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 Interpretation
Independent claim 2, and the independent 15 and its dependent claim 17, specifically require a gun dispensing system for dispensing a material that is made of a lunar regolith or a regolith; however, this specific claimed material per MPEP 2115, only constitutes the article or material worked upon by the claimed dispensing system, and therefore the Examiner interprets said material as such. Specifically, it has been held that inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims as per MPEP 2115. Therefore, any prior art molten material dispensing system such as an extruder or a molding machine that shows all the structural features as claimed would be interpreted by the Examiner to meet the claims with no substantial patentable weight accorded to the claimed material worked upon or the lunar regolith.
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 1-6, 8, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by Grunitz (DE19818605, also see The Espacenet English Machine Translation Version “EEMTV”).
Regarding claim 1, Grunitz teaches an injection molding machine (which reads on the dispenser gun system as claimed) for controllably extruding molten material (i.e. molten material or melt obtained by melting plastic granules (see EEMTV: para [0010] and [0014]) , the dispenser gun system comprising: a material chamber (i.e., reaction vessel (41), see figures 1-3 and EEMTV: para [0021]-[0040]) including a fill portion and a heating portion (see figures 1 and 3 shows the reaction vessel has an upper part for receiving the plastic granules from the hopper outlet (32) and lower portion having the heating means in a form of a microwave heater, see figures 1-3 and EEMTV: para [0025], [0036] and [0039]), wherein the fill portion is configured to receive unconsolidated material, and the heating portion is configured to melt the received unconsolidated material into melted material (see figures 1 and 3 , show as such, also see EEMTV: para [0033]-[0040]); a nozzle (13, see figure 1 and 3, also see EEMTV: para [0030]) for extruding the melted material (see figures 1 and 3); and a plunger (i.e., piston 22, see figure 1 and also see EEMTV: para [0030]-[0032] and [0035]) for pushing the received unconsolidated material so as to force the melted material into and through the nozzle to extrude the melted material (see figure 1 and also see EEMTV: para [0030]-[0032] and [0035]) , wherein the plunger is separated from the heating portion by the fill portion (see figure 1 shows as such).
Regarding claim 2, Grunitz teaches an injection molding machine for controllably extruding molten material by melting plastic granules (see EEMTV: para [0010] and [0014]), but fails to particularly teach the material melted to comprise unconsolidated lunar regolith as claimed, however this claimed material only constitutes a material or an article worked on upon by the claimed apparatus. Furthermore, it has been held that inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. Also see MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 3, Grunitz in figure 1 shows an injection molding machine in which the fill portion and the heating portion are contiguously joined to each other in the material chamber.
Regarding claim 4, Grunitz teaches an injection molding machine for controllably extruding molten material by melting plastic granules (see EEMTV: para [0010] and [0014]) and the extrusion of said melted plastic granules are known in the art to emerge from the nozzle as filaments, and therefore the teachings of Grunitz encompasses the scope of the claim.
Regarding claim 5, Grunitz teaches an injection molding machine for controllably extruding molten material by melting plastic granules (see EEMTV: para [0010] and [0014]) and since a material in granular form reads on either unconsolidated material in a crushed and/or powdered form, the claim is met by Grunitz.
Regarding claim 6, Grunitz teaches an injection molding machine in which the heating portion of the material chamber is a heating means in a form of a microwave heater, see figures 1-3 and EEMTV: para [0025], [0033], [0036] and [0039]) means that the heating portion of the material chamber including a microwave susceptor material would be inherently. Also see MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 8, Grunitz teaches an injection molding machine in which the
walls of at least a part of the heating portion of the material chamber comprise the microwave susceptor material (see in figure 3, how the high microwave frequency generator (42), high-frequency supply line (44) and the loop coupling (45) are connected to the coupling element (43) on the heating portion, adequately demonstrated the coupling element (43) as being microwave susceptor material, also see EEMTV: para [0033], [0036] and [0039]). Grunitz, therefore show substantially all aspects of the claim.
Regarding claim 15, Grunitz teaches an injection molding machine (which reads on the system for dispensing a continuous bead of molten regolith onto a surface as claimed), the system comprising: a chamber (i.e., reaction vessel (41), see figures 1-3 and EEMTV: para [0021]-[0040]) having a nozzle (13, see figure 1 and 3, also see EEMTV: para [0030]) at a first end of the chamber (see figure 1 shows as such); a shaft (24, see figure 1) with a plunger (i.e., piston 22, see figure 1) attached thereto, the shaft entering the chamber at a second end of the chamber opposite the first end (figure 1 shows as such); a receiving portion of the chamber to receive and temporarily store unconsolidated in its solid state (see figures 1 and 3 shows the reaction vessel (41) has an upper part for receiving the plastic granules from the hopper outlet (32), see figures 1-3 and EEMTV: para [0025], [0036] and [0039]), the receiving portion adjacent to the plunger (see figure 1 shows as such); a heating portion of the chamber between the nozzle (13, see figure 1) and the receiving portion (see figures 1 and 3 shows the reaction vessel (41) has lower portion having the heating means in a form of a microwave heater, see figures 1-3 and EEMTV: para [0025], [0036] and [0039]), the heating portion configured to receive and melt the unconsolidated plastic granules to produce the molten plastic, wherein the plunger (22) is configured to be separated from the molten plastic by the unconsolidated plastic granules in its solid state in the receiving portion of the chamber (see figure 1 shows as such , also see EEMTV: para [0025], [0036] and [0039]); and an actuator (25, see figure 1 and also see EEMTV: para [0031]) to move, via the shaft (24), the position of the plunger (22) so as to displace the unconsolidated plastic granules in the solid state and the molten plastic and force the
molten plastic into and through the nozzle (13).
It is noted that though Grunitz teaches an injection molding machine for controllably extruding molten plastic by melting plastic granules (see EEMTV: para [0010] and [0014]), but fails to particularly teach the material melted to comprise unconsolidated regolith as claimed, however this claimed material only constitutes a material or an article worked on upon by the claimed apparatus. Furthermore, it has been held that inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. Also see MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 16, Grunitz in figure 1 shows an injection molding machine in which the fill portion and the heating portion are contiguously joined to each other in the material chamber.
Regarding claim 17, Grunitz teaches an injection molding machine for controllably extruding molten material by melting plastic granules (see EEMTV: para [0010] and [0014]) and since a material in granular form reads on either unconsolidated material in a crushed and/or powdered form, the claim is met by Grunitz.
Regarding claim 18, Grunitz teaches an injection molding machine in which the heating portion of the material chamber is a heating means in a form of a microwave heater, see figures 1-3 and EEMTV: para [0025], [0033], [0036] and [0039]) means that the heating portion of the material chamber including a microwave susceptor material would be inherently. Also see MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 20, Grunitz teaches an injection molding machine in which the walls of at least a part of the heating portion of the material chamber comprise the microwave susceptor material (see in figure 3, how the high microwave frequency generator (42), high-frequency supply line (44) and the loop coupling (45) are connected to the coupling element (43) on the heating portion, adequately demonstrated the coupling element (43) as being microwave susceptor material, also see EEMTV: para [0033], [0036] and [0039]). Grunitz, therefore show substantially all aspects of the claim.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunitz (DE19818605, also see The Espacenet English Machine Translation Version “EEMTV”).
Regarding claim 9, Grunitz does not expressly teach an injection molding
machine in which the heating portion of the material chamber includes induction heating to apply heat to the received unconsolidated material; however, Grunitz shows in the background of the invention a known injection molding machine in which induction heating is used (see Grunitz, EEMTV: para [0002]); therefore selection to modify the apparatus of Grunitz, to use an induction heating for the heating of unconsolidated material would have meant a mere substitution of one known alternative heating technique for another within the same art with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 7, 10-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunitz (DE19818605, also see The Espacenet English Machine Translation Version “EEMTV”) in view of Blair (US Patent No. 10,882,250).
Regarding claims 7, 10-14 and 19, Grunitz teaches an extruder with the heating portion of the material chamber including a microwave susceptor material (see in figure 3, how the high microwave frequency generator (42), high-frequency supply line (44) and the loop coupling (45) are connected to the coupling element (43) on the heating portion, adequately demonstrated the coupling element (43) as being microwave susceptor material, also see EEMTV: para [0033], [0036] and [0039]).
Grunitz fails to particularly teach the following features to include: a microwave susceptor material in the form a fin, extruded melted material in the form of a filament or bead; heat conducting fins located in the heating portion of the material chamber or located between the nozzle and the heating portion, heat conducting fins that are configured to heat by the induction heating, an image sensor to capture images or video of the extruded melted material, a flow controller that adjusts the flow rate of the extruded melted material based, at least in part, on the images or video captured by the image sensor, and an extruder or a dispensing gun comprising attachment points to enable it to be attached to a moveable arm or vehicle for a 3D printing or additive manufacturing process.
Blair teaches an extruder (108, Blair, figures 1, 2 and 4 and column 3, lines 54-67, column 4, lines 15-25, column 6, lines 9-42 and column 10, lines 51-67) configured for controllably extruding molten material by melting plastic granules; the extruder comprising a material receiving portion, a heating portion and a nozzle portion arranged sequentially downstream of the material receiving portion (see Blair, figure 4 and column 10, line 51-column 11, line 41), heat conducting fins (236, see Blair figure 4 and column 11, lines 13-30) located in the heating portion of the material chamber or located between the nozzle and the heating portion, wherein the heat conducting fins are configured to heat by the induction heating (see Blair, column 11, lines 13-30, also see column 6, lines 9-22), Blair also teaches a controller (112, see Blair , figures 1 and 4, and column 6, lines 9-45column 10, line 51-column 11, line 35), an image sensor to capture images or video of the extruded melted material (see Blair, column 7, lines 26-50 and column 12, line 64-67), wherein the controller (112) is configured to adjust flow rate of the extruded melted material based, at least in part, on the images or video captured by the image sensor (see column 7, lines 26-50). Blair further teaches that extruders are known to be provided with attachment points to enable attachment to a 3D printing or additive manufacturing process, thereby expanding the field of application of extruders in manufacturing. Because, optimizing the extrusion operation would also be desirable in the extruder or molding machine of Grunitz, motivation to provide an image sensor to capture images or video of the extruded melted material, a controller to control adjust flow rate of the extruded melted material based, at least in part, on the
images or video captured by the image sensor, and controls the extrusion process by activating and activating the heating portion including the fin as taught by Blair in the extruder or molding machine of Grunitz would have been a modification obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al. (KR101539966), Dworog et al. (US 6,546,991) and McDermott (US 4,516,104) are also cited on PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ABOAGYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8165. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
/M.A/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights