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 without traverse of Invention I and Figure 5 in the reply filed on 12/17/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
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 limitations are:
The first controller in claims 1, 3, 5, 12, and 14, with the function being to control the temperature of the one or more heating elements (claims 1 and 12) and to trigger the first sensor to sense the temperature of the inner surface (claims 3 and 14). There is no corresponding structure described in the specification.
The second controller has similar language but is not interpreted under 112(f) because there is no functional language.
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
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. It is not described what the first controller’s physical structure is, while the second controller lists three examples of a microcontroller, a microprocessor, or other suitable controller, ([0038]) as such it is unknown what applicant had possession of at time of filing. Further, as written the first controller may exclusively encompass software which is inappropriate.
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.
Claims 1-14 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 limitation “first controller” in claims 1, 3, 5, 12, and 14 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure does not state what the first controller is at all and states that the second controller can be “(e.g., a microcontroller, microprocessor, or other suitable controller)” [0038] Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5 and 12-14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pettis (US Publication 2013/0073073).
Regarding claim 1, Pettis teaches a 3D printer with a printing or build platform (102) with an outer build surface (116), a heating element (130) on the other side of the build surface, and a controller (110) that is coupled with the heating element (130) to controllably impart heat to or remove heat from the build surface (116) ([0017]).
Regarding claim 12, Pettis teaches a 3D printer with a printing or build platform (102) with an outer build surface (116), a heating or thermal element (130) that heats the build surface, and a controller (110) that is coupled with the heating element (130) to controllably impart heat to or remove heat from the build surface (116) ([0017]).
Regarding claims 2, 3, 13, and 14, Pettis teaches a temperature sensor positioned to sense a temperature of the surface of the build platform (102) ([0031]) and that the positioning and mechanical/electrical interconnections with other elements of the printer 100 will be readily understood and appreciated by one of ordinary skill in the art ([0031]).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Pettis teaches a printing arm or extruder (106) that is coupled to the x-y-z positioning assembly (108) and the printing platform (102) where the electrical interface of the extruder (106) and the printing platform (102) are connected (Figure 1).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettis in view of Boudreaux et al. (US Publication 2017/0105754) hereafter referred to as Boudreaux.
Pettis teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, but does not teach a sensor adapted to sense an electrical connection between the first and second interface.
Boudreaux teaches a tool having a working member (200) that utilizes an electrical connector (242) of a data communication assembly (240) that interacts with a corresponding electrical contact (266) of a member (110) the working member attaches to. When a disconnect occurs the loss of connection signals to a generator (5) an error condition, such as working member (200) not being properly coupled the member (110) the working member attaches to ([0161]).
All of the component parts are known in references of Pettis and Boudreaux. The only difference is the combination of the “old elements” by combining them onto a single device. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add electrical contacts between attachable parts and the signaling capability of Boudreaux to the 3D printer of Pettis, since the operation of the signaling of the assembly’s coupling is in no way dependent on the operation of the of other capabilities of the 3D printer and a signaling could be used in combination with a 3D printer for the predictable result of being able to check electrical connections in the 3D printer to ensure proper connections between parts prior to beginning a print job.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettis in view of Swartz et al. (US Publication 2013/0171431) hereafter referred to as Swartz.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Pettis teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, a temperature sensor positioned to sense a temperature of the surface of the build platform (102) ([0031]), where the controller is electrically connected to the first electrical interface and with the one or more heating elements (Figure 1), a temperature sensor positioned to sense a temperature of the surface of the build platform (102) ([0031]) and that the positioning and mechanical/electrical interconnections with other elements of the printer 100 will be readily understood and appreciated by one of ordinary skill in the art ([0031]) but does not teach a second controller.
Swartz teaches a 3D printer with a first controller or processor (Figure 6, 601) and a second controller or processor (603) and that more than one onboard processor be employed, and any of the above tasks may be handled by one or more of these different processors [0078].
As Swartz teaches it is known in the art of 3D printers to have multiple processors or controllers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to add the multiple controllers of Swartz to the 3D printer of Pettis to provide the predictable result of controlling the 3D printer.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettis in view of Himmer et al (US Publication 2015/0325766) hereafter referred to as Himmer.
Regarding claims 9-11, Pettis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach that the inner surface of the printing platform includes one or more support ribs defining one or more cells, wherein the one or more heating elements is located in the one or more cells (Claim 10) are in contact with the inner wall (Claim 9), that the shape of the one or more heating elements is chosen to correspond to the shape of the one or more cells (Claim 11).
Himmer teaches a thermoelectric device where there are support ribs (16) defining cells (12) wherein there are thermoelectric heating elements (10) inside the cells (12) and which the heating elements (10) are shaped to correspond to the shape of the cells (12) and are in contact with an inner surface (11 and 12).
As Pettis teaches that “any device or combination of devices suitable for controlling a temperature of the build platform (102) may be adapted to use as the thermal element (130)” ([0018]) and Himmer teaches a thermoelectric device that contains thermoelectric heating elements (10), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to include the thermoelectric device of Himmer to the build platform of the device of Pettis to provide the predictable result of creating a device suitable for controlling the temperature of the build platform.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Powell (US Patent 2097800) teaches an interlocking system for railways with a checking relay that stays energized as long as the continuity of the line circuit is maintained complete therefore acting as a signal for the connection of the different parts of the line circuit, however the reference of Boudreaux better shows the connection of components in a device rather than the distance between lengths of railroads.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Drew J Mitchum whose telephone number is (571)272-5610. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30.
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, Edward F Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/D.J.M./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights