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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 21-40 are examined.
Claims 1-20 are canceled.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 24, 27, and 38-40, “power-operated way” is interpreted as any form of using power or energy.
Regarding claim 24, the limitation “the transverse distances of the print heads of a row are adjustable in a power-operated way” is interpreted as one or all of the transverse distances are adjustable.
Claim Objections
Claim 21, 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 21, line 4-5 – “each row including a plurality of print heads arranged one beside the other along a transverse axis” should read “each row including the plurality of print heads arranged one beside the other along the transverse axis” for clarity in reciting to the limitation in line 2
claim 22, line 2 – “at least one row of print heads” should read “at least one row of print heads of the plurality of rows” for clarity in reciting to the limitation in claim 21, line 4
claim 24, line 2 – “a row” should read “a row of the at least one row of print heads” reciting to the limitation in claim 22, line 2
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
STEP 1: TWO CRITERIA FOR SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY
First, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
The claims fall into the category of a machine comprising a computer system.
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
STEP 2A: TWO PRONGS
PRONG 1: RECITES ABSTRACT IDEA, LAW OF NATURE, NATURAL PHENOMENON
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
“the electronic control unit … is adapted to automatically adjust, in a power-operated way, positions of the print heads of a row along the transverse axis and/or positions of the rows along the longitudinal axis in dependence on dimensions of a component to be manufactured specified via a user interface”
The limitation as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “electronic control unit adapted to,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “electronic control unit adapted to” language,:
“automatically adjust … positions of the print heads … in dependence on dimensions of a component to be manufactured specified via a user interface” in the context of the claim encompasses the user evaluating the selected component to be manufactured and changing the positions or locations of the print heads in view of the dimensions of the component for efficiency and for ensuring the print heads reach the required dimensions.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: DOES NOT INTEGRATE INTO PRACTICAL APPLICATION
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using an electronic control unit adapted to perform the “automatically adjust” steps. The electronic control unit in the step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic controller performing a generic computer function of automatically adjust) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B: DOES NOT AMOUNT TO SIGNIFICANTLY MORE
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, the additional element of using an electronic control unit adapted to perform automatic adjusting steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jecof (CN 106976229 A, an English machine translation is provided in this Office Action).
Regarding claim 21, Jecof discloses a 3D printing device (¶ [0032] – 3D printing system) for additive manufacturing, the device comprising:
a plurality of print heads (¶ [0032] – plurality of printing stations 30; ¶ [0034] - comprising nozzles 33) arranged one beside each other along a transverse axis (¶ [0034] – a Y-axis elongated bracket 313; FIG. 2 depicts 33 are each arranged one bedside the other along 313 in the Y-axis), via each of which a component can be additively manufactured (¶ [0034] – the printing material sprayed by the nozzles 33; ¶ [0036] - printed to form complex 3D printed patterns, so that multiple printed shoe uppers A can be obtained), wherein the 3D printing device includes a plurality of rows (¶ [0032] – 30 are arranged on conveying device 20 at a predetermined distance from each other), each row including a plurality of print heads arranged one beside the other along a transverse axis (¶ [0034] - X-axis long slide rail track 311; FIG. 1 depicts 30 are arranged one beside each other along 311), wherein the plurality of rows are arranged one behind the other along a longitudinal axis (¶ [0034] - X-axis long slide rail track 311; FIG. 1 depicts 30 are each arranged one bedside the other along the Y-axis).
Regarding claim 22, Jecof discloses the 3D printing device according to claim 21, further comprising at least one crossbeam (¶ [0034] – a Y-axis elongated bracket 313) for supporting at least one row of print heads (FIG. 2 depicts 33 are arranged one beside each other along 313), on which the print heads of the at least one row of print heads are positioned at different transverse distances to each other (FIG. 2 depicts 33 are positioned at different distances to each other on 313).
Regarding claim 23, Jecof discloses the 3D printing device according to claim 22, wherein the print heads of a row of the at least one row of print heads are shiftably mounted on an associated crossbeam (¶ [0034] – Y-axis drive motor 315 to drive and control the printing of 33 in the Y-axis direction; as 313 would move from 315, all of 33 would move) of the at least one crossbeam.
Regarding claim 24, Jecof discloses the 3D printing device according to claim 22, wherein the transverse distances of the print heads of a row are adjustable in a power-operated way (¶ [0034] – Y-axis drive motor 315 to drive and control the printing of 33 in the Y-axis direction; as 313 would move from 315, all of 33 would move) on an associated crossbeam of the at least one crossbeam.
Regarding claim 25, Jecof discloses the 3D printing device according to claim 22, further comprising a plurality of crossbeams (¶ [0034] – a Y-axis elongated bracket 313; FIG. 2 depicts a plurality of 30, which each have 313) whose longitudinal distance to each other are adjustable along the longitudinal axis (¶ [0034] – control X-axis displacement in X-axis long slide rail track 311, thereby controlling the printing of 33 in the X-axis direction).
Regarding claim 26, Jecof discloses the 3D printing device according to claim 25, further comprising a longitudinal adjustment device including one or more motors (¶ [0034] – X-axis drive motor 314 control X-axis displacement in X-axis long slide rail track 311), wherein the plurality of crossbeams are adjustably mounted relative to each other on the longitudinal adjustment device (¶ [0034] –control X-axis displacement, thereby controlling the printing of 33 in the X-axis direction).
Regarding claim 27, Jecof discloses the 3D printing device according to claim 25, wherein the longitudinal distances of the plurality of crossbeams to each other are adjustable in a power-operated way along the longitudinal axis (¶ [0034] – X-axis drive motor 314 control X-axis displacement in X-axis long slide rail track 311).
Regarding claim 28, Jecof discloses the 3D printing device according to claim 22, wherein the at least one crossbeam adapted for including a variable number of the print heads (¶ [0034] - each 313 is provided with a plurality of freely detachable nozzles 33, as the nozzles can be detached, the number of nozzles on each 313 is varied; FIG. 2 depicts four nozzles).
Regarding claim 29, Jecof discloses the 3D printing device according to claim 28, further comprising a positioning system (¶ [0034] – Y-axis drive motor 315 to drive and control the printing of 33 in the Y-axis direction; X-axis drive motor 314 control X-axis displacement in X-axis long slide rail track 311) configured for individually mounted the print heads (¶ [0034] - each 313 is provided with a plurality of freely detachable nozzles 33; FIG. 2 depicts 4 mounted nozzles) on an associated crossbeam of the at least one crossbeam 313 and for removing from print heads (¶ [0034] - freely detachable nozzles 33) from the associated crossbeam 313.
Regarding claim 30, Jecof discloses the 3D printing device according to claim 21, further comprising at least one print bed (¶ [0032] – holders 40 laid on conveying device 20 and transported by 20; ¶ [0035] – each 40 has base plate 41 supported by conveyor belt 21) arranged below the print heads for supporting at least one component to be manufactured (¶ [0035] – 21 carry the shoe uppers; ¶ [0036] - printed to form complex 3D printed patterns, so that multiple printed shoe uppers A can be obtained).
Regarding claim 31, Jecof discloses the 3D printing device according to claim 30, wherein a common print bed (¶ [0035] – conveyor belt 21) of the at least one print bed (¶ [0032] – holders 40 laid on conveying device 20 and transported by 20; ¶ [0035] – each 40 has base plate 41) is associated with a plurality of rows of print heads (¶ [0033] – 40 and A of the three-dimensional pattern to be printed in the holders to each printing station 30 for processing; FIG. 1-2 depicts each 40 associated with a 30) for manufacturing several different components (¶ [0036] - printed to form complex 3D printed patterns, so that multiple printed shoe uppers A can be obtained).
Regarding claim 32, Jecof discloses the 3D printing device according to claim 31, wherein the common print bed (¶ [0032] –conveying device 20) is adjustable with respect to the print heads along the longitudinal axis (¶ [0032] – holders 40 transported by 20; FIG. 1 depicts 20 transports 40 in Y-axis).
Regarding claim 33, Jecof discloses the 3D printing device according to claim 30, wherein exactly one print bed 40 is associated with exactly one row of print heads (FIG. 1 depicts exactly one 40 is associated with exactly one 30) for manufacturing several different components (¶ [0036] - printed to form complex 3D printed patterns, so that multiple printed shoe uppers A can be obtained).
Regarding claim 34, Jecof discloses the 3D printing device according to claim 33, wherein the exactly one print bed is adjustable with respect to the print heads of the row along the longitudinal axis (¶ [0032] – holders 40 transported by 20; FIG. 1 depicts 20 transports 40 in Y-axis).
Regarding claim 35, Jecof discloses the 3D printing device according to claim 30, wherein exactly one print bed 40 is associated with exactly one row of print heads (FIG. 1 depicts exactly one 40 is associated with exactly one 30) for manufacturing exactly one component (¶ [0036] - printed to form complex 3D printed patterns, the nozzles on the bracket are capable of printing exactly one component, See MPEP § 2114 (II)).
Regarding claim 36, Jecof discloses the 3D printing device according to claim 30, further comprising at least one crossbeam (¶ [0034] – a Y-axis elongated bracket 313) for supporting at least one row of print heads (FIG. 2 depicts 33 are arranged one beside each other along 313), on which the print heads of the at least one row of print heads are positioned at different transverse distances to each other (FIG. 2 depicts 33 are positioned at different distances to each other on 313), wherein at least one of the print heads are adjustable on the at least one crossbeam (¶ [0034] – Y-axis drive motor 315 to drive and control the printing of 33 in the Y-axis direction) with respect to an associated print bed of the at least one print bed (¶ [0032] – holders 40 laid on conveying device 20 and transported by 20; ¶ [0035] – each 40 has base plate 41 supported by conveyor belt 21) during an additive manufacture.
Regarding claim 37, Jecof discloses the 3D printing device according to claim 30, further comprising at least one crossbeam (¶ [0034] – a Y-axis elongated bracket 313) for supporting at least one row of print heads (FIG. 2 depicts 33 are arranged one beside each other along 313), on which the print heads of the at least one row of print heads are positioned at different transverse distances to each other (FIG. 2 depicts 33 are positioned at different distances to each other on 313), wherein at least one crossbeam can be adjusted (¶ [0034] – Y-axis drive motor 315 to drive and control the printing of 33 in the Y-axis direction) with respect to an associated print bed of the at least one print bed (¶ [0032] – holders 40 laid on conveying device 20 and transported by 20; ¶ [0035] – each 40 has base plate 41 supported by conveyor belt 21) during an additive manufacture.
Regarding claim 38, Jecof discloses the 3D printing device according to claim 21, further comprising an electronic control unit (¶ [0032] – computer electrical connection device 70) configured for specifying transverse distances of print heads of a row to each other along the transverse axis and/or longitudinal distances of the rows to each other along the longitudinal axis a power-operated way (¶ [0032] – 70 controls the operation mechanism of the printing stations 30 to drive the printing nozzle to the corresponding position).
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) 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jecof (CN 106976229 A), as applied to claim 38, in view of Gifford (US 2018/0326660 A1).
Regarding claim 39, Jecof discloses the 3D printing device according to claim 38.
Jecof does not disclose wherein the electronic control unit is configured for specifying a number of the print heads of a row in a power-operated way.
Gifford discloses a 3D printer including multiple exchangeable components (Abstract).
Jecof further discloses wherein the electronic control unit (¶ [0128] – controller 250) is configured for specifying a number of the print heads of a row in a power-operated way (¶ [0128] –printhead 210, 211 each have a controller 250 for controlling the peripherals of the print head, such as delivery motor)
Jecof and Gifford disclose an apparatus with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the controller to each printhead in Gifford to the nozzles in Jecof to control the peripherals of the print head, such as delivery motor (¶ [0128]) to allow the printheads to print a 3D structure (¶ [0151]).
Regarding claim 40, Jecof discloses the 3D printing device according to claim 38.
Jecof does not disclose the electronic control unit is coupled with a positioning system of the 3D printing device and is adapted to automatically adjust, in a power-operated way, positions of the print heads of a row along the transverse axis and/or positions of the rows along the longitudinal axis in dependence on dimensions of a component to be manufactured specified via a user interface.
Gifford discloses a 3D printer including multiple exchangeable components (Abstract).
Gifford discloses the electronic control unit (¶ [0081] – a controller module 140 for controlling printhead, motion; ¶ [0128] – controller 240) is coupled with a positioning system of the 3D printing device (¶ [0073] – operating or not operating the chemical portion of the printheads; ¶ [0128] – controlling the motors to control x, y, z movements) and is adapted to automatically adjust (¶ [0112] – determine offset distance of printheads, to know precise location of newly installed printheads; ¶ [0134] – connection includes automatic configurations, allow the controller to recognize and appropriately configure the newly installed components), in a power-operated way (¶ [0073] – motor, ¶ [0128] – controlling the motors), positions of the print heads of a row along the transverse axis (¶ [0128] – controlling the motors to control x movements) and/or positions of the rows along the longitudinal axis (¶ [0128] – controlling the motors to control y movements) in dependence on dimensions of a component to be manufactured specified via a user interface (¶ [0073] – print heads have an electrical system coupled to the electrical interface; ¶ [0152] – operator configures printer system).
Jecof and Gifford disclose an apparatus with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the controller coupled to positioning as applied above in Gifford to the nozzles in Jecof to control the x, y, and z movements (¶ [0128]) to allow the printheads to print a 3D structure (¶ [0151]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2016/0311159 A1 discloses a three dimensional forming process with assigning a plurality of print heads printing a zone and coupled to a translation system
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN B WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-5191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/JONATHAN B WOO/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights