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
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 62/716852, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
The disclosure of the provisional application does not seem to have adequate support for the limitations “a horizontal print bed… the print bed comprises a receiving surface for accepting an accumulation of material layers deposited by the extruder assembly at the fixed print angle, wherein the receiving surface comprises an angled print surface, wherein the angled print surface has a length spanning a width of a build volume of the 3D printer in a first direction” and “the extruder assembly is capable of being fixed at a print angle between 30 degrees and 80 degrees” of claim 1, “the receiving surface is movable” of claim 2, “the receiving surface include a flat belt” of claim 3, “the receiving surface comprises a plurality of pulleys” of claim 4, “the receiving surface is articulated to rotate away from parallel with a horizontal plane” of claim 5, and “the extruder assembly is operably attached to the gantry via a second carriage and configured to move the extruder assembly along the shaft of a gantry along a second axis” of claim 33. As a result, claims 1-5 and 33 will not be provided benefit to the provisional application.
Drawings
Figures 1A, 3A, and 3B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See [0029] and [0031] of Applicant’s published application and MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed “receiving surface comprises an angled print surface, wherein the angled print surface has a length spanning a width of a build volume of the 3D printer in a first direction” of claim 1, “cross-section of the rigid member is consistent along the first direction to increase surface contact of the receiving surface with the material deposited by the 3D printer” of claim 1, “the receiving surface is movable” of claim 2, “the receiving surface include a flat belt” of claim 3, “the receiving surface comprises a plurality of pulleys” of claim 4, “the receiving surface is articulated to rotate away from parallel with a horizontal plane” of claim 5, and “second carriage and configured to move the extruder assembly along the shaft of a gantry along a second axis” of claim 33 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 3 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, “the receiving surface include” should be changed to --the receiving surface includes--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 14, 16 and 31-33 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 horizontal print bed… the print bed comprises a receiving surface for accepting an accumulation of material layers deposited by the extruder assembly at the fixed print angle, wherein the receiving surface comprises an angled print surface, wherein the angled print surface has a length spanning a width of a build volume of the 3D printer in a first direction; and wherein a cross-section of the rigid member is consistent along the first direction to increase surface contact of the receiving surface with the material deposited by the 3D printer” which fails to comply with the written description requirement. While Applicant’s disclosure has support for a receiving surface being a rigid member with a curved/angled surface in some embodiments ([0009] and [0017] of Applicant’s published application) or for a receiving surface being a horizontal print bed with a horizontal surface/plane in other distinct embodiments ([0007], [0018], and Figs. 1B and 2A of Applicant’s published application), the specification fails to disclose that the two distinct and independent embodiments of receiving surfaces are combinable or capable of functioning together. Therefore, claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim(s) 2-5, 7, 14, 16 and 31-33 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 1 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
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) 1-5, 7, 14, 16 and 31-33 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “horizontal print bed… wherein the print bed comprises a receiving surface…” and “wherein the receiving surface comprises an angled print surface, wherein the angled print surface has a length spanning a width of a build volume of the 3D printer in a first direction” which make the scope of the claim indefinite. It is unclear how a horizontal print bed can comprise the claimed angled print surface as the receiving surface and still be considered a horizontal print bed. The limitations are also indefinite because they are inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. In applicant’s disclosure, when the print bed is horizontal, the print surface is horizontal. In applicant’s disclosure, when a curved rigid member includes the receiving surface, the print surface is angled. Thus, the claimed language makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the print angle is the angle between a printing plane and a horizontal plane” and “the print bed comprises a receiving surface for accepting an accumulation of material layers deposited by the extruder assembly at the fixed print angle, wherein the receiving surface comprises an angled print surface” which make the scope of the claim indefinite. It is unclear how an angled print surface as the receiving surface can accept an accumulation of material layers deposited by the extruder assembly at the fixed print angle which is defined by the printing plane of the extruder assembly and the horizontal plane. It is unclear how the extruder assembly prints at the fixed print angle when the receiving surface comprises an angled print surface. The limitations are also indefinite because they are inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. In applicant’s disclosure, the print angle is the angle between a printing plane and a horizontal plane when the print surface is horizontal. Thus, the claimed language makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a cross-section of the rigid member is consistent along the first direction to increase surface contact of the receiving surface with the material deposited by the 3D printer” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the rigid member” in the claim. Also, the term “rigid” is a relative term which renders the limitation indefinite. The term “rigid” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In addition, it is unclear how the cross-section of the rigid member increases surface contact of the receiving surface with the material when there is not a clear relationship between them. Last but not least, the language “the material deposited by the 3D printer” contradicts/broadens the limitation “material layers deposited by the extruder assembly”.
Claim(s) 2-5, 7, 14, 16 and 31-33 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 1 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the receiving surface include a flat belt” which is indefinite. It is unclear how a belt can be flat. Only the top portion/bottom portion of a belt can be flat. In addition, the limitation of claim 3 contradicts the limitation “the receiving surface comprises an angled print surface, wherein the angled print surface has a length spanning a width of a build volume of the 3D printer in a first direction” of claim 1. It is unclear how the flat belt can comprise the claimed angled print surface.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the receiving surface comprises a plurality of pulleys” which is indefinite. The limitation of claim 4 contradicts the limitation “the receiving surface comprises an angled print surface, wherein the angled print surface has a length spanning a width of a build volume of the 3D printer in a first direction” of claim 1. It is unclear how the plurality of pulleys can comprise the claimed angled print surface.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the receiving surface is articulated to rotate away from parallel with a horizontal plane” which is indefinite. It is unclear if the horizontal plane of claim 5 is same or different from the horizontal plane of claim 1. Additionally, the claimed language states a result obtained by the receiving surface, does not provide a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the language what structure is encompassed by the claim. Applicant’s specification fails to disclose the specific structure/means in the receiving surface that allows the receiving surface to have the claimed result/capability. See MPEP § 2173.05 (g).
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the gantry offers a print volume with a first width and first height through which a part that exceeds the print volume is printed by gradually moving the part away from the print area” which is indefinite. It is unclear if the print volume of claim 14 is same or different from the build volume of claim 1. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the print area” in the claims. It is also unclear if the print area of claim 14 is same or different from the receiving/print surface of claim 1. Last but not least, the language “a part … is printed by gradually moving the part away from the print area” states a result obtained without providing a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the language what structure is encompassed by the claim. For instance, the structure/means of the 3D printer that enables the gradual moving of the part away from the print area is unclear. See MPEP § 2173.05 (g).
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein the extension of the part volume beyond the printer volume drives the parallel post-processing of the part by means of a separate working volume into which the part enters and machining operations are executed” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the extension of the part volume” in the claims. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the printer volume” in the claims. Last but not least, the claimed language states results obtained without providing a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the language what structure is encompassed by the claim. For instance, it is unclear how an extension of the printed part by means of a separate working volume drives parallel post-processing. Neither the extension of the printed part or the separate working volume (i.e., a mere volume) by themselves are capable of driving/performing post-processing. Neither the extension of the printed part or the separate working volume (i.e., a mere volume) by themselves are capable of moving the part into the separate working volume and/or executing machining operations. See MPEP § 2173.05 (g).
Claim 32 recites the limitation “the extruder assembly is operably attached to the gantry via a first carriage and configured to move the extruder assembly along a shaft of a gantry along a first axis” which is indefinite. The language “and configured to move the extruder assembly along a shaft of a gantry along a first axis” can have multiple plausible interpretations. It is unclear what (the extruder assembly, the gantry, or the first carriage) is configured to move the extruder assembly along a shaft of a gantry along a first axis. It is unclear if “the gantry” and “a gantry” of claim 32 are same or different gantries. As currently written, they are different gantries. However, the interpretation that they are different gantries is inconsistent with Applicant disclosure ([0051-0060] and Fig. 2A-C) of Applicant’s published application). See MPEP § 2173.03.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “the extruder assembly is operably attached to the gantry via a second carriage and configured to move the extruder assembly along the shaft of a gantry along a second axis” which is indefinite. The language “and configured to move the extruder assembly along the shaft of a gantry along a second axis” can have multiple plausible interpretations. It is unclear what (the extruder assembly, the gantry, or the second carriage) is configured to move the extruder assembly along the shaft of a gantry along a second axis. It is unclear if “the gantry” and “a gantry” of claim 33 are same or different gantries. As currently written, they are different gantries, yet they have the same shaft. Also, the interpretation that they are different gantries is inconsistent with Applicant disclosure ([0051-0060] and Fig. 2A-C) of Applicant’s published application). Even if the language read --and the second carriage is configured to move the extruder assembly along the shaft of the gantry along a second axis--, the language will still be inconsistent with Applicant disclosure ([0051-0060] and Fig. 2A-C) of Applicant’s published application). See MPEP § 2173.03.
Note
Claims 1-5, 7, 14, 16 and 31-33 cannot be evaluated with respect to prior art at this time as the examiner cannot reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention and cannot make a proper comparison between the claims and the prior art due to the 112 (b) issues explained above.
Prior Art made of record
Susnjara (US 20170252966) discloses a 3D printer (P0001, 0024) comprising:
a horizontal print bed (bed 20 that is horizontal: P0025, Fig. 1); and
a movable gantry (displaceable gantry 23: P0025, Fig. 1); and
an extruder assembly (applicator assembly 26) operably attached to the gantry (P0025-0027, 0029-0030, Fig. 1), wherein the extruder assembly is capable of being fixed at a print angle between 30 degrees and 80 degrees (26 is capable of rotating about z-axis and/or a y-z plane and remaining perpendicular to a tangent plane: P0027, 0030, 0032, Fig. 2, and Fig. 6, and therefore, 26 is capable of being fixed at any print angle including a print angle between 30 degrees and 80 degrees; furthermore, Fig. 6 shows/suggests a print angle within the claimed print angle range), wherein the print angle is the angle between a printing plane and a horizontal plane (See annotated Fig. 6 below);
wherein the horizontal print bed (20) holds/comprises a member (62) which comprises a receiving surface (64) for accepting an accumulation of material layers deposited by the extruder assembly, wherein the receiving surface comprises an angled print surface, wherein the angled print surface has a length spanning a width of a build volume of the 3D printer in a first direction (P0030-0032, Figs. 5-6).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
486
519
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Page (US 20150367375) discloses a relevant multiaxial 3D printer comprising an extruder assembly configured to rotate away from a horizontal plane (Fig. 12 and accompanying text) and configured to adjust a print angle between 0 and 90 degrees when the receiving surface comprises an angled print surface (Abstract, Figs. 3a-g, and accompanying text).
Gifford (US 20150174824) discloses the technique/concept of adjusting a print angle between 30 and 150 degrees in order to form overhang structures without support (P0170-0184).
Park (KR 20170015442A with English machine translation – of record) discloses a relevant multiaxial 3D printer comprising an extruder assembly configured to rotate away from a horizontal plane (Fig. 2a and accompanying text) and/or a receiving surface (240) configured to rotate away from a horizontal plane (Fig. 4 and accompanying text). Park further discloses a 3D printer comprising a 3D printing volume and a cutting volume, the 3D printer configured for concurrently performing 3D printing and cutting (Fig. 14 and accompanying text).
Schürmann (US 20200047411) discloses a relevant 3D printer comprising a gantry offering/defining a print volume and the technique of gradually moving a part being printed away from the print volume such that the part exceeds the print volume for the benefit(s) of enabling 3D printing of large 3D parts (Fig. 4 and accompanying text). Schürmann further discloses the technique of using a conveyor belt as a movable receiving surface for the benefit(s) of enabling 3D printing of large 3D parts (Fig. 4 and accompanying text).
Santiago (US 20180141273) discloses a relevant 3D printer comprising a gantry offering/defining a print volume and the technique of gradually moving a part being printed away from the print volume such that the part exceeds the print volume for the benefit(s) of enabling 3D printing of large 3D parts (Figs. 2-5 and accompanying text). Santiago further discloses the technique of using a conveyor belt as a movable receiving surface for the benefit(s) of enabling 3D printing of large 3D parts (P0084, 0089, Fig. 8C).
Voris (US 20160067740) discloses a relevant 3D printer with receiving surface comprising an angled print surface, wherein the angled print surface has a length spanning a width of a build volume of the 3D printer in a first direction (Fig. 4 and accompanying text).
Brotz (US 5269982) discloses the technique of using a conveyor belt comprising a plurality of pulleys (74 and 76) as a movable receiving surface for the benefit(s) of enabling 3D printing of continuous/large 3D parts (Fig. 6 and accompanying text).
Anderson (US 12502824) discloses a relevant 3D printer (claims 2-6).
Conclusion
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