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 .
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/28/2026 has been entered.
Status of the application
This is a non-final rejection in response to the Applicant's remarks and amendment filed on 07/28/2026. Claims 1-50, 52, 54,57-58,60,67,71,73,78 and 80-82 are cancelled, claims 51 and 62 are currently amended, claims 53, 55-56, 59,61-66, 68-70,72,74-77 and 79 are previously presented. Accordingly claims 51, 53, 55-56, 59, 61-66, 68-70,72,74-77 and 79 are examined herein.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that claim(s) 51, 53, 55-56, 59, 61-66, 68-70,72,74-77 and 79 is/are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under the following conditions. The process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (See MPEP 2114 II and 2115 for further details). For apparatuses, the claim limitations will define structural limitations (See MPEP 2114-2115) or functional limitations properly recited (See MPEP 2173.05 (g)). For example the limitation "a curable fluoropolymer composition comprising at least one curable fluoropolymer and at least one curative" is considered as the material worked upon by the apparatus and viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus.
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) 51, 53, 55-56, 61-64, 70, 72, 74, 76-77 and 79 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linthicum (US 2015/0321419 - of record ) in view of Hirose (US 2003/0168761) and Bartow (US 2019/0344496 - of record).
Regarding claim 51, Linthicum teaches a system capable for forming three-dimensional, additively manufactured fluorine- containing elastomer articles (see Fig.1; [0062-0063]), comprising:
an additive manufacturing printer (100) apparatus capable of forming a three- dimensional printed article comprising a fluoroelastomer that at least partially fluorinated (see Fig. 1;[0061]), the apparatus comprising:
a ram material extruder (an extrusion assembly (102)) comprising:
a ram device (screw (124), barrel (116)) capable to be operable for receiving a curable fluoropolymer composition comprising at least one curable fluoropolymer and at least one curative, and extruding the curable fluoropolymer composition under pressure (see Figs. 5A-5B;[0014-0015] and [0061]),
a printer nozzle (126) having an inlet (162) and an outlet (176) (see Fig.5A, Fig. 12;[0066] and [0076]),
a drive mechanism comprising a drive motor (a motor (172) connected to a meshed gears (174)) for applying pressure to the ram device (screw (124)) (see Fig. 4 and Fig. 31; [0075] and [0089]). However, Linthicum does not explicitly teach the drive motor in operable connection with a timing belt and at least one lead screw and a moveable platen capable of moving over the at least one lead screw, wherein the at least one lead screw is in operable communication with the timing belt.
In analogous art, Hirose teaches an apparatus for supplying a resin material to a molding die comprises a drive mechanism (a traveling motor 45) in operable connection with a timing belt (45b) for applying pressure to a ram device (plunger (37)) and at least one screw (42) and a movable platen (44) capable of moving over the at least one screw, wherein the at least one screw is in operable communication with the timing belt (see Fig. 3;[0088] and [0102-0103]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the drive motor in operable connection with a timing belt and at least one lead screw and a moveable platen capable of moving over the at least one lead screw, wherein the at least one lead screw is in operable communication with the timing belt as such is known in the art of extruding devices given the discussion of Hirose above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allows for the resin material to be extruded by means of the aforementioned plungers via vertical traveling means provided with a pulley and belt mounted on the shaft of a motor capable of forward/reverse drive (see [0014] of Hirose).
Linthicum in view of Hirose further teaches a heating device (164, 264) for applying heat to the ram device, including the printer nozzle thereof (see Figs. 5A-5B [0080] and [0082]), wherein the heating device is capable of heating the curable fluoropolymer composition to a temperature that sufficient to initiate flow of the curable fluoropolymer composition within the ram device (i.e. the heat source for providing heat to the solidifying material) (see [0080-0082]). However, Linthicum does not teach that the heating device capable for heating the curable fluoropolymer composition below a temperature at which significant curing of the curable fluoropolymer composition occurs.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing devices, Bartow teaches an extrusion head (10) for 3-D printed article from a fluorine-containing thermoset elastomer article and a curable fluoropolymer composition(see abstract;[0033-0035]), comprises a heating block (14) capable to of heating the curable fluoropolymer composition to a temperature that is sufficient to initiate flow of the curable fluoropolymer composition and that is below a temperature at which significant curing of the curable fluoropolymer composition occurs (see [0113]). Bartow further discloses post curing cycle may be applied to ensure the curing process is fully completed. Post curing may be carried out at a temperature between 170° C. and 250° C. for a period of 1 to 24 hours (see [0113]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the heating device for heating the curable fluoropolymer composition below a temperature at which significant curing of the curable fluoropolymer composition occurs given the discussion of Bartow above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allows for an effective temperature and effective time to create a cured fluoroelastomer (as recognized by Bartow at [0113]).
Linthicum further teaches the printer nozzle is capable to be configured to receive the curable fluoropolymer composition through the inlet (162) of the printer nozzle under pressure and to allow for heated extrusion of the fluoropolymer composition through the printer nozzle outlet (176) for printing a fluorine-containing elastomer article (see Fig. 12; [0076-0077] and [0099-0103] of Linthicum).
Regarding claim 53, Linthicum in view of Hirose and Bartow teaches the system, wherein the drive mechanism comprises a drive motor (172), wherein the drive motor is a stepper motor having a geared transmission (174) (see Fig. 3;[0075] of Linthicum).
Regarding claim 55, Linthicum in view of Hirose and Bartow discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication, wherein there are two lead screws. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate two lead screws, since it have been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate lead screws for the purpose of applying more pressure to the ram device and improve the printing process.
Regarding claim 56, Linthicum in view of Hirose and Bartow further teaches the system, wherein the ram device comprises a piston (screw (124)) having an exterior surface and a barrel (116) having a first end (120), a second end (122) and an interior surface that defines an interior space, wherein the barrel is configured to receive the piston after passing through a first opening in the first end of the barrel and wherein the second end of the barrel is located to be in communication with the printer nozzle (126), wherein when the piston is within the interior space of the barrel, the exterior surface of the piston faces the interior surface of the barrel (see Figs. 3, Fig.5A-5B;[0066-0069] and [0075-0077] of Linthicum).
Regarding claim 61, Linthicum in view of Hirose and Bartow further teaches the system, wherein the additive manufacturing printer apparatus is capable of forming a three-dimensional printed article comprising a perfluoroelastomer (see Fig. 1;[0003] and [0061] of Linthicum). Examiner notes that the limitation “three-dimensional printed article comprising a perfluoroelastomer” is considered as the material worked upon by the apparatus and viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus.
Regarding claim 62, Linthicum in view of Hirose and Bartow further teaches the system, wherein the additive manufacturing printer apparatus is capable of forming an article selected from a gasket and a seal (see [0003] and [0061] of Linthicum).
Examiner notes that that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114 and 2115. 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.
Regarding claim 63, Linthicum in view of Hirose and Bartow further teaches the system, wherein the article is printed on a base plate (178) and the article is a bonded gasket or a bonded seal (see Fig. 15 and Fig. 29;[0085] of Linthicum).
Regarding claim 64, Linthicum in view of Hirose and Bartow further teaches the system, wherein the base plate is an upper mold base plate (108) having an upper surface defining a cavity and/or a lower mold base plate having an upper surface defining a cavity, and the article is printed on the at least one of the upper surface of the upper mold base plate within the cavity thereof and/or the upper surface of the lower mold base plate within the cavity thereof (see Figs. 16-18 and Figs. 27-30 of Linthicum).
Regarding claim 70, Linthicum in view of Hirose and Bartow further teaches the system, wherein the heating device (164,264) is capable of heating the curable fluoropolymer composition to a temperature that is about 20 0C to about 250 0C (see Figs. 5A-5B [0006],[0080] and [0082] of Linthicum). Examiner notes that that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114 and 2115. 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.
Regarding claim 72, Linthicum in view of Hirose and Bartow further teaches the system, wherein the heating device (164, 264) is capable of heating the curable fluoropolymer composition to a temperature that is about 100 0C to about 250 0C (see Figs. 5A-5B; [0006],[0080] and [0082] of Linthicum). Examiner notes that that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114 and 2115. 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.
Regarding claim 74, Linthicum in view of Hirose and Bartow further teaches the system, wherein the heating device (164,264) is capable of heating the curable fluoropolymer composition to a temperature that is about 115C to about 160°C (see Figs. 5A-5B; [0006], [0080] and [0082] of Linthicum). Examiner notes that that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114 and 2115. 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.
Regarding claim 76, Linthicum in view of Hirose and Bartow further teaches the system, wherein the printer nozzle (126) comprises a nozzle body and a nozzle tip, the nozzle body defines a tapered interior chamber having an inlet for receiving the curable fluoropolymer composition extruded through the ram device (124) and an outlet (176) in communication with an inlet to the nozzle tip, the nozzle tip has an interior surface extending from the inlet of the nozzle tip to the outlet of the printer nozzle (see Fig. 3, Figs. 5A-5B;[0076-0077] of Linthicum).
Regarding claim 77, Linthicum in view of Hirose and Bartow teaches the system as discussed in claim 76 above.
Linthicum further teaches wherein the nozzle tip has a reduced diameter area at nozzle outlet end (176) thereof capable for directing the extruded curable fluoropolymer composition through the outlet of the printer nozzle (126) (see Fig. 3, Figs. 5A-5B;[0076-0077]). However, Linthicum does not explicitly teach wherein an inner diameter of the printer nozzle outlet is about 0.2 mm to about 1.6 mm as measured transversely across the printer nozzle outlet.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing devices, Bartow teaches an extrusion head (10) for 3-D printed article from a fluorine-containing thermoset elastomer article and a curable fluoropolymer composition(see abstract;[0033-0035]), wherein the extrusion head includes an extrusion tip (16) an inner diameter of the printer nozzle outlet is about 0.2 mm to about 1.6 mm (see Fig. 1;[0034] and [0036]). Bartow teaches the extrusion tip has tip inner dimensions useful for depositing roads of the composition comprising the fluoropolymer (see [0036]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have an inner diameter of the printer nozzle outlet is about 0.2 mm to about 1.6 mm as measured transversely across the printer nozzle outlet given the discussion of Bartow above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allows for useful for depositing roads of the composition comprising the fluoropolymer (see [0036 (as recognized by Bartow at [0036]).
Regarding claim 79, Linthicum in view of Hirose and Bartow further teaches the system, wherein the additive manufacturing printer apparatus is capable of printing at a temperature of at least about 20°C and at a temperature less than about 250°C, less than about 200°C or less than about 160°C (see Figs. Fig. 3 and Figs. 5A-5B; [0006], [0080] and [0082] of Linthicum). Examiner notes that that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114 and 2115. 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.
Claim(s) 59, 65-66 and 68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linthicum (US 2015/0321419 - of record ) in view of Hirose (US 2003/0168761) and Bartow (US 2019/0344496 - of record) as applied to claims 51 and 63 above, and further in view of Mikulak (US 2012/0231225 – of record).
Regarding claim 59, Linthicum in view of Hirose and Bartow teaches the system as discussed in claim 51 above.
Linthicum does not teach, wherein the heating device is capable of heating the curable fluoropolymer composition to a temperature that is below a temperature corresponding to a time, T2, associated with the curable fluoropolymer composition as determined using a test method of ASTM D2084 on a rubber process analyzer.
In the same field of endeavor, an additive manufacturing systems, Mikulak teaches an extrusion-based additive manufacturing system (10) for building 3D models from a curable fluoropolymer composition (see abstract;[0048]), includes extrusion head (18) (see Fig. 1;[0039]). Mikulak discloses the use of certain ASTM standards (see [0073]) and DSC provides a suitable technique for measuring the percent crystallinities, the crystallization temperatures, and the melting temperatures for core and shell materials, wherein the DSC plots referred to herein are measured pursuant to ASTM D341 8-08 (see [0048] and [0073]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize use of certain ASTM standards for heating the curable fluoropolymer composition to a temperature that is below a temperature corresponding to a time, T2, associated with the curable fluoropolymer composition as determined using a test method of ASTM D2084 on a rubber process analyzer as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Mikulak above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so to avoid melting of the filament material.
Regarding claim 65, Linthicum in view of Hirose and Bartow teaches the system as discussed in claim 63 above.
Linthicum does not teach wherein a support structure is positioned on the base plate for assisting in shape retention of the extruded curable fluoropolymer composition.
In the same field of endeavor, an additive manufacturing systems, Mikulak teaches an extrusion-based additive manufacturing system (10) for building 3D models from a curable fluoropolymer composition (see abstract;[0048]), includes extrusion head (18), a base plate (14), a support structure (26) is positioned on the base plate for assisting in shape retention of the extruded curable fluoropolymer composition (see Fig. 1;[0039]). Mikulak discloses that the support structure (26) is desirably deposited to provide vertical support along the z-axis for overhanging regions of the layers of 3D model (24). This allows 3D object 24 to be built with a variety of geometries (see Fig. 1;[0046]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form a support structure positioned on the base plate for assisting in shape retention of the extruded curable fluoropolymer composition as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Mikulak above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allow to provide vertical support along the z-axis for overhanging regions of the layers of 3D model and also it will allow 3D object to be built with a variety of geometries (as recognized by Mikulak at [0046]).
Regarding claim 66, Linthicum in view of Hirose, Bartow and Mikulak further teaches the system, wherein the support structure (26) is a removable fixture and comprises one or more of thermoplastic material, metal, and metal alloy (see Fig. 1;[0043] and [0046] of Mikulak).
Regarding claim 68, Linthicum in view of Hirose, Bartow and Mikulak further teaches the system, wherein the support structure (26) is made by additive manufacturing (see Fig. 1;[0039] and [0041-0043] of Mikulak).
Claim(s) 69 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linthicum (US 2015/0321419 - of record ) in view of Hirose (US 2003/0168761) and Bartow (US 2019/0344496 - of record) as applied to claims 51 and 53 above, and further in view of Burnham (US 2020/0016835 - of record).
Regarding claim 69, Linthicum in view of Hirose and Bartow teaches the system as discussed in claim 51 above.
Linthicum does not teach wherein the ram device further comprises a load cell that acts as a sensor for monitoring pressure within the ram device.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing systems, Burnham teaches 3D printing system (see Fig. 1), comprises extrusion assembly (206) capable of being ram material extruder, includes a pushing component (848) capable of being a ram device (see Fig. 2F and Fig. 8;[0114]), the ram device further comprises a sensor for monitoring pressure within the ram device (see Fig. 8;[0144-0146]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the system as taught by Linthicum, Hirose and Bartow in view of Burnham with sensor for monitoring pressure within the ram device as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Bartow above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would provide feedback to the controller enabling the controller to track location of build material (see [0146] of Bartow).
Claim(s) 75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linthicum (US 2015/0321419 - of record ) in view of Hirose (US 2003/0168761) and Bartow (US 2019/0344496 - of record) as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Jahnle (US 2020/0039146 - of record).
Regarding claim 75, Linthicum in view of Hirose, Bartow teaches the system as discussed in claim 51 above.
Linthicum does not teach wherein the heating device is positioned on the ram device.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing devices, Jahnle teaches a printhead (10) for a 3D printer (see Fig. 1), comprises a ram device (a plunger (31, 31a, 31b)), an operational volume (17) for holding a feedstock (20) can be changed by moving the plunger (31), and wherein the operational volume has an outlet (16) through which a liquid phase (22) of the feedstock (20) can be extruded; and heating device ( i.e. a temperature-control means (36) is positioned on the ram device (see Figs. 1-2;[0045-0048]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to the heating device is positioned on the ram device as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Jahnle above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allow the temperature control of the plunger can be used to keep the temperature of the feedstock deliberately below the melting point and also in order to control the temperature of the plunger (as recognized by Jahnle at [0010-0011]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AHMED ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-0347. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM-7:30 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, 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.
/MOHAMED K AHMED ALI/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights