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 .
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8 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. Dependent claims not listed separately are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim 1 is seen as vague and indefinite due to the phrasing used in:
“The process is performed using a system for material extrusion in which an extrusion device is equipped with a kinematics system to which one or more laser devices that generate the at least one laser beam are attached.”
Is the “one or more laser devices” attached to the “extrusion device” or the “kinematics system”. Based on the disclosure it appears that it is the latter, and claim 1 will be interpreted in such a manner. It is suggested to amend the limitation above to explicitly state what the laser device is actually attached to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burkhardt (DE 102016207309; with machine translation). Regarding claim 1
Burkhardt, in Figures 1 and 2, teaches layer-by-layer extrusion with a print head 5 of viscous material 7 onto a holding device 17. The deposited layer is then machined via a laser beam 13 from heat source 11 on the lateral side, while the material is deposited (i.e. a single step), as seen in Figures 1 and 2.
The print head 5 and heat source 11 share the same kinematic system (paragraph 0016) and the heat source is integral with the print head (claim 2).
Regarding claim 2:
As seen in Figure 1, the lateral side is being shaped by the laser 13.
Regarding claim 3:
Since the shape is changed, as in Figure 1, the material is being melted by the laser 13.
Regarding claim 4:
As seen in Figure 1, the unevenness of the layers is being smoothed by the action of laser 13.
Regarding claim 5:
As seen in Figure 1, the unevenness is caused by components caused by the building.
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 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkhardt. Regarding claim 6:
As seen in Figure 1, the laser 13 is at an angle. Burkhardt is silent to the actual angle.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to angle the laser to such a degree, since an angle is already shown to do the needed processing effect. 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, MPEP 2144.05 II A.
Regarding claim 8.
Burkhardt teaches that one can use more than one laser (claim 2) and that processing can occur on all sides (paragraph 0026), but does not state that two lasers are on opposite sides.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the two lasers of Burkhardt on opposite sides, since it is a desire of Burkhardt to process all the sides, thus having the lasers on either side would accomplish this processing. It has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this instance there are only so many ways to arrange two lasers, and since Burkhardt teaches wanting to process all sides of a product, a skilled artisan would easily see that having the lasers opposite to each other would accomplish the desired goal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892.
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 TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm..
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743