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
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: “nozzle adjusting mechanism” in claim(s) 1 without reciting sufficient structure within the specification to achieve the function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) “nozzle adjusting mechanism” 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 that is strictly necessary for the function described in the claim. This includes the stationary mount plate (upper guide mount), the movable mount plate (lower guide mount), and the servo actuator described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. (Specification page 2, lines 1-16; page 7, lines 12-28; page 8, lines 7-16).
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.
For further clarification, the term “stationary mount plate” recited in claims 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 11, although not directly numbered or labeled in the drawings, has been interpreted to correlate to the upper guide mount 140. Additionally, the term “movable mount plate” recited in claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 13, although not directly numbered or labeled in the drawings, has been interpreted to correlate to the lower guide mount 150.
For additional clarification, the term “first pin and slot arrangement” recited in claims 4 and 10, has been interpreted to refer to both upper pin 116 and slots 142 on stationary mount plate or upper guide mount 140. The term “second pin and slot arrangement” recited in claims 5 and 11, has been interpreted to refer to both lower pin 118 and slots 152 on the movable mount plate or lower guide mount 150.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “the” is missing before “edible ink” in line 10. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 recites the limitation "the relative position" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the relative position” as “a relative position.” Clarification and/or correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the dimension" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the dimension” as “a dimension.” Clarification and/or correction is required.
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.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2014/190217 Contractor et. al. (Contractor et. al.) and in view of CN 108248041A Lu et. al. (Lu et. al.).
Regarding claim 1, Contractor et. al. teaches a 3D food printer comprising of a nozzle positioning system in communications with a controller allowing for specified ingredient compositions to be released from edible ink cartridges. (See Abstract and paragraph 24). Contractor et. al. does not teach a 3D food printing system with an adjustable nozzle head.
However, Lu et. al. teaches a 3D printer comprising a nozzle head (183) in fluid communication with an ink source and arranged to discharge one or more inks, wherein the nozzle head comprises a plurality of nozzle blade components (18) being movable relative to each other and an opening formed by the plurality of nozzle blade components through which the edible ink is discharged; and a nozzle adjusting mechanism, (movable mount plate (20), stationary mount plate (21), servo motor actuator (10)), configured to adjust the relative position of the nozzle blade components whereby the dimension of the opening of the nozzle head is adjustable to discharge edible ink with different dimensions so as to print a food material. (See e.g. translation).
Lu et. al. is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of 3D printing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Contractor et. al.to incorporate the teachings of Lu et. al. by developing a 3D food printer with an adjustable nozzle head. Doing so would allow for a 3D food printer to quickly adapt from printing in finer detail through a smaller nozzle to printing faster through a larger nozzle as taught by Contractor et. al.
Regarding the edible ink, Lu et al. fails to explicitly disclose the ink is edible. However, the edible ink is considered material/contents used during an intended use of the nozzle apparatus, rather than a structural feature of the nozzle apparatus. The courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); and expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). See MPEP § 2114.
Regarding claim 2, as detailed above, Lu et. al. discloses a nozzle with a nozzle adjusting mechanism that includes a movable mount plate (20) arranged to actuate the relative movement of the nozzle blade components (18). (See para 37).
Regarding claim 3, as detailed above, Lu et. al. discloses a nozzle with a nozzle adjusting mechanism that includes a stationary mount plate (21) arranged to guide the relative movement of the nozzle blade components (18). (See para 37).
Regarding claim 4, Lu et. al. discloses a nozzle with a nozzle adjusting mechanism that includes a first pin (e.g. 181) and slot arrangement (e.g. 201) for transmitting the motion from the movable mount plate (20) to the nozzle blade components (18). (See para 37).
Regarding claim 5, Lu et. al. discloses a nozzle with a nozzle adjusting mechanism that includes a second pin (e.g. 182) and slot (e.g. 211) arrangement for guiding the movement of the nozzle blade component (18) relative to the stationary mount plate (21). (See para 37).
Regarding claim 6, Lu et. al. discloses a nozzle wherein the nozzle blade components (18) that each includes an outer portion together forming the nozzle head (183) and an inner portion interacting with the movable mount plate (20) and the stationary mount plate (21) respectively so as to adjust the position of the outer portion and the dimension of the opening. (See para 37; See Figure 1. Annotated Fig. 7 from Lu et. al. and Figure 2. Annotated Fig. 8 from Lu et. al.).
Regarding claim 7, Lu et. al. discloses a nozzle wherein the outer portion of the nozzle blade component is exposed from the movable mount plate (20) and the inner portion of the nozzle blade component is sandwiched between the movable mount plate (20) and the stationary mount plate (21). (See para 37; See Figure 1 below, Annotated Fig. 7 from Lu et. al. and Figure 2 below, Annotated Fig. 8 from Lu et. al.).
Regarding claim 8, Lu et. al. discloses a nozzle wherein the movable mount plate (20) is a circulate guide mount rotatable about a rotating axis and includes an opening through which the outer portion is exposed. (See para 45).
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claim 9, Lu et. al. discloses a nozzle wherein the stationary mount plate (21) is a circulate guide mount being stationary relative to the movable mount plate (20). (See para 46).
Regarding claim 10, Lu et. al. discloses a nozzle wherein each of the inner portion of the nozzle blade component (18) includes a first pin (e.g. 181) extending vertically from a plane of the nozzle blade component (18) and the movable mount plate (20) further includes a first plurality of slots (e.g. 201) each receiving a respective first pin of the nozzle blade component (18) whereby the movement of each nozzle blade component (18) is driven by the interaction between the first pins and the slots. (See para 37 and Figure 2. Annotated Fig. 8 Lu et. al.).
Regarding claim 11, Lu et. al. discloses a nozzle wherein each of the inner portion of the nozzle blade component (18) includes a second pin (e.g. 182) extending vertically from a plane of the nozzle blade component (18) and the stationary mount plate (21) further includes a second plurality of slots (e.g. 211) each arranged to mate with a respective second pin of the nozzle blade component (18) so as to facilitate the movement of each nozzle blade component (18) driven by the movable mount plate (20). (See para 37 and Figure 2. Annotated Fig. 8 Lu et. al.).
Regarding claim 12, Lu et. al. discloses a nozzle wherein the longitudinal length of the first slot (e.g. 201) forms an acute angle with a center line of the movable mount plate (20). (See para 37, and Figure 3 below, Annotated Fig. 5 from Lu et. al. which illustrates a six-sided polygon to correspond to the six (6) nozzle blade components. The angle of one side of the six-sided polygon to the center line is 60° and thus acute.).
PNG
media_image3.png
412
985
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Lu et. al. discloses a nozzle wherein the movable mount plate (20) further includes a trigger handle (e.g. 14) protruding from the movable mount plate (20) and the nozzle adjusting mechanism further includes a push arm (e.g. 11 and 12) driven by an actuator (10) whereby the position of the movable mount plate is manipulated by the actuator (10) through the mechanical transmission from the push arm (e.g. 11 and 12) to the trigger handle (e.g. 14). (See para 46).
Regarding claim 14, Lu et. al. discloses a nozzle wherein the push arm (e.g. 11 and 12) is pivotable about a pivoting axis whereby the pivotal movement of the push arm (e.g. 11 and 12) is arranged to push the trigger handle (e.g. 14) so as to adjust the dimension of the opening. (See para 46, 47, and 48).
Regarding claim 15, Lu et. al. discloses a nozzle wherein the push arm includes two extending arms (e.g. 11 and 12) each operable to push the trigger handle (e.g. 14) from opposite directions respectively. (See para 46, 47, 48, and Figure 4, Annotated Fig. 2 from Lu et. al.).
PNG
media_image1.png
759
1600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 4. Annotated Fig. 2 from Lu et. al. )][AltContent: textbox (Two extending push arms)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claim 16, Lu et. al. discloses a nozzle wherein the nozzle adjusting mechanism is actuated by a servo actuator (10). (See para 46).
Regarding claim 17, Lu et. al. discloses a nozzle comprising a housing (2) arranged to contain the nozzle adjusting mechanism. (See para 37).
Regarding claim 18, Lu et. al. discloses a nozzle wherein the housing (2) further includes a slot (See Figure 5, Annotated Fig. 3 from Lu et. al.) through which the trigger handle (e.g. 14) is exposed from the housing so as to be accessible by the push arm (e.g. 11 and 12) and the two ends of the slot being a stopper whereby the degree of the movement of the trigger handle (e.g. 14) is limited. (See para 46, and Figure 4, Annotated Fig. 2 from Lu et. al.).
PNG
media_image4.png
385
534
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 5. Annotated Fig. 3 from Lu et. al.)][AltContent: textbox (Slot through which trigger handle is exposed)][AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claim 19, in modified Contractor et al., Lu et al. fail to explicitly disclose at least one of the nozzle blade components of the plurality of nozzle blades is symmetrical. However, Figure 2, Annotated Fig. 8 Lu et. al. illustrates six (6) same nozzle blade components, each appearing to have a substantially same regular and/or isosceles triangular shape and a substantially symmetrical arrangement with respect to one another. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided at least one of the nozzle blade components of the plurality of nozzle blade components is symmetrical with itself and/or with other nozzle blade components of the plurality nozzle blade components as illustrated in Lu et al. See MPEP §§ 2143-2144.
Regarding claim 20, in modified Contractor et al., Lu et al. fail to explicitly disclose at least two of the plurality of nozzle blades is symmetrical. However, Figure 2, Annotated Fig. 8 Lu et. al. illustrates six (6) same nozzle blade components, each appearing to have a substantially same regular and/or isosceles triangular shape. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided at least two of the nozzle blade components of the plurality of nozzle blade components are identical. See MPEP §§ 2143-2144.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Pubs. 2022/0104530 and 2022/0242050 disclose 3D food printers. US Patent Pubs. 2022/0258197 discloses an adhesive dispensing nozzle with various ports.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUZANNE C CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3177. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/SUZANNE C CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights