DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of invention and/or species, and corresponding claims is acknowledged. The election has been made without traverse. Non-elected claims are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
“free surface” is understood to mean the external surface
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) 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In reference to claim 12, The Office finds the limitation “granule-like” is indefinite. Regarding claim, the term "-like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "-like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7-11, 13, 15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Davis (US 20160279882 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Davis (US 20160279882 A1)
In reference to claim 1, Davis discloses a method for producing a plastic component of defined geometric target dimensions (“form a desired geometric object.” [P0037] and “defining a desired boundary for the object” [Claim 1]. See Fig 1), comprising:
forming an integral or multi-part main body structure in an additive manufacturing process, wherein the main body structure is configured having an undersize with respect to the defined geometric target dimensions (“printing layers conformally about an object's natural boundary to form a desired geometric object.” [P0037]; See Fig 1, portion shown below, and description thereof. See Claim 1, annotated below; and, “the layers can be printed conformally on the initial object to create the desired object” [P0007]);
attaching at least one shell element, which encases the main body structure, onto the free surface of the main body structure, forming the plastic component to be produced (“the layers can be printed conformally on the initial object to create the desired object” [P0007]),
wherein a shell element is used, the wall thickness of which counteracts the undersize of the main body structure with respect to the defined geometric target dimensions of the plastic component (See Fig 1-2 and descriptions thereof).
Davis anticipates the claim when the initial object with one layer is considered the main body.
PNG
media_image1.png
272
451
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Davis does not anticipate the claim when the initial object with zero layers is considered the main body.
Davis does not describe how the initial object is made. It would be obvious to form the initial object using additive manufacturing in order to customize the shape of the initial object. As evidenced by Davis, additive manufacturing was known.
In reference to claim 2 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. See “material deposited by the print head 304 can be a polymer” (P0089)
In reference to claim 4 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. See Fig 1 and description thereof.
In reference to claim 6 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
See “benefit of the above-described conformal AM processes is the ability to create hollow features” (P0080) and Fig 11-12 and descriptions thereof.
In reference to claim 7 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. See Fig 1B. The layer closest to the main body can be considered the attachment layer.
In reference to claim 8 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. See Fig 1B. The layer closest to the initial object can be considered the functional layer. Depositing material from a printhead onto an object will reduce surface irregularities (e.g., when a coating is applied to a piece of wood, surface irregularities are smoothed out). See Fig
In reference to claim 9-11 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. See Fig 1B. The layer closest to the initial object can be considered the surface structuring layer. It would be obvious to make the surface structure of the object not non-stick with respect to the next layer. See P0008 (“instruct the print head to deposit material in the pluraity of layers conformally on the object between the initial boundary and the desired boundary to form the object”)
In reference to claim 13 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. See “additive methods to fabricate antennas and electronics onto/into mechanical components” (P0036). Electronic and mechanical components encompass car parts.
In reference to claim 15 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. See “polymer… waxes” (P0089)
In reference to claim 17-18 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. See Fig 1B. The layer closest to the initial object can be considered the surface structuring layer. It would be obvious to make the surface structure of the object not non-stick with respect to the next layer. See P0008 (“instruct the print head to deposit material in the pluraity of layers conformally on the object between the initial boundary and the desired boundary to form the object”)
In reference to claim 19 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. See “additive methods to fabricate antennas and electronics onto/into mechanical components” (P0036). Electronic and mechanical components encompass car parts.
In reference to claim 20 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. See Fig 1-2 and description thereof.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Davis (US 20160279882 A1) in view of Hooper (US 20170037674 A1)
In reference to claim 12 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. Davis does not disclose starting with granules.
In the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, 3d printing (title), Hooper discloses a similar process and explains that it was known to provide material to the print head as a granule-like material (“powders” [P0118])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the material as a granule-like material in order to achieve the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Conclusion
Any prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 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, Xiao Zhao can be reached on 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744