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
Claim 13 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/04/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figure 7 is in German. 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 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: adjustment arrangement in claim 4. Adjustment arrangement will be interpreted in light of the specification as a control sleeve (pg. 3 paragraph 2 of the specification). Claims 5-7 does not trigger the 112(f) claim interpretation.
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 3 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the needle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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) 2-3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meshorer (US 20160303802 A1) in view of Boone (EP0040068 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Meshorer discloses apparatus for producing three-dimensional objects from a deformable material (abstract), said apparatus having the following features:
a housing that has a chamber for receiving the deformable material (annotated figure 8B),
Meshorer discloses in a different embodiment a feed device (108 in figure 1) for feeding the deformable material into the chamber of the housing. Further, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is a prima facie evidence of obviousness (MPEP 2143). In this case, it would have been obvious to substitute one feed device for another. Hence, 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 feed device that is or comprises an extruder for feeding the deformable material into the chamber of the housing to (1) adjust extruder rate and prevent back up in the nozzle and (2) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is a prima facie evidence of obviousness. Further, MPEP 2144.04 states "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Figure 8B further depicts a first discharge opening for discharging the deformable material from the chamber of the housing, a closing device with a longitudinal bore for selectively closing and opening the first discharge opening, a second discharge opening having a smaller cross-section than the first discharge opening and arranged concentrically (see annotated figure below)
PNG
media_image1.png
547
463
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Meshorer does not explicitly disclose the second closing device comprises a longitudinal bore that is divided in a longitudinal direction. Analogous extruder art, Boone, discloses nozzle having a longitudinal bore extending therethrough with in which there is located an axially movable needle valve 14 for controlling flow of liquid from the orifice of the nozzle (pg. 3 lines 20+). This reads on longitudinal bore that is divide in a longitudinal direction. 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 the second closing device comprising a longitudinal bore, as taught by Boone, into the apparatus taught by Meshorer for the benefit of controlling the flow of liquid.
Regarding claim 3, as for the limitation, wherein the cross-section of the first discharge opening can be adjusted at least in several steps (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 and in this can the openings can be adjusted in at least several steps.
As for the needle is movable in its longitudinal direction X, Boone discloses a longitudinal bore with a needle valve that is axially movable (pg.3 lines 20+).
As for the flow rate and the discharge volume of the deformable material through the first discharge opening can be varied at least in several steps and preferably continuously, 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 8, Meshorer discloses wherein the closing device is held in a rotationally fixed manner [0005-0006 and 0026-0027, 0112].
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meshorer (US 20160303802 A1) in view of Boone (EP0040068 A1) as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Schaeuffele et al (US 2021/0146430 A1) and Mizukami et al (US 2019/0283320 A1).
Regarding claims 4-5, Meshorer does not explicitly disclose wherein the closing device can be positioned in any position between a complete opening and complete closing of the first discharge opening and/or is adjustable in its longitudinal direction (x) by means of an adjustment arrangement; wherein adjustment arrangement comprises a control sleeve with at least one groove. Although Meshorer discloses a controller (126) but does not disclose a control sleeve but analogous nozzle art, Schaeuffele teaches a control sleeve (11) with at least one groove (46) for the movement the closing device [0045]. 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 discharge opening and/or is adjustable in its longitudinal direction (x) by means of an adjustment arrangement; wherein adjustment arrangement comprises a control sleeve with at least one groove, as taught by Schaeuffele into apparatus taught by Meshorer for the benefit of reducing any lost material or gas [0045].
Claim(s) 6-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meshorer (US 20160303802 A1) in view of Boone (EP0040068 A1) and further in view of Schaeuffele et al (US 2021/0146430 A1) as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Mizukami et al (US 2019/0283320 A1).
Regarding claims 6-7, Meshorer does not explicitly disclose wherein the closing device can be rotated by means of a drive device which is operatively connected to the control sleeve and/or the one closing device via a transmission arrangement; wherein the transmission arrangement is designed as a gear transmission or a belt transmission. Analogous art, Mizukami teaches a pin and drive device connected to the closing device and the drive device is operatively connected to the control sleeve via a transmission arrangement via a valve body (73) that is rotated by a drive device (72) to make the closing device [0035-0036] rotatable and via a transmission arrangement (74 stepping motor [0038] which reads on belt drive) . Valve body reads on pin. 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 incorporate a shaft and valve body (pin) and transmission arrangement as taught by Mizukami and the control sleeve and groove taught by Mizukami into the apparatus taught by Meshorer, Boone, and Schaeuffele in order to make the closing device rotatable.
Regarding claims 9-10, Meshorer does not explicitly disclose wherein the control sleeve of the adjustment arrangement comprises at least one groove in which at least one pin connected to the closing device engages, the control sleeve and the closing device being rotatable relative to one another; wherein the control sleeve and or the closing device can be rotated by means of a drive device which is operatively connected to the control sleeve and/or the closing device with a suitable transmission ratio. Analogous nozzle art, Schaeuffele teaches a control sleeve (11) with at least one groove (46) for the movement the closing device [0045]. Further, analogous art, Mizukami teaches a pin and drive device connected to the closing device and the drive device is operatively connected to the control sleeve via a transmission arrangement via a valve body (73) that is rotated by a drive device (72) to make the closing device [0035-0036] rotatable and via a transmission arrangement (74 stepping motor [0038] which reads on belt drive) . Valve body reads on pin. 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 incorporate a shaft and valve body (pin) and transmission arrangement as taught by Mizukami and the control sleeve and groove taught by Schaeuffele and Mizukami into the apparatus taught by Meshorer and Boone in order to make the closing device rotatable.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meshorer (US 20160303802 A1) in view of Boone (EP0040068 A1) and further in view of Schaeuffele et al (US 2021/0146430 A1) and further in view of Mizukami et al (US 2019/0283320 A1) as applied to claim 10, further in view of Segawa (JP2004/351895A)
Regarding claims 11-12, Meshorer does not explicitly disclose the drive device and closing dive is a pneumatic cylinder or linear drive. One would look to conventional art to determine the standard drives used in extruders. Analogous extruder art, Segawa, discloses the drive device and closing dive is a pneumatic cylinder or linear drive [0032]. 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 used a pneumatic cylinder since it is conventionally well known. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-9 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12304144B2. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
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