DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 06/23/2026, claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, 11, 13, and 15-24 are pending. Claims 15-21 are withdrawn based on the restriction requirement. Claims 1, 6, 13, and 22-24 are currently amended. Claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, 11, 13, and 22-24 are considered in the current Office 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 .
Status of Previous Objections/Rejections
Previous claim objections are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment.
Previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment.
Previous 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment. However, new rejections are made.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “…comprising particles suspended in a matrix [0009]” should read as “…comprising particles suspended in a matrix”.
Claim 1 recites “…the combination of several patterns [0016]” should read as “…the combination of several patterns”.
Claim 1 recites “a frame wherein said picture recorder is arranged” should read as ““a frame, wherein said picture recorder is arranged”.
Claim 11 recites “…set of vibration generators emits waves” should read as ““…set of vibration generators emits sound waves” for the purpose of consistency.
Claim 24 recites “the flexible arm” should read as “the one or more flexible arm” for the purpose of consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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. Furthermore, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the material worked upon as per MPEP §2115).
Claims 6 and 23 recite the limitation “holder connection means” has been interpreted as any structure that perform the function of connecting to the pattern generator which is consistent with [0023] of the instant specification.
Claims 6 and 23 recite the limitation “generator connection means” has been interpreted as any structure that perform the function of cooperate with the holder connection means and to maintain the holder in position which is consistent with [0023] of instant application.
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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “lateral damping means” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The corresponding structure from the specification is the lateral damping device 51a of Figures 4a-4c and Figure 5a-5c and are arranged to prevent the lateral vibrations of the holder and the sample ([0039]).
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 § 112
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, 11, 13, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “several” in claims 1 and 24 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “several” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, it is unclear as to how many are considered as several.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…in such as way to transmit the vibration waves generated by the pattern generator”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, vibration waves, in the claim. Furthermore, claim 1 also recites “a pattern generator…apply sound waves to the sample”. Thus, it is unclear if the pattern generator is applying sound waves and/or the vibration wave to the sample.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “… a frame”. Claim 21 is depended upon claim 1 which also recites “a frame”. Thus, it is unclear if “a frame” recited in claim 21 is referring to the same frame recited in claim 1 or a different frame.
Claims 4-6, 8-9, 11, 13, and 22-24 are rejected by virtue of depending on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1, 4-6, 9, 11, 13, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2016/0145566 (“Chen et al” hereinafter Chen), US2021/0260578 (“Shirwaiker et al” hereinafter Shirwaiker), and US2017/0282462 (“Abe et al” hereinafter Abe).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen teaches a patterning device (Figure 21A) for the preparation of three-dimensional structures of a sample ([0085]) comprising particles suspended in a matrix and free to migrate in said matrix ([0059] and [0074], the apparatus is used to generate ordered particle arrangement within a carrier solution in an open square chamber which implied that the particles are freely moved within the carrier solution in order to generate the desired pattern), said three-dimensional structure resulting from the combination of several patterns ([0008], [0081]-[0085]), wherein the sample is contained in a sample container (Figure 21A, carrier solution chamber), the patterning device comprising:
- a pattern generator (Figure 21A, vibration generator), comprising at least one vibration generator allowing to apply waves to the sample ([0059]),
- one or several holder (Figure 21A, metric tilt platform) connected to the pattern generator ([0085], the vibration generator was fixed on a metric tilt platform) and adapted to hold said sample container comprising the sample (Figure 21A and [0085], metric tilt platform holds the carrier solution chamber which comprises of the sample solution), in such a way to transmit the vibration waves generated by the pattern generator to the sample container ([0059] and [0085]), the sample container being placed on the holder (Figure 21A),
- at least one transformation device (Figure 21A, LED lamp) adapted for the transformation of the matrix into a modified matrix wherein the particles are no longer free to migrate ([0102]), while remaining non-linked to each other and arranged according to the pattern ([0102], only particles irradiated by the LED lamp will cross-linked while the remaining particles, not irradiated by the LED lamp, remain non-linked),
- at least one picture recorder (Figure 21A, camera) adapted to monitor the pattern ([0084]) before, during or after sound wave exposure of the sample ([0086]), said picture recorder being coupled to a picture analyser ([0099], the assembly fraction and neighbor number were calculated for each frame in the videos obtained from the high-speed camera. The data from this study were reported as the means±standard deviation which implied the present of a picture analyser),
- wherein said picture recorder is arranged in an adjustable manner ([0084] and [0099], the camera disclosed by Chen is capable of being used as intended as discussed above and thus meets all of the structural limitations as claimed. See MPEP 2114),
- a control unit ([0028], a dynamic process of pattern formation and transformation controlled through adjustment of the input vibrational parameters which implied the present of a control unit to perform such process) adapted for controlling said the pattern generator ([0059], vibrational parameter from the vibration generator are controlled), the at least one transformation device ([0102]), and the picture recorder ([0111], topography can be controlled) according to a program or user instructions so as to produce a three-dimensional structure ([0011]) substantially without sample displacement ([0011], [0059], [0083], the controller control the manufacturing process to generate layer-by-layer structure into a 3D architecture without moving the sample into another apparatus), said control unit being further adapted to receive images of patterns under preparation from said picture analyser and automatically recognize whether said pattern is conform to an expected pattern ([0028] and [0099]),
and wherein the at least one transformation device comprises a light emitting system arranged above or surrounding the holder (Figure 21A and [0086]).
Chen teaches a vibration generator that generates vibration waves to the sample and to generate pattern with various pattern and some of the patterns are non-homogeneous (Figure 21A, [0021], and [0059]), but fails to teach a pattern generator, comprising at least one vibration generator or set of vibration generator allowing to apply sound waves to the sample, so as to generate a pattern, said pattern being a non-homogeneous arrangement of the particles in the matrix.
However, Shirwaiker teaches a pattern generator (Figure 2 and [0008], piezo transducer 14), comprising at least one vibration generator or set of vibration generator allowing to apply sound waves to the sample ([0008], the piezo transducer to generate longitudinal bulk acoustic waves within the bioink fluid matrix such that waves emanating from the piezo transducer and reflected waves from the reflector superimpose to form a standing bulk acoustic wave), so as to generate a pattern, said pattern being a non-homogeneous arrangement of the particles in the matrix ([0008], driving the cells or particles to cluster, which is a non-homogeneous pattern, and align along one or more nodes or nodal planes formed within the bioink fluid matrix).
Chen and Shirwaiker are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of treating microorganisms or particles with wave energy to form patterns to generate a three-dimensional culture. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus as taught by Chen such that it discloses all of the above mentioned limitations as taught by Shirwaiker to use sound wave to manipulate particles and is scaffoldless which greatly enhance specific strengths (compression, tensile, and/or stiffness) of the composites ([0108]).
The modified Chen fails to teach a frame, the frame being adjustable so as to maintain said holder at a horizontal position.
However, Abe teaches a frame (Figure 4, walls 27 formed a frame), the frame being adjustable so as to maintain said holder at a horizontal position (Figure 4 and [0063], walls 27 formed the frame that is used to maintain the forming table 20 in a horizontal position).
Chen and Abe are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of using vibration to pattern the materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the device of the modified Chen such that it teaches all of the cumulative limitations taught by Abe to absorb the vibration provided between the forming table and the wall in order not to vibrate peripheral devices ([0063]). Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known design for placement of vibration generator with respect to the holder for the purpose of providing vibration to the build materials. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Chen teaches the patterning device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one transformation device can be used sequentially to the pattern generator (Chen, [0102], the assembled pattern are exposed to UV light in order to fix the pattern which means the at least one transformation device is used sequentially to the pattern generator).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified Chen teaches the patterning device according to claim 1, wherein the holder comprises at least one vibration sensor (Chen, [0098], an accelerometer, which is an example of vibration sensor, was employed to measure vertical acceleration of the carrier-solution chamber and correlate the acceleration with the driving voltage amplitude from the function generator. Thus, it is implied that the accelerometer must be placed upon the metric tilt platform to measure vertical acceleration).
Regarding Claim 6, the modified Chen teaches the patterning device according to claim 1, Chen further teaches wherein said patterning device comprises one or more lateral damping means ([0085], vibration damper) arranged to absorb at least part of the reflected waves and resonance frequencies interfering with the pattern generation ([0085], the metric tilt platform was fixed to a vibration damper to prevent external perturbation. Function of vibration damper is to reduce or eliminate vibrations in mechanical systems), wherein said holder comprises holder connection means (Figure 21A, adapter fitting and [0085]) and said pattern generator comprises generator connection means (Figure 21A and [0085], it is implied that the vibration generator comprises a structure that connects the generator with the metric tilt platform) and wherein said holder connection means are essentially directly surrounded by said lateral damping devices (Figure 21A).
Regarding Claim 9, the modified Chen teaches the patterning device according to claim 1, further comprising an illumination system allowing to visualize and record the pattern of the sample (Chen, [0086], a high-speed monochrome video camera was used to record the topography of the standing waves and to quantify the dynamic process of the bead assembly).
Regarding Claim 11, the modified Chen teaches the patterning device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one vibration generator or set of vibration generators emits waves from positions lateral to the sample (Chen, [0085], a vibration generator and a function generator was used to generate vertical vibration which is lateral vibration movement).
Regarding Claim 13, the modified Chen teaches the patterning device according to claim 1, Chen further teaches further comprising at least one injection device adapted for a 3D-bio-injection of biomaterial ([0088], a pipetted is used as an injection device for injection biomaterials). Chen fails to teach said at least one injection device being linked to said frame, the position and activation of said at least one injection device being piloted by said control unit.
However, Abe teaches said at least one injection device (Figure 4, squeegee blade 23 enables a powder 19 placed on the powder table 25 to be spread onto the base plate 21 [0034]) being linked to said frame (Figure 4, squeegee blade 23 linked to walls 27), the position and activation of said at least one injection device being piloted by said control unit ([0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the device of the modified Chen such that it teaches all of the cumulative limitations taught by Abe because the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known design injection device with frame for discharging materials. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim 22, the modified Chen teaches the patterning device according to claim 6. Chen further teaches wherein said lateral damping device ([0085], vibration damper), comprises a tube surrounding either the holder connection means, or the generator connection means, or an intermediate connector, or the edge of the holder ([0085], the metric tilt platform was fixed to a vibration damper to prevent external perturbation). Chen fails to teach wherein the edge of the holder is prolonged downwards to form a skirt fitting with the lateral damping device.
However, Abe teaches wherein the edge of the holder is prolonged downwards to form a skirt fitting with the lateral damping device (Figure 4, forming table 20 prolonged downwards to form a skirt fitting with the part 70 for absorbing the vibration [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the device of the modified Chen such that the edge of the holder is prolonged downwards to form a skirt fitting with the lateral damping device as taught by Abe to absorb the vibration provided between the forming table and the wall in order not to vibrate peripheral devices ([0063]).
Regarding Claim 23, the modified Chen teaches the patterning device according to claim 6, but fails to teach further comprising a frame, wherein the holder connection means and the generator connection means are connected by means of said intermediate connector and wherein this intermediate connector is connected to the frame of the patterning device by means of one or more flexible arms.
However, Abe teaches a frame (Figure 4, walls 27 formed a frame), wherein the holder connection means (Figure 4, forming table 20 comprises of a holder connection means that is used to connect with the vibrator 60) and the generator connection means (Figure 4, vibrator 60 must also has a connection means to connect with the forming table) are connected by means of said intermediate connector (Figure 4, part 70) and wherein this intermediate connector is connected to the frame of the patterning device (Figure 4, part 70 is connected to the wall 27) by means of one or more flexible arms (Figure 4, part 70 includes a spring and a rubber part and the spring part formed as flexible arms [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the device of the modified Chen such that it teaches all of the cumulative limitations taught by Abe to absorb the vibration provided between the forming table and the wall in order not to vibrate peripheral devices ([0063]). Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known design for placement of vibration generator with respect to the holder for the purpose of providing vibration to the build materials. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim 24, the modified Chen teaches the patterning device according to claim 23, wherein the flexible arms comprises several rigid portions and several flexible parts to form a leaf spring specifically adapted to the holder (Abe, Figure 4 and [0063], part 70 includes a spring and a rubber part and the spring part formed as flexible arms and specifically adapted to the forming table 20).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2016/0145566 (“Chen et al” hereinafter Chen), US2021/0260578 (“Shirwaiker et al” hereinafter Shirwaiker), and US2017/0282462 (“Abe et al” hereinafter Abe) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO2020/236657 (“Christiansen et al” hereinafter Christiansen).
Regarding Claim 8, the modified Chen teaches the device according to claim 1. Chen further teaches a control unit adapted to automatically determine the conditions to produce a predetermined pattern ([0070], assembled structures can be controlled through manipulation of the vibrational parameters and [0134]), but fails to teach wherein said control unit comprises or is connected to an artificial intelligence unit.
However, Christiansen discloses it is well known in the art to have control unit comprises or is connected to an artificial intelligence unit ([0288]).
Chen and Christiansen are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of using a three-dimensional manufacturing apparatus to manufactured a three-dimensional sample. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus as taught by the modified Chen such that control unit comprises or is connected to an artificial intelligence unit as discussed above as taught by Christiansen to analyze a database comprising a plurality of feedbacks indicative of various components of the 3D printing system ([0288]). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known way to operates and controls the control unit. See MPEP 2143.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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
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 XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
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.
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/LARRY W THROWER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights