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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group II, claims 17-20 in the reply filed on 6/3/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be unnecessary expense to Applicant and examining groups I-II would promote compact prosecution. This is not found persuasive because the specific reasoning for restriction was outlined in the action dated 4/3/26. Since none of the specifics of the restriction requirement were addressed, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 1-16 are withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gibson et al US 2017/0297108.
Per claim 17, Gibson teaches a method for creating an object via 3D printing using a curable powder or carrier (abstract, [0128]), wherein the material is mixed [0110], measuring/sensing a transport characteristic [0109]-[0112], determining the measured thermal characteristic is accepted and to be dispensed (inherent as Gibson teaches dispensing through the nozzle), and dispensing from a (feedstock) container using a nozzle [0111].
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) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson et al US 2017/0297108.
Per claims 18-20, Gibson is silent regarding the thermal characteristic indicating that the curable material is consistently mixed or that it describes one of the claimed conductivity, effusivity, or diffusivity of the curable material. However, Gibson does teach that the conductivity of the build material may be measured and transmitted to the control system [0111]. Furthermore, the thermal conductivity would inherently be affected by consistent mixing of the material (e.g., a non-homogeneous mixture or material would have varying degrees of conductivity). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized a sensor (which would either be in-line, at-line, or off-line) to measure the conductivity of the material and therefore ensure that the material is consistently mixed with a reasonable expectation for success and predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN T. LEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-6:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/NATHAN T LEONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights