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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/3/16 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
**Examiner respectfully suggests that the applicant contact the examiner for an interview to aid in overcoming the ongoing 35 U.S.C 112 issues.**
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, 6 and 7 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.
In claim 1, the original specification does not support the limitation requiring “printing formulating and implementing a 3D printing external auxiliary heating mechanism”. While the specification does support “formulating and implementing a 3D printing external auxiliary heating mechanism”, it does not support the “printing”. It is unclear how a “mechanism” is “printed”.
In claim 6, the original specification does not support the parameters being dependent on each of the claimed “the real-time temperature difference signal To” (a)-(d) values. For each of the parameter (a)-(d), the original specification (para 20 of Publication and claim 6) recite “when the temperature difference”. It does not specify
which temperature difference” (e.g. Tm, To) are required for the (a)-(d) parameters.
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 7 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 : “and importing into a 3D printer”. It is not clear what is imported. Is it the process file, the process parameters or the printing trajectory”?
In claim 1, the limitation “to keep relative positions of the auxiliary mechanism and the printing device are unchanged” is unclear. A possible amendment is to remove “are”.
Claim 1 recites: “while printing collecting a real-time interlayer pressure signal Fo during the printing”. This limitation is not clear. A suggested amendment is placing a semi-colon between printing and collecting.
Claim 1 recites “in the process of starting the external auxiliary heating mechanism”. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim.
In claim 1 recites “while printing formulating and implementing a 3D printing external auxiliary heating mechanism”. It is entirely unclear how the external auxiliary heating mechanism is printed. The specification, and now claim 1, discloses the heating mechanism as a laser. See 112(a) rejection above.
In claim 1, the limitation “the external auxiliary heating mechanism is configured to, when the printing layer is not the first layer, a distance Lo between an external auxiliary heating device and the printing layer is collected; a 3D printing external auxiliary heating mechanism for the continuous fiber reinforced composites is used” is entirely unclear. It’s unclear what function the heating mechanism is requiring to perform based the printing layer.
In claim 1, the limitation “the external auxiliary heating mechanism is deactivated; in the process of starting the external auxiliary heating mechanism, continuously measuring the distance, Lo, and controlling heating power, so that auxiliary heating temperature is maintained constant” is entirely unclear.
Claim 6 recites “wherein laser auxiliary heating is adopted”. It’s not clear if this is the same laser heating previously recited.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 depends upon claim 5, which is canceled. Thus, claim 6 does not further limit claim 5, nor does it contain all of the limitations of claim 5. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/26 have been fully considered but are either not persuasive or moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The arguments that possibly apply to the grounds of rejection above will be addressed. With respect to “breakpoint”, the examiner accepts the applicant’s definition of “breakpoint”.
With respect to the claim 6 limitations requiring “the real-time temperature difference signal To”, the applicant asserts “(a)-(d) originally recites "when the temperature difference...". It is obvious to recognize that "the temperature difference" in (a)-(d) refers to "the real-time temperature difference is signal To". Thus, the amendments are supported by the original disclosures.” This argument is not persuasive as the standard for implicit support is not “obviousness”. Additionally, it’s a conclusory statement unsupported by objective evidence. Finally, the original disclosure (claim 6 and para) recites “when the temperature difference”. Claim 1 originally discloses “temperature difference Tm” and a “temperature difference signal To”. There is no disclosure, either implicit or explicit, that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to understand the limitation “when the temperature difference” in original claim 6 refers to a “temperature difference signal To”.
With respect to the limitation “the external auxiliary heating mechanism is deactivated; in the process of starting the external auxiliary heating mechanism, continuously measuring the distance, Lo, and controlling heating power, so that auxiliary heating temperature is maintained constant”, the applicant asserts this limitation is clear. Specifically, the applicant says
“in the process of starting the external auxiliary heating mechanism" refers to the process after the external auxiliary heating mechanism has been started according to the above condition. During this process, the distance Lo between the external auxiliary heating device and the printing layer is continuously measured, and the laser heating power is controlled based on the continuously measured distance Lo. Because the distance Lo affects the heat input applied to the printing layer, controlling the heating power according to Lo allows the auxiliary heating temperature to be maintained constant.
The limitation does not say what the applicant alleges. Rather, the plain language specifically states, “in the process of starting”, NOT the process AFTER starting. Additionally, there is not a proper transition phase that would enable one of ordinary skill to understand “continuously measuring the distance” occurs after the above condition. Similarly, the remaining limitations are presented in a segmented and disjointed manner, without transitions phrases that would enable one of ordinary skill to understand the alleged sequence of steps.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang et al. (CN109016493A), pertinent to steps 1-4 of claim 1.
Bauer et al. (US20190022725) pertinent to using a laser heater (para 81).
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