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 Group I claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 4/23/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 12-19 are not examined under group I since Group I and II still hold unity of invention. Groups I-II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a system with support elements, a material addition system and two electrodes, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Chung (US 10449721) or Peters (US2019/0160530 A1).
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitation(s) is/are: measuring system in claim 7, and multiplexer system in claim 8. The systems are being interpreted in light so the specification. Measuring system is interpreted as comprise a multimeter or an LCR meter to measure one or more of the voltage, the resistance, the impedance, the resistance, and the current (pg. 13 lines 6-14). Multiplexer system is interpreted as a respective part (or control unit) of the control system 230, or may be functionally coupled to a control unit (pg. 24 lines 14-16).
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 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 4 is 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.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "especially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) and (a2) as being anticipated by Peters (US2019/0160530 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Peters discloses a system for additive manufacturing of a product from a depositable material (abstract), wherein the depositable material is electrically conductive [0070]
wherein the system comprises a support element (140), a material addition system (410), and at least two electrodes [0010, 0035]; wherein - the support element (140, [0005]) is configured for supporting the product, - the at least two electrodes ( 32 [0070], [0042] discloses 5) comprise one or more first electrodes configured at a surface of the support element; - the material addition system (10) is configured for depositing the depositable material at one or more of
(i) the support element and (ii) deposited material, thereby forming the product [abstract];
- any one of the electrodes is configured for (i) electrically contacting the depositable material being deposited or (it) electrically contacting the deposited material, during depositing the depositable material, wherein (i) the depositable material being deposited in combination with at least a portion of the deposited material arranged between the electrode and another one of the electrodes define an electrically conductive path or (ii) at least a portion of the deposited material arranged between the electrode and another one of the electrodes define the electrically conductive path [0033, 0042]. Further, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 2, Peters disclose wherein the electrodes comprise a second electrodes (Peter discloses 5 electrode [0042]) comprised by the material addition system, wherein the second electrode is configured for contacting the depositable material being deposited wherein the depositable material being deposited in combination with at least the portion of the deposited material contacting a respective first electrode define the electrical conductive path between the second electrode and the respective first electrode [0033, 0042].
Regarding claim 3, Peters discloses a plurality of first electrodes, wherein at least the portion of the deposited material contacting any one of the first electrodes and another one of the first electrodes defines the electrically conductive path between the respective first electrode and the other one of the first electrodes [0070].
Regarding claim 5, Peters discloses wherein the material addition system comprises a deposition device (410) for a layer-wise depositing the depositable material at one or more of the support element and the deposited material [0004], wherein the deposition device comprises the second electrode ([0042] discloses 5 electrodes).
Regarding claim 6, Peters discloses wherein (i) the system comprises a fused deposition modeling system [0004], wherein the material addition system is configured to melt the depositable material being deposited (410), or wherein (11) the system comprises a direct ink writing system.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters (US2019/0160530 A1) as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Peters discloses wherein the surface of the product defines a network of the first electrodes, especially comprising an array of n*m first electrodes, with 2 < n<500, and 2<m<500. However, Peters discloses an arrays arranged based on the design needs of the final product [0038] and the use of five electrodes in the array [0042]. MPEP 2144.05 discloses In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters (US2019/0160530 A1) in view of Pain (US2022/0162765 A1), as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Peters discloses wherein the system comprises a measuring system (60) [0040]. Although Peters does not disclose configured for measuring one or more of an impedance and resistance through one or more of the electrically conductive path. Analogous art, Pain, discloses measuring the resistance of the transistor and associated lines [0263-0264]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a measuring system as taught by Pain into the system taught by Peters in order to prevent short circuiting.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters (US2019/0160530 A1) in view of Pain (US2022/0162765 A1), as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Archer (US3893828 A).
Regarding claims 8, Peters disclose wherein the system comprises at least three electrodes [0042], but does not explicitly disclose a multiplexer system functionally coupled to the electrodes, and wherein the system is configured for measuring the one or more of the impedance and the resistance between pairs of selected electrodes of the electrode through the respective electrically conductive paths defined between the electrodes of the pairs of electrodes, wherein the selected electrodes of each pair are functionally coupled to each other by the multiplexer system. However, analogous art, Archer, discloses a multiplexer system 13 to measure the currents and voltages of the electrodes column 3 lines (16-30) for the benefit of adjusting operations of various system components for optimum overall performance (column 3 lines 37-40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a multiplexer system functionally coupled to the electrodes, and wherein the system is configured for measuring the one or more of the impedance and the resistance between pairs of selected electrodes of the electrode through the respective electrically conductive paths defined between the electrodes of the pairs of electrodes, wherein the selected electrodes of each pair are functionally coupled to each other by the multiplexer system as taught by Archer into the system taught by Peters and Pain for the benefit of adjusting operations of various system components for optimum overall performance.
Regarding claim 9, Peters discloses a control system (420) for determining a characteristic of the manufacturing process and/or of the product being manufactured, based on a signal of the measuring system [0055, 0079].
Regarding claim 10, Peters discloses wherein the characteristic comprises one or more characteristics selected from the group consisting of a temperature of the deposited material [0079].
Regarding claim 11, Peters discloses wherein the control system (420) is further configured for controlling an operating condition of the system based on one or more of the determined characteristics, wherein the operating condition comprises one or more operating conditions selected from the group consisting of a flow of the depositable material being deposited by the material addition system, a temperature of the material addition system, a movement of the material addition system relative to the support element, a temperature of the surface of the support element, a temperature of a space comprising the system [0079].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 pm.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754