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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
The application is noted as being a continuation of applications 17/497925 (now US 11931953), 16/858215 (now US Patent 11155028) and 18/435697 (now US Patent 12296530).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by JOHN (US 2021/0138729 A).
Re: 1, JOHN teaches of a three-dimensional printer, comprising:
a printing platform (vertical moving printing platform 8);
a rotating tank (rotatable vat 2, [0054]) assembly configured to store a print material;
a scraper assembly (doctor blade 4) configured to scrape a layer on a surface (vat bottom 3 being transparent, [0054]) of the rotating tank assembly; and
a control module (see control unit, [0055] in communication with the printing platform 8, the rotating vat 2, and an exposure unit 6) configured to actuate a tilt mechanism to facilitate the separation of a solidified layer of print material and the surface of the of the rotating tank assembly (see teachings of a control unit, [0054-0060]).
Wherein, the claimed invention of the tilt mechanism is silent as to what is being tilted, and this would be encompassed by the teaching of the JOHN reference regarding the doctor blade.
Re: 2 (upon 1), wherein the control module is in communication with the printing platform, the rotating tank assembly, and an exposure mechanism. (See in JOHN, control unit [055] which are in communication.)
Re: 3 (upon 1), the printing platform is configured to hold solidified layers of the 3D-printed object printed by the three-dimensional printer. (See teaching of the tank of JOHN that holds the printed material.)
Re 4 (upon 1), wherein the print material is a high-viscosity photosensitive material. (The JOHN reference teaches the claimed structure, and wherein regarding the claimed material, this is seen as material worked upon by the apparatus, see MPEP 2115.)
Re 5 (upon 1), wherein the control module is in further communication with the rotating tank assembly and an exposure mechanism, the control module further configured to illuminate the layer of the print material scraped on the surface of the rotating tank assembly in accordance with a geometric profile of the 3D-printed object. (See teaching by JOHN in claim 1 above of the control module.)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,296,530 B2 (henceforth referred as PAT’028). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claims 1-5 of the instant application corresponds to claims 1-14 of PAT‘530.
Claims 1-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,115,028 B1 (henceforth referred as PAT’028). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claims 1-5 of the instant application corresponds to claims 1-13 and 20 of PAT‘028.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12-14 are allowed over the prior art references.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art references fail to teach of the features of claim 6 of the respective motors including to the vertical axis movement of the printing platform, rotating the tank assembly, and tilting the tank assembly, and in claim 12 of the tilting pulling assembly feature in to tilt the rotating tank assembly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 form, wherein the references teach of tilting containers in additive manufacturing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 5.
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, Xiao S Zhao can be reached on 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.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights