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 Objections
Claims 12 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“a cleaning station” (claim 12, line 3) should be changed to --the cleaning station vessel (as recited in claim 1)--;
“a cleaning station” (claim 20, line 3) should be changed to --the cleaning station vessel (as recited in claim 13)--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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:
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.
Knights in view of Carlson
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 4339839 A (“Knights”) in view of US 20190084239 A1 (“Carlson”).
Knights pertains to a wiper assembly (Figs. 1-8). Carlson pertains to a wiper assembly for an additive manufacturing machine (Figs. 13A-B, 14-19). These references are in the same field of endeavor that includes wiper assemblies.
Regarding claim 1, Knights discloses a wet wiper apparatus (Figs. 5-7, wiper assembly shown) comprising:
a wet wiper body...the wet wiper body having a top side and a bottom side (see annotated Fig. 7 below, body 110);
a first wiper blade vertically extending from the top side of the wet wiper body (Fig. 7, one of blades 122, e.g., left blade shown, the disclosed blade 122);
a second wiper blade vertically extending from the top side of the wet wiper body, the second wiper blade spaced apart from the first wiper blade (Fig. 7, one of blades 122, e.g., right blade shown, the disclosed blade 122 is spaced apart from the first wiper blade);
and the wiper body has a fluid channel recessed therein, the fluid channel horizontally extending from a first end of the wet wiper body to a second end of the wet wiper body (Figs. 5-7, fluid channel 128 is recessed in the wiper body 110; 4:19-5:68, the fluid channel extends horizontally from a first end (e.g., right end, at reference 134 (Fig. 5)) to a second end (e.g., left end (Fig. 5)) of the wiper body),
the fluid channel having an open top that is elongated from the first end to the second end of the wet wiper body and configured to allow fluid flow out of the fluid channel to form a fluid wall that reaches a print head when the print head passes over the wet wiper body (Figs. 5-7, see annotated Fig. 7 below; 4:19-5:68, the “open top” of the fluid channel 128 is elongated between the first and second ends of the wiper body, the open top of the fluid channel (irrespective of the presence of brush 132) is capable of forming a fluid wall (in cooperation with blades 122) that reaches another object when coming into close contact with the other object (e.g., a print head); Examiner notes that this limitation includes a recitation of intended use (“to form a fluid wall that reaches the print head...”). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II));
wherein an entirety of the open top is open to allow the fluid flow out of the fluid channel to form the fluid wall (Figs. 5-7; 4:19-5:68, the entirety of the open top is open to allow the recited function (i.e., the entire open top is open along the entire length of the fluid channel 128)).
[AltContent: textbox (Open top of fluid channel 128)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Bottom side of the wet wiper body)][AltContent: textbox (Top side of the wet wiper body)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
297
343
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Knights Fig. 7 (annotated)
Knights does not explicitly disclose:
a wet wiper body within a cleaning station vessel of an additive manufacturing apparatus.
However, the Knights/Carlson combination makes obvious this claim.
Carlson discloses a wet wiper body within a cleaning station vessel of an additive manufacturing apparatus (Figs. 13A-B, 14-19; ¶¶ 0201-0214, wiper 800 is within the cleaning station vessel portion (which includes elements 802, 806, 814) of the additive manufacturing apparatus; Examiner notes that this limitation requires the wet wiper body to be present within a cleaning station vessel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Knights with Carlson to use the wiper apparatus disclosed by Knights in an additive manufacturing apparatus (as taught by Carlson) to clean the print head. This would have been obvious because the use of wipers in an additive manufacturing apparatus is known (Carlson ¶¶ 0201-0214), and the choice of a particular wiper construction (like the wiper disclosed by Knights) is a matter of design choice, e.g., considering the added disadvantages (e.g., extra cost) against the added benefits of the wiper construction (e.g., better cleaning) (see Knights 1:25-36, “at least one conduit for cleaning fluid communicating with the said hollow space and a flexible device mounted in the hollow space so as in use to be in contact with the surface”). Examiner notes that the claim does not positively claim any structural features of the additive manufacturing apparatus other than the “cleaning station vessel” and this claim is directed to a “wet wiper apparatus”, not an additive manufacturing apparatus; nevertheless, the use of the Knights wiper apparatus in the context of an additive manufacturing apparatus (as taught by Carlson) would result in a wiper performing the intended use limitations indicated above. Further, though the claim does not positively recite components related to the supplying of cleaning fluid (e.g., a reservoir, a pump, etc.), the use of cleaning fluid in conjunction with a wiper in an additive manufacturing apparatus is known (US 9067446 B1 (“Moore”) Fig. 8; 5:55-6:5, wiper 378 with cleaning fluid reservoir 384).
To the extent Knights does not disclose “an open top” and “wherein an entirety of the open top is open to allow the fluid flow out of the fluid channel to form the fluid wall”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to remove brush 132 (Knights Fig. 7) to arrive at an unobstructed open top (see Fig. 8; 5:43-68, where brush 132 is replaced by a non-brush element). This would have been obvious because this is a design choice of balancing cost and wiper performance/characteristics, along with the design aspect of quantity of cleaning fluid released through the fluid channel 128. For example, the removal of brush 132 would save cost by not having the brush, and would also allow for more fluid flow out of channel 128 (and allowing for the use of a cheaper, lower power cleaning fluid pump) due to the removal of brush 132. Further, this modification may be better where the surface (e.g., the surface of a print head) is made of a plastic that is in danger of abrasion damage from a brush (see Knights Fig. 8; 5:43-68).
Regarding claim 3, the Knights/Carlson combination makes obvious the wet wiper apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Knights further discloses wherein the fluid channel is positioned between the first wiper blade and the second wiper blade (Fig. 7, channel 128 is between blades 122).
Regarding claim 4, the Knights/Carlson combination makes obvious the wet wiper apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Knights further discloses wherein the first wiper blade and the second wiper blade extend from a first end of the wet wiper apparatus to a second end of the wet wiper apparatus (Figs. 5-7; wiper blades 122 extend from one end 134 to the other end).
Regarding claim 5, the Knights/Carlson combination makes obvious the wet wiper apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Knights further discloses the apparatus further comprising a pair of walls extending between the first wiper blade and the second wiper blade from a base of the wet wiper apparatus to a top of each of the first wiper blade and the second wiper blade (Fig. 7, walls located adjacent to the open top of the fluid channel 128 are between blades 122 and extend from a base (e.g., the portion of the wiper body 110 at channel 128) towards a top of wiper blades 122).
Regarding claim 7, the Knights/Carlson combination makes obvious the wet wiper apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Knights further discloses the apparatus further comprising a cleaning manifold extending below the fluid channel within the wet wiper body (Figs. 5-7, longitudinally extending manifold 158/174; 5:11-27),
wherein the cleaning manifold comprises a plurality of fluid ports configured to provide cleaning fluid to the fluid channel (Fig. 7, holes 168; 4:19-5:68).
Regarding claim 11, the Knights/Carlson combination makes obvious the wet wiper apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Knights further discloses the apparatus further comprising a cleaning manifold extending below the fluid channel within the wet wiper body (Figs. 5-7, longitudinally extending manifold 158/174; 5:11-27),
wherein the cleaning manifold comprises a fluid port extending from the first end of the wet wiper apparatus to the second end of the wet wiper apparatus configured to provide cleaning fluid to the fluid channel (Fig. 7, portion of manifold 158/174 close to the holes 168); Examiner’s interpretation of this limitation is consistent with Applicant’s disclosure, see Spec. Fig. 4D; ¶ 0094).
Regarding claim 12, the Knights/Carlson combination makes obvious the wet wiper apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Knights further discloses the apparatus further comprising at least one motion coupler extending from the wet wiper apparatus (Fig. 5, element 146) and
configured to couple the wet wiper apparatus to [the] cleaning station [vessel] for vertical motion therein (4:33-35; in the proposed Knights/Carlson combination as discussed in claim 1, element 146 would be coupled to the cleaning station vessel of the additive manufacturing apparatus).
Knights in view of Carlson and Nelson
Claims 8-10, 13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 4339839 A (“Knights”) in view of US 20190084239 A1 (“Carlson”) and US 20100089417 A1 (“Nelson”).
Knights pertains to a wiper assembly (Figs. 1-8). Carlson pertains to a wiper assembly for an additive manufacturing machine (Figs. 13A-B, 14-19). Nelson pertains to a wiper assembly (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor that includes wiper assemblies.
Regarding claim 8, the Knights/Carlson combination makes obvious the wet wiper apparatus of claim 7 as applied above. Knights and Carlson do not explicitly disclose the apparatus further comprising a plurality of cleaning fluid inlets operable to receive the cleaning fluid and provide the cleaning fluid to the cleaning manifold. However, the Knights/Carlson/Nelson combination makes obvious this claim.
Nelson discloses a plurality of cleaning fluid inlets operable to receive the cleaning fluid and provide the cleaning fluid to the cleaning manifold (Figs 1, 4, 5; ¶¶ 0045, 0059, two fluid inlets of cleaning manifold 330 are connected to fluid lines 378 and 384).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Nelson with the Knights/Carlson combination by modifying the wiper assembly of Knights to have multiple cleaning fluid inlets, as opposed to a single inlet (Knights Figs. 5-7, inlet 148). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because it would serve the purpose of ensuring uniform distribution of cleaning fluid across the entire longitudinal length of the wiper assembly, as a single fluid inlet (e.g., at one end of the assembly) may get clogged or may not provide sufficient fluid pressure to the fluid outlets at the opposite end of the wiper assembly, such that less fluid is discharged at the opposite end of the wiper assembly relative to the fluid inlet end (see also US 3143753 A (“Torelv”) Fig. 2; 3:62-72, fluid pipe 78 connects to two fluid inlets for two manifolds that are connected to a single wiper blade 28; 2:2-4, it is desirable “to uniformly distribute cleaning fluid over the outer surface of the windshield, thus assuring for a more rapid reliable and efficient cleaning operation”).
Regarding claim 9, the Knights/Carlson/Nelson combination makes obvious the wet wiper apparatus of claim 8 as applied above. Knights further discloses wherein the plurality of cleaning fluid inlets comprise fluid conduits extending vertically upward through the bottom side of the wet wiper body (Figs. 5-7, inlet 148 includes the contained fluid conduit that supplies fluid to manifold 158/174).
Regarding claim 10, the Knights/Carlson/Nelson combination makes obvious the wet wiper apparatus of claim 8 as applied above. Knights further discloses wherein the plurality of cleaning fluid inlets comprise fluid conduits extending from a side of the wet wiper body adjacent to the top side and the bottom side of the wet wiper body (Fig. 3, inlet 64/66 connects to the longitudinal end (side) of the body, which is adjacent to the top and bottom sides of the body; 4:10-15).
The obviousness rationale for claim 10 is the same as for claim 8, with the additional rationale that although Fig. 3 is a different embodiment than Fig. 7 used for the rejection of claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to further modify the Knights/Carlson/Nelson combination to use this side fluid inlet because that location may be more convenient for particular applications, depending on the orientation of the wiper apparatus relative to other mechanisms external to but related to the wiper apparatus. For example, Knights teaches that “The embodiment illustrated in FIGS. 3 and 4 is intended for use on flat windscreens...the mounting block 42 is of different design from that shown in FIG. 1” (Knights 3:66-4:2).
Regarding claim 13, Knights discloses a wet wiper apparatus (Figs. 5-7, wiper assembly shown) comprising:
a wet wiper body...the wet wiper body having a top side and a bottom side (see annotated Fig. 7 for claim 1 above, body 110);
a first wiper blade and a second wiper blade vertically extending from the top side of the wet wiper body and positioned to contact a print head of the additive manufacturing apparatus when the print head passes over the wet wiper body (Fig. 7, two blades 122, which are capable of being positioned to contact a print head of an additive manufacturing apparatus as claimed; Examiner notes that the “print head” is not positively claimed and this limitation includes a recitation of intended use (“and positioned to contact a print head...”). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II); to the extent this is not an intended use limitation, see discussion below);
a manifold comprising at least one fluid port, the manifold being configured to deliver cleaning fluid to the top side of the wet wiper body (Figs. 5-7, longitudinally extending manifold 158/174 and holes 168 (“fluid port”) are capable of the recited function; 4:19-5:68),
the wiper body has a fluid channel recessed therein, the fluid channel horizontally extending from a first end of the wet wiper body to a second end of the wet wiper body and positioned between the first wiper blade and the second wiper blade, wherein the fluid channel is in fluid communication with the at least one fluid port of the manifold (Figs. 5-7, fluid channel 128 is recessed in the wiper body 110; 4:19-5:68, the fluid channel extends horizontally from a first end (e.g., right end, at reference 134 (Fig. 5)) to a second end (e.g., left end (Fig. 5)) of the wiper body, and is between blades 122 and in fluid communication with holes 168),
the fluid channel comprises an open top to allow fluid flow out of the fluid channel, wherein the open top is elongated from the first end to the second end of the wet wiper body and configured to allow fluid flow out of the fluid channel to form a fluid wall that reaches the print head when the print head passes over the wet wiper body (Figs. 5-7, see annotated Fig. 7 for Fig. 1 above; 4:19-5:68, the “open top” of the fluid channel 128 is elongated between the first and second ends of the wiper body, the open top of the fluid channel (irrespective of the presence of brush 132) is capable of forming a fluid wall (in cooperation with blades 122) that reaches another object when coming into close contact with the other object (e.g., a print head); Examiner notes that this limitation includes a recitation of intended use (“to form a fluid wall that reaches the print head...”). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)).
Knights does not explicitly disclose:
a wet wiper body within a cleaning station vessel of an additive manufacturing apparatus,
cleaning fluid inlets extending through the wet wiper body, wherein the cleaning fluid inlets are in fluid communication with the manifold.
However, the Knights/Carlson/Nelson combination makes obvious this claim.
Carlson discloses a wet wiper body within a cleaning station vessel of an additive manufacturing apparatus (Figs. 13A-B, 14-19; ¶¶ 0201-0214, wiper 800 is within the cleaning station vessel portion (which includes elements 802, 806, 814) of the additive manufacturing apparatus).
Nelson discloses cleaning fluid inlets extending through the wet wiper body, wherein the cleaning fluid inlets are in fluid communication with the manifold (Figs 1, 4, 5; ¶¶ 0045, 0059, two fluid inlets of cleaning manifold 330 are connected to fluid lines 378 and 384).
The obviousness rationale for claim 13 is the same as for claim 8 (including the obviousness rationale of claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, the Knights/Carlson/Nelson combination makes obvious the wet wiper apparatus of claim 14 as applied above. Knights further discloses wherein the at least one fluid port is disposed between the first and second wiper blades along the wet wiper body (Fig. 7, holes 168 between blades 122; 5:16-22).
Regarding claim 18, the Knights/Carlson/Nelson combination makes obvious the wet wiper apparatus of claim 13 as applied above. Knights further discloses wherein the cleaning fluid inlets extend vertically upward through the bottom side of the wet wiper body (Figs. 5-7, inlet 148 includes the contained fluid conduit that supplies fluid to manifold 158/174).
Regarding claim 19, the Knights/Carlson/Nelson combination makes obvious the wet wiper apparatus of claim 15 as applied above. Knights further discloses the apparatus further comprising a pair of walls extending between the first wiper blade and the second wiper blade from the top side of the wet wiper apparatus to a top of each of the first wiper blade and the second wiper blade (Fig. 8, walls 182/184 extend to the top of the wiper blades 122).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further modify the Knights/Carlson/Nelson combination with the teachings of Knights Fig. 8 by adding a pair of walls (e.g., two parallel walls extending from fluid channel 128 that run the horizontal length of the fluid channel 128) that extend to a top of wiper blades 122. This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because, as contemplated by Knights (Fig. 8; 5:57-68), this would direct the fluid close to the cleaning surface before the fluid exits the walls (as compared to the lack of such parallel walls), which would better conserve cleaning fluid (as compared to not having such walls and only relying on blades 122 to maintain the fluid therebetween, where some excess fluid may escape and be lost). Examiner notes that a similar structure exists in Knights Fig. 7 in the spine/frame of brush 132 (e.g., the modification could alternatively be removing only the bristles of brush 132 while keeping the spine/frame).
Regarding claim 20, the Knights/Carlson/Nelson combination makes obvious the wet wiper apparatus of claim 13 as applied above. Knights further discloses the apparatus further comprising at least one motion coupler extending from the wet wiper apparatus (Fig. 5, element 146) and
configured to couple the wet wiper apparatus to [the] cleaning station [vessel] for vertical motion therein (4:33-35; in the proposed Knights/Carlson combination as discussed in claim 13, element 146 would be coupled to the cleaning station vessel of the additive manufacturing apparatus).
Knights in view of Carlson and Kinder
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 4339839 A (“Knights”) in view of US 20190084239 A1 (“Carlson”) and US 5235720 A (“Kinder”).
Knights pertains to a wiper assembly (Figs. 1-8). Carlson pertains to a wiper assembly for an additive manufacturing machine (Figs. 13A-B, 14-19). Kinder pertains to a wiper assembly (Abstr.; Figs. 1-8). These references are in the same field of endeavor that includes wiper assemblies.
Regarding claim 23, the Knights/Carlson combination makes obvious the wet wiper apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Knights further discloses wherein the first wiper blade vertically extends from the top side of the wet wiper body to a first vertical position and the second wiper blade vertically extends from the top side of the wet wiper body to a second vertical position... (Fig. 7, first and second blades 122 extend as recited).
Knights does not explicitly disclose wherein the first wiper blade vertically extends from the top side of the wet wiper body to a first vertical position and the second wiper blade vertically extends from the top side of the wet wiper body to a second vertical position different than the first vertical position.
However, the Knights/Carlson/Kinder combination makes obvious this claim.
Kinder discloses wherein the first wiper blade vertically extends from the top side of the wet wiper body to a first vertical position and the second wiper blade vertically extends from the top side of the wet wiper body to a second vertical position different than the first vertical position (Figs. 1-4, second wiper blade 16 has a vertical height different from the vertical height of the first wiper blade 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Kinder with the Knights/Carlson combination to modify the wiper assembly of Knights where the second wiper blade (e.g., the right blade) is shorter than the first wiper blade, as taught by Kinder. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill because the use of a dual blade design having different blade heights (relative to the cleaning surface) is capable of added functionality related to having one blade contact the cleaning surface at some instances, and having the other blade and/or both blades contact the cleaning surface at other instances (Kinder Figs. 3-4; 4:38-63, blade 14 contacts the cleaning surface at all times in both directions, while blade 16 contacts the cleaning surface only when leading the direction of travel (Kinder Fig. 3); see also US 5857236 A (“Sakurai”) Figs. 3, 4A-B; 6:8-7:6, blade 23b is shorter than blade 22 and only contacts the cleaning surface at approximately position c, thereby distributing the contact force between both wiper blades 22, 23b and “decreasing noise generated”). Applicant has not disclosed that having the two wiper blades extending to two different vertical positions (resulting in two different engagement distances) provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of this positioning as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Knights in view of Carlson, Nelson, and Kinder
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 4339839 A (“Knights”) in view of US 20190084239 A1 (“Carlson”), US 20100089417 A1 (“Nelson”), and US 5235720 A (“Kinder”).
Knights pertains to a wiper assembly (Figs. 1-8). Carlson pertains to a wiper assembly for an additive manufacturing machine (Figs. 13A-B, 14-19). Nelson pertains to a wiper assembly (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Kinder pertains to a wiper assembly (Abstr.; Figs. 1-8). These references are in the same field of endeavor that includes wiper assemblies.
Regarding claim 14, the Knights/Carlson/Nelson combination makes obvious the wet wiper apparatus of claim 13 as applied above.
Knights further discloses:
wherein the first wiper blade vertically extends from the top side of the wet wiper body to a first vertical position (Fig. 8, one of blades 122, e.g., left blade shown, the disclosed blade 122 has a vertical height),
and the second wiper blade vertically extends from the top side of the wet wiper body to a second vertical position... (Fig. 8, one of blades 122, e.g., right blade shown, the disclosed blade 122 is spaced apart from the first wiper blade and has a vertical height).
Knights does not explicitly disclose the second wiper blade vertically extends from the top side of the wet wiper body to a second vertical position different than the first vertical position. However, the Knights/Carlson/Kinder combination makes obvious this claim.
Kinder discloses:
the second wiper blade vertically extends from the top side of the wet wiper body to a second vertical position different than the first vertical position (Figs. 1-4, second wiper blade 16 has a vertical height different from the vertical height of the first wiper blade 14).
The obviousness rationale is the same as for claim 23, except as depending from claim 13.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered. Claims 2, 6, 16-17, and 21-22 have been canceled. New claim 23 has been added. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-15, 18-20, and 23 are pending. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-15, 18-20, and 23 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding amended claims 1 and 13 (Reply at 7-10) are moot in view of the new rejections above due to the amended limitations. Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of Knights (Reply at 8-9) with respect to the quantity or velocity of cleaning fluid that would exit out of fluid channel 28/128 and the assertion that it would not form the recited “fluid wall”. Knights does not provide evidence that the recited fluid wall could not be formed (when modified in the Knights/Carlson combination). Examiner notes that the intended use interpretation (Reply at 9-10) applies only to the “reaches that print head” portion of the relevant limitation. The intended use interpretation is relevant because the “print head” is not positively recited. Even so, as discussed in this Office Action, the Knights wiper apparatus (as modified by Carlson and put into a cleaning station vessel of an additive manufacturing apparatus) is capable of forming a liquid wall to reach an adjacent print head. Applicant does not present any further arguments concerning the remaining claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 6892418 B2 (“Stouder”) discloses a wiper assembly with a double blade and fluid channel configuration (Abstr.; Figs. 1-10).
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights