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 .
Note
Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claim(s) 1-12 is/are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under the following conditions. The process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (See MPEP 2114 II and 2115 for further details).
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.
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:
“a releasable locking mechanism for maintaining the rods in the positions that forms the negative relief” with corresponding structure/scope disclosed at least in of Applicant’s published application [0013] and [0055] of instant publication.
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.
Other Claim Interpretation
The term “light transmitting rods” has been interpreted below as rods made of light transmitting or clear materials such as transparent glass or plastic in view of [0050] of Applicant’s published application.
The recitations “for use with a stereolithographic printer for composite manufacturing of a shaped object”, “when a shaping surface having a shape is pressed against the first end surfaces of the rods to thereby position the second end surfaces of the rods to form a negative relief of the shape of the shaping surface”, “such that when a source of light is applied to the rods the second end surfaces of the rods have a power density of greater than 0.2 mW/cm2, wherein the power density is measured by an ILT 2400 radiometer (International Light Technologies) with a sensor having a 320-450 nm range”, “when a pressure of from about 0.01 to less than 120 MPa is exerted in an axial direction on the second ends of the rods” are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use not adding additional structure to the claimed apparatus. See Note above.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 8, 10, and 12 is/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.
Claims 4 and 10 recite the limitation “such that when a source of light is applied to the rods the second end surfaces of the rods have a power density of greater than 0.2 mW/cm2, wherein the power density is measured by an ILT 2400 radiometer (International Light Technologies) with a sensor having a 320-450 nm range” which is indefinite because it attempts to define/limit a property/function of claimed entities (i.e. second end surfaces of the rods) in terms of unclaimed entities (i.e. source of light, ILT 2400 radiometer, and sensor) not forming part of the claimed invention. It is unclear how the recited features that are not part of claimed reconfigurable tool further limit the claimed reconfigurable tool. Thus, the scope of the claim is unclear.
Claims 8 and 12 recite the limitation “an axial direction” which is indefinite. It is unclear if the axial direction of claims 8 and 12 is same or different from the axial direction introduced in claim. The limitation has been examined below as if it read --the axial direction--.
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) 1-7 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fischer (US 20040159974).
Regarding claim 1, Fischer discloses a reconfigurable tool (100: P0024, 0045, 0065, Fig. 1) suitable for use with a stereolithographic printer for composite manufacturing of a shaped object (due to the transparent materials used for the tool 100, the tool 100 is expected to be suitable for use with a stereolithographic printer: P0034, 0056-0057, MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115; the tool 100 is also suitable for composite manufacturing/molding of a shaped object: P0048, 0057-0058), comprising:
a bundle of a plurality of light transmitting rods (a pin assembly comprising a plurality of pins 20 made of polycarbonate material which is an inherent light transmitting material and having rod-shape reads on the claimed bundle: P0008, 0024-0025, Fig. 1), each rod having a longitudinal axis, a diameter and first and second end surfaces (P0025, Fig. 1), said rods being arranged in parallel (P0025, Fig. 1), and each said rod being independently movable in an axial direction (z-direction) relative to other said rods (P0024, 0032, 0041) when a shaping surface having a shape is pressed against the first end surfaces of the rods to thereby position the second end surfaces of the rods to form a negative relief of the shape of the shaping surface (P0044-0045; the pins being independently movable the z-direction are expected to be capable of operating/functioning in the claimed manner: MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115), and
a releasable locking mechanism for maintaining the rods in the positions that forms the negative relief (means such as a piston for fixing the pins in the z-coordinate positions that forms the negative/shaping relief and for releasing the pins from their fixed position when desired such as after molding: P0045, 0027; thus, the fixing means is functionally and/or structurally with the claimed locking mechanism, and therefore, it reads on the claimed releasable locking mechanism). Thus, Fischer discloses the reconfigurable tool substantially as claimed by applicant.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Fischer further discloses wherein each of the first and second end surfaces of the rods has a diameter of from about 0.5 mm to about 3 mm or from about 1 mm to about 2 mm (the specific example of diameters for the first and second end surfaces of the pins of 3/32 inches which is about 2.4 mm and 1/16 inches which is about 1.6 mm anticipates the first claimed range and overlaps/touches the second claimed range: P0034; the diameter can be the same at the end surfaces and can be 1 mm for the benefits of increasing resolution: P0030, 0010, 0025, 0039; Fischer further discloses that the diameter of the pins is optimizable: P0030, 0067).
Regarding claim 3, Fischer further discloses wherein the rods have a length of from about 10 mm to about 100 mm (the length of the pins is about 17/8 inches which is about 54 mm: P0034; Fischer further discloses that the length of the pins is optimizable: P0029, 0067).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Fischer further implicitly/inherently discloses wherein the rods are transparent (pins 20 made of polycarbonate material which is an inherent transparent material: P0056; the taught polycarbonate material reads on the disclosed transparent material: [0050] of Applicant’s published application), such that when a source of light is applied to the rods the second end surfaces of the rods have a power density of greater than 0.2 mW/cm2 or 0.5 mW/cm2, wherein the power density is measured by an ILT 2400 radiometer (International Light Technologies) with a sensor having a 320-450 nm range (since the taught pins and the claimed rods are patentably indistinct in terms of structure and composition, the second end surfaces of the taught pins are expected to inherently have a power density of greater than 0.2 mW/cm2 or 0.5 mW/cm2 when/if a source of light is applied to the second end surfaces of the rods and the power density is measured by an ILT 2400 radiometer with a sensor having a 320-450 nm range: See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I-II, 2114 I-II, and 2115).
Regarding claim 5, Fischer further discloses/suggests wherein the locking mechanism is a pneumatic clamp (P0045).
Regarding claim 6, Fischer discloses wherein the rods have a square cross-section (P0010, 0025, 0039).
Regarding claims 7 and 11, Fischer further implicitly/inherently discloses wherein the rods have a mechanical strength in the axial direction of from about 50 MPa to about 150 MPa or about 100 MPa to about 130 MPa (since the taught pins and the claimed rods are patentably indistinct in terms of structure and composition as discussed in claim 4 above, the taught pins are expected to inherently have the claimed mechanical strength: See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I-II, 2114 I-II, and 2115). Additionally, since Fischer further discloses to select the dimensions and composition of the pins to optimize the strength of the pins to withstand the load exerted upon the pins without deforming during the molding process (P0030, 0056), the load exerted on the pins in the axial direction is expected to be highest/greatest, and the axial pressure for molding composites is expected/preferably high, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the tool of Fischer in view of ordinarily knowledge by providing to the rods a mechanical strength in the axial direction within the claimed range(s) for the benefit(s) preventing deformation/breakage of the rods during the molding process.
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer as applied to claim 1 above, alone or further in view of Legum (US 20220371244) and/or Scheurer (EP 0733454 A2 with English machine translation - attached).
Regarding claims 8 and 12, Fischer further discloses/suggests wherein the locking mechanism is configured to maintain the rods in place when a pressure of from about 0.01 to less than 120 MPa or from about 0.02 to less than 50 MPa is exerted in the axial direction on the second ends of the rods (the taught fixing means is configured for maintaining the fixed positions of the pins in place during molding: P0008, 0027, 0045; wherein the molding pressure is expected to be at least 0.02 MPa which is within the claimed range for enabling injection molding or molding of composite material: P0047-0048, 0050, 0056, 0061).
Alternatively, in the same field of endeavor, reconfigurable tools with reconfigurable rods, Legum discloses a locking mechanism consisting of mechanical clamps (116 and 118) configured to maintain the rods in place when injection tonnage and resin pressure is exerted in the axial direction on second ends of the rods for the benefit(s) of maintaining the shape of the reconfigurable tool during molding (P0069-0070, 0080, Fig. 14). Legum also discloses that reconfigurable tools with reconfigurable rods are suitable for use in additive manufacturing machines (P0114). Since the taught and claimed/disclosed locking mechanisms are patentably indistinct in terms of structure, the taught locking mechanism is expected to be capable of achieving the claimed function/operation. See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I-II, 2114 I-II, and 2115.
In the same field of endeavor, reconfigurable tools with reconfigurable rods, Scheurer discloses a locking mechanism consisting of mechanical or pneumatic clamps (12 and 13) configured to maintain the rods (10) in place when pressure is exerted in the axial direction on first and second ends of the rods for the benefit(s) of maintaining the shape of reconfigurable tool during molding (Abstract, pp. 2- 3, Fig. 1). Since the taught and claimed/disclosed locking mechanisms are patentably indistinct in terms of structure, the taught locking mechanism is expected to be capable of achieving the claimed function/operation. See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I-II, 2114 I-II, and 2115.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the tool of Fischer in view of Legum and/or Scheurer by using mechanical or pneumatic clamps as the locking mechanism and configuring the locking mechanism to maintain the rods in place when a pressure within the claimed ranges such as 1 MPa is exerted in the axial direction on the second ends of the rods for the benefit(s) of maintaining the shape of the reconfigurable tool during molding as suggested by Legum and/or Scheurer. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I D, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Conclusion
Additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered to be pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure.
Neill (US 20220219402) discloses the use/incorporation of reconfigurable tools/surfaces in additive manufacturing machines such as in a stereolithographic printer (P0002, 0107, 0205). Neill (US 20220219402) discloses the desire to monitor and control optical properties such as optical energy distribution (i.e., W/cm2) applied to second/bottom surfaces of reconfigurable light transmitting elements by proving a source of light, a sensor, and a controller for the benefit(s) of delivering a desired optical energy distribution to the reconfigurable light transmitting elements and the molding material (P0224, 0237-0238, Fig. 37C).
Siagam (US 20150084237) discloses the use of reconfigurable tools/surfaces for curved composite manufacturing (P0007-0013, Figures).
Aitken (US 20200307130) discloses the technique of using radiometer model ILT2400 equipped with an XRD340A sensor to detect and/or set light intensities of molding surfaces (P0172, 0182).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0625. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00-10:00 PM PT.
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.
JERZI H. MORENO HERNANDEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743