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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 6, 8, 12, 16, 19 and 20 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 6, 12, and 20, “the second peak” having an amplitude that is different than that of the second peak appears to be conflicting. In review of the specification, it appears that it may be that the amplitudes are different between those of second and first peaks.
Claims 8, 16, 19, and 20 recite limitations as shown below. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claim 8, antecedent basis issue, “the third threshold” (it is taught in claim 2, but not taught in claim 1 which claim 8 is dependent upon).
Claim 16, antecedent basis issue of “the first pattern” and “the second pattern”.
Claim 19, antecedent basis issue of "the second pattern”
Claim 20, antecedent basis issue of “the first pattern”.
Of note: In claim 16, it is noted that there’s a third threshold, but only ‘a threshold in claim 1, no second threshold that is taught.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-13, 15, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SOSNOWSKI (US 2021/0356310 A1) in view of BAYONA (US 2017/0355198 A1).
Re: 1, SOSNOWSKI teaches of a device for printing one or more three-dimensional (3D) objects, the device comprising:
a sensor (see pressure sensors 108, 110) operatively coupled with a separator (see container 106), the sensor configured to sense (i) a level of a remainder material when the remainder material accumulates in the separator above a first threshold or (ii) a pressure over time in an internal atmosphere of the separator operatively coupled with a printing enclosure (see 502 build chamber), the pressure over time having a repetition of a first pattern, the separator being configured to receive the remainder material initially disposed in the printing enclosure, the remainder material comprising a starting material not used to print the one or more 3D objects, the printing enclosure being configured to, during the printing, enclose the one or more 3D objects printed from the starting material, the printing enclosure being part of a 3D printer; and
a prevention system operatively coupled with the sensor, the prevention system being configured to initiate a prevention operation (i) when the sensor is configured to sense the level of the remainder material accumulating in the separator, and the sensor senses the remainder material above a second threshold indicative of greater level of material accumulation than the first threshold or (ii) when the sensor is configured to sense the pressure, and data sensed by the sensor includes a second pattern, the second pattern including a portion that exhibits a change as compared with the first pattern.
Wherein, the prevention system that is configured to operate the claimed process limitations are seen as a controller language claim and after review, it is encompassed by the teachings of SOSNOWSKI of a controller 102 that calculates the pressure in the container, and pressure level received by the sensors in the container. The controller operates based upon the determination and from a predefined deviation, see claims 1 and 5 of SOSNOWSKI, see also [0030-0031].
SOSNOWSKI does not specifically state of prevention operation.
However, as seen in BAYONA, the controller is used to halt operations, see [0021, 0033], as a part of prevention system in the reservoirs (110, 120) as per pressure sensors (sensor 160). Regarding the use of the BAYONA teaching, wherein the controller receives the sensed data from the sensors and would halt operations encompasses the claimed preventions system coupled to the sensor. Further, the threshold of the reservoirs is determined and wherein the controller would identify for filling and when it the reservoir is empty, see [0020-0024], and wherein the when the procedure stops, see [0032-0033], particularly when the pressure is above a threshold. The operations of BAYONA are relevant to SOSNOWSKI in the use of controller operations in a system that measures the pressure in a particular container/reservoir, particularly for detection in deviations during operation cycles.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the controller of SOSNOWSKI with the prevention operations as taught by BAYONA for stopping the process when the pressure detected is above a threshold level.
Re: 5-6, the limitations are seen as being taught by the combinations of the SOSNOWSKI and BAYONA reference. Wherein, the patterns are the detected pressures by the sensors and of comparison with the thresholds. Currently, the claimed peaks are seen as different pressure levels detected compared to the thresholds. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the comparison with the threshold of BAYONNA would encompass the claimed patterns.
Re: 7 (upon 1), wherein the sensor is a first sensor, the first sensor being configured to sense a first pressure in a first internal atmosphere of the separator, and further comprising a second sensor, the second sensor being configured to sense a second pressure in a second internal atmosphere of a component other than the first internal atmosphere of the separator.
(See teaching of the SOSNOWSKI reference of the different sensors, which would be capable of detecting at the claimed different pressures.)
Re: 8 (upon 1), wherein the prevention system is configured to (i) operate when a standard deviation of a pressure of the 3D printer is equal at least to a third threshold or higher, and (ii) deactivate when the standard deviation of the pressure of an internal atmosphere of the 3D printer is at most a fourth threshold or lower, the fourth threshold being smaller than the third threshold.
(See teaching from the combination of SOSNOWSKI with BAYONA which would be able to deactivate when the thresholds are exceeded, particularly during a duty cycle, see [0032].)
Re: 9, SOSNOWSKI teaches of a method for printing one or more three-dimensional (3D) objects (see abstract), the method comprising:
providing a sensor (see sensors 108, 110) operatively coupled with a separator (see container);
sensing, via the sensor, (I) a level of a remainder material when the remainder material accumulates in the separator above a first threshold or (II) a pressure over time in an internal atmosphere of the separator operatively coupled with a printing enclosure, the pressure over time having a repetition of a first pattern, the separator being configured to receive the remainder material initially disposed in the printing enclosure, the remainder material comprising a starting material not used to print the one or more 3D objects, the printing enclosure being configured to, during the printing, enclose the one or more 3D objects printed from the starting material, the printing enclosure being part of a 3D printer;
SOSNOWSKI does not specifically state of the additional method limitations of:
“providing a prevention system operatively coupled with the sensor; and
operating the prevention system (i) when the sensor is configured to sense the level of the remainder material accumulating in the separator, and the sensor senses the remainder material above a second threshold or (ii) when the sensor is configured to sense the pressure, and a data sensed by the sensor comprises a second pattern, the second pattern having a portion that exhibits a change as compared with the first pattern.”
However, as seen in BAYONA, the method steps, see [0021, 0033], as a part of prevention system in the reservoirs (110, 120) as per pressure sensors (sensor 160). Regarding the use of the BAYONA teaching, wherein the controller receives the sensed data from the sensors and would halt operations encompasses the claimed preventions system coupled to the sensor. Further, the threshold of the reservoirs is determined and wherein the controller would identify for filling and when it the reservoir is empty, see [0020-0024], and wherein the when the procedure stops, see [0032-0033], particularly when the pressure is above a threshold. The operations of BAYONA are relevant to SOSNOWSKI in the use of controller operations in a system that measures the pressure in a particular container/reservoir, particularly for detection in deviations during operation cycles.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the controller of SOSNOWSKI with the prevention operations as taught by BAYONA for stopping the process when the pressure detected is above a threshold level.
Re: 10 (upon 9), wherein providing a sensor comprised providing a first sensor and a second sensor; sensing, via the first sensor, a first pressure in a first internal atmosphere of the separator; and sensing, via the second sensor, a second pressure in a second internal atmosphere of a component other than the first internal atmosphere of the separator. (See teaching of the SOSNOWSKI reference of the different sensors, limitations similar to claim 7.)
Re: 11 (upon 9), (similar features as in claim 5)
Re: 12 (upon 9), (similar features as in claim 6)
Re: 13 (upon 9), operating the prevention system when a standard deviation of a pressure of the 3D printer is equal at least to a third threshold or higher; and deactivating the prevention system when the standard deviation of the pressure of an internal atmosphere of the 3D printer is at most a fourth threshold or lower, the fourth threshold being smaller than the third threshold. (similar features as in claim 8)
Re: 15, SOSNOWSKI teaches of an apparatus for printing one or more three-dimensional (3D) objects, the apparatus comprising at least one controller configured to (controller 102 calculates the pressure in the container, and pressure level received by the sensors in the container. The controller operates based upon the determination and from a predefined deviation, see claims 1 and 5 of SOSNOWSKI, see also [0030-0031]):
operatively couple with a first sensor and a second sensor (see pressure sensors 108, 110);
direct the first sensor to sense a first pressure in a first internal atmosphere of a separator (see container), the first sensor being operatively coupled with the separator, the separator being operatively coupled with a printing enclosure and configured to receive a remainder material initially disposed in the printing enclosure, the remainder material being a starting material not used to print the one or more 3D objects, the printing enclosure being configured to, during the printing, enclose the one or more 3D objects printed from the starting material, the printing enclosure being part of a 3D printer;
direct the second sensor to sense a second pressure in a second internal atmosphere of a component (see teaching of the sensors in SOSNOWSKI).
SOSNOWSKI does not specifically state of: the second sensor that is to “a component other than the separator, the second sensor being operatively coupled with the component, the component being operatively coupled with the 3D printer” and “when a coefficient is below a threshold, direct a prevention system to initiate a prevention operation, the coefficient being a correlation between the first pressure and the second pressure, the prevention system being operatively coupled with the first sensor and the second sensor.”
However, as seen in BAYONA, the controller is used to halt operations, see [0021, 0033], as a part of prevention system in the reservoirs (110, 120) as per pressure sensors (sensor 160). Regarding the use of the BAYONA teaching, wherein the controller receives the sensed data from the sensors and would halt operations encompasses the claimed preventions system coupled to the sensor. Further, the threshold of the reservoirs is determined and wherein the controller would identify for filling and when it the reservoir is empty, see [0020-0024], and wherein the when the procedure stops, see [0032-0033], particularly when the pressure is above a threshold. The operations of BAYONA are relevant to SOSNOWSKI in the use of controller operations in a system that measures the pressure in a particular container/reservoir, particularly for detection in deviations during operation cycles.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the controller of SOSNOWSKI with the prevention operations as taught by BAYONA for stopping the process when the pressure detected is above a threshold level.
Re: 19 (upon 15), wherein, the combination of the references would encompass the claimed pattern and irregularity to halt operations. Similar features as in claim 5.
Re: 20 (upon 15), wherein, the combination of the references would encompass the claimed pattern and irregularity to halt operations. Similar features as in claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-4, and 14 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.
Claims 16-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of reference fail to teach the additional features in the following claims 2, 14, and 16, of “wherein the first pattern comprises a first amplitude and the portion of the second pattern comprises a second amplitude, the first amplitude being the difference between a maximum value and a minimum value of the first pattern, the second amplitude being the difference between a maximum value and the minimum value of the second pattern, the second amplitude being smaller than the first amplitude by a third threshold.”
The prior art references such as SOSNOWSKI and BAYONNA fail to teach of the additional comparison of the patterns and amplitudes.
Whereupon claims 3-4 and 17-18 are dependent upon claims 2 and 16 above, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892 document, of particular note:
TRALONGO (US 2024/0139820 A1) teaches of pressure containers with sensors, in an additive manufacturing system.
HEALEY (US 2022/0371096 A1) teaches a docket container for a container for an additive manufacturing system, and includes pressure sensors [0011].
SWIER (US 2019/0184641 A1) teaches of a 3D printer with feeders that includes sensors [0021-0023], see also Figs. 1-3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 5.
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 S Zhao can be reached at 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.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744