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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim. The term “(semi-) crystalline” in claim 1 line 5 must be appropriately amended to --semi-crystalline--. Similarly, term “(semi-) crystalline” in 7 may be amended to –semi-crystalline--.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means of printhead” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “(extrusion based modeling)” in line 2, and it is unclear whether this limitation is optional as it is in the parenthesis. Furthermore, “extrusion based printing” can also include just deposition by nozzle or printhead as in the body of the claim, other than liquefier or fused deposition. If Applicant intends to claim liquefier, or fused deposition, as in the specification, such must be amended appropriately.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "preferably" “more preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "preferably four" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Similar correction is also required for claims 4-7, 11, and 17-18 as it also uses the term “preferably” “more preferably” which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 9 uses parenthesis for ranges (2*Tm-Textra+14) and (2*Tm-Tertr+54). It is unclear whether items in the parenthesis is required part of the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation 250 – 290 oC, and the claim also recites 260 – 290 oC, 265 -280 oC which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Similar correction is also required for claim 17 ranges.
The term “about” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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 this case, “more preferably about 220 oC” in last line renders the claim indefinite it is unclear of the boundaries of the claim.
Claim 19 line 3 recites “the first tracks” there is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim limitation. It is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether applicant intends to claim all of the “plurality of first tracks” or some of the “plurality of first tracks” as recited in claim 19 line 2.
Claim 20 line 3 recites “the first tracks” there is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim limitation. It is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether applicant intends to claim all of the “plurality of first tracks” or some of the “plurality of first tracks” as recited in claim 20 line 2. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner considers, the “first tracks” as –a first track of the plurality of tracks--.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 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 closest prior art Yang Chuncheng et al.: “Influence of thermal processing conditions in 3D printing on the crystallinity and mechanical properties of PEEK material”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, ELSEVIER, NL. Vol 248, May 2, 2017 (pages 1-7).
Regarding claim 1, Yang Chuncheng et al. teach a method for manufacturing a three-dimensional object by additive manufacturing extrusion-based modelling (Fig 1, page 2), wherein t racks of modelling material are deposited in slices by means of a printhead inside a heatable build room (page 5, right column, lines 4-10), said printhead being connected to a three dimensional positioning system (see page 2, paragraph 2.1 and Fig. 1), wherein each slice a plurality of tracks of a semi-crystalline modelling material is deposited through a nozzle of the printhead on a build base or on the tracks of a previously deposited slice (see Fig. 1 on page 2), whereby a body is formed by depositing the modelling material slice by slice (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 5), wherein: the crystallinity (%) of the modelling material of said previously deposited slice is above a remaining crystallinity threshold (see page 5, right column, first paragraph and Fig 7a), the crystallinity being controlled being controlled by the at least one of the following selectively and locally cooling or heating the object of said region where the next track is deposited.
However, ang Chuncheng et al. fail to teach low-crystallization and high-crystallization regions within the same part.
Regarding claim 9, Yang Chuncheng et al. teach method for the additive manufacturing of an object of a semi-crystalline modelling material having a melting temperature Tm, wherein tracks of modelling material are deposited in slices by means of a printhead inside the build room at an extrudate temperature Textr, wherein each slice a plurality of tracks of the semi-crystalline thermoplastic modelling material is deposited by the printhead on a build base or on the tracks of a previously deposited slice (Fig. 1, paragraph 2.1 on page 2). However, Yang Chuncheng et al. fail to teach the temperature of the build room (Tbr) ranges between (2*Tm-Textr+14) and (2*Tm-Textr+54), wherein part of the tracks in a slice are printed in an aesthetic mode and p art of the tracks are printed in a strength mode, wherein the temperature at location where at least three tracks meet, in the aesthetic mode is controlled by local cooling and ranges between (2*Tm-Tert+56) and (2Tm-Textr+4).
Regarding claim 12, Yang Chuncheng et al. fail to teach teach method for determining a process temperature of a build room for additive manufacturing, the crystallinity of the modelling material is determined at a location where at least three tracks of the previously deposited slice and the currently deposited slice meet, a first process temperature (T1) is determined at which the crystallinity is less than 5% when one of said at least three tracks is deposited, and/or a second process temperature is determined at which the crystallinity is more than 10% when one of said at least three tracks is deposited as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2021/0355309 A1 - the printed article, the compounded polymer composition comprises a plurality of crystals dispersed therein, therein the plurality of crystals have a dimensionality.
US 2021/0069981 A1- filament for 3D printing comprising a semicrystalline or crystalline polymer, wherein the filament comprises a: a. microfoam, wherein said microfoam comprises the semicrystalline or crystalline polymer and microvoids.
US 2019/0030822 A1 - molding is performed using a crystalline plastic as the resin material, crystal directions differ for the upper and lower layers as shown on the left side of FIG. 6, then since fellow molecular chains intersect.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 PM).
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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743