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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/30/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 and 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Cao CN-107526343-A.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In light of claim 1 being amended to identify the external data storage device as a server, it is not clear how the claim is further limited by stating the external storage device is a network storage device. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 18-20, 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao CN-107526343-A (hereinafter “Cao”) in view of Lee KR-20160070477-A (hereinafter “Lee”, wherein citations for both references in the rejection refer to the provided English Translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 18-20, Cao discloses a method for operating an additive manufacturing device of a manufacturing environment comprising at least one or more additive manufacturing device (e.g. 3D printer), wherein data concerning an operation of the at least one additive manufacturing device are transferred from an external data storage device (e.g. user terminal) to the at least one additive manufacturing device by a separate data connection (i.e. direct connection from user terminal to the 3D printer), wherein the external data storage device comprises a server (e.g. pg. 2, 5th ¶, “The technical…”; pg. 2, last ¶ - pg. 3, 2nd ¶, “Referring to Fig. 1…”),wherein the separate data connection between the external data storage device and the at least one additive manufacturing device is established via a network connection independent of a local network environment (e.g. connection between server and camera) (e.g. pg. 2, 5th ¶, “The technical…”; pg. 2, last ¶ - pg. 3, 2nd ¶, “Referring to Fig. 1…”), and wherein the at least one additive manufacturing device comprises a router (e.g. network monitoring module) configured to establish the separate data connection to the external data storage device via the network connection, wherein the at least one additive manufacturing device is configured to automatically establish the separate data connection to the external data storage device directly via the router upon power supply to the at least one additive manufacturing device (e.g. pg. 2, 5th ¶, “The technical…”; pg. 2, last ¶ - pg. 3, 2nd ¶, “Referring to Fig. 1…”).
Cao discloses establishing the direct connection via a network connection, but does not explicitly disclose using a mobile communication standard.
Lee discloses establishing a network connection between a 3D printer and server via a mobile communication standard (i.e. LTE) (e.g. pg. 4, 9th ¶, “The cloud-based 3D printing server 110 can…”).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a mobile communication standard to connect the 3D printer and server. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this in order to provide location flexibility of the devices and provide fast and reliable data transmission.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Cao with Lee to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1, 3-6, 18-20, 22 and 23.
Regarding claim 3, Cao discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the separate data connection is not connectable or connected to the local network environment (e.g. pg. 2, 5th ¶, “The technical…”; pg. 2, last ¶ - pg. 3, 2nd ¶, “Referring to Fig. 1…”).
Regarding claim 4, Cao discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the router comprises at least one gateway device (e.g. pg. 2, 5th ¶, “The technical…”; pg. 2, last ¶ - pg. 3, 2nd ¶, “Referring to Fig. 1…”).
Regarding claim 5, Cao discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the at least one gateway device is configured to form an additional network environment (e.g. data connection with phone or PC) separated from the local network environment (e.g. pg. 2, 5th ¶, “The technical…”; pg. 2, last ¶ - pg. 3, 2nd ¶, “Referring to Fig. 1…”).
Regarding claim 6, Cao discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the at least one gateway device is configured to form a data connection to the external data storage device via the additional network environment (e.g. pg. 2, 5th ¶, “The technical…”; pg. 2, last ¶ - pg. 3, 2nd ¶, “Referring to Fig. 1…”).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Cao discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one additive manufacturing device is configured to establish the separate data connection to the external data storage device during initial set-up (i.e. initialization) (e.g. pg. 2, 5th ¶, “The technical…”; pg. 2, last ¶ - pg. 3, 2nd ¶, “Referring to Fig. 1…”).
Claim(s) 7-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao and Lee as applied to claims above, and further in view of Isbjornssund et al. U.S. PGPub 2015/0350278 (e.g. hereinafter “Isbjornssund”).
Regarding claims 7-9, Cao and Lee discloses performing a network connection, but does not explicitly disclose using a firewall device to connect the gateway device and server or using a VPN to connect the 3D printer with the server. Regarding claim 15, Cao nor Lee explicitly disclose using encrypted data. Regarding claim 16, Cao nor Lee explicitly disclose using a certified data record containing component-specific parameters or system-specific parameters or process-specific parameters certified by a provider for an additive manufacturing process of at least one specific component of defined component properties, being provided via the external data storage device.
Regarding claim 7, Isbjornssund discloses a firewall device used in the connection between a gateway device and server (e.g. ¶80). Regarding claim 8, Isbjornssund discloses a virtual private network formed between an additive manufacturing device and an external data storage device (e.g. ¶29, 55 and 77). Regarding claim 9, Isbjornssund discloses a method wherein the at least one gateway device is used, which is configured to form a virtual private network between the at least one additive manufacturing device and the external data storage device (e.g. ¶29, 55 and 77). Regarding claim 15, Isbjornssund discloses encrypting the data transmissions (e.g. ¶15). Regarding claim 16, Isbjornssund discloses a method wherein a certified data record containing component-specific parameters or system-specific parameters or process-specific parameters certified by a provider for an additive manufacturing process of at least one specific component of defined component properties, is provided via the external data storage device (e.g. ¶28-29 and 82-88).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use firewalls and a VPN for the data connections. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this in order to provide secure data transmission and prevent any unauthorized use or access (e.g. ¶12-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Cao and Lee with Isbjornssund to obtain the invention as specified in claims 7-17.
Regarding claim 10, Cao discloses a method wherein a data connection to an external communication partner (e.g. PC, phone, camera) for the purpose of controlling or monitoring an operation of the at least one additive manufacturing device is formed via the at least one gateway device (e.g. pg. 2, 5th ¶, “The technical…”; pg. 2, last ¶ - pg. 3, 2nd ¶, “Referring to Fig. 1…”). Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses a method wherein a wireless data connection is formed between the at least one additive manufacturing device and the external data storage device (e.g. pg. 4, 9th ¶, “The cloud-based 3D printing server 110 can…”).
Regarding claim 12, Cao discloses a method wherein a wireless data connection is formed between the at least one additive manufacturing device and the at least one gateway device and wherein a wired or a wireless data connection is formed between the at least one gateway device and the external data storage device (e.g. pg. 2, 5th ¶, “The technical…”; pg. 2, last ¶ - pg. 3, 2nd ¶, “Referring to Fig. 1…”).
Regarding claim 13, Cao discloses a method wherein a wireless data connection is formed between the at least one additive manufacturing device and the at least one gateway device and/or wherein a wireless data connection is formed between the at least one gateway device and the external data storage device (e.g. pg. 2, 5th ¶, “The technical…”; pg. 2, last ¶ - pg. 3, 2nd ¶, “Referring to Fig. 1…”).
Regarding claim 14, Cao discloses a method wherein a network storage device, in particular a cloud storage device, is used as the external data storage device (e.g. pg. 2, 5th ¶, “The technical…”; pg. 2, last ¶ - pg. 3, 2nd ¶, “Referring to Fig. 1…”).
Regarding claim 17, Cao discloses a method wherein the router is structurally integrated into the at least one additive manufacturing device (e.g. pg. 2, 5th ¶, “The technical…”; pg. 2, last ¶ - pg. 3, 2nd ¶, “Referring to Fig. 1…”).
Allowable Subject Matter
The Examiner notes that a potential path to allowability could be providing more detail on what is meant by the at least one gateway device “forming” a virtual private network between the at least one additive manufacturing device and the external data storage device. It appears “forming” could be broadly understood as being merely a part of the virtual private network.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R KASENGE whose telephone number is (571)272-3743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am to 4pm EST.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
CK
February 24, 2026
/CHARLES R KASENGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116