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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species A1, B1, C2, D2, E3, F2, G2, and H1 in the reply filed on 10/16/2025 is acknowledged.
While Applicant’s election of Species A1, B1, C2, D2, E3, F2, G2, and H1 is with traverse, Applicant did not provide basis for traversal for Species B, C, D, E, F, G and H. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement of Species B, C, D, E, F, G and H, Applicant’s election of these species has been treated as an election without traverse. See MPEP § 818.01(a).
With respect to Species A, Applicant’s argument that A1, A2, and A4 are all sintering processes (E3) is persuasive. However, A1, A2, and A4 are clearly disclosed as being distinct types/species ([0008], [0015] of Applicant’s published application). Thus, Examiner maintains the species restriction among species A1, A2, and A4 and accepts Applicant’s election of species A1.
With respect to Species E3, Applicant’s argument/note that a gas mixture (E3) can be air (E1) is found persuasive. However, Examiner notes that it encompasses other gas mixtures other than air. Applicant’s argument/note that a gas mixture (E3) can be a gas different than air (E2) is not found persuasive. The scope of a gas different than air encompasses only a single gas while the scope a gas mixture requires a mixture of multiple gases such as air. Thus, Examiner maintains the species restriction among species E2, E3, E4, and E5 and accepts Applicant’s election of species E3.
With respect to Applicant notes about the election of C2, D2, E3, and F2, Examiner highlights the words “may include”, “such as”, “may optionally be used”, “may optionally include” and “can be” in Applicant’s notes. Thus, the scope of the disclosed species is or can be different from the scope of the claims directed to the elected species.
Since Applicant’s arguments did not invalidate the restriction requirement of Species A and E in their entirety and Applicant’s reply did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement of Species B, C, D, E, F, G and, H, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-23 are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks filed on 03/10/2025 have been fully considered.
With respect to the drawing objection(s), Applicant argues that “heat pipes” can be used for cooling. Examiner concurs with Applicant. However, Applicant fails to point out where the claimed “system of heat pipes” for heat dissipation are shown in the drawings. Thus, the drawing objection is maintained.
Applicant further argues that “control circuit” now claimed as “controller” is shown in Figure H5 and described as a PID controller. Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive. Figure H5 shows and describes providing invidual PID controllers and individual thermocouples per emitter ([0179-0180] of Applicant’s invention) whereas claims 3 requires one controller controlling all the emitters individually or one controller controlling group(s) of emitters. Thus, none of the drawings show a single controller controlling each emitter in the array of multiple emitters or a group of emitters as instantly claimed. Thus, the drawing objection is maintained.
Applicant fail to address all the drawing objections. For instance, Applicant fails to show how his response overcomes each drawing objection such as the showing of the “additional emitter unit”. Thus, the unaddressed drawing objections are maintained.
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Applicant fail to address/show how his response overcomes each 112(b) rejection. Thus, the unaddressed 112(b) rejections are maintained. Additionally, Applicant’s amendments introduced new 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office action.
With respect to allowance, Applicant's argument are moot in view of the rejections set forth in this Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed “emitters of broadband electro-magnetic radiation of different wavelengths, the spectrum of which deviates from each other”, “an additional emitter unit and a controller, wherein the emitter unit is characterized by being an array of multiple emitters” in addition to the print head and sintering emitter assembly”, “each of which is individually controlled with regard to its temperature by the controller”, “each group of emitters being controlled by the controller”, “each emitter or group of emitters is controlled by a controller and a temperature sensor for achieving a target temperature, with the proviso that the controls the emitter or group of emitters based on a target parameter other than a power (watts) of the emitter”, “cooling coils, or cooling helixes”, and “first subset of emitters are controlled as a first group by the controller and a second subset of emitters are controlled as a second group by the controller” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 5, 12-15, and 18-20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “a build field; and” should be changed to --a build field;--.
In claim 1, “a recoater;” should be changed to --a recoater; and--.
In claim 1, “from 1.1 to 3.0;” should be changed to --from 1.1 to 3.0; and--.
In claim 5, “the controller uses an algorithm to achieve” should be changed to --the controller is configured to execute an algorithm to achieve--.
In claim 12, “n the X-direction” should be changed to --in the X-axis--.
In claim 13, “wherein-printing” should be changed to --wherein printing--.
In claim 14, “includes an air” should be changed to --includes air--.
In claim 15, “the the height Z” should be changed to --the height Z--.
Claim 18, “the spectrum of which deviates from each” should be changed to --the spectrum of which deviates from each other--.
Claim 19, “with the proviso that the controls the emitter” should be changed to --with the proviso that the controller controls the emitter—
Claim 20, “includes at least one thermographic camera directed at the build field at least one infrared pyrometer, or at least one temperature sensor” should be changed to --includes at least one thermographic camera directed at the build field, at least one infrared pyrometer, or at least one temperature sensor--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The term “and/or” has been interpreted below as or because it is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term.
The term “high-speed sintering” has been interpreted below as described in [0013] of Applicant’s published application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 11-23 is/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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “for use in a high-speed sintering process or a laser sintering process or a sintering process or a multi-jet fusion process” which is indefinite. The language does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired because “a sintering process” is a broad limitation and “a high-speed sintering process”, “a laser sintering process” and/or “multi-jet fusion process” are narrower limitations that may fall within the broad limitation. See MPEP § 2173.05 (c). The limitation has been examined below as if it read --a high-speed sintering process or a laser sintering process or a multi-jet fusion process--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the X-direction” which is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation has been examined below as if it read -- the X-axis--.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5-8, and 11-23 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 1 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the length L of the build field in the Y-direction is” which is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the length L” and “the Y-direction” in the claim(s).
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the height Z in the Z-direction is” which is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the Z-direction” in the claim(s).
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the device includes a print head or a sintering emitter assembly” which is indefinite. It is unclear if the print head of claim 2 is same or different from the print head of claim 1. It also indefinite because it contradicts the scope of claim 1. Claim 1 requires the print head whereas claim 2 makes the print head optional. How many print heads are required by claim 2?
Claim(s) 3-8 and 23 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 2 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the 3D printing device comprises emitters of broadband electro-magnetic radiation of different wavelengths, the spectrum of which deviates from each other” which is indefinite. The limitation can have multiple plausible interpretations including an interpretation in which the claimed emitters of broadband electro-magnetic radiation of different wavelengths are part of the print head of claim 2, another interpretation in which the claimed emitters of broadband electro-magnetic radiation of different wavelengths are part of the sintering emitter assembly of claim 2, or another interpretation in which the claimed emitters of broadband electro-magnetic radiation of different wavelengths are additional and separate elements than the print head and sintering emitter assembly. Applicant’s drawings fail to show the third interpretation while Applicant’s disclosure fails to clarify the ambiguity of all the plausible interpretations.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the short-wave infrared range” which is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the short-wave infrared range” in the claim(s).
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the visible range” which is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the visible range” in the claim(s).
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the 3D printing device comprises an additional emitter unit and a controller, wherein the emitter unit is characterized by being an array of multiple emitters” which is indefinite. The limitation can have multiple plausible interpretations including an interpretation in which the claimed additional emitter unit is part of the print head of claim 2, another interpretation in which the claimed additional emitter unit is part of the sintering emitter assembly of claim 2, or another interpretation in which the claimed additional emitter unit is an additional and separate elements than the print head, sintering emitter assembly, and emitters of broadband electro-magnetic radiation of different wavelengths. Applicant’s drawings fail to show the third interpretation while Applicant’s disclosure fails to clarify the ambiguity of all the plausible interpretations.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “with the proviso that the controller controls the emitter based on a target parameter other than the power (watts) of the emitter” which is indefinite because it is unclear to which emitter of the array of multiple emitters is applicant referring to. Is the proviso for each emitter?
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the emitter unit comprises at least one thermographic camera directed at the build field and/or at least one infrared pyrometer and/or at least one temperature sensor” which is indefinite. The language does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired because “temperature sensor” is a broad limitation and “thermographic camera” and/or “infrared pyrometer” are narrower limitations that may fall within the broad limitation. See MPEP § 2173.05 (c).
Claim 6 recites the broad limitation “and/or at least one temperature sensor” together with the narrow limitation “the temperature sensor is a thermocouple or a resistance thermometer” that falls within the broad limitation which make the scope of the claim indefinite because the claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired as there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Is the temperature sensor optional or required? See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the absolute temperature values” which is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the absolute temperature values” in the claim(s).
Claim 8 recites the limitation “comprising an emitter unit” which is indefinite. The limitation can have multiple plausible interpretations including an interpretation in which the claimed emitter unit is part of the print head of claim 2, another interpretation in which the claimed emitter unit is part of the sintering emitter assembly of claim 2, or another interpretation in which the claimed emitter unit is an additional and separate elements than the print head and sintering emitter assembly. Applicant’s drawings fail to show the third interpretation while Applicant’s disclosure fails to clarify the ambiguity of all the plausible interpretations.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the size ratio Y > X >Z” which is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the size ratio Y > X >Z” in the claim(s). The limitation has been examined below as if it read --the size relationship Y > X >Z--.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the device includes a print head or a sintering emitter assembly” which is indefinite. It is unclear if the print head of claim 12 is same or different from the print head of claim 1. It also indefinite because it contradicts the scope of claim 1. Claim 1 requires the print head whereas claim 2 makes the print head optional. How many print heads are required by claim 12?
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the device includes a print head or a sintering emitter assembly” which is indefinite. It is unclear if the print head of claim 12 is same or different from the print head of claim 1. It also indefinite because it contradicts the scope of claim 1. Claim 1 requires the print head whereas claim 2 makes the print head optional.
Claim 12 recites the broad limitation “print head or a sintering emitter assembly” together with the narrow limitation “the print head and/or sintering emitter assembly” which make the scope of the claim indefinite because the claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired as there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Claim 12 recites the limitation “in the X-direction” which is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the X-direction” in the claim(s).
Claim(s) 13-22 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 14 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “printing modules of a print head” which is indefinite. Is the print head of claim 13 same or different from the print head of claims 1 and 12? How many print heads are required by claim 13? Are the printing modules claim 13 same or different from the printing modules of claim 1?
Claim 14 recites the broad limitation “gas mixture” together with the narrow limitation “air” which make the scope of the claim indefinite because the claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired as there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a different gas” which is indefinite. The scope of the term “different gas” is unclear. Different to what other gas?
Claim 15 recites the limitation “an IR emitter” which is indefinite. The limitation can have multiple plausible interpretations including an interpretation in which the claimed IR emitter is part of the print head of claim 12, another interpretation in which the claimed IR emitter unit is part of the sintering emitter assembly of claim 12, or another interpretation in which the claimed IR emitter is an additional and separate elements than the print head and sintering emitter assembly. Applicant’s drawings fail to show the third interpretation while Applicant’s disclosure fails to clarify the ambiguity of all the plausible interpretations.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the liquid-based cooling circuit” which is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the liquid-based cooling circuit” in the claim(s). It is unclear if “the liquid-based cooling circuit” is same or different from the means for heat dissipation of claim 14. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, the liquid-based cooling circuit is part of the disclosed means for heat dissipation. Thus, the limitation is inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP § 2173.03.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the sintering assembly” which is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the sintering assembly” in the claim(s). Claims only have support for “the sintering emitter assembly” in claim 12.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the closed air-cooling circuit” which is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the closed air-cooling circuit” in the claim(s). It unclear if “the closed air-cooling circuit” is same or different from the means for heat dissipation of claim 14. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, “the closed air-cooling circuit” is part of the disclosed means for heat dissipation. Thus, the limitation is inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP § 2173.03.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the primary and secondary radiation transducers” which is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the primary and secondary radiation transducers” in the claim(s). The primary and secondary radiation transducers are introduced in claim 15; however, claim 16 does not depend on claim 15.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the ambient air” which is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a primary and a secondary radiation transducer” which is indefinite because the “primary and secondary radiation transducers” are introduced in claims 16. It is also unclear how many primary and secondary radiation transducers are required by claim 17?
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the 3D printing device comprises emitters of broadband electro-magnetic radiation of different wavelengths, the spectrum of which deviates from each other” which is indefinite. The limitation can have multiple plausible interpretations including an interpretation in which the claimed emitters of broadband electro-magnetic radiation of different wavelengths are part of the print head of claim 12, another interpretation in which the claimed emitters of broadband electro-magnetic radiation of different wavelengths are part of the sintering emitter assembly of claim 12, or another interpretation in which the claimed emitters of broadband electro-magnetic radiation of different wavelengths are additional and separate elements than the print head and sintering emitter assembly. Applicant’s drawings fail to show the third interpretation while Applicant’s disclosure fails to clarify the ambiguity of all the plausible interpretations.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the short-wave infrared range” which is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the short-wave infrared range” in the claim(s).
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the 3D printing device comprises an emitter unit, wherein the emitter unit includes an array of multiple emitters” which is indefinite. The limitation can have multiple plausible interpretations including an interpretation in which the claimed emitter unit is part of the print head of claim 12, another interpretation in which the claimed emitter unit is part of the sintering emitter assembly of claim 12, or another interpretation in which the claimed emitter unit is an additional and separate element than the print head and sintering emitter assembly. Applicant’s drawings fail to show the third interpretation while Applicant’s disclosure fails to clarify the ambiguity of all the plausible interpretations.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “with the proviso that the controls the emitter or group of emitters based on a target parameter other than a power (watts) of the emitter” which is indefinite because it is unclear to which emitter of the array of multiple emitters is applicant referring to in the limitation. Is the proviso for each emitter?
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the device includes an emitter unit” which is indefinite. The limitation can have multiple plausible interpretations including an interpretation in which the claimed emitter unit is part of the print head of claim 12, another interpretation in which the claimed emitter unit is part of the sintering emitter assembly of claim 12, or another interpretation in which the claimed emitter unit is an additional and separate element than the print head and sintering emitter assembly. Applicant’s drawings fail to show the third interpretation while Applicant’s disclosure fails to clarify the ambiguity of all the plausible interpretations.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the device includes at least one thermographic camera directed at the build field, at least one infrared pyrometer and/or at least one temperature sensor” which is indefinite. The language does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired because “temperature sensor” is a broad limitation and “thermographic camera” and/or “infrared pyrometer” are narrower limitations that may fall within the broad limitation. See MPEP § 2173.05 (c).
Claim 20 recites the broad limitation “or at least one temperature sensor” together with the narrow limitation “the temperature sensor is a thermocouple or a resistance thermometer” that falls within the broad limitation which make the scope of the claim indefinite because the claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired as there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Is the temperature sensor optional or required? See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the sintering assembly” which is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the sintering assembly” in the claim(s). The limitation has been examined below as if it read --the sintering emitter assembly--.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “the closed gas-based cooling circuit” which is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the closed gas-based cooling circuit” in the claim(s). The closed gas-based cooling circuit is introduced in claim 21; however, claim 22 does not depend on claim 21.
Note
Examiner notes that claims 2-3, 5-8 and 12-23 still cannot be evaluated with respect to prior art at this time because the examiner cannot ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought due to the 112(b) issues explained above and cannot make a proper comparison between these claims and the prior art.
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 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 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voxeljet (Phenolic-Direct-Binding Process, YouTube Video, 2016 - NPL of record) in view of Sachs (US 5204055 – of record).
Regarding claim 1, Voxeljet discloses a 3D printing device for use in a sintering process such as a high-speed sintering process or multi-jet fusion process (See entire YouTube video particularly from 1:09-1:47), the 3D printing device comprising:
a build location (build volume/location having a brown color and defined by annotated dimensions/lengths X, Y, and Z: Fig. 1 captured at 1:09 of video: See YouTube video 1:09-1:20),
a build field (build field defined by upper area having the annotated dimensions/lengths X and Y: Fig. 1 captured at 1:09: See YouTube video 1:09-1:20);
a recoater (Fig. 1 captured at 1:09 of video; See YouTube video 1:09-1:14); and
a print head (Fig. 1 captured at 1:09 of video: See YouTube video 1:16-1:20);
wherein the build location is characterized by a length X along an X-axis, a length Y along a Y-axis, and a height Z along a Z-axis (the build volume/location is defined by the length X along an X-axis, the Y length along a Y-axis, and the height Z along a Z-axis: Fig. 1 captured at 1:09 of video: See YouTube video 1:09-1:20),
wherein the build field is characterized by the length X and the length Y (the build field is defined by the upper area/plane having the annotated lengths X and Y: Fig. 1 captured at 1:09; See YouTube video 1:09-1:20),
wherein the recoater extends along the length Y of the build location and is moved in the X-axis (Fig. 1 captured at 1:09 of video; Fig. 2 captured at 1:11; See YouTube video 1:09-1:14),
wherein a size relationship Y>X>Z is present in the build location (Fig. 1 captured at 1:09 shows the relationship Y>X>Z; Fig. 3 captured at 1:07 shows more clearly the relationship Y>X>Z), and/or wherein a ratio of Y:X is from 1.1 to 3.0 (Fig. 1 captured at 1:09 shows a ratio of Y:X of at least 1.3; the ratio Y:X shown is from about 1.3 to 2.0: See YouTube video 0:30-0:40).
PNG
media_image1.png
904
1481
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Voxeljet fails to discloses wherein the print head has printing modules arranged over the entire length Y of the build location because Voxeljet shows that the print head does not extend over the entire length Y of the build location and shows multi-pass of the print head to cover/print the entire length Y of the build location.
However, Official notice is taken that the technique of providing a print head having a plurality of printing modules arranged over an entire dimension of the build location is well-known in the art and yields the predictable result/benefit of expediating printing efficiency by enabling coverage of the entire dimension of the build location (single pass print head provides more efficiency than a multi-pass print head).
For instance, in the same field of endeavor, 3D printing devices for use in a sintering process, Sachs discloses a relevant 3D printing device comprising a build volume having an x-dimension, y-dimension, and z-dimension and meeting a size relationship of Y>X>Z (See Fig. 1 and accompanying text). Sachs further discloses the technique of providing a print head (15) comprising a plurality of ink-jet dispensers (printing modules) arranged over the entire length X of the build location for the benefit(s) of enabling dispensing of binder jets along a line of the print head over the entire length X of the build location and achieving a high-speed or continuous operation (C4, L1-17).
PNG
media_image2.png
408
457
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While Sachs does not explicitly teach to arrange the printing modules over the entire length Y, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized/predicted that a print head having a plurality of printing modules arranged over the entire length Y (largest horizontal dimension) of the build location would yield the predictable result/benefit of expediating printing efficiency than a print head having a plurality of printing modules arranged over the entire length X (shortest horizontal dimension) of the build location by shortening the length that the print head needs to travel to cover the build field entirely.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Voxeljet in view of Sachs and ordinary knowledge by exchanging the print head of Voxeljet with a print head having a plurality of printing modules arranged over the entire length Y to yield the predictable result/benefit of expediating printing efficiency by enabling coverage of the entire dimension of the build field in a single pass and by shortening the length that the print head needs to travel to cover the build field entirely. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I F, and/or 2144 II.
Regarding claim 11, Voxeljet further discloses/shows wherein the size relationship of Y>X>Z is present in the build location (Fig. 1 captured at 1:09 shows the relationship Y>X>Z; Fig. 3 captured at 1:07 shows more clearly the relationship Y>X>Z), and wherein the ratio of Y:X is between 1.2 and 2.0 (Fig. 1 captured at 1:09 shows a ratio of Y:X of at least 1.2; the ratio Y:X shown is from about 1.3 to 2.0: See YouTube video 0:30-0:40). Furthermore, as Applicant admitted, the dimensions of the build location are optimizable parameters in the art ([0009-0010] of Applicant’s published application).
PNG
media_image3.png
548
1262
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered to be pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure:
Ederer (WO 2011063786A1 with English machine translation – of record) discloses a 3D printing device for use in a sintering process or multi-jet fusion (Abstract, pg. 1, Fig. 10), the 3D printing device comprising:
a build location (build volume/location defined by construction field 10 and a thickness of a layer: Abstract, pg. 4, pg. 6-7, Fig. 10a),
a build field (construction field 10: Abstract, pg. 6, Fig. 10a); and
a recoater (30: pg. 6, Fig. 10a);
wherein the build location is characterized by a length X along an X-axis, a length Y along a Y-axis, and a height Z along a Z-axis (the build volume/location is defined by a length B along an X-axis, a length L along a Y-axis, and a height/thickness Z of the layer along a Z-axis: pg. 6-7, Annotated Fig. 10a),
wherein the build field is characterized by the length X and the length Y (the construction field 10 is defined by the length B and the length L: pg. 7-8, Fig. 10a),
wherein the recoater (30) extends along the length Y (L) of the build location and is moved in the X-axis (Fig. 10a-b),
wherein a size relationship Y>X>Z is present in the build location (the relationship Y>X>Z is implicitly described: pg. 6-8, Fig. 10a; a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood/recognized that the thickness/height of the build layer/volume is smaller than B and L) and/or wherein a ratio of Y:X is from 1.1 to 3.0 (L:B is at least 2: pg. 8).
PNG
media_image4.png
539
681
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Günther (US 20200130263 – of record) discloses a relevant 3D printing device comprising two different types of emitters (109 and 108) emitting substantially different walengths/spectrums and a pyrometer (112), wherein at least the second type of emitters (108) is controllable based on the pyrometer readings (Fig. 1 and accompanying text), and the first type of emitter being a sintering emitter assembly comprising a cooling means, the cooling means comprising an air-cooling circuit (208) and a liquid-cooling circuit (Fig. 2c and accompanying text).
Günther (US 20180326662 – of record) discloses a relevant 3D printing device comprising emitters emitting substantially different walengths/spectrums (Fig. 4B, P0104, and emitters 500 and 603 in Fig. 7).
Ederer (US 20170355137 – of record) is relevant to the subject matter of claim 18 (P0026-0027, 0113, and Figures).
Barnes (US 20210331410 – of record) discloses a relevant emitter assembly with a relevant control unit (Figs. 1-2).
Notoshi (US 20180088368 – of record) discloses an emitter unit comprising a closed-air cooling circuit and an open-air cooling circuit (Fig. 8 and accompanying text).
Noble (US 20220241867) discloses a controller configured to control emitters individually based on temperature obtained from at least one temperature sensor (Fig. 1a, P0039).
The listed prior art references can be applied in future prior art rejections.
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 JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0625. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00-10:00 PM PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Galen Hauth can be reached on 571-270-5516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JERZI H. MORENO HERNANDEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743