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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
1. Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the Claim Objections of the previous Office Action are persuasive and are consequentially withdrawn.
2. Applicant’s replacement sheet of Figure 4 is accepted and overcomes the Drawing Objection of the previous Office Action.
3. Applicant argues that order steps of Rogren are different from the claimed apparatus. The order steps that Applicant argues is crucial to their invention is not commiserate in scope to amended claim 1, and therefore this argument is unpersuasive.
4. Applicant arguments pertaining to the energy application device and rotating device are in scope not previously considered, and are addressed below.
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.
5. Claims 1-9 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, Applicant uses the phrase “and/or” in lines 13 and 15. It is unclear as to what limitations are directed to these “and/or” statements. The instance of line 13 raises the possibility that the “and/or” is directed to claim limitations related to lines 3-12 and/or lines 14-20. The “or” statement in this interpretation makes either lines 3-12 or 14-20 completely optional when the Examiner addresses claim limitations. A similar interpretation can be taken with the “and/or” statement of line 15, in which lines 3-15 or lines 16-20 are completely optional. Alternatively, this could be interpreted as a selection between claim limitations adjacent to the “and/or” statement, in which case the “and/or” of both lines 13 and 15 would be interpreted as “the limitations of lines 12-13 and/or the limitations of lines 14-15 and/or the limitations of lines 16-20”. This is an unclear scope and is indefinite and must be amended. The Examiner’s best guess is that Applicant intended for the alternative interpretation and for the sake of compact prosecution will interpret that claim as such. If this is the intended scope, the Examiner recommends adding the phrase “the device further comprising” between lines 10 and 11 to clarify that the “and/or” statements are directed to the newly added claim limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rogren (US 2020/0298477; previously presented).
Regarding claim 1, Rogren teaches a manufacturing device for manufacturing an object in layers (Abstract) comprising at least one transfer platform (transfer modules B) with a transfer platform surface (carrier substrate- 220; [0088]), at least one application unit (printing device- 40 and dispensing device- 20) configured to apply at least one treatment layer on the transfer platform surface (printing device- 20 and liquid binding material; [0081]-[0082]) and at least one material layer on the transfer platform surface (dispensing device -20 and fluidized material; [0078]) and a construction platform (assembly or build station- 110) configure to receive material layers so that the object is manufactured in layers on the construction platform in a third direction (stacked implies z-axis direction; [0066]-[0067]). The application unit is meant to make a single layer, which means the treatment or material layers are in a first or second direction (x and/or y axis directions). Rogren teaches of at least one cleaning device configured to remove excess material from the transfer platform by sucking-off (vacuum port- 64) and blowing-off (air knife- 62) a fluid (air; [0130]). The rotating device, the vibration generating device, and energy application device are all optional limitations and thus do not differentiate over the prior art of Rogren.
Regarding treatment layers, material layers, and so forth, these are materials worked upon by an apparatus. MPEP 2115 teaches that claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115. Claim limitations related to these materials in this claim and subsequent claims do not differentiate the immediate application from the prior art. If a structure is capable of using a material, it is configured for it.
Regarding claim 2, Rogren teaches that the construction platform comprises construction platform surface (build plate- 80) configured to receive material objects ([0097]).
Regarding claim 3, as seen in Figure 5, the construction platform surface (build plate- 80) is oriented substantially parallel to the transfer platform surface (carrier substrate- 200). The position of the construction platform surface is carefully controlled while receiving printed materials ([0097]).
Regarding claim 4, the optional nature of the rotating device consequentially makes further limitations of the rotating device optional. Since all of claim 4’s limitations are directed to the rotating device, claim 4 is optional and thus Rogren anticipates claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, the optional nature of the vibration generating device consequentially makes further limitations of the vibration generating device optional. Since all of claim 6’s limitations are directed to the vibration generating device, claim 6 is optional and thus Rogren anticipates claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, Rogren teaches of a plurality of transfer platforms ([0065]).
Regarding claim 9, the optional nature of the energy application device consequentially makes further limitations of the energy application device optional. Since all of claim 9’s limitations are directed to the energy application device, claim 9 is optional and thus Rogren anticipates claim 9.
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.
7. 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.
8. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogren as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barnes et al. (US 2020/0215751; hereafter Barnes).
Regarding claim 5, Rogren does not teach that the at least on cleaning device is configured to remove excess material of the at least on material layer from the construction platform by sucking and/or blowing off a liquid. Barnes teaches that it is beneficial to have numerous cleaning devices that are configured to remove excess material in various parts of an apparatus for the elimination of fugitive particles that may be present ([0022]). Barnes’ cleaning devices include fluid (air) sucking devices (vacuum pumps) and blowers ([0022]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to include additional cleaning devices at the construction platform of Rogren as suggested by Barnes for the advantage or eliminating fugitive particles that may be present.
9. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogren as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Cui et al. (US 2015/0375340; previously presented; hereafter Cui).
Regarding claim 7, Rogren does not teach of a fiber application device. Cui teaches the inclusion of a fiber application device (fiber weaver- 180) that can apply fibers on a variety of materials and directions on a transfer platform (build plate- 50; [0025]-[0026]). The advantage of adding a fiber application device is the ability to make fiber-reinforced composite objects that have improved properties ([0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to include the fiber application device of Cui in the apparatus of Rogren for the advantage of making fiber-reinforced composite objects that have improved properties.
Conclusion
10. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER S WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571) 272-8343. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30am-5:00 pm EST.
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, Philip Tucker can be reached on 571-273-1095. 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.
/ALEXANDER S WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights