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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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, 4, 9-11, 13-17 and 21-24 are 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. The specification as originally filed does not provided support, either explicitly or implicitly, for the limitation requiring “the detection device is mounted to the extrusion chamber”. The specification discloses an extrusion chamber only in paragraph (para) 38. While other portions of specification disclose the detection device can be mounted to parts of the extruder, para 38 does not disclose the detection device as being mounted to the extrusion chamber.
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, 4, 9-11, 13-17 and 21-24 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.
Claim 1 recites “optical or acoustic or thermal detection elements configured to acquire process parameters of the molten extrusion material and/or substrate prior to solidification, including temperature, bead geometry, or deposition-path characteristics.” Are the recited “process parameters” the same or different than the “process parameter” previously recited. Are the process parameters part of the “parameter information” the device is capable of acquiring? It is not clear if claim 1 is limited to the device being capable of acquiring pre-solidification information, post solidification information (parameter of three-dimensional object that is manufactured) or both. If it is the latter, the examiner notes that such limitations are not consistent with the specification.
Claim 9 recites “the process parameter at least”. It is not clear to which of the previously recited process parameters “the process parameter refers”.
In claim 9, it’s not clear if “an extrusion based manufacturing process” refers to the same or different extrusion based manufacturing process recited in claim 1.
In claims 9 and 10, it’s not clear if, or even how, the recited parameters are different from, inclusive of, or more specific than the specific parameters (prior to solidification parameters) recited in claim 1.
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.
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(s) ---1, 4, 9-11, 13, 14 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida, in view of Kemperle et al. (US 2014/0117575, newly cited), and further in view of Conrow et al. (US 2015/0352872).
As to claim 1 and 23, Yoshida discloses an apparatus for the extrusion-based manufacture of at least one three-dimensional object, comprising at least one extrusion unit (carriage 60 with extruder 30) which comprises an extrusion chamber 30 defining an outlet chamber 34 (fig, 1, 3) is configured for melting an extrusion material and/or for applying a molten extrusion material to a substrate (para 26), characterized by a detection device 70 comprising a housing 72, said detection device being configured to acquire parameter information relating to a process parameter of an extrusion-based manufacturing process (para 27) which can be carried out or is carried out by means of the apparatus; an object parameter of a three-dimensional object which is to be manufactured or is manufactured by means of the apparatus (para 27 – geometric parameter/shape, physical parameter), and to generate position information and/or time information describing a detection position and/or a detection time of corresponding parameter (fig 1-6, 21-33, para 33 – position information), said detection device being an acoustic or optical or thermal detection device which comprises at least one detection element for acoustic or optical or thermal detection of parameter information (para 27, 33, 38, fig 1).
Yoshinda does not disclose the detection device is mounted to the extrusion chamber and capable of acquiring process parameters – deposition path characteristics - prior to solidification.
Kemperle discloses an extrusion unit for 3D manufacture, wherein a detection device 222/302 is mounted to an extrusion chamber 220/300 defining an outlet region (fig 2-3, para 43-50). Furthermore, detection device 302 is clearly extends “about” the extrusion chamber. Mounting the detection device in such manner enables accurate detection of specification parameters, including deposition path characteristics prior to solidification (para 45), other extrusion properties and chamber location during printing (para 43-47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Yoshida such that the detection device is mounted to the extrusion chamber and capable of acquiring process parameters prior to solidification, including deposition path characteristics, wherein the detection device is about the chamber, as taught by Kemperle above as such achieves the advantages above. Additionally, and/or alternatively, rearrangement of parts is obvious absent criticality demonstrated by the applicant. MPEP 2144.04.
.
Yoshida and Kemperle do not disclose that the detection element comprises a plurality of detection elements arranged to form a planar detection element array. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Yoshida and Kemperle such that the detection element comprises a plurality of detection elements arranged to form a planar detection element array as taught by Conrow (para 16) as such a modification has a reasonable expectation of success and reduces errors (para 15-16).
As to claim 4, Yoshida as modified by Kemperle and Conrow above discloses that the detection device is mounted movably in at least one degree of freedom of movement with respect to the extrusion chamber (para 38, fig 1. Yoshida).
As to claim 9, Yoshida discloses that the process parameter at least describes a chemical and/or at least physical parameter of a process space in which the extrusion-based manufacturing process that can be carried out or is carried out by means of the apparatus takes place, and/or describes at least one chemical and/or geometric and/or physical parameter of at least one extrusion material that can be used or is used in the context of an extrusion-based manufacturing process that can be carried out or is carried out by means of the apparatus (para 7, 31, 33, 38, describes shape/dimensions), and/or describes the parameter, of a movement path of the extrusion unit and/or of an extrusion material web applied to a substrate via the extrusion unit, and/or describes the parameter.
As to claim 10, Yoshino discloses the object parameter describing at least one chemical and/or geometric (para 27 – geometric shape/parameter) and/or at least physical parameter of the three-dimensional object or object section to be produced or produced within a scope of the extrusion-based manufacture process which can be carried out or is carried out by means of the apparatus (para 27).
As to claim 11, Yoshida and Kemperle disclose the device comprising an output device being configured to generate image information describing a one- or multi-dimensional image of corresponding parameter information (para 33, fig 4; para 43-50)
As to claim 13, Yoshida and Kemperle disclose the device is configured to compare corresponding parameter information with at least one reference parameter information and to generate comparison information describing a respective comparison result (Yoshida para 33; Kemperle para 42-50)
As to claim 14, Yoshida disclose a control device 80 which is configured to control the operation of the apparatus, wherein the control device is configured to control the operation of the apparatus on the basis of corresponding parameter information and/or on the basis of corresponding comparison information (para 31-38).
As to claim 21, Yoshida discloses the at least one degree of freedom comprises a translational and/or rotational degree of freedom (para 38-39, figs 6-7)
As to claim 22, Yoshino discloses a guide device 63 comprising one or more guide elements (rails 63), wherein each of the one or more guide elements define at least one movement path or at least one degree of freedom of movement along which the device or a corresponding detection device can be moved (para 27, fig 1).
As to claim 24, Yoshino discloses an assignment device, which is configured to assign to a corresponding parameter information position information and/or time information (para 42).
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida, Kemperle and Conrow, as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Zamorano et al. (US 2019/0001559).
As to claims 15-16, Yoshida, Kemperle and Conrow do not disclose the device comprising a temperature controller, the controller comprising a heater exchanger.
Zamorano discloses a device for forming a 3D object, comprising a temperature controller 328, the controller comprising a heat exchanger 314a/b (para 23-37, figs 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Yoshida, Kemperle and Conrow such that the device comprises a temperature controller, the controller comprising a heater exchanger as taught by Zamorano above as such provides excellent control of the temperature regardless of ambient conditions (para 29-31).
As to claim 17, Zamorano discloses the heat exchanger device comprises at least two flow channel structures, wherein a first flow channel structure 320 through which a first temperature control fluid can flow extends through a first spatial volume in which the device, is arranged or formed, and a second flow channel structure (channel within 314a through which refrigerant flows, para 24-28) through which a second temperature control fluid can flow extends through a second spatial volume separated from the first spatial volume by a heat transfer structure (fig 3, para 23-32).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/12/26 have been fully considered but they are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
The examiner notes the portions of the specification cited by the applicant as allegedly providing support for the amendments have been extensively reviewed by the examiner. The examiner finds the support lacking for the reasons detailed 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6038. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9-6.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights