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 12/8/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to the extent they apply to the current rejection. Applicant argues that the newly added limitations are not disclosed in the previously cited references, but these limitations are addressed by the newly added reference.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the source of solvent/binder/other material must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 12-18 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 examiner was unable to locate any disclosure regarding a source of the organic binder/solvent/other material within the specification.
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) 12-16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu (CN 106426649) in view of Mark (US 2014/0291886) and Chu (CN 107523022).
As to claims 12 and 18, An apparatus for the production of items of clothing, comprising - at least one shredder (11, 12) of a type chosen from blade crushers ; at least one pulverizer that is an impact mill (4, 7), for fine pulverization of the milled material that originates from said at least one shredder [Fig 1]; at least one mixer (1) for mixing powder that originates from said at least one pulverizer (the extruder would mix the powder and is equipped with a screw the threading of which is sometimes referred to as a spiral blade) [Fig 1].
While Fu does not explicitly state mixing with at least one other substance chosen from a solvent, polyethylene glycol, a polyether and organic binders, this would just be a material worked upon by the apparatus and not a structural feature of the apparatus itself. The article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims, see MPEP 2115. Additionally, the manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, see MPEP 2114 II.
Fu teaches a mixer but does not teach a source of PEG or other organic binders.
Chu teaches a method of 3D printing clothing wherein PEG, PBT (which would count as an organic binder) are added from a source to the mixer in order to impart softness to the end clothing product that is “ soft, fluffy, and breathable” [0009-0014, 0022, 0028-0033, 0035]. 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 Fu and utilized a source of PEG or organic binder, as suggested by Chi, in order to achieve a printed clothing product that was “soft, fluffy, and breathable”.
Fu teaches a fiber/filament mixture collected by a winder [final paragraph] but does not teach at least one extruder of said mixture, which is arranged on a movement unit with at least two axes for deposition of layers of said mixture on a predefined surface.
Mark teaches an apparatus for 3D printing [abstract] wherein the extruder system is operated by a robotic arm which would have multiple degrees of freedom and be capable of depositing onto a 3D surface in order to precisely place the material to produce a part [0143, Fig 1, 2]. 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 Fu and had the filament produced by Fu be provided to least one extruder of said mixture, which is arranged on a movement unit with multiple degrees of freedom for deposition of layers of said mixture on a complex surface, as suggested by Mark, in order to allow for precise 3D printing.
The step of consequent provision of at least one portion of an item of clothing according to a method of the type of additive manufacturing is an intended use of the apparatus and not a structural limitation of the device. The manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, see MPEP 2114 II.
As to claim 13, Fu teaches the least one pulverizer is associated with a refrigeration unit (5, 15) in order to keep said at least one pulverizer [claim 2, Fig 1].
The process temperature is a process parameter of the apparatus and so the specific temperature of -50 C is an intended use of the apparatus. The manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, see MPEP 2114 II.
As to claim 14, Fu teaches refrigeration unit comprises a circuit (5) for recirculation of liquid nitrogen along said at least one pulverizer [claim 2, Fig 1]. ,
The process temperature is a process parameter of the apparatus and so the specific temperature of -150 C is an intended use of the apparatus. The manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, see MPEP 2114 II.
As to claims 15 and 16, Fu teaches the shredder and pulverizer as discussed above.
The examiner notes the phrase “adapted to” renders the subsequent recitation of a desired outcome as non limiting, see MPEP 2111.04. However, the examiner notes that these limitations also fail add additional limitation on structure of the device for the following reasons.
Absent evidence to the contrary the blade crusher of the shredder would be capable to crush to crush material chosen from fabrics, hides. Furthermore, The article worked upon (fabric hides) does not limit apparatus claims, see MPEP 2115.
As to the particular particle and granulate sizes recited, these would be dependent on process parameters at which the apparatus was operated. The manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, see MPEP 2114 II.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu (CN 106426649) in view of Mark (US 2014/0291886) and Chu (CN 107523022), as applied to claims 12-16, 18 above, and in further view of Zhang (CN 106891518).
As to claim 17, Fu does not explicitly state wherein said at least one mixer is controlled by a respective control unit that is adapted to define a rule of motion for rotations of a shaft that supports mixing blades of said mixer, said rule of motion comprising at least one first time interval with mixing rotations at least one first speed and at least one second time interval with mixing rotations at least one second speed, in order to eliminate any foams and to reduce air emulsified within the mixture.
Zhang teaches a mixer for making a filament to be used in 3D printing process [Paragraph beginning with “the device of the invention realizes”] a controller controls the speed of the shaft to the mixer and would comprise the ability to define at least two speeds: the stirring speed and an inactive at rest state ie “off” [Page 7, Fig 2]. 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 Fu and utilized a controller for the rotations of the shaft that supports the mixing blades of the mixer to have at least 2 speed settings, as suggested by Zhang, in order to realize a “high precision” filament that can be used I FDM 3D printing.
The examiner notes the phrase “adapted to” renders the subsequent recitation of a desired outcome as non limiting, see MPEP 2111.04. As to the recitations “in order to eliminate any foams and to reduce air emulsified within the mixture” these would be dependent on process parameters at which the apparatus was operated and is merely a desired outcome but not particular structural limitation. The manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, see MPEP 2114 II.
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 ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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 at 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