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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and the subject of this FINAL Office Action.
To summarize what follows, Applicants are encouraged to amend their claims to clearly claim the microwave resonator tip structure of Figure 3, which sems to be their invention. MW resonator tip radiation in 3D printing is ubiquitous. See e.g. DE102015002967A1 (cited in IDS 07/08/2026).
Claim Interpretations
The “metamaterial-inspired near-field electromagnetic structure” (Meta-NFS) encompasses any near-field electromagnetic structure configured to generate a microwave signal. The specification fails to define “metamaterial-inspired,” nor is this term known in the art in the context of near-field electromagnetic structure configured to generate microwaves. Nor does “inspiration” provide any concrete detail as to any structural features distinguishable from other near-field electromagnetic structure configured to generate microwaves. Thus, the Meta-NFS is any near-field microwave generator.
As to the “tapered electrically conductive structure” of the Meta-NFS, “tapered” and its location is never defined or specified; thus, it is any amount or type of taper from any viewpoint at any location of the “electrically conductive structure.” Furthermore, the specification does not define “electrically conductive structure” to any specific structure; thus it is any structure shape, size, material, etc.
In sum, the Meta-NFS is a two-tip “tapered electrically conductive structure” as very broadly outlined above.
As to the “nozzle of an additive printing device,” this is any nozzle (e.g. powder, ink, jet, filament extruder, etc.) of any 3D printer (e.g. SLA, SLS, jetted binder, FDM, etc.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102- Maintained
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) A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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; or
(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.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 11-12 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CHAMPION (US 20210245436).
As to claims 1 and 11, CHAMPION teaches a near-field microwave three-dimensional (3D) printing device and method of using it, comprising: a metamaterial-inspired near-field electromagnetic structure (Meta-NFS) configured to be placed adjacent to a nozzle of an additive printing device (apparatus 100 with microwave energy emitters connected to tips 122 for curing, placed next to agent delivery device 100 (additive printing device); Fig. 1; para. 0018); the Meta-NFS comprising a tapered electrically conductive structure (tips shown tapered into triangle shape; Fig. 1); and a first tip and a second tip of the tapered electrically conductive structure forming a gap (plurality of tips separated forming gaps, wherein the tips are made from electrically conductive material; Figs. 1 & 2; para. 0042). In the method, CHAMPION teaches positioning a metamaterial-inspired near-field electromagnetic structure (Meta-NFS) adjacent to a nozzle of an additive printing device (method with operation of apparatus 100 with microwave energy emitters connected to tips 122 for curing, placed next to agent delivery device 100 (additive printing device); Fig. 1; paras. 0009 & 0018), and generating a microwave signal within the Meta-NFS (plurality of tips separated forming gaps, wherein the tips are made from electrically conductive material for providing signals in combination with emitters 120; Figs. 1 & 2; para. 0042).
As to claims 2 and 12, CHAMPION teaches the additive printing device comprises a microextrusion-based 3D printer (agent delivery device 110 delivering build materials through agent delivery mechanisms 302, wherein build materials have dimensions e.g., widths, diameters, or the like, that are generally between about 5 µm and about 100 µm (microextrusion); para. 0030).
As to claims 5 and 15, CHAMPION teaches the Meta-NFS is attached to a robotic arm, the robotic arm configured to move and position the Meta-NFS (carriage 210 for carrying and moving the microwave energy emitters connected to tips 122 for curing, and the agent delivery device 100; Fig. 2; para. 0031).
As to claims 6 and 16, CHAMPION teaches further comprising a microwave driver circuit configured to provide a signal to the Meta-NFS (controller 102 may control the power splitter 204 to control which of the microwave energy emitters 120 are supplied with the energy at any given time; Fig. 1; para. 0020).
As to claims 7 and 17, CHAMPION teaches the microwave driver circuit is configured to provide a selected frequency to the Meta-NFS (a frequency is selected and controlled by controller to generate energy 124 at the frequency; paras. 0032-0033).
As to claims 8 and 18, CHAMPION teaches the microwave driver circuit is configured to provide a selected power level to the Meta-NFS (power levels are provided by controller to generate microwave energy at varying power levels; paras. 0020).
As to claims 9 and 19, CHAMPION teaches the microwave driver circuit is configured to provide a selected pulse rate to the Meta-NFS (microwave energy given at given times; paras. 0020).
Response to Arguments
The rejections are maintained because CHAMPION teaches “wherein the tapered electrically conductive structure comprises tapered transmission lines configured to focus the microwave energy into a spot positioned adjacent the nozzle.” Specifically, neither the claims nor the specification define the structure of “tapered transmission lines” in any particular way. Thus, it is any tapered transmission lines of any size, length, or other dimensions. CHAMPION teaches “According to examples, the feed 402, the resonator 406, and the tip 122 may be formed of the same type of electrically conductive material or different types of materials with respect to each other. By way of example, the material may include solid copper, stranded copper, copper plated steel wire, and the like” (para. 0042). This meets the broad limitation.
As to claim 1 amendment to the device of “wherein a material is extruded through the nozzle of the additive printing device,” this is an intended use that fails to distinguish the claim over the prior art.
As to claims 1 and 11, CHAMPION teaches that the MW is focused into a spot “adjacent” (broadly meaning any distance) the nozzle of agent delivery device which “extrudes” or forces out coalescing agent (Fig. 1).
Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 103 - Maintained
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.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over CHAMPION (US 20210245436), in view of LI (US 20220193994).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing to substitute familiar near-field microwave generating tips with gap between the first tip and the second tip comprises a distance of less than 500 microns to achieve familiar microwave radiation with desired power results with a reasonable expectation of success.
CHAMPION does not explicitly teach the gap between the first tip and the second tip comprises a distance of less than 500 microns.
However, LI, just like CHAMPION (paras. 0041-42), demonstrates that resonance is how the microwave is controlled (e.g. power, wavelength, etc.; paras. 0036-47, for example). To this end, resonance in a near-field microwave generator tip is controlled by the gap formed between the tips, AKA resonators (CHAMPION, paras. 0041-42; LI, paras. 0036-47). LI explains that this gap can be adjusted based on the application, including to less than 500 µM
The shape of the resonator is not particularly limited. The shape of the resonator is preferably calculated and/or optimized to achieve a predetermined or desired distribution of the standing waves or a predetermined mode distribution. The length of the resonator is ideally a resonant length and can e.g, be at least a quarter of the wavelength λ. of the microwave radiation or an odd multiple of a quarter of the wavelength λ/4 or a multiple of half the wavelength λ/2.
If the filament is based on an electrically conductive material (such as a filament of continuous carbon fiber in a dielectric matrix or any fiber in an electrically conductive matrix) and forms the inner conductor of the coaxial resonator, the length of the resonator is preferably at least λ/2 or a multiple of λ/2.
In the case of an inner conductor (e.g. in the form of a tube made of an electrically conductive material), which is electrically connected to the outer conductor at one end thereof and does not extend over the entire length of the outer conductor forming the cavity, and a non-electrically conductive filament with a sufficient dielectric absorption, the length of the coaxial resonator is preferably at least 214 or an odd multiple of λ/4.
The diameter of the resonator is not particularly limited and can be selected depending on the diameter of the filament, for example. The resonator or the outer conductor can e.g. be cylindrical and have a length of at least λ/4. The length of the at least one resonator can be variable or adjustable. In this way, for example, a particularly advantageous distribution of the microwave radiation (resonance radiation) can be realized in the resonator. As stated above, the length of the resonator is ideally a resonant length, i.e. an odd multiple of a quarter of the wavelength λ/4 or a multiple of half the wavelength λ/2
(paras. 0044-47). The length at the resonator can be the wavelength divided by 4; wherein the wavelength of CHAMPION at 300 GHz is approximately 1000 microns, therefore the length of the resonator can be about 250 microns.
Thus, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to substitute known resonance structure gaps such as less than 500 µM to achieve known power, wavelength, etc. results based on the application with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over CHAMPION (US 20210245436), in view of TSELIAKHOVICH (US 20160230283).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing to substitute familiar near-field microwave generating tips with gap between the first tip and the second tip between a one-tenth of a wavelength and one-fiftieth of a wavelength to achieve familiar microwave radiation with desired power results with a reasonable expectation of success.
CHAMPION does not explicitly teach the gap between the first tip and the second tip comprises a distance of between a one-tenth of a wavelength and one-fiftieth of a wavelength.
However, CHAMPION (paras. 0041-42) demonstrates that resonance is how the microwave is controlled (e.g. power, wavelength, etc.; paras. 0036-47, for example). To this end, resonance in a near-field microwave generator tip is controlled by the gap formed between the tips, AKA resonators (CHAMPION, paras. 0041-42). TSELIAKHOVICH explains that this gap can be adjusted based on the application, including to between a one-tenth of a wavelength and one-fiftieth of a wavelength:
Returning to FIG. 2, conduit 240 includes a waveguide 245 that guides a beam of microwave energy 225 from microwave energy source 120 to deposition nozzle 110. In an embodiment, microwave beam 225 is a Gaussian beam. In an embodiment, microwave beam 225 is a high-power millimeter-wave beam. The use of millimeter frequencies, such as for example 20-180 GHz, allows for precise and adjustable control of the beam and its energy distribution. Millimeter waves of approximately 20-180 GHz can be controlled and propagated from microwave source 120 to nozzle 110 via waveguide 245 of mm- and cm-size dimensions thus conforming to dimensions adequate for additive manufacturing applications as distinguished from low frequency radiation such as 2.45 GHz. Millimeter waves generated with high power microwave sources such as gyrotrons are typically generated with high efficiencies (40-60%) at high power levels (above 20 kW) and are significantly more powerful and more efficient than lasers used in additive manufacturing applications. Furthermore, compared to laser beams, microwave beam 225 is more spread-out and penetrates deeper into material 235, providing more uniform energy distribution. Advantages include faster deposition, decreased cost, and increased speed of production for large structures
(para. 0028). Waves of about 20 GHz, which is a wavelength of approximately 15 mm, and the dimensions of the gap formed by the waveguide can be of 1 mm, therefore the gap between the first tip and the second tip comprises a distance of about one-fiftieth of a wavelength.
Thus, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to substitute known resonance structure gaps such as between a one-tenth of a wavelength and one-fiftieth of a wavelength to achieve known power, wavelength, etc. results based on the application with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over CHAMPION (US 20210245436), in view of Shelef & Jerby, Incremental solidification (toward 3D-printing) of metal powders by transistor-based microwave applicator, Materials & Design, Volume 185, 5 January 2020, 108234, 10.1016/j.matdes.2019.108234.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing to substitute familiar tungsten resonators/conductive structure to achieve familiar microwave results with a reasonable expectation of success.
CHAMPION does not explicitly teach tapered electrically conductive structure comprises tungsten.
However, CHAMPION demonstrates that resonance can be generated in familiar conductive metals such as copper (paras. 0041-42). To this end, another known microwave-generator conductive metal applicable to 3D printer microwave resonance structures was tungsten. Shelef & Jerby use a microwave coaxial resonator tip structure that includes a 1-mmØ tungsten rod (pg. 2, col. 2- “Experimental Setup”). This “intensifies the [localized-microwave-heating] effect by increasing the local electric field, when brought to proximity with the powder batch (the outer cavity is used here for experimental purposes; it could be eliminated in practical LMH-[Additive Manufacturing] systems)” (id.)
Thus, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to substitute known resonance structure materials such as tungsten for the conductive materials of CHAMPION to achieve known localized-microwave-heating results based on the application with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
The rejections are maintained because CHAMPION teaches “wherein the tapered electrically conductive structure comprises tapered transmission lines configured to focus the microwave energy into a spot positioned adjacent the nozzle.” Specifically, neither the claims nor the specification define the structure of “tapered transmission lines” in any particular way. Thus, it is any tapered transmission lines of any size, length, or other dimensions. CHAMPION teaches “According to examples, the feed 402, the resonator 406, and the tip 122 may be formed of the same type of electrically conductive material or different types of materials with respect to each other. By way of example, the material may include solid copper, stranded copper, copper plated steel wire, and the like” (para. 0042). This meets the broad limitation.
As to claim 1 amendment to the device of “wherein a material is extruded through the nozzle of the additive printing device,” this is an intended use that fails to distinguish the claim over the prior art.
As to claims 1 and 11, CHAMPION teaches that the MW is focused into a spot “adjacent” (broadly meaning any distance) the nozzle of agent delivery device which “extrudes” or forces out coalescing agent (Fig. 1).
Furthermore, LI uses extrusion with MW radiation adjacent extruder (Figures); as does TSELIAKHOVICH (Figures). In other words, even if Applicants amend the claims to specify what kind of extruder and extrusion is used (e.g. FDM), yet this is routinely performed with MW radiation.
Finally, as shown in LI and TSELIAKHOVICH, “tapered transmission lines” are regularly optimized in gap sizing and materials to achieve familiar MW results based on the application. Thus, it is at least obvious to adjust the MW resonator tip materials, gap sizes and structures to achieve familiar MW results.
Applicants are also advised that DE102015002967A1 (cited in IDS 07/08/2026) discloses “tapered transmission lines” MW radiation in FDM.
Prior Art
The following prior art also teaches microwave heating of 3D print build materials: US 20230135458; US 20140021171; US 20180140000; US 20210379830; KR 20140001287; US20220193994.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELODY TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-1846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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, Heather Calamita can be reached at 571-272-2876. 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.
/YUNG-SHENG M TSUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1684
Prosecution Insights