DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
35 USC 112(a)
Applicant argues that the specification provides support for the claimed “first state” and “second state” at paragraphs 19, 76, 96-101, and 116. (Pg. 2-3 of remarks).
Examiner does not find this persuasive because, these portions of the specification describe using a material that can be heated to bond to a printing material and then cooled to lose its bond to the printing material, but do not describe a change in state.
There is support for changing the state of the printing material (e.g., “from a hard and brittle glassy state into a viscous or rubbery state” at paragraph 235 of the publication), however, there is no description of changing the state of the printing bed.
If the first state means that the print material is bound to the print bed, then the claim could simply say that –the print bed is configured to bond to the printing material when….--, instead Applicant uses language that is not commensurate with the disclosure and is not commensurate with the disclosure because Applicant did not disclose any state changes for the printing bed (e.g., changing from a glassy state to a rubbery state).
35 USC 112(b)
Applicant argues the claimed material is functionally claimed and is not indefinite.
Examiner finds this persuasive. Applicant uses “configured to” language, which suggests that they are referring to a particular material and the specification explains that “Suitable print surface materials that exhibit the properties described above may include: glasses, ceramics, enamels, epoxies, resins, some thermoplastics, copper, aluminium, polyamide, phenols, tin, zinc, lead, and stainless steel” (P0102).
35 USC 103
Applicant argues that Ruff teaches a coated bed whereas the claimed bed surface is removable.
Examiner does not find this persuasive because this is not commensurate with the disclosed invention. See 112(a) rejection.
Applicant argues that Ruff does not teach automatically cycling the print bed from a first state to a second state.
Examiner does not find this persuasive Ruff cools the print bed down to release the printed part (e.g., “Upon cooling of the plastic and/or print bed, the printed part is easily removed”). This is the same as the claimed invention.
Applicant argues that “The claimed subject matter, in contrast [to Peek], involves "automatically initiating one or more of: pausing the print job, aborting the print job, or restarting the print job" in response to a detected failure to release the printed part.” (Remarks, Pg. 6).
Examiner does not find this persuasive because the rejection has been amended to rely on additional art in response the amendments and renders this argument moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In reference to claim 7, the limitation “the print bed surface is removable from the print bed” is not supported.
The specification teaches the opposite: “The system requires no consumables (such as tape, removable surfaces, cleaning agents) to function” (Paragraph 309 of Publication).
There is support for a removable bed, but there is not support for surface that is removable from the bed.
Also, in reference to claim 7, the limitation “first state… second state” is not supported.
There is support for changing the state of the printing material (e.g., “from a hard and brittle glassy state into a viscous or rubbery state” at paragraph 235 of the publication), however, there is no description of changing the state of the printing bed.
Note: Claims 9-14 are also rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
Claim 7 and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruff (US20170036403A1) in view of Pax (US20120046779A1).
In reference to claim 7, 14, Ruff discloses a method of facilitating automated removal of a printed part formed from a deposited printing material, from a print bed of a 3D printer, comprising: (“providing a 3D printer configured for Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) printing” [Claim 10])
applying to the print bed a print bed surface to facilitate release of the printed part from the print bed, wherein the print bed surface comprises a material with controllable surface energy, wherein by controlling the surface energy the print bed surface is configured to transition between a first state wherein the print bed surface provides sufficient adhesion to bond to the deposited printing material when the printed surface material is heated, and a second state wherein the print bed surface, loses its bond to the deposited printing material when the print bed surface material is cooled; (“preparing a print surface for the FFF printing by attaching a coated print bed including a permanent print surface coating to the 3D printer, and” [Claim 10] and
“coating has such properties that when the first layer of hot plastic is deposited on the surface, it becomes temporarily bonded to ensure that it remains stationary during the printing process. Upon cooling of the plastic and/or print bed, the printed part is easily removed” [P0021]
The materials disclosed by Ruff for the build bed surface is the same as the materials disclosed by instant applicant.)
performing, by a printer, a print job by depositing the printing material onto the printed surface in the first state; after completion of the print job, initiating a controlled change in the surface energy of the print bed surface to the second state through one or more heating and/or cooling mechanisms to enable passive or assisted release of the printed part from the print bed surface; (“coating using for adhering a printed filament material at an elevated temperature (above room temperature) using a heated print bed, and to which the printed object will lose adhesion or loosen after the print plate has cooled, for example, toward room temperature, allowing the object to be removed with very little or no external force” [P0059])
cycling the temperature of the print surface print bed to change the surface energy properties of the print bed surface material to enable adhesion of the part to the print bed during printing and automatic release of the part from the print bed upon completion of the print and (“coating has such properties that when the first layer of hot plastic is deposited on the surface, it becomes temporarily bonded to ensure that it remains stationary during the printing process. Upon cooling of the plastic and/or print bed, the printed part is easily removed” [P0021] and see P0059, as cited above).
Ruff discloses the invention except for the step of monitoring and controlling the printing process for failures using a computer as claimed including
scheduling and transmitting, by a processor executing a software process, the print job to the 3D printer, monitoring for completion of the print job, regulating the temperature of the print bed surface to induce transitions between the first and second state, and in response to a detected failure to release the printed part, initiating one or more of: pausing the print job, aborting the print job, issuing a part removal sequence, or restarting the print job.
In the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, 3d printing, Pax discloses the use of a computer with cameras to monitor and automate the control of a 3d printer. See paragraph 31 (e.g., “imaging device and image processing circuitry to capture an image of the working volume and analyze the image to evaluate a position of the object… sensor may be used for example to ensure that the object 112 is removed from the conveyor … feedback from this sensor may be used by the controller 110 to issue processing interrupts or otherwise control operation of the printer 100.”). See abstract and figures.
Pax similarly discloses that “conveyor may be heated/cooled, coated, or otherwise treated to assist in adhesion during a build, as well as removal of objects after a build” (abstract). Pax explains that cooling can be used on the build bed before automated object removal (P0047). This is the same as the claimed idea of cooling the bed and then automatically removing a part.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method such that the process included the step of monitoring and controlling the printing process for failures using a computer as claimed.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been specifically motivated to automate the control and monitoring by computer in order to reduce manpower. This is explicitly stated by Pax at P0055; and to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; achieve the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; or apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In reference to claim 9, examiner takes notice that inclined print bed are known in the art of 3d printing to improve part morphology with respect to gravity.
In reference to claim 10, examiner takes notice that Peltier devices are known means for heating and cooling 3d printer build beds.
In reference to claim 11-12, examiner takes notice that using a sweep or vibration are known means for release of parts from build beds.
In reference to claim 13, Ruff discloses the use of antistatic compounds in the build bed (P0045).
Conclusion
“Such removal by air conveyance can be further facilitated by tilting surface 212 to a non-horizontal position (such as is further described below), thereby allowing the sheet substrate 208, assisted by the air bearing provided through holes 214 and pressurized air source 222, to slide at an inclined angle off platen 114, further assisting with the otherwise burdensome and manual removal of the large and/or bulky printed part.”
US 20200070405 A1
“vibrate the printing surface for part removal… vibrate a blade to facilitate part removal… compressed air to remove a released part”
US 20140220168 A1
“temperature control system 328, or any of the temperature control systems described herein (e.g., a temperature control system of the heating system 306 or a temperature control system of the build plate 314) may include one or more active devices such as resistive elements that convert electrical current into heat, Peltier effect devices that heat or cool in response to an applied current”
US 20170297104 A1
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-5pm.
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 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.
/NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744