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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/10/25 with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are unpersuasive to the extent that they apply to the current rejection. Applicant argues that Rafaela does not teach the machining of layers because the petals are separate, however, each petal is composed of multiple layers of material and (unlike a garden rose) the layers of material intersect at the base (which is ultimately hidden by a backing layer of gelatin). So the tool of Rafaela would perform the slitting (ie cutting previous at the base of the rose and slitting of previous layers of the same petal) and would teach mixing in those same areas as the injected material of the new layer would mix somewhat at the interface between the old layer and the new layer. In response to applicant's argument that Rafaela is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor' s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Applicant neglects that Rafaela's syringe technique was directly pertinent to applicant's problem of selectively placing material within a gelatinous support using syringe/cutting tool. Furthermore, NSTRMNT already disclose 3D printing via depositing material within a gelatinous material via a syringe. Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art 3D printing would certainly recognize the relevance of Rafaela as it provided techniques for selective deposition within a support of gelatin material to make complex 3D shapes. Applicant argues that the rose of Rafaela is not retrievable, but Rafaela was directly pertinent to applicant's problem for the reasons listed above. Applicant is essentially arguing that techniques available to the home baker would be too complex for one of ordinary skill the art of 3D printing (who is likely an engineer and/or has an advanced degree) even when using analogous tools (syringe needle and cutting knife) with analogous materials (setting deposition material) in an analogous environment (gelatin support bath).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Interpretation
While previous the slitting, mixing and smoothing steps are all stated as a function of the structural qualities of the one tool and not as required method steps, as they were listed in claim as part of the “configured to” clause. Now that clause ends with a semicolon, however, the claims still only require 1 of the slitting, mixing or smoothing to occur due to the use of and/or.
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.
Claims 1-4, 13-15, and 18, 20, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NSTRMNT (Suspended Depositions) in view of Chef Rafaela Gelatin Art (3D GELATIN ART MARKET CARNATION FLOWER) referred to as Rafaela, and Wood (US 2020/0147864).
As to claim 1, NSTRMNT (the examiner notes this is the same reference/webpage applicant refers to as prior art within their specification) teaches a method for producing a three-dimensional object by an additive manufacturing process [Suspended Depositions], comprising: introducing one after the other at least one manufacturing material in a free-flowing state from at least one feed-in opening of at least one feed-in needle ie nozzle into a gel supporting material (“gelatinous medium”) [Suspended Depositions first 2 paragraphs and embedded video], wherein at least one manufacturing material is introduced in multiple layers one after the other, and wherein the feed-in needle comprises at least one tool (the nozzle itself as the feed in needle is only required to comprise one tool which may be the nozzle itself) and tool would be configured such that it was capable of moving the at least one feed-in needle while feeding the at least one manufacturing material in the free-flowing state produces mixing of the current layer of manufacturing and the at least one of the one or more preceding layers of the at least one manufacturing material, and the needle would be capable of cutting/slitting/ripping preceding layers, curing/bonding the multiple layers of manufacturing material to produce the 3D object [Suspended Depositions and embedded video]. As the steps are recited within the clause beginning with configured to they merely describe a capability of the tool and do not recite a required step.
Rafaela teaches wherein during introduction of the current layer of manufacturing material, the at least one tool (the leaf/petal knife) spaced from the feeding needle opening projects into at least one preceding layer as the layers of colored gelatin overlap approximate to a singular point to create a flower pattern and inserts multiple layers to create 1 petal and thus would slit the previous layer where it was inserted, mix the 2 layers at least at the seam between them, and smooth previous layer in the case where the adjacent layers are part of a singular petal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of NSTRMNT and had the needle project into at least one or more of the preceding layers of material, as suggested by Rafaela, in order to create complex patterns within the gelatin with the deposited material as desired.
NSTRMNT does not state that the produced part is a prosthetic liner/orthopedic product.
Wood teaches a 3D printed liner for use within a orthopedic socket, in other words a liner [Abstract, 0022 0026, 0029, claim 18]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of NSTRMNT and produced a prosthetic liner, as suggested by Wood, as 3D printing had proven successful at producing such parts. Moreover, this was just an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results, see MPEP 2143 I A and D.
As to claim 2, NSTRMNT does not explicitly state that the at least one tool projects into a preceding layer of manufacturing material
Rafaela teaches wherein during introduction of the current layer of manufacturing material, the at least one tool (the leaf/petal knife) projects into at least one preceding layer as the layers of colored gelatin overlap approximate to a singular point to create a flower pattern. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of NSTRMNT and had the needle project into at least one or more of the preceding layers of material, as suggested by Rafaela, in order to create complex patterns within the gelatin with the deposited material as desired.
As to claim 3, NSTRMNT does not explicitly state he tool is configured in such a way that the moving while feeding produces a pressing together of the current at least one previous layer.
Rafaela teaches at least one is configured such that the moving while feeding would produce pressing together of the current layer and another preceding layer beneath the current layer as the injection of the colored resin into the clear gelatin (gel) would exert a small displacing force from the added colored gelatin and as the colored gelatin are placed on and through each other it would press the 2 layers together at/near the overlapping parts. Additionally, the weight of leaf/petal blade would also press the layers together. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of NSTRMNT and had the needle tool moving press the 2 layers together, as suggested by Rafaela, in order to create complex patterns within the gelatin with the deposited material as desired.
As to claim 4, NSTRMNT does not explicitly state the tool is arranged behind the needle and projects through previous layers beneath.
Rafaela teaches wherein during introduction of the current layer of manufacturing material, the at least one tool (the leaf/petal knife) is arranged behind the needle as the petal blade is wider than the needle it is both in front of and behind the needle as the needle and blade are moved radially to create the petals and projects concurrently through the current layer into at least one preceding layer beneath the current layer as the layers of colored gelatin overlap approximate to a singular point to create a flower pattern. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of NSTRMNT and had the needle tool moving press the 2 layers together, as suggested by Rafaela, in order to create complex patterns within the gelatin with the deposited material as desired.
As to claim 13, NSTRMNT does not explicitly state that the tool is arranged in front of the needle
Rafaela teaches at least one tool (petal/leaf blade) is arranged in front of the feed-in needle in the direction of movement of the feed-in needle as the tool is manipulated based on the desired angle of the petal/leaf. Additionally, as the petal blade is wider than the needle it is in front of, alongside, and behind the needle as the needle and blade are moved radially. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of NSTRMNT and had the needle tool be arranged in front of the needle, as suggested by Rafaela, in order to create complex patterns within the gelatin with the deposited material as desired.
As to claim 14, NSTRMNT does not explicitly state the tool moves alongside the needle
Rafaela teaches the at least one tool is arranged to move alongside ie near in some way the feed-in needle in the direction of movement of the feed-in needle and petal knife are one piece and are attached together to the syringe tube. Additionally, as the petal blade is wider than the needle it is in front of, alongside, and behind the needle as the needle and blade are moved radially. Additionally, as the petal blade is wider than the needle it is in front of, alongside, and behind the needle as the needle and blade are moved radially. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of NSTRMNT and had the needle tool be arranged to move alongside the needle, as suggested by Rafaela, in order to create complex patterns within the gelatin with the deposited material as desired.
As to claims 15, NSTRMNT does not state that the produced part is a prosthetic liner.
Wood teaches a 3D printed liner for use within a orthopedic socket, in other words a liner [Abstract, 0022 0026, 0029, claim 18]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of NSTRMNT and produced a prosthetic liner, as suggested by Wood, as 3D printing had proven successful at producing such parts. Moreover, this was just an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results, see MPEP 2143 I A and D.
As to claim 18, NSTRMNT teaches the at least one tool (syringe itself) is further configured to perform, with the slitting and/or the ripping and/or the cutting open of at least one preceding layer of at least one manufacturing material, a splitting or tearing the gel supporting material. NSTRMNT does not teach that the tool slits the support material immediately in front of the needle feed in a manner facilitating the moving of the feed-in needle through the gel supporting material
Rafaela teaches the at least one tool (leaf/petal blade) is further configured to perform, concurrent with the slitting and/or the ripping and/or the cutting open of at least one preceding layer of at least one manufacturing material, a splitting or tearing the gel supporting material immediately in front of the feed-in needle, in a manner facilitating the moving of the feed-in needle through the gel supporting material as it cuts the clear gelatin material/previously injected layers in the shape of a leaf/petal to which the new gelatin is injected to make a complex shape from the injected material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of NSTRMNT and included the leaf/petal blade that slits the support material immediately in front of the needle feed in a manner facilitating the moving of the feed-in needle through the gel supporting material, as suggested by Rafaela, in order to create a complex shape within the gelatin material.
As to claim 20, As the petals of Rafaela surround a central point and emanate outwardly from there this would require rotating the needle longitudinally such that the petal knife (tool) was oriented on the opposite side relative to the needle.
As to claim 21, Rafaela teaches the slitting/ripping/cutting as discussed above
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.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights