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
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 09/08/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search and/or examination burden. This argument is irrelevant because the restriction requirement was made under the PCT Unity of Invention standard, not U.S. restriction practice.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Non-elected Claims 10-19 are withdrawn from consideration.
Specification
The specification is objected for lacking section headings.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), 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), 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. See MPEP § 2181.I. Such claim limitation(s) are:
“shut-off element” in Claim 5.
“flow element” in Claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“flow element” is interpreted as requiring the structure(s) of a lamella (see Figs. 1-2, specification at pg. 16 second paragraph), and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Claim Objections
In Claims 1-9, the terms “characterized” and “characterized in that” should be changed to “comprising” or “wherein” to comply with accepted U.S. patent practices.
Each of claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 recites “wherein a [structure] is provided.” Each of those claims should be changed to positively recite that the claimed device comprises such structure.
In Claim 7 line 9, the definite article “the” should be added in front of “dissolving liquid.”
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “in particular” in line 2. The term "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites “the dissolving liquid is suitable and/or configured for dissolving the auxiliary material” at lines 6-7. The difference between “suitable” and “configured” is unclear, and the specification does not explain their difference. Clarification is requested.
If there’s no difference between “suitable” and “configured,” then Applicant should pick one word and use it consistently in the claim language.
Claim 1 recites “the at least one workpiece for removing the auxiliary material” at line 2. It’s unclear what’s meant by the at least one workpiece is “for” removing the auxiliary material, given that Claim 1 recites that the auxiliary material is removed “from” 3D-printed workpieces. It’s recommended that the clause “for removing the auxiliary material” be deleted.
Claim 3 recites “such as in particular” in line 2. The term "such as in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 3 recites “the workpiece” at line 6. Because claims 1 & 3 recite “at least one workpiece,” to the extent that there is a plurality of workpieces, it’s unclear which specific workpiece is considered “the workpiece.” Therefore, it should be changed to “the at least one workpiece” in claim 3 line 6.
Claim 4 recites “the workpiece” at line 3. Because claim 1 recites “at least one workpiece,” to the extent that there is a plurality of workpieces, it’s unclear which specific workpiece is considered “the workpiece.” Therefore, it should be changed to “the at least one workpiece” in claim 4.
Claim 5 recites “the controllable supply or discharge” at line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, because there’s no prior recitation of “a controllable supply or discharge.”
Claim 6 recites “in particular” in line 3. The term "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 recites “the rotatable drum” at line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It should be changed to “the drum” instead.
Claim 7 recites “the rotatable drum” at line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It should be changed to “the drum” instead.
Claim 7 recites “which is arranged within a stationary container” at line 8. It’s unclear what noun is being referenced by the word “which.” For example, it’s unclear if the word “which” refers to the drum or the dissolving liquid. Clarification is requested.
Claim 8 recites “the rotatably driven drum” at line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It should be changed to “the drum” instead.
Claim 8 recites “the flow element” at line 5 but recites “at least one flow element” at line 3. To the extent that there is a plurality of flow elements, it’s unclear which specific one is considered “the flow element.” It should be changed to “the at least one flow element.”
Claim 8 recites “in particular” in line 6. The term "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 9 recites “the container” at line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. There is no prior recitation of “a container.”
Claim 9 recites “its flow element” at line 4. It’s unclear whose flow element is being referred to. Clarification is requested.
The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on a claim rejected herein.
Claim limitation “shut-off element” (as recited in Claim 5) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure to the function. The specification only mentions “shut-off element” once (see pg. 3 at 6th paragraph) without disclosing the actual structure of the “shut-off element.” Moreover, both the specification and the claim language make clear that a “shut-off element” is not a valve, given the use of the word “or” indicating they are alternatives. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AN et al. (Chinese Publication CN210525846U, as translated by Espacenet).
Regarding Claim 1, AN teaches a device (see, e.g., Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0002, 0008-19, 0030-32) for cleaning 3D-printed workpieces (see, e.g., ¶¶ 0007, 0009-10, 0012, 0030, 0033, cleaning 3D-printed prototypes).
As a preliminary matter, the preamble is non-limiting, because the phrase “for removing auxiliary material from 3D-printed workpieces, in particular for removing support material soluble in a dissolving liquid” only recites the purpose of intended use of the claimed invention, and the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2111.02(II). Moreover, the recited “3D-printed workpieces” are merely the articles worked upon by the claimed apparatus. See MPEP § 2115 (“inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”).
Nonetheless, AN’s device is structurally fully capable of performing the recited functions of “removing auxiliary material from the 3D printed workpieces” (see ¶¶ 0033, 0037, removing resin from the 3D printed prototype) and “removing support material soluble in a dissolving liquid” (see ¶ 0033, container 1 is filled with an alcohol, which is a dissolving liquid disclosed by the present application, see specification at pg. 6 lines 11-12).
AN teaches that a drum (container 1) is provided for receiving a workpiece (see Figs. 1-2, ¶¶ 0009-10, 0030).
AN teaches that the drum (container 1) is at least partially filled with the dissolving liquid (see ¶¶ 0030, 0033), wherein the dissolving liquid is suitable and/or configured for dissolving the auxiliary material (as explained above, the cleaning fluid used in AN’s apparatus can be an alcohol, which is a dissolving liquid disclosed by the present application, see specification at pg. 6 lines 11-12). Indeed, the recited function of “for dissolving the auxiliary material” is interpreted as intended use, because it’s directed to how the claimed apparatus is used without imposing any structural restriction on the apparatus.
AN teaches that a rotary drive (servo motor, see ¶¶ 0011-12, 0031-32, 0037) that causes the drum to rotate (see id.).The recited function of “in order to dissolve the auxiliary material” is interpreted as intended use, because it’s directed to how the claimed apparatus is used without imposing any structural restriction on the apparatus. As explained above, AN teaches the drum is at least partially filled with a dissolving liquid suitable/configured for dissolving the auxiliary material, which means rotating the drum (by the rotary drive) would help dissolve the auxiliary material (e.g., by increasing contact between the liquid and the material).
Regarding Claim 2, AN teaches the device according to claim 1. The phrase “the at least one workpiece for removing the auxiliary material is arranged substantially freely floating in the drum” is interpreted as intended use, because it’s directed to how the claimed apparatus is used without imposing any structural restriction on the apparatus. Also, as explained above, the recited workpiece is the article worked upon by the claimed apparatus. Regardless, AN teaches that the at least one workpiece (e.g., 3D-printed prototypes) for removing the auxiliary material is arranged substantially freely floating in the drum (see ¶¶ 0010, 0033).
Regarding Claim 4, AN teaches the device according to claim 1. AN teaches that the drum (container 1) has an openable and closable door (lid 12) for inserting and removing the workpiece (see Figs. 1-2, ¶ 0033).
Regarding Claim 7, AN teaches the device according to claim 1. AN teaches that the rotatable drum is substantially liquid-tight (see Figs 1-2, ¶¶ 0009-10, 0030, 0033, the container is sealed) and thereby acts as a container for the dissolving liquid (as explained above, the container is partially filled with the dissolving liquid).
Regarding Claim 9, AN teaches the device according to claim 1. AN teaches that the dissolving liquid is arranged in the container (container 1) substantially unmoved or stationary and is mixed or set in motion only by the rotation of the drum (see, e.g., ¶¶ 0009-10, 0033, cleaning fluid is added to the container, which is then sealed).
Claims 1, 2, 4-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOUSSA et al. (US PGPUB 20090283119).
Regarding Claim 1, MOUSSA teaches a device (system 10, see, e.g., abstract, Figs. 1-20, claims 1-42, ¶¶ 0005-08) for cleaning 3D-printed workpieces (see, e.g., abstract, ¶¶ 0005-08, 0030-35, cleaning parts produced by solid freeform fabrication or “SFF”; see also Fig. 2, ¶ 0037, cleaning a fabricated part 26).
As a preliminary matter, the preamble is non-limiting, because the phrase “for removing auxiliary material from 3D-printed workpieces, in particular for removing support material soluble in a dissolving liquid” only recites the purpose of intended use of the claimed invention, and the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2111.02(II). Moreover, the recited “3D-printed workpieces” are merely the articles worked upon by the claimed apparatus. See MPEP § 2115 (“inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”).
Nonetheless, MOUSSA’s device is structurally fully capable of performing the recited functions of “removing auxiliary material from the 3D printed workpieces” (see ¶ 0033, the cleaning fluid is for removing material from the fabricated part) and “removing support material soluble in a dissolving liquid” (see ¶ 0033, the cleaning fluid can be an alcohol, which is a dissolving liquid disclosed by the present application, see specification at pg. 6 lines 11-12).
MOUSSA teaches wherein a drum (retaining device 24 comprising a cage 28, see Figs. 2, 5-8, 14-15, ¶ 0037) is provided for receiving at least one workpiece (see id.; see also ¶ 0032, any number of parts can be cleaned).
MOUSSA teaches that the drum (e.g., cage 28) is at least partially filled with the dissolving liquid (see Figs. 6-7, ¶¶ 0014, 0037, 0039, 0043), wherein the dissolving liquid is suitable and/or configured for dissolving the auxiliary material (as explained above, the cleaning fluid used in MOUSSA’s apparatus can be an alcohol, which is a dissolving liquid disclosed by the present application, see specification at pg. 6 lines 11-12). Indeed, the clause of “for dissolving the auxiliary material” is interpreted as intended use, because it’s directed to how the claimed apparatus is used without imposing any structural restriction on the apparatus.
MOUSSA teaches that a rotary drive (motor 44) is provided which causes the drum to rotate (see Figs. 6-7, ¶¶ 0043). The clause of “in order to dissolve the auxiliary material” is interpreted as intended use, because it’s directed to how the claimed apparatus is used without imposing any structural restriction on the apparatus. As explained above, MOUSSA teaches the drum is at least partially filled with a dissolving liquid suitable/configured for dissolving the auxiliary material, which means rotating the drum (by the rotary drive 44) would help dissolve the auxiliary material (e.g., by increasing contact between the liquid and the material).
Regarding Claim 2, MOUSSA teaches the device according to claim 1. The phrase “the at least one workpiece for removing the auxiliary material is arranged substantially freely floating in the drum” is interpreted as intended use, because it’s directed to how the claimed apparatus is used without imposing any structural restriction on the apparatus. Also, as explained above, the recited workpiece is the article worked upon by the claimed apparatus. Regardless, MOUSSA teaches that the at least one workpiece—for removing the auxiliary material (as explained above)—is arranged substantially freely floating in the drum (the parts are placed within cage 28, see Figs. 2, 5-8, 14-15, ¶ 0037).
Regarding Claim 4, MOUSSA teaches the device according to claim 1. MOUSSA teaches that the drum (e.g., cage 28) has an openable and closable door (e.g., lid 30) for inserting and removing the workpiece (see Figs. 5-8, ¶ 0037).
Regarding Claim 5, MOUSSA teaches the device according to claim 1. MOUSSA teaches that, in various embodiments, a closable liquid opening (e.g., receptacle 100) is provided (see Fig. 11, ¶ 0052), wherein the liquid opening acts as an inlet for the dissolving liquid (see id.), and the liquid opening is assigned a valve or a shut-off element for the controllable supply of the dissolving liquid (see ¶ 0052).
Regarding Claim 7, MOUSSA teaches the device according to claim 1. MOUSSA teaches that the rotatable drum (e.g., cage 28) is designed to be liquid-permeable and has drum openings for the dissolving liquid to pass through (see Figs. 2 & 5-8, ¶ 0037, drum defines a mesh size for cleaning fluid to pass through), the drum protruding into the dissolving liquid or being arranged in the dissolving liquid (see Figs. 5-7), which is arranged within a stationary container (within housing 2, see Figs. 2 & 5-7), with which the drum is also at least partially filled with dissolving liquid (see id.).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AN (as applied to Claim 1 above), in further view of YE (Chinese Publication CN108480306A, as translated by Espacenet).
Regarding Claim 3, AN teaches the device according to claim 1.
AN does not explicitly teach: “a flexible protective cover, such as in particular a bag made of a net-like fabric, is provided.”
But it’s well understood, routine, and conventional in the cleaning art to place objects inside a flexible protective cover (such as a bag made of a net-like fabric) during cleaning. YE teaches cleaning objects in a liquid (see ¶¶ 0009-10, 0031), wherein the objects are placed inside a flexible protective cover, such as a bag made of a net-like fabric (e.g., steel mesh bag 4 and soft mesh membrane 5, see Figs. 1-2, ¶¶ 0009-11, 0031, 0037). By placing objects inside the bag or cover, it’s possible to clean the objects more thoroughly while still protecting the objects (see ¶¶ 0011-12, 0037-38).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify AN to incorporate a flexible protective cover (such as a bag made of a net-like fabric), with reasonable expectation of enhancing cleaning. First, by placing objects inside the bag or cover, it’s possible to clean the objects more thoroughly while still protecting the objects; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate such bag/cover into AN. Second, it’s well known in the cleaning art to place objects inside a flexible protective cover, such as a bag made of a net-like fabric (see YE). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined them by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
Lastly, the recited functions of “the at least one workpiece is located in the protective cover when the auxiliary material is dissolved, and that the workpiece is arranged in the protective cover in a freely floating manner in the drum” are interpreted as intended use, because they are directed to how the claimed apparatus is used without imposing any structural restriction on the apparatus. The apparatus as taught by the combination of AN and YE is structurally fully capable of performing the recited functions; as explained above, the 3D-printed objects would be placed inside the protective cover/bag, and the objects would be cleaned in the drum containing the dissolving liquid.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOUSSA (as applied to Claim 1 above), in further view of YE (Chinese Publication CN108480306A, as translated by Espacenet).
Regarding Claim 3, MOUSSA teaches the device according to claim 1.
MOUSSA does not explicitly teach: “a flexible protective cover, such as in particular a bag made of a net-like fabric, is provided.”
But it’s well understood, routine, and conventional in the cleaning art to place objects inside a flexible protective cover (such as a bag made of a net-like fabric) during cleaning. YE teaches cleaning objects in a liquid (see ¶¶ 0009-10, 0031), wherein the objects are placed inside a flexible protective cover, such as a bag made of a net-like fabric (e.g., steel mesh bag 4 and soft mesh membrane 5, see Figs. 1-2, ¶¶ 0009-11, 0031, 0037). By placing objects inside the bag or cover, it’s possible to clean the objects more thoroughly while still protecting the objects (see ¶¶ 0011-12, 0037-38).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify MOUSSA to incorporate a flexible protective cover (such as a bag made of a net-like fabric), with reasonable expectation of enhancing cleaning. First, by placing objects inside the bag or cover, it’s possible to clean the objects more thoroughly while still protecting the objects; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate such bag/cover into MOUSSA. Second, it’s well known in the cleaning art to place objects inside a flexible protective cover, such as a bag made of a net-like fabric (see YE). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
Lastly, the recited functions of “the at least one workpiece is located in the protective cover when the auxiliary material is dissolved, and that the workpiece is arranged in the protective cover in a freely floating manner in the drum” are interpreted as intended use, because they are directed to how the claimed apparatus is used without imposing any structural restriction on the apparatus. The apparatus as taught by the combination of MOUSSA and YE is structurally fully capable of performing the recited functions; as explained above, the 3D-printed objects would be placed inside the protective cover/bag, and the objects would be cleaned in the drum containing the dissolving liquid.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOUSSA (as applied to Claim 1 above), in further view of NEWELL et al. (US PGPUB 20030067098).
Regarding Claim 6, MOUSSA teaches the device according to claim 1.
MOUSSA does not explicitly teach: “a heating device is provided for heating the dissolving liquid, wherein the heating device in particular heats the dissolving liquid arranged in the drum during the dissolving of the auxiliary material.”
NEWELL teaches a device for removing auxiliary material from 3D-printed workpieces (see abstract, Fig. 5, ¶ 0078), the device comprising: a container 44; a rotatable drum 46 disposed inside the container, wherein the drum is partially filled with a fluid used to remove the auxiliary material (see Fig. 5, ¶ 0078); and a heating device 64 for heating the interior of the container (see id.), which includes the fluid arranged in the drum (see id.). The heating device provides the benefit of maintaining the temperature of the fluid at the appropriate level when removing material from the workpieces (see ¶¶ 0078-79).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify MOUSSA to incorporate a heating device, with reasonable expectation of heating the dissolving liquid. First, the heating device provides the benefit of maintaining the temperature of the fluid at the appropriate level when removing material from the workpieces; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate such heating device into MOUSSA. Second, it’s well known in the art for a cleaning device to have a heating device for heating a liquid arranged in the drum (see NEWELL). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Lastly, the recited functions of “ . . . for heating the dissolving liquid, wherein the heating device in particular heats the dissolving liquid arranged in the drum during the dissolving of the auxiliary material” are interpreted as intended use, because they are directed to how the claimed apparatus is used without imposing any structural restriction on the apparatus. The apparatus as taught by the combination of MOUSSA and NEWELL is structurally fully capable of performing the recited functions. As explained above, the heating device heats the interior of the container, which has the drum and the dissolving liquid.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AN (as applied to Claim 1 above), in further view of STENZEL et al. (US Patent 3487840).
Regarding Claim 8, AN teaches the device according to claim 1.
AN does not explicitly teach: “at least one flow element protrudes from the rotatably driven drum into the dissolving liquid, wherein the flow element is configured to move the dissolving liquid and in particular to generate turbulence.”
But it’s well understood, routine, and conventional in the cleaning art for a drum to have at least one flow element protrudes from the rotatably driven drum into the cleaning liquid. See STENZEL at Figs. 3-6, col. 2 lines 6-14, col. 4 lines 5-12, col. 4 lines 58-66 (drum 47 has a plurality of baffles 53). The flow elements promote tumbling action while prevent slipping of the objects being cleaned in the drum (see col. 2 lines 6-14, col. 4 lines 5-12).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify AN to incorporate at least one flow element protrudes from the rotatably driven drum into the dissolving liquid, with reasonable expectation of promoting tumbling. First, the flow elements (e.g., baffles) promote tumbling action while prevent slipping of the objects being cleaned in the drum; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate such flow elements into AN. Second, it’s well known in the art for a drum to have at least one flow element protrudes from the rotatably driven drum into the cleaning liquid (see STENZEL). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined them by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOUSSA (as applied to Claim 1 above), in further view of STENZEL et al. (US Patent 3487840).
Regarding Claim 8, MOUSSA teaches the device according to claim 1.
MOUSSA does not explicitly teach: “at least one flow element protrudes from the rotatably driven drum into the dissolving liquid, wherein the flow element is configured to move the dissolving liquid and in particular to generate turbulence.”
But it’s well understood, routine, and conventional in the cleaning art for a drum to have at least one flow element protrudes from the rotatably driven drum into the cleaning liquid. See STENZEL at Figs. 3-6, col. 2 lines 6-14, col. 4 lines 5-12, col. 4 lines 58-66 (drum 47 has a plurality of baffles 53). The flow elements promote tumbling action while prevent slipping of the objects being cleaned in the drum (see col. 2 lines 6-14, col. 4 lines 5-12).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify MOUSSA to incorporate at least one flow element protrudes from the rotatably driven drum into the dissolving liquid, with reasonable expectation of promoting tumbling. First, the flow elements (e.g., baffles) promote tumbling action while prevent slipping of the objects being cleaned in the drum; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate such flow elements into MOUSSA. Second, it’s well known in the art for a drum to have at least one flow element protrudes from the rotatably driven drum into the cleaning liquid (see STENZEL). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 4-10, and 20 of copending Application No. 18/552,003 (reference application). This rejection is provisional because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, as the table below illustrates the same/similar claim elements shared between the two applications.
This Application
Copending Application (18/552,003)
Claim 1 recites:
A device for removing auxiliary material from 3D-printed workpieces (1), in particular for removing support material soluble in a dissolving liquid (3),
wherein a drum (8) is provided for receiving at least one workpiece (1),
wherein the drum (8) is at least partially filled with the dissolving liquid (3) for dissolving the auxiliary material,
and wherein the dissolving liquid (3) is suitable and/or configured for dissolving the auxiliary material,
characterized in that a rotary drive (7) is provided which causes the drum (8) to rotate in order to dissolve the auxiliary material.
Claim 2 recites, inter alia:
A device for removing auxiliary material from 3D-printed workpieces in a dissolving liquid (3),
- comprising a container (2) which is at least partially filled with the dissolving liquid (3) for removing the auxiliary material,
wherein the dissolving liquid (3) is suitable and/or configured for dissolving the auxiliary material . . . ,
wherein a movement device (5) is provided . . . the movement device (5) comprises a rotary drive (7) that rotates the at least one holding device (4) . . . .
Claim 1 recites, inter alia:
a rotary drive (7) is provided which causes the drum (8) to rotate
Claim 4 recites, inter alia:
a drum (8) which is rotatably driven by the rotary drive (7)
Claim 7 recites, inter alia:
the rotatable drum (8) is substantially liquid-tight and thereby acts as a container (2) for the dissolving liquid (3)
Claim 5 recites, inter alia:
the rotatable drum (8) is substantially liquid-tight and thereby acts as a container for the dissolving liquid (3).
Claim 7 recites, inter alia:
the rotatable drum (8) is designed to be liquid-permeable and has drum openings (9) for the dissolving liquid (3) to pass through,
the drum (8) protruding into the dissolving liquid (3) or being arranged in the dissolving liquid (3), which is arranged within a stationary container (2), with which the drum (8) is also at least partially filled with dissolving liquid (3).
Claim 6 recites, inter alia:
the rotatable drum (8) is designed to be permeable to liquids and has drum openings (9) for the passage of the dissolving liquid (3),
the drum (8) protrudes into the dissolving liquid (3) or is arranged in the dissolving liquid (3), which is arranged inside the container (2), whereby the drum (8) is also at least partially filled with dissolving liquid (3).7
Claim 9 recites, inter alia:
the dissolving liquid (3) is arranged in the container (2) substantially unmoved or stationary . . .
Claim 7 recites, inter alia:
the dissolving liquid (3) is arranged substantially motionless or stationary in the container (2) . . .
Claim 5 recites, inter alia:
a closable liquid opening (10) is provided, which acts as an inlet and/or outlet for the dissolving liquid (3),
and in that the liquid opening (10) is assigned a valve (11) or a shut-off element for the controllable supply or discharge of the dissolving liquid (3).
Claim 8 recites, inter alia:
the container (2) has at least one closable liquid opening (10) which acts as an inlet and/or outlet for the dissolving liquid (3),
and the liquid opening (10) is assigned a valve (11) or a shut-off element for the controllable supply or discharge of the dissolving liquid (3).
Claim 6 recites, inter alia:
a heating device (12) is provided for heating the dissolving liquid (3),
wherein the heating device (12) in particular heats the dissolving liquid (3) arranged in the drum (8) during the dissolving of the auxiliary material.
Claim 9 recites, inter alia:
a heating device (12) is provided for heating the dissolving liquid (3),
wherein the heating device (12) heats the dissolving liquid (3) arranged in the container (2) during the dissolving of the auxiliary material.
Claim 4 recites, inter alia:
the drum (8) has an openable and closable door (13) for inserting and removing the workpiece (1).
Claim 10 recites, inter alia:
a drum (8) has an openable and closable door (13) for inserting and removing the workpiece (1).
Claim 1 recites, inter alia:
support material soluble in a dissolving liquid (3)
Claim 20 recites, inter alia:
support material soluble in the dissolving liquid (3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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, KAJ OLSEN can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714