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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/20/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant is reminded that the instant claims are apparatus claims which are defined by their structure and not their manner of use, see MPEP 2114 II. The examiner has provided structures that would be capable of performing the recited functions from claims 15 and 16, now incorporated into claim 12. Applicant has not provided any explanation as to why the shredder, pulverizer, and refrigeration unit of Fu would be incapable of providing the desired particle sizes, particularly since as claimed Fu has all of the apparatus structural elements. The examiner reminds applicant that evidence of unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention, see MPEP 716.02(d), and the claims currently do not contain any structural element that would distinguish the claims from the prior art references provided. If there is some particular element that is absent from Fu that allows for the particular size distributions, it is not contained within the claims. Applicant argues that the examiner has not addressed all the limitations. However, the examiner has not neglected these functional limitations, merely pointed out that they are the result of operating the apparatus at particular process conditions, and amount to an intended use which does not limit apparatus claims, see MPEP 2114 II.
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) 12-14, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu (CN 106426649) in view of Mark (US 2014/0291886) and alternatively 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.
In the alternative, 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 particle size distribution respectively resulting from the shredder and pulverizer, absent evidence to the contrary, the blade crusher of the shredder would be capable to crush material and the pulverizer would be capable to pulverize the materials to the recited particle sizes. The manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, see MPEP 2114 II. 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.
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. Moreover, as the refrigeration unit utilizes liquid nitrogen, it would be capable of cooling to this temperature.
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. Moreover, as the refrigeration unit utilizes liquid nitrogen, it would be capable of cooling to this temperature.
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 12-14, 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 configured 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.
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. Furthermore, The article worked upon (fabric hides) does not limit apparatus claims, see MPEP 2115.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights