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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a first receiver configured to interface with a linear guide and a second receiver configured to interface with an element configured to contribute to moving the carriageless print head along the linear guide in claim 1. Examiner is interpreting an element as specified in claim 24 as a belt and a first receiver and a second receiver as 112 a and 112 b in figure 1A.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/ 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 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.
(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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 12, 14-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over NPL Wim3rl: A water-cooled 3d Print head in view of Ohno (US 2017/0282297 A1).
Regarding claim 1, NPL discloses carriageless print head, for use in extrusion-based additive construction (see figure) comprising: a cold end comprising (see annotated figure below): a first receiver of a first type (see figure below) formed in the cold end, the first receiver configured to interface with a linear guide, and a second receiver formed in the cold end, the second receiver of a second type formed in the body of the cold end (see figure below), the second receiver configured to interface with an element configured to contribute to moving the carriageless print head along the linear guide, and a hot end configured to provide a melt zone, the hot end coupled with the cold end (see figure where the hot end and cold end are attached) (as for the configured language, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.)
PNG
media_image1.png
511
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
521
685
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The NPL further depicts the first receiver extending substantially linearly through the body from a first end of the body to a second end of the body, the second receiver configured to interface with an element configured to contribute to moving the carriageless print head along a linear guide (see annotated figure). If Applicant does not agree with this interpretation, also analogous art, Ohno (US2017/0282297 A1) depicts the first receiver extending substantially linearly through the body from a first end of the body to a second end of the body, the second receiver configured to interface with an element configured to contribute to moving the carriageless print head along a linear guide (see annotated figure below). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the first receiver extending substantially linearly through the body from a first end of the body to a second end of the body, the second receiver configured to interface with an element configured to contribute to moving the carriageless print head along a linear guide for the benefit of having a simple structure with good mobility [0005].
PNG
media_image3.png
665
536
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, NPL depicts the hot and cold end having a unibody construction (they are attached together).
Regarding claim 14, NPL depicts the second receiver being adjacent to and aligned with the first receiver (see annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 15, NPL depicts a top surface of the cold end comprises a first slot (where the blue washers attach) which extends downwardly toward a bottom surface of the cold end and is configured to receive a first material feed.
Regarding claim 16, NPL depicts wherein the second receiver extends substantially from a front end of the cold end to a rear end of the cold end, and the first receivers extends substantially from the front end to the rear end (NPL figures shows the receivers going from the tope surface to a bottom surface).
Regarding claim 17, NPL depicts the top surface further comprising a second slot(where the blue washers attach) which extends downwardly towards the bottom surface and is configured to receive a second material feed.
Regarding claim 20, NPL depicts wherein the cold end comprises a top surface and a bottom surface (see figures) , the top surface comprising :a third slot (in front of the blue washer) which extends downwardly towards the bottom surface and is configured to receive a cooling fluid, a fourth slot (in front of the blue washer) which extends downwardly towards the bottom surface and is configured to expel the cooling fluid, and the cold end further comprising a fluid channel having a perimeter, wherein the perimeter of the fluid channel is contained within the cold end (see figures).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 9-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Wim3rl: A water-cooled 3d Print head in view of Ohno (US 2017/0282297 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of MacPhee et al (US 2004/0080064 A1) and Holldeorfer (US2018/0200955 A1).
Regarding claim 9, NPL is silent to a temperature sensor configured to monitor a temperature of the cold end. However, analogous print head art, MacPhee et al, discloses the sensors throughout the printer head [0049]. Additionally, MacPhee discloses computer system 130 monitors the relative temperature and pressure within barrel 114 via sensors 115 located throughout the extruder mechanism, as shown in FIG. 7. Using sensors 115, computer system 130 monitors and adjusts the speed, torque, and temperature of motor 110 as well as the temperatures within the barrel 114 using heater bands 117 [0030]. Figure 7 depicts the sensor 115 in the cold section near 110, 112 and 114i. Further, printer head, Holldeorfer discloses sensors near the active cooling unit in the print head [0023]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a temperature sensor all over the extruder, including the cold side, configured to monitor a temperature of the cold end, as taught by MacPhee et al and Holleorfer, into the print head taught by the combination of NPL to monitor the temperature throughout the extruder. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Further, MPEP 2144.4 states Shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975) The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious. It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
Regarding claim 10, NPL is silent to a temperature sensor configured to monitor a temperature of a heat break connected to the hot and the cold end. However, analogous art, MacPhee et al, discloses computer system 130 monitors the relative temperature and pressure within barrel 114 via sensors 115 located throughout the extruder mechanism, as shown in FIG. 7. Using sensors 115, computer system 130 monitors and adjusts the speed, torque, and temperature of motor 110 as well as the temperatures within the barrel 114 using heater bands 117 [0030]. Figure 7 depicts the sensor 115 in the cold section near 110, 112 and 114i. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a temperature sensor configured to monitor a temperature of a heat break connected to the hot and the cold end, as taught by MacPhee et al, into the print head taught by NPL to monitor temperature throughout the extruder. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 11, MacPhee discloses multiple sensors (115) throughout the extruder to measure different temperatures [0030].
Regarding claim 13, NPL depicts the hot and cold end and the heat break having a unibody construction (they are attached together).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Wim3rl: A water-cooled 3d Print head in view of Ohno (US 2017/0282297 A1) as applied to claim 20 above and further in view of translated Jing (CN106239922A).
Regarding claim 21, NPL does not explicitly disclose wherein the fluid channel intersects with the third slot and the fourth slot, wherein the fluid channel extends from the third slot to the fourth slot. However, rearranging the third slot to the fourth slot is within the skillset of one ordinary skilled in the art. MPEP 2144.04 states Shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975) The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious. It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400. Further, analogous art, Jing teaches wherein the fluid channel intersect with the third slot and the fourth slot, wherein the fluid channel extends from the third slot to the fourth slot [pg. 7 5th paragraph, figure 2 shows channels connecting the two 106s]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wherein the fluid channel intersects with the third slot and the fourth slot, wherein the fluid channel extends from the third slot to the fourth slot since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being NPL Wim3rl: A water-cooled 3d Print head in view of Ohno (US 2017/0282297 A1), as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Bloom et al (US20110077480 A1).
Regarding claim 22, NPL is silent to a fluid channel plug. However, Bloom, which is a fluid transfer system that teaches fluid channel plug to facilitate fluid transfer [0065] and prevent fluid flow inside the channel [0083]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have combined the fluid channel plug of Bloom with NPL’s fluid channel such that the plug is part of the fluid channel with a reasonable expectation of successful results because Bloom recognizes that the plug can facilitate fluid transfer [0065] and prevent fluid flow inside the channel [0083].
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being NPL Wim3rl: A water-cooled 3d Print head in view of Ohno (US 2017/0282297 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wolf (US2016/0236408 A1).
Regarding claim 24, NPL does not explicitly disclose the element is a belt. However, it is conventionally well known for printer heads to have belts. Analogous printer head art, Wolf, discloses the use of belts to move printer heads since they weigh less and reduce stretching forces and tearing in the extrusion assembly [0059]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a belt since they weigh less and reduce stretching forces and tearing in the extrusion assembly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in light of newly cited reference Ohno (US 2017/0282297 A1).
Conclusion
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 FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754