Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 37-39, 42, and 44 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Monsheimer et al. (US 2007/0197692 A1, hereinafter Monsheimer ‘692) and in view of Monsheimer et al. (US 2007/0183918 A1, hereinafter Monsheimer ‘918), Farmer et al. (WO 2008/029179 A2, hereinafter Farmer), and Petter et al. (US 2004/0180980 A1, hereinafter Petter).
Regarding Claims 37 and 42, Monsheimer ‘692 teaches in [0016] and [0045], for example, a method for producing three-dimensional models comprising applying a layer-by-layer process including deposition of a moderating agent/absorber on deposited powder layers so that regions of respective powder layers are melted via infrared radiation unfocused for simultaneous exposure over each entire layer (interpreted as a lamp providing the radiation) to maintain a construction space chamber temperature in the range of 85° to 120° C (thus at least implying the use of a temperature sensor and construction space atmosphere temperature control system device to maintain the temperature in the explicit target range).
However, Monsheimer ‘692 is silent on exactly how the absorber is applied.
In analogous art pertaining to 3D printing, Monsheimer ‘918 reaches in [0072] that it is known to use an absorber can be applied via a carrier liquid from an inkjet print head, which per [0063] can use graphite as an absorber that per [0019] of the instant specification is an IR acceptor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to, per Monsheimer ‘918, apply the absorber with a carrier liquid via an inkjet print head, since such a combination would be a combination of known elements to achieve the predictable result of applying an absorber.
However, the previous combination is silent whether the print head’s temperature should be specifically controlled.
In analogous art pertaining to 3D printing, Farmer teaches in Page 6 Line 20 – Page 7 Line 23 that ink-jet print heads delivering metal catalyst particles suspended in a colloid liquid are a known form of print head to use for 3D printing, and to prevent colloid carrier liquid from boiling before it is printed, the print head is itself independently cooled. Note that Farmer’s construction space causes the colloid carrier liquid to boil to leave behind metal catalyst particles (compatible with Monsheimer ‘918’s disclosure in [0076] that the carrier liquid can vaporize or evaporate), indicating that the temperature of the print head is cooled to lower than the temperature of the construction space atmosphere.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to, per Farmer, use an ink-jet print head and, relative to the construction space atmosphere and with the control device, independently regulate the temperature of the print head to be cooler than the construction space atmosphere in the previous combination in order to, also per Farmer, prevent carrier liquid from boiling before it is printed, wherein independently regulating the temperature of the print head implies a print head with a temperature sensor so that temperature of the print head is sensed in order to indicate desired cooling, a temperature control to achieve that desired cooling, and internal means for cooling and heating.
However, the previous combination is silent on whether the particulate construction material can include a polyamide.
In analogous art pertaining to 3D printing, Petter teaches in [0018] that nylon-12 (i.e. polyamide 12) is a known alternative to copolyimide powder and thus it would have been obvious to use polyamide 12 in the previous combination since such use would be a simple substitution of one known powder for another to achieve the predictable result of a sintered object.
Regarding Claim 38, the previous combination remains as applied above, and Farmer teaches in Page 7 Line 19-21 that the print head cooling is done by a fluid-based cooling system, which would when employed by the combination would comprise the device actively cooling the print head.
Regarding Claim 39, while this combination is silent on how tightly to control the cooling, Farmer does indicate the criticality of cooling to avoid boiling, and thus it would have been obvious to find the proper temperatures to cool the print head to in order to avoid boiling, and in doing so control the variation of temperature in the print head to +/- 2°C since finding the optimum or workable range has been held to require only ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 44, the previous combination remains as applied above and Monsheimer ‘918 teaches in [0072] that isopropanol, which has a boiling point between 75-95°C, can be the carrier liquid, and thus while the combination does not explicitly disclose the construction space atmosphere, in order to achieve the boiling-off effect mentioned in Farmer, it would have been obvious to maintain the construction space atmosphere to 75-95°C.
Claims 18, 21, 28, 34-35, 41, and 43 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Monsheimer ‘692 and ‘918 and Farmer, and further in view of Dickens, Jr. et al. (US 5304329 A, hereinafter Dickens).
Regarding Claims 18, 21, 28, 34-35, 41, and 43, the previous combination teaches the method as applied to Claims 37, 39, 42, and 44 above, and while the combination is silent on temperature gradient on the construction field, Dickens teaches the criticality of temperature gradient in Column 7 to prevent unwanted warping effects, such that it would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to maintain the temperature gradient in the previous combination to be less than 10°C in order to prevent unwanted warping effects, since finding optimum results of a result effective variable has been held to be within ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Monsheimer ‘692 and ‘918, Farmer, and Dickens as applied to Claim 18 above, and further in view of Seccombe.
Regarding Claims 22-23, the previous combination teaches the method as applied above, but is silent on whether the print head cooling takes place with the aid of the moderating agent to be printed.
In further art pertaining to ink-jet printheads Seccombe further teaches using print material to cool the printhead in Column 4 Lines 7-36, and thus it would have been obvious to employ such an active cooling system implicitly as one known method of ink-jet print head cooling to achieve the print head cooling goals of Farmer.
Claim 27 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Monsheimer ‘692 and ‘918, Farmer, Dickens, and Seccombe as applied to Claim 22 above, and further in view of Chen (US 2013/0215203 A1, hereinafter Chen)
Regarding Claim 27, the previous combination teaches the method as applied above, but is silent on an evaporator arranged in the print head for cooling.
In analogous art pertaining to print heads, Chen teaches [0040]-[0042] providing cooling fluid to a printhead and including an evaporator to further absorb heat.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention’s filing to include such evaporative cooling to the previous combination to provide further printhead cooling as needed.
Claims 29-32 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Monsheimer ‘692 and ‘918, Farmer, and Dickens as applied to Claim 18 above, and in further view of Alam et al. (WO 2007/114895 A1, hereinafter Alam).
Regarding Claims 29-31, the Examiner first notes that the partition/wall as claimed is not tied to anything in particular, and thus a wide variety of structures could be considered to meet the conditions of the claims.
In particular, while the previous combination motivates keeping the print head cool as discussed above, and the previous combination is silent on features that may be considered partitions or walls as claimed, Alam in analogous art pertaining to 3D printing, teaches in Figure 1b a known relative configuration of a movable print head 24 and lamp structure 5, wherein the small circle representing the heat-producing bulb in lamp structure 5 is separated from the print head by an arced structure that can be said to be a wall or partition that further can be considered a sliding wall owing to its movement capability and can also be considered flexible as it is flexible in its deployment due to its movement capability. The arced structure clearly functions as a wall to protect the print head from the lamp’s active energy supply on the construction field, and also has some capability to protect the print head from some heat wafting up as residual energy from the construction space, as it would block heat rising in a diagonal direction when both print head and lamp are directly over the construction space.
Therefore, as Alam illustrates what a lamp and print head working together in concert are known to look like, it would have been obvious to apply that known configuration to the previous combination, thereby yielding the predictable result of a lamp for heating material ejected by the print head.
Regarding Claim 32, while the previous combination is silent on sensors being mounted the wall, Dickens has identified the criticality of temperature as applied above, thus reasonably motivating a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include sensors mounted in the wall in order to detect temperatures from the lamp and ensure the lamp is emitting the proper amount of energy to maintain the desired temperatures.
Claim 40 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Monsheimer ‘692 and ‘918, Farmer, Dickens, and Seccombe as applied to Claim 21 above, and further in view of Petter.
Regarding Claim 40 the previous combination teaches the method as applied above, but is silent on whether the particulate construction material can include a polyamide 12.
In analogous art pertaining to 3D printing, Petter teaches in [0018] that nylon-12 (i.e. polyamide 12) is a known alternative to copolyimide powder and thus it would have been obvious to use polyamide 12 in the previous combination since such use would be a simple substitution of one known powder for another to achieve the predictable result of a sintered object.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 18, 21-23, 27-32, 34-35, and 37-44 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN M OCHYLSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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.
/RYAN M OCHYLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights