement (Figs. 9A-10A).
As for claims 3 and 9, Hakkaku et al. further teach wherein the roller (410) is provided to be relatively movable with respect to the liquid storage (Fig. 9B), and when viewed from the liquid storage, the roller rotates so that a portion in contact with the ink is oriented in a direction opposite to the direction of the relative movement.
As for claim 5, Hakkaku et al. further teach comprising a curing unit (408-UV curing unit) that cures the ink (see [0146]).
As for claim 6 and 11, Hakkaku et al. further teach wherein the ejector is an inkjet head and method (see Figs. 9A -10A item 102).
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4, 10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimaki Engineering Co Ltd (US 2018/0222120 A1) in further view of either one of Hakkaku et al. (US 2017/0165909 A1; herein after “Hakkaku II”) Hakkaku (US 2019/0240909 A1; herein after “Hakkaku III”).
Regarding claims 4, 10, and 12-15, Hakkaku et al. teach all the limitations to the claim invention as discussed above, however, fail to teach wherein the roller includes an adjustment mechanism that adjusts a contact pressure with the ink; or adjusting contact pressure between the roller and the ink.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to three-dimensional printing specifically ink-jetting, Hakkaku II teach wherein the roller includes an adjustment mechanism that adjusts a contact pressure with the ink; or adjusting contact pressure between the roller and the ink (Fig. 10 item 10 – leveling roller 61; [0025]-[0026], [0177], [0407], [0209]-[0250] and throughout). Alternatively, Hakkaku III teach wherein the roller includes an adjustment mechanism that adjusts a contact pressure with the ink; or adjusting contact pressure between the roller and the ink (see Fig 3. Item 61, 65, 66).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to further modify above within roller including adjustment mechanism as suggested by Hakkaku II and III, for the benefit of efficiently forming desired thickness in the layers, thereby producing desired 3D printed object.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2021/0001548 A1 – 3D printing device that uses rollers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 PM).
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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights