DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
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: “control part” in line 4 of claim 5 where the “part” is the placeholder and the “control” is the functional language.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) 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 described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the lower part of a syringe" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear if the “syringe” is or is not an element of the claimed invention because it is unclear whether the “syringe” is or is not positively recited in the claim. Clarification is respectfully requested.
The limitation “…and having a spraying hole,” rendering the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the “spraying hole” is an element of the “syringe” of the “blower jig?” Clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the temperature " in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the nozzle" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the solidification time" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fluid" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “normal” in line 7 of claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The exact pressure or range of acceptable pressure to meet the claim limitations is not known.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "upper part" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the nozzle end" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the lower periphery of the hollow pipe" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the lower periphery" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the control" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the control part" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the spray angle" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the material" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the continuously moving nozzle" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear if the “continuously moving nozzle” is or is not an element of the claimed invention because it is unclear whether the “continuously moving nozzle” is or is not positively recited in the claim. Clarification is respectfully requested.
The above are just examples of inconsistencies and problematic issues noted by the Examiner. Applicant is advised to carefully review and amend the application to correct other deficiencies. For the purpose of examination, the claims will be examined as best understood by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (CN 207736755. See attached English translation by Google Patents).
With respect to claim 1, Wu discloses a blowing device (Figs. 1 and 2) for (capable of) improving three-dimensional (3D) structure printing processing, comprising: a blower jig (207, 208) installed at the lower part of a syringe (in 1) in which printing material is received and ejected, and having a spraying hole (207) which sprays fluid to reduce the temperature of the printing material ejected from the nozzle of the syringe and around the nozzle to shorten the solidification time of the printing material; and a pneumatic hose (3) connected to the blower jig to (capable of) deliver the fluid at a normal pressure.
With respect to claim 2, Wu discloses the blowing device for improving 3D structure printing processing of claim 1, characterized in that, the blower jig is provided with a hollow pipe (202, 205, 206) connected with the pneumatic hose and supplied with fluid, and is provided with a spraying body (lower surface of 206. Fig. 2) formed at a lower part of the hollow pipe having the spraying hole through which fluid supplied through the pneumatic hose is sprayed.
With respect to claim 3, Wu discloses the blowing device for improving 3D structure printing processing of claim 2, characterized in that, the hollow pipe (at least 202) is provided at upper part of the nozzle (tip) end of the syringe from which the printing material is ejected (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 4, Wu discloses the blowing device for improving 3D structure printing processing of claim 2, characterized in that, the spraying body is formed throughout the lower (inner) periphery of the hollow pipe, or is formed in a plurality at regular intervals around the lower periphery, and the spraying body has at least one spraying hole (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 5, Wu discloses the blowing device for improving 3D structure printing processing of claim 1, characterized in that, the pneumatic hose is connected to a fluid inlet device (inlet of 3) operable under the control of the control part (4).
With respect to claim 6, Wu discloses the blowing device for improving 3D structure printing processing of claim 2, characterized in that, the spray angle of the spraying hole is directed (radially) inward, where the material is ejected, and outward, where the material is ejected and solidified by the continuously moving nozzle (of 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to show the art with respect to a blowing device: Duro Royo et al., Womer and Gray et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 September 9, 2025