DETAILED ACTION
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 16 and 23 is 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 16 recites “a handling device comprising at least one actuator” in line 4, but then contradictorily states “the handling device comprising a plurality of actuators” in lines 9-10. Claim 23 recites “the at least one heat emitter” and “the heat emitter”, but these are contrary to “plurality of heat emitters” in claim 22.
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.
Claims 16, 18, 19, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen (CN 105711095) in view of Meilunas (US 6,484,776).
As to claim 16 and 27, Shen teaches a device for additive manufacturing. Shen provides a work surface (1) and a handling device comprising a plurality of actuators (linear stepper motors 15) which support the work surface (1) and are capable of locally forming the work surface (such as to accommodate model 16) by raising or lowering (pushing or pulling) portions of the work surface. The Shen work surface is divided into a plurality of deformation zones arranged according to a desired profile (under control of a program) and the actuators (linear stepper motors 15) are selectively activatable independently from the others. Shen teaches a plurality of discrete elements which each define a respective deformation zone. Shen additionally teaches an extrusion head with the device discussed above for deposition of material (Background Technique, “extruded”).
Shen is silent to a plurality of discrete elements (4) having a cone or pyramid shape and a concurrent base to define the second face of the work surface, as require in claim 16. Instead, Shen is interpreted to provide a non-concurrent base.
Meilunas teaches a system for supporting a laminate comprising a plurality of discrete elements (114) and a concurrent base (110) which defines a topologically deformable work surface having a first surface on which an object can be formed and a second face positioned against the discrete elements.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing because one would have recognized this configuration to be an improvement over that already taught by Shen. Shen teaches reconfigurable tooling comprising discrete pins controlled by a computer, but the Meilunas base (110) and conical pins provide an interpolating layer that produces a smoother layer with less dimpling (2:19-23) and greater flexibility/adaptability (2:38). The Meilunas device represents a comparable apparatus improved in the same way as the claimed invention and one could have applied this known improvement in the same way to Shen to provide the same benefits. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized these Meilunas apparatus features to be an obvious interchangeable substitute for the similar reconfigurable pins already taught by Shen. One of ordinary skill could have substituted one element for another and the results would have been predictable (less dimpling, greater flexibility).
As to claims 18 and 19, Shen in view of Meilunas is interpreted to provide linear actuators (Shen, linear stepper motors 15) which is capable/configured to tilt the entire work surface with respect to horizontal. The Meilunas conical pins meet the claimed orientation actuators and are capable of being coupled to respective vertices of the work surface for independent movement.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen (CN 105711095) in view of Meilunas (US 6,484,776), and further in view of Lancaster-Larocque (US 20170087769). Shen and Meilunas teach the subject matter of claim 16 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 17, Shen is silent to a corrugated first face.
Lancaster-Larocque teaches a build surface may have a rougher texture that may include grooves ([0047]), interpreted to be a corrugated face.
One would have been motivated to incorporate these features from Lancaster-Larocque into Shen in order to provide an interlock between printed material and the build surface.
There would have been a reasonable expectation success in light of the fact that both Shen and Lancaster-Larocque are directed to additive manufacturing systems and the Shen build surface would benefit from the texture.
Claims 20-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen (CN 105711095) in view of Meilunas (US 6,484,776), and further in view of Werosky (US 4,621,995). Shen and Meilunas teach the subject matter of claim 16 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claims 20-22 and 24, Shen is silent to heating the second face of the work surface for temperature regulation, and to the other features recited in claims 21, 22, and 24.
Werosky teaches a device that meets the claimed thermoregulator (Abstract, “Gas heating”) using jet nozzles that locally regulate a temperature a plurality of distinct areas using plurality of heat emitters (Abstract, jet nozzles, valve assembly). When the gas is heated, the jet nozzles are interpreted to emit infrared heat.
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the jet nozzles, gas heating, and valve assembly of Werosky into Shen because this is the application of a known technique to a known device to achieve a predictable result (heating of a mold). Shen teaches a base device (thin mold or sheet) without heating, but the prior art contained a known device applicable to thin molds, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying a heating device to Shen would yield a predictable result (temperature control) and an improved system (article maintained at a desired temperature).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen (CN 105711095) in view of Meilunas (US 6,484,776), and further in view of Ready (US 20160325501). Shen and Meilunas teach the subject matter of claim 16 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 25, Shen is silent to a heat device facing the first face of the work surface and configured to regulate a temperature of material deposited on the work surface.
Ready teaches a printing device (FDM, [0008]) and an infrared heater subsystem ([0042]) which would inherently regulate a temperature of material deposited on a work surface.
One would have been motivated to incorporate these features from Ready into Shen in order to provide the particular inter/post deposition treatments required of the deposited materials, such as curing and/or setting conditions (Ready, [0032]). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in light of the fact that both Shen and Ready are directed to additive manufacturing systems and the Shen material would benefit from the Ready treatment to enhance curing or setting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23 and 26 are 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: For claim 23, the prior art does not show a movable heat emitter configured as claimed. There is no apparent motivation to move the Werosky device. For claim 26, the prior art simply does not teach or render obvious the thermal camera and control unit configured to determine a tension stress of the object from the images and activate the handling device to minimize the stress.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 pm.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742