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 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.
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.
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.
Claims 41-51, 55-56, and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US 2017/0028628 A1, hereinafter Evans) in view of Novikov (US 2014/0284832 A1, hereinafter Novikov).
With regards to claim 41, Evans teaches a method of printing and curing of thermoset resin (Abstract, ¶ 0006) comprising outputting a thermoset resin (110) from an outlet (112) (¶ 0052, Fig. 1-4). Evans teaches directing a stimulus (118) from a stimulation source (116) toward a portion of the output thermoset resin (Fig. 4) in which the stimulus is configured to heat the portion of the output thermoset resin to fully cure the portion of the output thermoset resin (¶ 0058, 0084-0085).
With respect to the term “fully cure” in the claim it is noted that applicant’s specification defines the term “fully cure” as used herein to refer to at least 96% cured (See ¶ 0037 of the specification as filed). Evans explicitly notes a difference between the states of less than full or fully cured and a final state of cure or fully cured (¶ 0084, 0202, 0430, Fig. 32B) and the fully cured recitation in Evans is interpreted to read upon the claim term “fully cure” as the full cure of Evans is a substantially complete and final cured state explicitly distinct in the reference from not full or partial cure.
Evans teaches moving both the output and the stimulation source during printing (Fig. 1, Fig. 21, ¶0059). Evans teaches determining the amount of curing energy or stimulus needed during printing in order to achieve a desired degree of cure based on the particular thermosetting resin used and teaches that active determination can include real-time sensed data (¶ 0088-0089). Evans teaches that the resin is fully cured after deposition and is not fully cured prior to deposition (Fig. 32A). Evans thus inherently includes a curing front where the material transitions from not fully cured to fully cured.
Evans does not explicitly teach that the feed rate and movement speed of the output and stimulation source are determined as a function of a rate at which the resin cures and an amount of heat (stimulus) being added such that the outlet (112) remains a predetermined distance from the curing front of the thermoset resin.
In a similar field of endeavor, Novikov (US 2014/0284832) teaches a method of 3D printing comprising printing and curing a thermoset resin (Abstract, ¶ 0009). Novikov acknowledges that the rate of feed of the thermoset material is predetermined (¶ 0010) and the rate of movement of the nozzle is determined (¶ 0012) based upon the curing time of the thermoset material such that the material is completely cured by the time the print head moves the distance equal to the width of the print head aperture. Novikov additionally teaches the use of a stimulus (optional heater 5) towards a downstream portion in order to control curing speed (¶ 0083) in which the heater is attached and thus movement of the output and simulation source are in tandem. Novikov acknowledges that should the rate of extrusion be too slow the material may solidify in the nozzle (¶ 0067).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have the feed rate and movement speed of the output and stimulation source be determined as a function of a rate at which the resin cures and an amount of heat (stimulus) being added such that the outlet (112) remains a predetermined distance from the curing front of the thermoset resin in Evans as discussed in Novikov as both relate to the printing of thermosetting resin in which there is consideration for the curing of the thermoset after exiting the nozzle or outlet presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and doing so ensures that the material does not solidify within the nozzle as discussed in Novikov.
Regarding Claim 42, Evans teaches in [0356]-[0357] that the system and thus moving the output and the stimulation source is controlled by a computer controller, which is reasonably to characterize as a computer numerical control machine.
Regarding Claim 43, Evans teaches in [0052] that the thermoset resin is output from the outlet 112 of feeder 104 such that the feeder can be said to include a nozzle that defines the outlet.
Regarding Claim 44, Evans teaches in [0052] and [0110]-[0112] teaches that the thermoset resin is output from feeder 104 via outlet 112 wherein the outlet includes a roller 182 for directing the thermoset resin such that the feeder can be said to include a printhead.
Regarding Claim 45, Evans teaches in [0181] that the outlet 112 and stimulation source 116 are on the same pivoting arm, and thus can be said to be stationary relative to another when not pivoting to meet the claimed language.
Regarding Claim 46, Evans in [0093] discloses embodiments that include only one stimulation source.
Regarding Claim 47, Evans teaches in [0187]-[0188] that the stimulation source 116] is configured to trail outlet 112 when it moves to deliver curing energy to portion 124 directly exiting outlet 112, meeting the requirement that the portion of the output thermoset resin at which the stimulus is directed remains a predetermined distance from the outlet throughout extrusion of the thermoset resin.
Regarding Claim 48, Evans teaches in [0090] that the stimulus source may include a laser.
Regarding Claims 49-50, Evans teaches in [0092] that the stimulus source may include infrared or ultraviolet light.
Regarding Claim 51, Evans teaches in [0094] that the stimulus source may include visible light.
Regarding Claim 55, Evans teaches in [0060]-[0064] that the thermoset resin 106 includes an embedded reinforcing material 108.
Regarding Claim 56, Evans teaches in [0065] an embodiment with a single, and thus continuous, fiber as embedded reinforcing material 108.
Regarding Claim 60, Evans teaches throughout the disclosure, including in [0052], that the thermoset resin includes an epoxy.
Claims 52-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans and Novikov as applied to Claim 41 above, and further in view of Stockett et al. (US 2018/0207850 A1, hereinafter Stockett).
Regarding Claims 52 and 54, Evans and Novikov teach the method as applied above, but are silent about the possibility of using microwaves or ultrasonic waves as the stimulus.
In analogous art pertaining to 3D printing, Stockett teaches in [0018] that a known method of delivering stimulus to material being printed is with microwaves or ultrasonic waves, and thus it would have been obvious to use the known stimuli of microwaves or ultrasonic waves in the previous combination, since such a combination would be a simple substitution of one known stimulus for another to achieve the predictable result of stimulating the resin.
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans and Novikov as applied to Claim 41 above, and further in view of Tyler (US 2018/0235030 A1, hereinafter Tyler).
Regarding Claim 53, Evans and Novikov teach the method as applied above, but are silent about the possibility of using an electromagnet field as the stimulus.
In analogous art pertaining to 3D printing, Tyler teaches in [0029] that a known method of delivering heat to material being printed is with an electromagnetic field, and thus it would have been obvious to use the known stimulus of an electromagnetic field in the previous combination, since such a combination would be a simple substitution of one known stimulus for another to achieve the predictable result of stimulating the resin.
Claim 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans and Novikov as applied to Claim 55 above, and further in view of Barocio et al. (US 2019/0366639 A1, hereinafter Barocio).
Regarding Claim 57, Evans and Novikov teach the method as applied above, but are silent about the possibility of using discontinuous fibers as the embedded reinforcing material.
In analogous art pertaining to 3D printing, Barocio teaches in [0024] that discontinuous fibers are a known alternative to continuous fibers for reinforcement of thermosetting resins, and thus it would have been obvious to use the known alternative of discontinuous fibers in the previous combination, since such a combination would be a simple substitution of one known reinforcement for another to achieve the predictable result of reinforcing the resin.
Claims 58 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans and Novikov as applied to Claims 55 and 41 above, respectively, and further in view of Beyerle et al. (US 2019/0337220 A1, hereinafter Beyerle et al.).
Regarding Claim 58, Evans and Novikov teach the method as applied above, but are silent about the possibility of using nanoparticles as the embedded reinforcing material.
In analogous art pertaining to 3D printing, Beyerle teaches in [0037]-[0039] that nanocomposites are a known additive to thermosetting resins to achieve differing absorption or structural properties, and thus it would have been obvious to use the known additive of nanoparticles in the previous combination in order to achieve differing absorption or structural properties, with the effect of the additive including the nanoparticles comprising embedded reinforcing material.
Regarding Claim 61, Evans and Novikov teach the method as applied above, but are silent about the possibility of the thermoset resin including a polyurethane.
In analogous art pertaining to 3D printing, Beyerle teaches in [0037] that polyurethane is a known thermoset resin alternative to epoxy for use in 3D printingm and thus it would have been obvious to use the known polyurethane in the previous combination since such a combination would be a simple substitution of one known resin for another to achieve the predictable result thermoset 3D printing.
Claims 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans and Novikov as applied to Claims 55 and 41 above, respectively, and further in view of Warner et al. (US 2017/0251713 A1, hereinafter Warner).
Regarding Claim 59, Evans and Novikov teach the method as applied above, but are silent about the possibility of the thermoset resin including a cyclic olefin.
In analogous art pertaining to 3D printing, Warner teaches in [0022] that cyclic olefins are a known thermoset resin alternative to epoxy for use in 3D printing, and thus it would have been obvious to use a known cyclic olefin, such as dicyclopentadiene, in the previous combination since such a combination would be a simple substitution of one known resin for another to achieve the predictable result thermoset 3D printing.
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 41-61 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,993,018 in view of Evans.
Regarding Claim 41, Claim 1 of ‘018 teaches a device for printing and curing of thermoset resin in which the device comprises a feeder having an outlet for outputting a thermoset resin (line 3), a stimulation source structured to direct a stimulus toward a portion of the output thermoset resin that is downstream from the feeder in which the stimulus is configured to heat the portion of the output thermoset resin to fully cure the portion of the output thermoset resin (lines 4-8) and that the device is configured to have a feed rate of output of the thermoset resin from the outlet of the feeder and a movement speed of the CNC machine, which includes the stimulation source (line 9-10), be determined as a function of a rate at which the thermoset resin fully cures and an amount of heat being added to the portion of the thermoset resin by the stimulus such that the outlet of the feeder remains a predetermined distance from a curing front of the output thermoset resin (lines 11-19).
While Claim 1 of ‘018 teaches a device, the device’s claimed intended use is the printing and curing of the thermoset in a manner configured to have the predetermined distance as claimed. In a similar field of endeavor, Evans teaches that it is known in the art to use a device for printing and curing a thermoset resin for the method of printing and curing the thermoset resin and as such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the device of claim 1 of ‘018 to carry out printing and curing of the thermoset in the manner claimed as the intended use.
With regards to Claims 42-61, Claims 2-20 of ‘018 recite substantially the same limitations, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN M OCHYLSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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.
/RYAN M OCHYLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights