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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art alone or in combination teach a connector that further comprises: a tab arranged on an inner wall of the tooth of the clamping teeth, wherein the tab is extended toward the clamping cavity, a first end of the tab is connected to the clamping tooth, a second end of the tab is extended toward the limiting element.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 10-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Taylor (US20230271382A1).
Regarding claim 1, Taylor teaches a filament conveying device (ABS), comprising a feeding device (Fig.4, P0051-52) and a discharging channel (256), wherein the feeding device comprises at least two feeding channels (160C, D, E), a feeding port is provided at a first end of one feeding channel, and a discharging port is provided at a second end of the feeding channel (Annotated fig.4), the feeding port is configured for feeding a printing filament (P0049); and wherein at least two discharging ports converge toward the discharging channel and the discharging ports are connected to the discharging channel (fig.4), the at least two discharging ports are configured to direct printing filaments in the feeding channels to the discharging channel (P0035-36).
PNG
media_image1.png
658
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig.4 from Taylor
Regarding claim 2, Taylor teaches the feeding device further comprises: a first feeding mechanism comprising a first half housing (60); and a second feeding mechanism comprising a second half housing (62), wherein the feeding channel comprises a cavity defined by the first half housing and the second half housing (160).
Regarding claim 10, Taylor teaches a plurality of guide pipes (feedstock tubes 72, fig.4, P0042), wherein a guide pipe of the plurality of guide pipes comprises a filament channel (filament passage 70, P0042), the filament channel (70 in 72, P0042) is arranged in correspondence with one feeding channel (160, fig.4); and a guide connection assembly with a first end connected to the guide pipes and a second end connected to the first feeding mechanism (boss attachments 73, P0042).
Regarding claim 11, Taylor teaches pipe receptacles, wherein the pipe receptacles are provided in the first feeding mechanism, arranged corresponding to the guide pipes, the pipe receptacles are configured for connection with an end of one guide pipe (P0042, 73, push-connect fittings).
Regarding claim 12, Taylor teaches wherein the guide connection assembly further comprises: a connector with one end movably connected to the guide pipe; and a connecting seat with a first end movably connected to the connector and a second end connected to the first feeding mechanism, first through holes being provided in the connecting seat for at least one of the guide pipes and the connector to pass through (P0042, fig.4. 73 seated in 60).
Regarding claim 20, Taylor teaches a 3D printer, comprising the filament conveying device according to claim 1 (P0035).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US20230271382A1) as applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Taylor teaches the second feeding mechanism comprises a second feeding body and a housing (62, 160), the second feeding body comprises the second half housing (62), and that block 60 is universal and therefore different variations of block 62 can be attached (P0040) and so the two half housings that make up the feeding channels 160 are movable (for interchanging) which meets the limitation that the first feeding mechanism is movably connected to the second feeding body. The second feeding body of Taylor is integral to the housing which meets the limitation that the second feeding body is fixedly connected to the housing.
Taylor teaches two blocks 60 and 62 with housings that interface (fig.3) and not that the housing is configured to accommodate the first feeding mechanism and the second feeding body. However, it has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
Taylor discloses the claimed invention except for the rearrangement of the housing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the housing, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange the housing for the purpose of easily changing the attached block depending on application requirements as taught by Taylor (P0040).
Regarding claims 4-9 Taylor teaches the feeding channel further comprises: a linear section enclosed circumferentially with one end starting from the feeding port (fig.4, 160) that passes through the connected blocks 60 and 62 (160D).
However, Taylor is silent to an arc-shaped section with a first end connected to the linear section and a second end ending at the discharging port.
It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.
Taylor is silent to the channel sections being closed circumferentially, and details such as how the feeding mechanisms and housing fit together based on the arrangement of the instant claims.
However, it has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
Taylor discloses the claimed invention except for the rearrangement of the housing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the housing, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange the housing for the purpose of easily changing the attached block depending on application requirements as taught by Taylor (P0040).
Claims 13-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US20230271382A1) as applied to claim 12, further in view of Aqua Fittings (2016).
Regarding claim 13, Taylor is silent to a connecting seat with snap fits, and slots corresponding to the snap fits provided in the second feeding mechanism as the boss attachments are connected directly connected to 60 where the recesses of 60 serve the same purpose as a connecting seat making the guide connection assembly of Taylor integral construction relative to the instant arrangement.
Taylor discloses the claimed invention except for a separate connecting seat. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to a separate connecting seat, since it has been held that constructing formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in art. One would have been motivated to make the elements separable for the purpose of ease of replacement. Taylor teaches regarding the blocks that interchanging parts is useful to support a desired purpose (P0040). In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Regarding claims 14-15 and 17-19, Taylor teaches that the feedstock tubes can be connected via the boss attachments to block 60 through push-connect fittings. However, Taylor is silent to the details of how push-connect fittings work.
Aqua Fittings teaches operating positions of the connector comprises a first position and a second position; a portion of the connector moves close to the guide pipe when the connector moves from the second position to the first position, and the guide pipe is clamped when the connector reaches the first position; and a portion of the connector moves away from the guide pipe when the connector moves from the first position to the second position, and the guide pipe is released when the connector reaches the second position (fig.1).
Aqua Fittings further teaches the connector further comprises: an annular element, a second through hole for accommodating the guide pipe being provided in the annular element; a clamping portion comprising at least two clamping teeth circumferentially arranged on the annular element, a first end of a tooth of the clamping teeth being fixed relative to the annular element, and a second end of the clamping tooth being a free end; and a limiting element arranged at one end of the tooth of the clamping tooth away from the annular element and protruding outwardly, wherein a cavity defined by the plurality of clamping teeth is a clamping cavity, the clamping teeth are elastic such that the free ends of the clamping teeth move close to or away from the guide pipe to adjust an inner diameter of one end of the clamping cavity so as to clamp or release the guide pipe (fig.1).
Aqua Fittings further teaches the guide connection assembly further comprises: an elastic element with a first end connected to the connector and a second end fixed relative to the connecting seat, wherein the elastic element is configured to apply an elastic force to maintain the connector in the first position (O-ring, fig.1); a recess provided in the first feeding mechanism and arranged corresponding to the elastic element, wherein at least a part of the elastic element is located inside the recess (location of O-ring, fig.1); where the connecting seat abuts against the limiting element when the connector is in the first position; and the connecting seat abuts against the annular element when the connector is in the second position (fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a first position and a second position as part of a push connect fitting and clamping as seen below as push connect fittings can be used without any type of tool as taught by Aqua Fitting (fig.1).
Further, it would be obvious to try a push-connect fitting as there are limited mechanism to reversibly attach objects to the structure. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
PNG
media_image2.png
692
839
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig.1 Aqua Connect
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA H FUNK whose telephone number is (571)272-3785. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00pm ET.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571) 270-7001. 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.
/ERICA HARTSELL FUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1741