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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding the section headings, “FILD” should read “FIELD” and “BACKGROUD” should read “BACKGROUND” on pg. 1 of the disclosure.
On pg. 2, line 1 of the disclosure, “The” should be lowercased to “the” and “a” should read “an.”
On pg. 3, line 19, “with a outlet” should read “with an outlet.”
On pg. 4, line 6, the caption “perspective view of compound bow riser and a bow cam” does not describe the elements in Fig. 1.
On pg. 6, line 15, “a accommodation cavity” should read “an accommodation cavity.”
On pg. 8, lines 1 and 9, “driving member 41” should read “drive component 41” as previously recited.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “rolling mechanism” and “heating mechanism” in claim 1.
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.
With regards to the rolling mechanism, the structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function is a first roller set comprising a first roller and a second roller and/or a second roller set comprising a third roller and a fourth roller. See claims 2 and 3, page 2, lines 13-15 and the second to last paragraph of the as-filed Specification on 07/08/2024; and Figure 3.
With regards to the heating mechanism, the structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function is not specifically identified nor shown in any of the drawings. At best, page 2 of the as-filed specification says “the heating mechanism is installed in the accommodating cavity. Wherein the heating mechanism is used to heat and dry the consumables on the reel.” In other words, the specification only generally indicates the location or positioning of this heating mechanism but does not indicate what specific structure it is.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a heating mechanism…wherein the heating mechanism is installed in the accommodating cavity; wherein the heating mechanism is used to heat and dry the consumables on the reel;”
Looking to the 07/08/2024 Specification, the claimed heating mechanism is not specifically identified nor shown in any of the drawings. At best, page 2 of the as-filed specification says “the heating mechanism is installed in the accommodating cavity. Wherein the heating mechanism is used to heat and dry the consumables on the reel.” In other words, the specification only generally indicates the location or positioning of this heating mechanism but does not indicate what specific structure it is nor how or where it’s specifically positioned within the accommodation cavity as it relates to the heating and drying of the consumables.
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the claims contain subject matter that is not sufficiently described in the specification to reasonably convey that the Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
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 1-10 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “the accommodating cavity” has a lack of antecedent basis since “an accommodation cavity” is recited in line 3. “The accommodating cavity” should be amended to read “the accommodation cavity” to correct this issue. The accommodating cavity is also recited in lines 5-6 of claim 1; line 8 of claim 1; and claims 2-4.
Regarding Claim 1, The limitation “the driving mechanism” also has a lack of antecedent basis since “a drive mechanism” is recited in line 2. “The driving mechanism” should be amended to read “the drive mechanism” to correct this issue. The driving mechanism is also recited in lines 8-9 of claim 1; line 12 of claim 1; and claim 7.
Regarding Claim 1, The limitation "the top of the base is provided with an upper cover" in line 11 renders the claim indefinite since line 2 of claim 1 already introduces "an upper cover." It is unclear whether the upper cover in line 11 is the same as the one in line 2 or an additional one.
For examination purposes, the Examiner presumes these two upper covers are one and the same. To overcome this rejection, “an upper cover" in line 11 can be amended to read "the upper cover."
Regarding Claim 2, the limitation “the driving component” has a lack of antecedent basis since “a drive component” is recited in line 18. “The driving component” should be amended to read “the drive component” to correct this issue. The driving component is also recited in lines 19-20 of claim 2; and claim 6.
Regarding Claim 2, “the cam” in the 3rd to last line renders the claim indefinite, since the line above says, “cams are fixedly connected at both ends of the rotating shaft.” It’s unclear, by reciting “the cam” which cam of the plurality of cams (i.e. “cams”) is being referred to.
For examination purposes, the cam will be presumed to be a cam at either end of the rotating shaft.
Moreover, the limitation “the two anti-slip rings” has a lack of antecedent basis since “an anti-slip ring” is recited in line 23. It is unclear if more than one anti-slip ring is required. For examination purposes, claim 2 will be examined so that anti-slip rings, on each of the cams, are required.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitation "wherein the rolling mechanism comprises a second roller set" renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear if two roller sets are required, or just one roller set. In other words, a second set may imply a first set being present. To overcome this rejection, one option would be to amend claim 3 so that it depends on claim 2, which introduces a first roller set.
For examination purposes, claim 3 will be examined as if two roller sets are required.
Moreover, the limitation “the two anti-slip rings” in the second to last line of claim 3 have a lack of antecedent basis.
It appears that the Applicant may have intended for claim 3 to depend from claim 2.
Examiner Note: With regards to claim 2, the second to last two lines as noted above have issues of indefiniteness and also claims two anti-slip rings engaging with the first roller. Based on the Examiner’s review of the disclosure and drawings, it is only one anti-slip ring engaging with the first roller. With regards to claim 3, the limitation of two anti-slip rings respectively engaging with a first and third roller is correct. However, the anti-slip rings have a lack of antecedent basis.
It seems as if claim 3 was intended to depend from claim 2. The introduction of slip rings and how they engage with rollers in claims 2 and 3 should be amended to overcome the above issues of indefiniteness, consistent with the disclosure.
Regarding Claim 4, the limitation “the first bearing base” has a lack of antecedent basis since “a first bearing seat” is recited in line 5. “A first bearing seat” should be amended to read “the first bearing base” to correct this issue and support the disclosure.
Regarding Claim 4, the limitation “the two adjacent second bearing bases” also has no antecedent basis since “a second bearing seat” is recited in line 9.
Regarding Claim 4, the limitation “the fixed base” also has a lack of antecedent basis since “a fixing base” is recited in line 11. “The fixing base” should be amended to read “the fixed base” to correct this issue and support the disclosure.
Claims 2-10 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1.
Claim limitation “heating mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
With regards to the heating mechanism, the structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function is not specifically identified nor shown in any of the drawings. At best, page 2 of the as-filed specification says “the heating mechanism is installed in the accommodating cavity. Wherein the heating mechanism is used to heat and dry the consumables on the reel.” In other words, the specification only generally indicates the location or positioning of this heating mechanism but does not indicate what specific structure it is.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 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, 4, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US20210339430, hereinafter Chen) in view of Mei et al. (CN113371540A, hereinafter Mei).
Note: reference is made to the attached Chinese to English translation of Mei ‘540 A.
Regarding Claim 1, Chen discloses a drying oven for 3D printing materials (see abstract), comprising a base (base 1, Fig. 1), a rolling mechanism (front rotating shaft 42 and rear rotating shaft 44, Fig. 2; see para. 0059), a heating mechanism (fan 32 + heating plate 31 + spoiler 112 are collectively a mechanism for functionally providing heat, Fig. 2), an upper cover (upper cover 2, Fig. 1), and a reel (reel 5, Fig. 2);
wherein the top of the base is provided with an accommodation cavity (see the annotated figure, below, which identifies the designated accommodating cavity located at the top of the base – it’s noted that this designated accommodation cavity is substantially the same as the designated accommodation cavity 11 as shown in Figure 2 of Applicant’s Drawings); wherein the accommodation cavity is provided with a clapboard (see Fig. 3 and the annotated figure below, unlabeled but a structure equivalent to the claimed clapboard is present);
wherein the rolling mechanism is installed in the accommodating cavity (para. 0015-0016); the rolling mechanism is used to carry the reel (para. 0046); wherein the heating mechanism is installed in the accommodating cavity (as noted above, the heating mechanism encompasses 32 + 31 + 112. At least 112, which is part of the mechanism, is installed in the accommodating cavity. As can be seen from Figure 2, the spoiler 112 runs continuous with the clapboard which is also in the accommodation cavity); wherein the heating mechanism is used to heat and dry the consumables on the reel (para. 0030);
wherein the top of the base is provided with an upper cover (base 1 and upper cover 2, Fig. 1); the bottom surface of the upper cover is open (“The upper cover 2 is covered on the base 1, and a sealing cavity is formed between the upper cover 2 and the base 1.”; para. 0041); wherein the rolling mechanism and the heating mechanism are all located directly below the upper cover (rotating shaft assembly 4 and heating plate 31; see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
688
958
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner note: Chen calls element 11 an accommodating cavity at a “middle” of the base. See para. 0013. However, it’s respectfully noted that the designated accommodating cavity (that reads on claim 1) in the annotated figure above, is structurally equivalent to the accommodating cavity 11 as shown in Applicant’s Figure 2, i.e. Applicant’s accommodating cavity is defined by the clapboard, the rolling mechanism 2, and the reel 5. Figure 2 of Chen equivalently shows a reel 5, an unlabeled clapboard, and rolling mechanisms in this designated area (cavity).
Chen does not teach a drive mechanism installed in the accommodating cavity; wherein the driving mechanism is used to drive the rolling mechanism to rotate and to drive the reel on the rolling mechanism to rotate. However, it’s noted that Chen highly suggests that there is, or would be desired a drive mechanism, since multiple paragraphs in Chen’s disclosure mention the rolling mechanism moving. Chen is only silent to how this is occurring. See at least paragraphs 0049 and 0051.
Mei discloses a wire and cable winding device (see abstract) which is analogous art to the 3D printing consumables drying machine of the claimed invention. The wire and cable winding device of Mei is used for cleaning the surface of cables; however, the device includes a base (bottom plate 1) for supporting the device, a reel (winding mechanism 2) for holding and rotating the wound cable, and a drive mechanism (drying branched chain 56) comprising of bevel gears (first bevel gear 567 and second bevel gear 568) for drying the wound cable, similar to the claimed invention. The function and structure of these components are similar to those of the claimed invention; therefore, the wire and cable winding device of Mei can be considered analogous art to the 3D printing consumables drying machine of the claimed invention.
In other words, Mei discloses a known drive mechanism for rotating a shaft (569). There is a driving motor (565), which rotates a rotating shaft (566), causing the bevel gears (567-568 to rotate) to synchronously rotate, in turn rotating the flapping post (569). See Figure 10, the upper right section of Figure 6 which shows the drive mechanism fixed to a connecting frame 51, and the highlighted portions of the attached translation.
As noted above, Chen has a strong suggestion for the desire of a driving mechanism, since a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it necessary to incorporate a means to drive the rotating shafts (42, 44).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen by applying the teachings of Mei to Chen, i.e. incorporating a drive mechanism/driving mechanisms, similar to the one taught by Mei, within the accommodating cavity, beneath the upper cover (such as incorporating a drive mechanism/drive mechanisms on the unlabeled floor base/clapboard that holds the spoiler 112 and in Figure 3 of Chen, so that they engage with the rotating shaft/s of the rolling mechanism), to provide a known means to drive the rolling mechanism (having rotating shafts 421, 422, 441, and/or 442) and effectively rotate the reel, as would be desired.
Regarding Claim 4, Chen as modified above discloses the 3D printing consumables drying machine of claim 1, wherein the end of the third roller and the first roller that is away from each other and the end of the fourth roller and the second roller that is away from each other are both rotatably connected to a first bearing seat (first support 411, Fig. 3); wherein the first bearing base is fixedly mounted on the side wall of the accommodating cavity (see Fig. 3); wherein the third roller and the first roller, which are adjacent to each other (first front rotating shaft 421 and second front rotating shaft 422, Fig. 3), and the fourth roller and the second roller, which are also adjacent to each other (first rear rotating shaft 441 and second rear rotating shaft 442, Fig. 3), are both connected to a second bearing seat in a way that allows them to rotate (fourth support 431, Fig. 3); wherein the outer surfaces of each of the two adjacent second bearing bases are fixedly sleeved with a fixing base (not labeled but see Fig. 3); wherein the fixing base is fixedly mounted on the clapboard (see Fig. 3); wherein the rotating shaft is disposed through the fixed base and is rotatably connected to the fixed base (first front rotating shaft 421, second front rotating shaft 422, see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 10, Chen as modified above discloses the 3D printing consumables drying machine of claim 1, wherein the bottom of the base is provided with anti-slip pads (pads 12, see Fig. 1, para 0062 of Chen) around the periphery.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US20210339430, hereinafter Chen) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Mei et al. (CN113371540A, hereinafter Mei), and further in view of Chen et al (CN215396247U, hereinafter Chen ‘247).
Note: reference is made to the attached Chinese to English translation of Chen ‘247.
Regarding Claim 8, Chen as modified above discloses the 3D printing consumables drying machine of claim 1, wherein the top of the upper cover is provided with an outlet hole (discharge ports 23 and backup discharge port 24, Fig. 1; para. 0060-0061 of Chen); wherein the top of the upper cover is also provided with an exhaust vent (air outlet 21, Fig. 1).
Chen does not teach an outlet hole on the side wall of the base.
Chen ‘247 discloses a 3D printing consumable stoving box (see abstract), wherein the side wall of the base is provided with an outlet hole (wire outlet hole 160 on side wall of storage cavity 110, see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Chen as modified above by applying the teachings of Chen ‘247, i.e. including wire outlet holes on the side wall of the drying machine, to allow for easy removal of consumables from the device (Claim 9 of Chen ‘247).
Furthermore, Chen already discloses outlet holes 23 and 24 at the top of the base. Moving one of these outlet holes to the sidewall of the base would amount to a mere rearrangement of parts, which appears obvious per MPEP 2144.04, Section VI-C. The outlet holes 23 and 24 facilitate the removal of consumable; and the outlet hole, whether being at the top of the cover or the sidewall of the base, would appear to function in the same manner. The specific positioning of the claimed outlet hole at the side wall of the base does not appear to be critical following Examiner’s consultation of the Applicant’s disclosure.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US20210339430, hereinafter Chen ‘430) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Mei et al. (CN113371540A, hereinafter Mei), and further in view of Liu et al. (CN216708375, hereinafter Liu) and Zhang (CN219404985).
Regarding Claim 9, Chen ‘430 as modified above discloses the 3D printing consumables drying machine of claim 1, and
Chen ‘430 as modified above does not teach a transparent upper cover or a handle on top of the upper cover.
Liu discloses a 3D consumptive material drying equipment (see abstract) that features a transparent upper cover (upper cover 2 is a transparent plastic part).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen ‘430 as modified above to make the upper cover transparent as taught by Liu. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the upper cover out of a transparent material for the purpose of allowing operators to observe the condition of the material within the 3D printing consumables drying machine (lines 1-3, pg. 8 of Liu).
Liu does not teach a handle at the top of the upper cover.
Zhang discloses a wire raw material flushing device which is analogous art to the 3D printing consumables drying machine of the claimed invention. The wire raw material flushing device of Zhang is used for gently cleaning and drying wire; however, the device includes a base (bottom plate 6) for supporting the device, a driving mechanism (driving mechanism 7) comprising of a gear train (first gear 73 and second gear 74) for driving the rotation of the drying assembly, and a heating mechanism (drying assembly 10) for drying the rotating wire, similar to the claimed invention. The function and structure of these components are similar to those of the claimed invention; therefore, the wire raw material flushing device of Zhang can be considered analogous art to the 3D printing consumables drying machine of the claimed invention.
Zhang teaches a handle at the top of the upper cover (handle welded to upper surface of tank cover, see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen ‘430 as modified above to add a handle at the top of the upper cover as taught by Zhang. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add a handle at the top of the upper cover for the purpose of enabling the user to carry the device (Claim 4 of Zhang).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US20210339430, hereinafter Chen ‘430) in view of Mei et al. (CN113371540A, hereinafter Mei) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (CN215396247U, hereinafter Chen ‘247).
Note: reference is made to the Chinese to English translation of Chen ‘247.
Regarding Claim 7, Chen ‘430 as modified above discloses the 3D printing consumables drying machine of claim 1.
However, modified Chen ‘430 does not disclose that the surface of the clapboard is provided with a desiccant tank and a through hole; wherein the driving mechanism is located in the through hole.
Chen ‘247 discloses a 3D printing consumables drying box (see abstract) comprising, on the surface of sidewalls of a cavity (storage cavity 110, Fig. 3), a desiccant tank (groove-like structure 150 used for storing desiccant, para. n0028, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify, modified Chen ‘430, by applying the teachings of Chen ‘247 to modified Chen ‘430, i.e. incorporating a desiccant tank on the surface of Chen ‘430’s clapboard for the benefit of adsorbing moisture and keeping the consumables dry as desired, as suggested in para. 0028 of Chen ‘247 (see image below).
With
PNG
media_image2.png
581
729
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regards to the through hole in the clapboard, modified Chen ‘430 is silent to this feature. However, as noted above per the rejection to claim 1, a drive mechanism would need to be incorporated into Chen ‘430. If the drive mechanism, as a suitable or alternative option to how its incorporated into Chen ‘430, was incorporated at the bottom surface of Chen ‘430’s base (i.e. positioned on the surface from which fan 111 extends), then it is the Examiner’s position that a through hole would necessarily have to be in the clapboard in order for the drive mechanism to reach and engage with the rolling mechanism(s) and ultimately rotate the reel. Thus, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position the drive mechanism as noted above, and add a through hole in the clapboard for the purpose of allowing the drive mechanism to engage with the rollers and drive the reel on the rolling mechanism to rotate. The inclusion of a through hole in the clapboard is a consequence of where the drive mechanism is positioned, and the specific positioning of the drive mechanism doesn’t appear to be critical.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, and 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior art most closely related to the claimed invention belongs to:
Chen et al. (US20210339430) which teaches a base (base 1, Fig. 1), a rolling mechanism (front rotating shaft 42 and rear rotating shaft 44, Fig. 2; see para. 0059), a heating mechanism (heating plate 31, Fig. 2), an upper cover (upper cover 2, Fig. 1), a reel (reel 5, Fig. 2), an accommodation cavity (accommodating cavity 11), a first roller set (front rotating shaft base 41, Fig. 3), and a second roller set (rear rotating shaft base 43, Fig. 3).
Mei et al. (CN113371540A) which teaches a drive mechanism (see Fig. 10), a drive component (rotating shaft 566, Fig. 10), a first bevel gear (first bevel gear 567), and a second bevel gear (second bevel gear 568).
Prior art was not found to teach, suggest, or make obvious the specific limitation of: cams are fixedly connected at both ends of the rotating shaft; wherein the outer circumference of the cam is fixedly sleeved with an anti-slip ring; wherein the raised ends of the two anti-slip rings are in contact with the outer surface of the first roller, wherein the protruding ends of the two anti-slip rings are in contact with the outer surfaces of the first roller and the third roller respectively, wherein the outer circumference of the cam is provided with a groove; wherein the anti-slip ring is embedded in the groove.
Claims 5 and 6 have allowable subject matter since they depend from claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, no prior art has been applied to reject the claim at this time, however the claim as presently written has indefinite issues as noted above. It appears that claim 3 may have been intended to depend from claim 2, since the claim makes reference to two anti-slip rings respectively engaging with the first and third rollers. Amending claim 3 to address the indefinite issues may change the scope of the claim in a way that would necessitate further search and/or consideration. However, making an additional amendment to make claim 3 dependent on claim 2 may likely result in claim 3 having allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANEISA S JANGBAHADUR whose telephone number is (571)272-0813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 a.m.- 5 p.m. 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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/ANEISA SAVEENI JANGBAHADUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights