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 .
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I: Claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 01/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 lines 9-10 reads “receive at least the at least one material layer”. This is verbose grammar and should be corrected to “receive the at least one material layer” for concise writing.
Claim 2 line 3 reads “receive at least the at least one material layer”. This is verbose grammar and should be corrected to “receive the at least one material layer” for concise writing.
Claim 3 lines 3-4 reads “receiving at least the at least one material layer”. This is verbose grammar and should be corrected to “receive the at least one material layer” for concise writing.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because Figure 4 fails to show the titles/descriptions of each numbered step of its flowchart as described in the specification, and remains as empty black boxes. These titles/descriptions are specifically listed in [0022] and should be labelled within the black boxes. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 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.
4. 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:
“application unit” in claim 1 line 4. “Application” is a function, “unit” is a generic placeholder, and the claims do not provide the structure to perform said functions. Structure is found in [0048] of Applicant’s Specification filed 07/25/2024 as print head or recoated and will be interpreted as such and equivalents.
“rotating device” in claim 4 line 2. “Rotating” is a function, “device” is a generic placeholder, and the claims do not add structure sufficient to perform said function. Structure is found in Figure 5 of Applicant’s Drawings filed 07/25/2024 which shows rotating pivot and will be interpreted as such and equivalents.
“cleaning device” in claim 5 line 2. “Cleaning” is a function, “device” is a generic placeholder, and the claims lack structure to perform said function. Structure is found in [0059] and [0061] of Applicant’s Specification filed 07/25/2024 as either a blower or vacuum cleaner and will be interpreted as such and equivalents.
“vibration generating device” in claim 6 line 2. “vibration generating” is a function, “device” is a generic placeholder, and the claims lack structure to perform said function. Structure is found in [0294] of Applicant’s Specification filed 07/25/2024 as an ultrasonic probe or sound wave generator and will be interpreted as such and equivalents.
“fiber application device” in claim 7 line 2. “fiber application” is a function, “device” is a generic placeholder, and the claims lack structure to perform said function. Structure is found in [0068] of Applicant’s Specification filed 07/25/2024 as a recoater will be interpreted as such and equivalents.
“energy application device” in claim 9 line 2. “energy application” is a function, “device” is a generic placeholder, and the claims lack structure to perform said function. Structure is found in [0181]-[0182] of Applicant’s Specification filed 07/25/2024 as a resistance heater or high-frequency generator and will be interpreted as such and equivalents.
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.
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 § 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.
5. Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rogren (US 2020/0298477).
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).
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 5, 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]).
Regarding claim 6, Rogren teaches of vibration generation device (compaction device- 30; [0080]), that could be used to remove excess material from a transfer platform (it is noted to apply pressure to carrier substrate- 200 in [0080], and thus vibrate the transfer platform which would remove some excess material).
Regarding claim 8, Rogren teaches of a plurality of transfer platforms ([0065]).
Regarding claim 9, Rogren teaches the inclusion of an energy application device configured to supply energy to materials, notably of plasticizing materials (fixing device- 50; solidifies liquid binding material; [0085]).
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.
6. 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.
7. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogren as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Sachs et al. (US 2021/0245249; hereafter Sachs).
Regarding claim 4, Rogren does not teach the inclusion of a rotating device. Sachs teaches of a depowdering system with a rotating device (actuate holder- 514) movable in any number of directions, which would include about axes substantially parallel in x, y, and z directions ([0082]). Sacks teaches that the advantage of a rotating device is to ensure the full removal of loose powder from a material layer ([0070]). 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 rotating device of Sachs to rotate the transfer platform of Rogren for the advantage of full removal of loose powder from the material layer.
8. 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; 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
9. 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