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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (Claims 1 – 13) in the reply filed on (5 – 1 – 2026) is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the shared special technical features are unique. This is not found persuasive because as detailed in the restriction requirement of (3 – 9 – 2026) the shared special technical features are only found in the pre-amble of claim 14. As such, applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 14. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation of the shared special technical features is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention, and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02. Furthermore, within the restriction it will still show that the prior art of Newell et al. (US 20190210286 A1, hereinafter Newell) was found to disclose all the shared special technical features. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Consequently, claim(s) 14 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s) and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the same reply filed on (5 – 1 – 2025).
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 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.
A.) Claim(s) 1 – 7, 9 – 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Newell et al. (US 20190210286 A1, hereinafter Newell).Regarding claim 1,
A melt electrowriting (MEW) system, comprising:
an MEW device configured to print a material on a collector,
wherein the MEW device comprises:
a print head configured to melt and extrude the material out from an extruder,
wherein the extruder is exchangeable depending on a surface profile of the collector; and
a positioning system configured to coordinate movements of the collector relative to the print head,
wherein the MEW system is configured to print the material with at least four mechanical degrees of freedom and up to six mechanical degrees of freedom.
Newell teaches the following:
([0049]) teaches (Fig. 1) is a perspective view of a multi-axis robotic build system 100 that may be used for building three-dimensional (3D) parts. ([0051]) notes that a build platform 106 is provided. Where the system 100 acts as applicant’s MEW device configured to print a material onto a build platform 106 which acts as applicant’s collector.
([0004]) notes that In a fused deposition modeling system, a 3D printer creates a 3D printed part in a layer-by-layer manner by extruding a flowable part material along tool paths that are generated from a digital representation of the part. The part material is extruded through an extrusion tip carried by a print head of the system. The extruded part material fuses to previously deposited part material, and solidifies upon a drop in temperature. ([0047]) notes that the current system embodiment of the present disclosure uses motion of a robotic arm in six axes, and motion of a build platform in two axes, to allow printing orientation of a fused deposition modeling part to be determined based on the geometry of the part, and without the need for supporting structure. ([0106]) teaches that in one embodiment, pre-heater 120 is positioned on, ahead, or near the print head 104 to provide local pre-heating of the tool path on a previously printed portion of the 3D part ahead of the print head and subsequent tool path. Where the print head 104 provided with pre-heater 120 acts as applicant’s print head configured to melt and extrude the material out from an extruder.
([0054]) teaches that for printing using different materials for different portions of a part being built or when a new tool is required, automated tool changing may be used. Such automated tool changing allows for additional operations, including by way of example and not by way of limitation, further additive manufacturing, subtractive manufacturing, finishing, inspection, and assembly of parts. A tool change rack is schematically illustrated at 122 in FIG. 1, and by way of example may be configured such as disclosed in Comb et al. U.S. Pat. No. 8,926,484. A tool change rack such as rack 122 may hold additional tools, extruders, subtractive elements, or the like. As such, the rack 122 utilized for automated tool changing is understood to comprise additional extruders, namely the extruder is capable of being exchanged from additionally extruders provided on rack 122, which acts as applicant’s exchangeable extruder. Furthermore, due to the exchangeable extruder being capable of being exchanged for other exchangeable extruder it is understood to be capable of implementing certain extruder depending on a surface profile of the collector. Highlighting, that replacing the exchangeable extruder depending on a surface profile of the collector is understood to be intended use, where it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235.
([0051]) teaches that a build platform 106 is provided, which in one embodiment is movable along two axes of rotation, rotation about the z-axis, and tilting (rotation) about the x-axis. Further axes of rotation may be provided with a different build platform 106, such as but not limited to tilting (rotation) in the y-axis, and various translations. Further, different build platforms with different axes of motion may also be used with the embodiments of the present disclosure without departing therefrom. Build platform 106 is provided in one embodiment with an extension 110 to offer more freedom of movement of the robotic arm 102 and print head 104 in the vicinity of the build platform 106. Build platform 106 could also comprise an additional robotic arm, also providing 6-axis movement, instead of being a fixed unit with 2-axis movement ([0052]) a controller 108 contains software and hardware for controlling the motion of the robotic arm 102 and the build platform 106, as well as the printing operation of the print head 104. Where, the platform 106 comprises several degrees of freedom, and the controller 108 contains software and hardware for controlling the motion of both the robotic arm 102 and the build platform 106, which acts as applicant’s a positioning system configured to coordinate movements of the collector relative to the print head.
([0049]) teaches that as illustrated in (Fig. 1), the system 100 includes in one embodiment a robotic arm 102 capable of movement along six axes. An exemplary robotic arm is an industrial robot manufactured by KUKA Robotics of Augsburg, Germany. While six axes of motion are discussed for the robotic arm 102 from a stationary base, it should be understood that additional axes or other movements are also amenable to use with the embodiments of the present disclosure, without departing therefrom. For example, the robotic arm 102 could be mounted to move on a rail or a gantry to provide additional degrees of freedom. ([0050]) notes that the robotic arm 102 carries a print head 104. As such, robotic arm 102 provides for the system to print the material with at least four mechanical degrees of freedom and up to six mechanical degrees of freedom.
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Comprising
a trunnion mechanism integrated with the positioning system to enable rotations of the collector relative to the print head along a yaw axis and along a roll axis, or along a pitch axis and along the roll axis.
Newell teaches the following:
([0051]) teaches that a build platform 106 is provided, which in one embodiment is movable along two axes of rotation, rotation about the z-axis, and tilting (rotation) about the x-axis. Further axes of rotation may be provided with a different build platform 106, such as but not limited to tilting (rotation) in the y-axis, and various translations. Further, different build platforms with different axes of motion may also be used with the embodiments of the present disclosure without departing therefrom. Build platform 106 is provided in one embodiment with an extension 110 to offer more freedom of movement of the robotic arm 102 and print head 104 in the vicinity of the build platform 106. Build platform 106 could also comprise an additional robotic arm, also providing 6-axis movement, instead of being a fixed unit with 2-axis movement. ([0052]) teaches that a controller 108 contains software and hardware for controlling the motion of the robotic arm 102 and the build platform 106, as well as the printing operation of the print head 104. Where, the axis of rotation about the about the z-axis is understood to be equivalent to a rotation about the (Yaw) while rotation about the x-axis is understood to be equivalent to a rotation about the (Roll), while rotation about the y-axis is understood to be equivalent to a rotation about the (Pitch). As such and as best illustrated in (Fig. 2), the build platform 106 movement provided by controller 108 via a robot or other motion translational mechanism means (as illustrated) which is understood to acts as applicant’s trunnion mechanism integrated with the positioning system to enable rotations of the collector relative to the print head along a yaw axis and along a roll axis, or along a pitch axis and along the roll axis.
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 2,
Wherein the print head is integrated in a Z axis of the positioning system.
Newell teaches the following:
([0050]) teaches that the robotic arm 102 carries a print head 104. ([0052]) teaches that a controller 108 contains software and hardware for controlling the motion of the robotic arm 102 and the build platform 106, as well as the printing operation of the print head 104. With ([0049]) teaching that as illustrated in (Fig. 1) a perspective view of a multi-axis robotic build system 100 that may be used for building three-dimensional (3D) parts. System 100 includes in one embodiment a robotic arm 102 capable of movement along six axes. An exemplary robotic arm is an industrial robot manufactured by KUKA Robotics of Augsburg, Germany. While six axes of motion are discussed for the robotic arm 102 from a stationary base, it should be understood that additional axes or other movements are also amenable to use with the embodiments of the present disclosure, without departing therefrom. For example, the robotic arm 102 could be mounted to move on a rail or a gantry to provide additional degrees of freedom. As such, the print head is integrated in a Z axis of the positioning system.
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 2,
Wherein the trunnion mechanism is integrated in a XY axis of the positioning system.
Newell teaches the following:
([0052]) teaches that a controller 108 contains software and hardware for controlling the motion of the robotic arm 102 and the build platform 106, as well as the printing operation of the print head 104. ([0050]) teaches that a build platform 106 is provided, which in one embodiment is movable along two axes of rotation, rotation about the z-axis, and tilting (rotation) about the x-axis. Further axes of rotation may be provided with a different build platform 106, such as but not limited to tilting (rotation) in the y-axis, and various translations. Further, different build platforms with different axes of motion may also be used with the embodiments of the present disclosure without departing therefrom. Build platform 106 is provided in one embodiment with an extension 110 to offer more freedom of movement of the robotic arm 102 and print head 104 in the vicinity of the build platform 106. Build platform 106 could also comprise an additional robotic arm, also providing 6-axis movement, instead of being a fixed unit with 2-axis movement. As such and as best illustrated in (Fig. 2), the build platform 106 movement provided by controller 108 via a robot or other motion translational mechanism means (as illustrated) which is understood to acts as applicant’s trunnion mechanism is integrated in a XY axis of the positioning system..
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim ,
Comprising
a six-axis collaborative robot coupled to the print head or the collector to move the print head and the collector relative to each other with up to six mechanical degrees of freedom.
Newell teaches the following:
([0050]) teaches that the robotic arm 102 carries a print head 104. ([0052]) teaches that a controller 108 contains software and hardware for controlling the motion of the robotic arm 102 and the build platform 106, as well as the printing operation of the print head 104. With ([0049]) teaching that as illustrated in (Fig. 1) a perspective view of a multi-axis robotic build system 100 that may be used for building three-dimensional (3D) parts. System 100 includes in one embodiment a robotic arm 102 capable of movement along six axes. An exemplary robotic arm is an industrial robot manufactured by KUKA Robotics of Augsburg, Germany. While six axes of motion are discussed for the robotic arm 102 from a stationary base, it should be understood that additional axes or other movements are also amenable to use with the embodiments of the present disclosure, without departing therefrom. For example, the robotic arm 102 could be mounted to move on a rail or a gantry to provide additional degrees of freedom. With ([0050]) teaches that a build platform 106 is provided, which in one embodiment is movable along two axes of rotation, rotation about the z-axis, and tilting (rotation) about the x-axis. Further axes of rotation may be provided with a different build platform 106, such as but not limited to tilting (rotation) in the y-axis, and various translations. Further, different build platforms with different axes of motion may also be used with the embodiments of the present disclosure without departing therefrom. Build platform 106 is provided in one embodiment with an extension 110 to offer more freedom of movement of the robotic arm 102 and print head 104 in the vicinity of the build platform 106. Build platform 106 could also comprise an additional robotic arm, also providing 6-axis movement, instead of being a fixed unit with 2-axis movement. As such, both the print head 104 and/or build platform 106 are both understood to comprise a robotic arm 102 capable of providing to move the print head and the collector relative to each other with up to six mechanical degrees of freedom.
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the extruder is exchangeable between a flat extruder configured to print on a flat surface profile and
a conical extruder configured to print on a curved surface profile.
Newell teaches the following:
& b.) As illustrated in (Figs. 3 – 4), the extruder is configured to print on a flat surface and configured to print on a curved surface profile. With ([0054]) teaches that a tool change rack as schematically illustrated at 122 in (Fig. 1) is provided. The tool change rack such as rack 122 may hold additional tools including extruders. As such, the automated tool changing of extruders which are configured to print on both a flat surface profile and a curved surface profile is understood to be disclosed. Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the shape of the of the exchangeable extruder being flat and curved. The case law for change of shape may be recited. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23, MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim ,
Wherein the positioning system is configured to maintain an orthogonal print head-collector relationship with out-of-plane collector surfaces.
Newell teaches the following:
([0052]) teaches that a controller 108 contains software and hardware for controlling the motion of the robotic arm 102 and the build platform 106, as well as the printing operation of the print head 104. As illustrated in (Figs. 3 – 4), the extruder shown to maintain an orthogonal print head-collector relationship with out-of-plane collector surfaces as the article is fabricated. Namely, the positioning system is shown to provide for maintaining an orthogonal print head-collector relationship with out-of-plane collector surfaces.
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 1,
The system is configured to print the material on the collector with geometries of a lattice base for cornea, bifurcated vascular grafts, knee cartilage, or curved surfaces.
Newell teaches the following:
As illustrated in (Figs. 3 – 4), the extruder shown to print the material on the collector with geometries of a curved surfaces. As such, the system is configured to print the material on the collector with geometries of a curved surfaces.
Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 1,
The system is capable of printing on the collector of a curving tubular structure.
Newell teaches the following:
As illustrated in (Figs. 3 – 4 & 10) the build platform 106 is provided, which in one embodiment is movable along two axes of rotation, rotation about the z-axis, and tilting (rotation) about the x-axis. Further axes of rotation may be provided with a different build platform 106, such as but not limited to tilting (rotation) in the y-axis, and various translations. Further, different build platforms with different axes of motion may also be used with the embodiments of the present disclosure without departing therefrom. Build platform 106 is provided in one embodiment with an extension 110. Highlighting, that both the build platform 106 and the extension 110 portion are found to be comprise the same shape as a tubular structure, i.e., elongated and curved, without being hollow. Adding, (Fig. 9) shows an article being fabricated that comprise a curving tubular structure, with the printing found to be printing on the curving tubular structure, where the article being printed may act as a collector with a curving tubular structure. Accordingly, the system is capable of printing on a curving tubular structure, including printing on the collector of a curving tubular structure. Furthermore, the system being capable of printing on the collector of a curving tubular structure is understood to be a functional limitation. Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the system being capable of printing on the collector of a curving tubular structure. Nevertheless, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 1,
The system is capable of printing on the collector of a non-circular cross-sectional tubular structure.
Newell teaches the following:
As illustrated in (Figs. 3 – 4, 7 ,10) the build platform 106 is provided, which in one embodiment is movable along two axes of rotation, rotation about the z-axis, and tilting (rotation) about the x-axis. Further axes of rotation may be provided with a different build platform 106, such as but not limited to tilting (rotation) in the y-axis, and various translations. Further, different build platforms with different axes of motion may also be used with the embodiments of the present disclosure without departing therefrom. ([0083]) teaches that the part 700B includes a substantially solid base constructed of a plurality of planar layers 712. Each layer includes a boundary 714 extruded about a perimeter of the base and a substantially solid interior region that is filled utilizing a raster tool path 716. As such, the first portion of the part 702 is found to be built upon the plurality of planar layers 712. Namely, the plurality of planar layers 712 may act as applicant’s collector of a non-circular cross-sectional tubular structure. Providing for the system being capable of printing on a collector of a non-circular cross-sectional tubular structure. Furthermore, the system being capable of printing on the a non-circular cross-sectional tubular structure is understood to be a functional limitation. Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the system being capable of printing on the collector of a non-circular cross-sectional tubular structure. Nevertheless, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 12 as applied to claim ,
The system is capable of printing on the collector of a bifurcating tubular structure.
Newell teaches the following:
As illustrated in (Figs. 3 – 4 & 10) the build platform 106 is provided, which in one embodiment is movable along two axes of rotation, rotation about the z-axis, and tilting (rotation) about the x-axis. Further axes of rotation may be provided with a different build platform 106, such as but not limited to tilting (rotation) in the y-axis, and various translations. Further, different build platforms with different axes of motion may also be used with the embodiments of the present disclosure without departing therefrom. Build platform 106 is provided in one embodiment with an extension 110. Highlighting, that both the build platform 106 and the extension 110 portion are found to be comprise the same shape as a tubular structure, i.e., elongated and curved, without being hollow. Adding, (Fig. 9) shows an article being fabricated that comprise a curving tubular structure, with the printing found to be printing on the curving tubular structure, where the article being printed may act as a collector with a curving tubular structure. Accordingly, the system is capable of printing on a curving tubular structure, including printing on the collector of a curving tubular structure. With ([0072]) adding that Integration of tool paths generated by a CAD system for robotic movement are in one embodiment translated into extrusion protocols for the motion paths that are generated. Adding, that while a curving tubular structure that is bifurcated is not provided it is understood that any shape or design that can be generated by a CAD is understood to be feasible, including but not limited to a tubular structure that is bifurcated. Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the system being capable of printing on the collector of a bifurcating tubular structure. The case law for the change of shape may be recited regarding the shape of the collector. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23, MPEP 2143. Furthermore, the system being capable of printing on the collector of a curving tubular structure that is bifurcated is understood to be a functional limitation. Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the system being capable of printing on the collector of a curving tubular structure that is bifurcated. Nevertheless, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433
Regarding claim 13 as applied to claim 1,
The system is capable of printing membranes with pore sizes as small as about 10 µm.
Newell teaches the following:
As detailed above for claim 1, Newell discloses a system which is understood to be identical to applicant’s system. Namely, an device configured to print a material on a collector, wherein the device comprises: a print head configured to melt and extrude the material out from an extruder, wherein the extruder is exchangeable depending on a surface profile of the collector; and a positioning system configured to coordinate movements of the collector relative to the print head, wherein the system is configured to print the material with at least four mechanical degrees of freedom and up to six mechanical degrees of freedom. As such, Newell is capable of placing the extrude the material out from an extruder anywhere on the collection surface. Including at distances larger than 10 µm, i.e, pore sizes as small as about 10 µm (X ≥ 10 µm). Accordingly, the system of Newell is understood to be capable of printing membranes with pore sizes as small as about 10 µm. Furthermore, the system being capable of printing membranes with pore sizes as small as about 10 µm is understood to be a functional limitation. Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the system being capable of printing membranes with pore sizes as small as about 10 µm. Nevertheless, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144.
B.) Claim(s) 6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newell in view of James Page (US 20150266244 A1, hereinafter Page)Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the extruder is exchangeable between a flat extruder configured to print on a flat surface profile and
a conical extruder configured to print on a curved surface profile.
Newell teaches the following:
As illustrated in (Figs. 3 – 4), the flat extruder is configured to print on a flat surface and configured to print on a curved surface profile. With ([0054]) teaches that a tool change rack as schematically illustrated at 122 in (Fig. 1) is provided. The tool change rack such as rack 122 may hold additional tools including extruders. As such, the automated tool changing of extruders which are configured to print on both a flat surface profile and a curved surface profile is understood to be disclosed. Highlighting, while no dis are perceived to exist regarding the shape of the of the exchangeable extruder being flat and curved. The case law for change of shape may be recited. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23, MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim 6, Newell is silent on a conical extruder configured to print on a curved surface profile. In analogous art for a single screw micro-extruder for a 3D printer includes a feed chamber with an opening for receiving solid plastic pellets, (Abstract), Page suggests details regarding a conical extruder configured to print on a curved surface profile, and in this regard, Page teaches the following:
([0108]) teaches that referring now to (Fig. 12A), a nozzle 1202 is shown depositing material 1204 on a sloped part surface 1210 with a motion of travel in a downward sloping direction along part surface 1210. The nozzle 1202 may be a nozzle or it may be a different material deposition system such as a welding tip or electrode, syringe, adhesive material deposition system, material solidification system, material curing system or material pump, or combinations thereof. As illustrated in (Fig. 12A) a conically shaped nozzle is provided in which is shown to print along a curved surface profile. Where, the conically shaped nozzle acts as applicant’s conical extruder configured to print on a curved surface profile.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing and printing a 3D part with an additive manufacturing system that comprises a robot arm to carry a print head or extruder and is capable of extruding material of Newell. By modifying the apparatus to comprise a conical extruder configured to print on a curved surface profile, as taught by Page. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a conical extruder configured to print on a curved surface profile as it provides for achieving a more constant resulting thickness of deposited material regardless of the slope of part surface 1210 and may also achieve improved adhesion of deposited material, ([0125]) and provides for improvements to deposited material thickness, adhesion, surface finish, texture, fill factor, density, and material fusing may be obtained by adjusting paths with positive slopes differently than paths with negative slopes, ([0125]). Accordingly, the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or the choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success i.e., a conical vs a flat extruder provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
C.) Claim(s) 6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newell in view of Timothy Womer (US 20170291364 A1, hereinafter Womer)Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the extruder is exchangeable between a flat extruder configured to print on a flat surface profile and
a conical extruder configured to print on a curved surface profile.
Newell teaches the following:
As illustrated in (Figs. 3 – 4), the flat extruder is configured to print on a flat surface and configured to print on a curved surface profile. With ([0054]) teaches that a tool change rack as schematically illustrated at 122 in (Fig. 1) is provided. The tool change rack such as rack 122 may hold additional tools including extruders. As such, the automated tool changing of extruders which are configured to print on both a flat surface profile and a curved surface profile is understood to be disclosed. Highlighting, while no dis are perceived to exist regarding the shape of the of the exchangeable extruder being flat and curved. The case law for change of shape may be recited. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23, MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim 6, Newell is silent on a conical extruder configured to print on a curved surface profile. In analogous art for a single screw micro-extruder for a 3D printer includes a feed chamber with an opening for receiving solid plastic pellets, (Abstract), Womer suggests details regarding a conical extruder configured to print on a curved surface profile, and in this regard, Womer teaches the following:
(Abstract) teaches that A single screw micro-extruder for a 3D printer includes a feed chamber with an opening for receiving solid plastic pellets. An extrusion barrel extends from the feed chamber and has an inner conically shaped bore between input and output ends. As detailed in (Fig. 1) a conical extruder is provided. Highlighting, that being configured to print on a curved surface profile is understood to be a functional limitation. Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the conical extruder configured to print on a curved surface profile. Nevertheless, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing and printing a 3D part with an additive manufacturing system that comprises a robot arm to carry a print head or extruder and is capable of extruding material of Newell. By modifying the apparatus to comprise a conical extruder configured to print on a curved surface profile, as taught by Womer. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a conical extruder configured to print on a curved surface profile as it provides for a micro-extruder 10 in which the center of gravity is lowered. As a result, unwanted movement and vibration of the extruder are reduced at stops, starts and accelerations during print travel. Moreover, it improves stability and, therefore, the precision of the printed molten extrudate or melt plastic at greater print speed, ([0062]). Accordingly, the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or the choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success i.e., a conical vs a flat extruder provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
D.) Claim(s) 8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newell in view of Van Kampen et al. (Controllable four axis extrusion-based additive manufacturing system for the fabrication of tubular scaffolds with tailorable mechanical properties, 2021, hereinafter Van Kampen) and in further view of Hao-Jen Huang (US 20170190105 A1, hereinafter Huang)Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the print head comprises:
a syringe with a needle configured to contain the material;
a heating chamber configured to receive the syringe and the needle and provide heat to the syringe and the needle via cartridge heaters; and
a thermally insulative layer that wraps around the heating chamber.
Regarding Claim 8, Newell is silent on a syringe with a needle configured to contain the material and a thermally insulative layer that wraps around the heating chamber. In analogous art for an extrusion-based additive manufacturing processes, like FDM, can help increase a scaffold’s mechanical integrity, (¶3), Van Kampen suggests details regarding a syringe with a needle configured to contain the material and a thermally insulative layer that wraps around the heating chamber, and in this regard, Van Kampen teaches the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
556
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As illustrated in (Fig. 1) and provided within, a heated syringe (top arrow) with a needle (bottom arrow) is shown to be configured to contain the material used for additive manufacturing a scaffold.
PNG
media_image2.png
546
989
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Pg. 2, Methods) The researchers created their AM system by taking a Roland EGX-360, with a controllable fourth axis, and replacing its engraving head with a custom, heated pressure-driven dispensing cartridge. With (Fig. S1) and provided within, showing the printing system including the heater / heating chamber configured to receive the syringe and the needle and provide heat to the syringe and the needle via cartridge heaters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing and printing a 3D part with an additive manufacturing system that comprises a robot arm to carry a print head or extruder and is capable of extruding material of Newell. By modifying the apparatus to comprise a heated syringe with a needle configured to contain the material, as taught by Van Kampen. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a heated syringe with a needle configured to contain the material as it provides for fabricating tubular scaffolds with tailorable mechanical properties, (Pg. 2, Introduction, ¶3 – 4). Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.Regarding Claim 8, Newell as modified by Van Kampen is silent on a syringe with a needle configured to contain the material and a thermally insulative layer that wraps around the heating chamber. In analogous art for a single screw micro-extruder for a 3D printer includes a feed chamber with an opening for receiving solid plastic pellets a heating head for a three-dimensional printing apparatus, (Abstract), Huang suggests details regarding a syringe with a needle configured to contain the material and a thermally insulative layer that wraps around the heating chamber, and in this regard, Huang teaches the following:
([0024]) teaches that referring to (Figs. 1 – 3), in the present embodiment, a three-dimensional printing pen 10 includes a main body 20 and a heating head 30.([0025]) teaches that the heating head 30 includes a heating pipe 31. ([0026]) adds that the heating pipe 31 has a feeding port 311 and a discharging port 312 opposite to the feeding port 311. Where the heating pipe 31 with discharging port 312 acts as applicant’s syringe with a needle configured to contain the material
([0026]) teaches that the heating member 32 disposed on the heating pipe 31. As illustrated in (Fig. 3), the heating pipe 31 is found to be received within an aperture of the heating member 32. Where the aperture of the heating member 32 acts as a heating chamber configured to receive the heating pipe 31 with discharging port 312 / the syringe and the needle and provide heat to the heating pipe 31 with discharging port 312 / syringe and the needle via cartridge heaters / the heating member 32.
([0037]) teaches that referring to (Figs. 1 – 3), in the present embodiment, the heating head 30 further includes a protective cover 37 and a heat dissipation cover 38. The protective cover 37 covers a part of the heating pipe 31, the heating member 32, a part of the heat insulation sleeve 34, and a part of the heat sink 35, and the nozzle 36 passes through the opening 371 of the protective cover 37. As illustrated in (Fig. 3) the nozzle including the heating member are found in the opening 371 of the protective cover 37. As such, a gap / space is understood to be provided which allows for thermally insulating the protective cover layer that wraps around the heating chamber. Where the protective cover 37 with the opening 371 acts as applicant’s thermally insulative layer that wraps around the heating chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing and printing a 3D part with an additive manufacturing system that comprises a robot arm to carry a print head or extruder and is capable of extruding material of Newell as modified by Van Kampen. By further modifying the apparatus to comprise a print head that comprises a syringe with a needle configured to contain the material and a thermally insulative layer that wraps around the heating chamber, as taught by Huang. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include a printhead that comprises a syringe with a needle configured to contain the material and a thermally insulative layer that wraps around the heating chamber as it provides for the heat conducted from the heat insulation pipe 33 to the heat sink 35 can be discharged to the outside through the heat dissipation slots 381, so that the temperatures around thevarious components can be maintained at their targeted temperatures, ([0028]). Highlighting, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.E.) Claim(s) 8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newell in view of Van Kampen and in further view of Womer Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the print head comprises:
a syringe with a needle configured to contain the material;
a heating chamber configured to receive the syringe and the needle and provide heat to the syringe and the needle via cartridge heaters; and
a thermally insulative layer that wraps around the heating chamber.
Regarding Claim 8, Newell is silent on a syringe with a needle configured to contain the material. In analogous art for an extrusion-based additive manufacturing processes, like FDM, can help increase a scaffold’s mechanical integrity, (¶3), Van Kampen suggests details regarding a syringe with a needle configured to contain the material and a thermally insulative layer that wraps around the heating chamber, and in this regard, Van Kampen teaches the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
556
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As illustrated in (Fig. 2) and provided within, a heated syringe (top arrow) with a needle (bottom arrow) is shown to be configured to contain the material used for additive manufacturing a scaffold.
PNG
media_image2.png
546
989
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(¶4) The researchers created their AM system by taking a Roland EGX-360, with a controllable fourth axis, and replacing its engraving head with a custom, heated pressure-driven dispensing cartridge. With (Fig. 3) and provided within, showing the printing system including the heater / heating chamber configured to receive the syringe and the needle and provide heat to the syringe and the needle via cartridge heaters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing and printing a 3D part with an additive manufacturing system that comprises a robot arm to carry a print head or extruder and is capable of extruding material of Newell. By modifying the apparatus to comprise a heated syringe with a needle configured to contain the material, as taught by Van Kampen. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a heated syringe with a needle configured to contain the material as it provides for fabricating tubular scaffolds with tailorable mechanical properties, (¶4). Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143. Regarding Claim 8, Newell as modified by Van Kampen is silent on a thermally insulative layer that wraps around the heating chamber. In analogous art for a single screw micro-extruder for a 3D printer includes a feed chamber with an opening for receiving solid plastic pellets a heating head for a three-dimensional printing apparatus, (Abstract), Womer suggests details regarding a syringe with a needle configured to contain the material and a thermally insulative layer that wraps around the heating chamber, and in this regard, Womer teaches the following:
([0070]) teaches that the extrusion nozzle 80 is threadably attached at the end of the barrel 30 by nozzle tip threads 82. Where the extrusion nozzle 80 acts as applicant’s a syringe with a needle configured to contain the material.
([0074]) teaches that as best seen in (Fig. 1), a heating element 88 (preferably an electric resistant heating band, an induction heater or combination thereof as stated supra) is provided against the outside surface of the barrel 30 for heating and melting the pellets 16 being conveyed through the melt section 36. Where the barrel 30 acts applicant’s heating chamber configured to receive the syringe and the needle and provide heat to the syringe and the needle via cartridge heaters.
([0075]) teaches that as shown in FIGS. 1 and 6, the heating element 88 is wrapped with one or more (preferably two) insulating blankets 90. Where the insulating blankets 90 acts as applicant’s thermally insulative layer that wraps around the heating chamber
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing and printing a 3D part with an additive manufacturing system that comprises a robot arm to carry a print head or extruder and is capable of extruding material of Newell as modified by Van Kampen. By further modifying the apparatus to comprise a thermally insulative blanket layers that wrap around the heating chamber as it provides for reducing the radiant heat emitted from the micro-extruder, ([0017]). Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143. F.) Claim(s) 10 – 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newell in view of Van Kampen Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 1,
The system is capable of printing on the collector of a curving tubular structure.
Newell teaches the following:
As illustrated in (Figs. 3 – 4 & 10) the build platform 106 is provided, which in one embodiment is movable along two axes of rotation, rotation about the z-axis, and tilting (rotation) about the x-axis. Further axes of rotation may be provided with a different build platform 106, such as but not limited to tilting (rotation) in the y-axis, and various translations. Further, different build platforms with different axes of motion may also be used with the embodiments of the present disclosure without departing therefrom. Build platform 106 is provided in one embodiment with an extension 110. Highlighting, that both the build platform 106 and the extension 110 portion are found to be comprise the same shape as a tubular structure, i.e., elongated and curved, without being hollow. Adding, (Fig. 9) shows an article being fabricated that comprise a curving tubular structure, with the printing found to be printing on the curving tubular structure, where the article being printed may act as a collector with a curving tubular structure. Accordingly, the system is capable of printing on a curving tubular structure, including printing on the collector of a curving tubular structure.
Regarding Claim 10, Newell is silent on the system being capable of printing on the collector of a curving tubular structure. In analogous art for an extrusion-based additive manufacturing processes, like FDM, can help increase a scaffold’s mechanical integrity, (¶3), Van Kampen suggests details regarding the system being capable of printing on the collector of a curving tubular structure, and in this regard, Van Kampen teaches the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
556
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As illustrated in (Fig. 2) and provided within, a heated syringe (top arrow) with a needle (bottom arrow) is shown to be configured to contain the material used for additive manufacturing a scaffold. Namely, the system is shown to be printing on a collector of a curving tubular structure.
Furthermore, the system being capable of printing on the collector of a curving tubular structure is understood to be a functional limitation. Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the system being capable of printing on the collector of a curving tubular structure. Nevertheless, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing and printing a 3D part with an additive manufacturing system that comprises a robot arm to carry a print head or extruder and is capable of extruding material of Newell. By modifying the apparatus to comprise printing on the collector of a curving tubular structure, as taught by Van Kampen. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implementing printing on the collector of a curving tubular structure as it provides for the fabrication of tubular scaffolds with tailorable mechanical properties, (¶2) thus achieve full control over the design and geometry of the scaffolds, (¶3). Accordingly, the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or the choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success i.e., a conical vs a flat extruder provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 1,
The system is capable of printing on the collector of a non-circular cross-sectional tubular structure.
Newell teaches the following:
As illustrated in (Figs. 3 – 4, 7 ,10) the build platform 106 is provided, which in one embodiment is movable along two axes of rotation, rotation about the z-axis, and tilting (rotation) about the x-axis. Further axes of rotation may be provided with a different build platform 106, such as but not limited to tilting (rotation) in the y-axis, and various translations. Further, different build platforms with different axes of motion may also be used with the embodiments of the present disclosure without departing therefrom. ([0083]) teaches that the part 700B includes a substantially solid base constructed of a plurality of planar layers 712. Each layer includes a boundary 714 extruded about a perimeter of the base and a substantially solid interior region that is filled utilizing a raster tool path 716. As such, the first portion of the part 702 is found to be built upon the plurality of planar layers 712. Namely, the plurality of planar layers 712 may act as applicant’s collector of a non-circular cross-sectional tubular structure. Providing for the system being capable of printing on a collector of a non-circular cross-sectional tubular structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
556
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Newell is silent on the system being capable of printing on the collector of a curving tubular structure. In analogous art for an extrusion-based additive manufacturing processes, like FDM, can help increase a scaffold’s mechanical integrity, (¶3), Van Kampen suggests details regarding the system being capable of printing on the collector of a curving tubular structure, and in this regard, Van Kampen teaches the following:
As illustrated in (Fig. 2 & 4) and provided within, a heated syringe (top arrow) with a needle (bottom arrow) is shown to be configured to contain the material used for additive manufacturing a scaffold. Namely, the system is shown to be printing on a collector of a curving tubular structure. Highlighting, while a collector of a non-circular cross-sectional tubular structure is not provided. The case law for the change of shape may be recited regarding the shape of the collector. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23, MPEP 2143.
Furthermore, the system being capable of printing on the a non-circular cross-sectional tubular structure is understood to be a functional limitation. Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the system being capable of printing on the collector of a non-circular cross-sectional tubular structure. Nevertheless, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144.
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 10, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
Regarding claim 12 as applied to claim 1,
The system is capable of printing on the collector of a bifurcating tubular structure.
Newell teaches the following:
As illustrated in (Figs. 3 – 4 & 10) the build platform 106 is provided, which in one embodiment is movable along two axes of rotation, rotation about the z-axis, and tilting (rotation) about the x-axis. Further axes of rotation may be provided with a different build platform 106, such as but not limited to tilting (rotation) in the y-axis, and various translations. Further, different build platforms with different axes of motion may also be used with the embodiments of the present disclosure without departing therefrom. Build platform 106 is provided in one embodiment with an extension 110. Highlighting, that both the build platform 106 and the extension 110 portion are found to be comprise the same shape as a tubular structure, i.e., elongated and curved, without being hollow. Adding, (Fig. 9) shows an article being fabricated that comprise a curving tubular structure, with the printing found to be printing on the curving tubular structure, where the article being printed may act as a collector with a curving tubular structure. Accordingly, the system is capable of printing on a curving tubular structure, including printing on the collector of a curving tubular structure. With ([0072]) adding that Integration of tool paths generated by a CAD system for robotic movement are in one embodiment translated into extrusion protocols for the motion paths that are generated. Adding, that while a curving tubular structure that is bifurcated is not provided it is understood that any shape or design that can be generated by a CAD is understood to be feasible, including but not limited to a tubular structure that is bifurcated.
Regarding Claim 12, Newell is silent on the system being capable of printing on the collector of a bifurcating tubular structure. In analogous art as applied above, Van Kampen suggests details regarding the system being capable of printing on the collector of a bifurcating tubular structure, and in this regard, Van Kampen teaches the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
556
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As illustrated in (Fig. 2) and provided within, a heated syringe (top arrow) with a needle (bottom arrow) is shown to be configured to contain the material used for additive manufacturing a scaffold. Namely, the system is shown to be printing on a collector of a curving tubular structure. Highlighting, while a collector of a bifurcated tubular structure is not provided. The case law for the change of shape may be recited regarding the shape of the collector. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23, MPEP 2143. Furthermore, the system being capable of printing on the collector of a curving tubular structure that is bifurcated is understood to be a functional limitation. Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the system being capable of printing on the collector of a curving tubular structure that is bifurcated. Nevertheless, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 10, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
Regarding claim 13 as applied to claim 1,
The system is capable of printing membranes with pore sizes as small as about 10 µm.
Regarding Claim 13, Newell is silent on the system is capable of printing membranes with pore sizes as small as about 10 µm. In analogous art as applied above, Van Kampen suggests details regarding the system being capable of printing membranes with pore sizes as small as about 10 µm, and in this regard, Van Kampen teaches the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
333
495
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
596
558
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 5 – 6 & Video 1) show models for the rectangular pore sample with 6 rings and 9 struts, on the left side a side view and on the right side a top view of the scaffold. (B) The model for the diamond design with 4 helices and 4,5 mm pitch, on the left side a side view and on the right side a top view of the scaffold. Scale bar = 2 mm. Along with Micro-CT in combination with longitudinal tensile test data on the rectangular pore design. Images were taken at 0, 2, 4, 6 and 8 mm of strain. Scale bar = 500 μm. Highlighting, that the pore provided are large than about 10 µm, as such are found to overlap with applicant’s range of pore sizes as small as about 10 µm, i.e, X ≥ 10 µm. Noting, that a screen shot from (Video) (provided within) to shown a scale bar with the pore size, along with (Fig. S1), showing the finished article comprising a pore size larger than 10 µm. Furthermore, as detailed in (Figs. 5 – 6) and (Table 3), the size and geometry of the pores is understood to impact the longitudinal tensile stress that the article experiences. Accordingly, the case law for result effective variable may be recited regarding optimizing the pore size implemented to include pore sizes as small as about 10 µm. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B).
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 10, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gifford et al. (US 20180326660 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) A modular 3D printer system can include a base subsystem and multiple exchangeable components. The base subsystem can have a 3D motion module, a printhead module and a platform module
Christopher Montgomery (US 20180333915 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) An extrusion head for a three-dimensional printer is disclosed including a feed tube, a heater, a cooler, and a bridge. The feed tube can be made of metal and has an inlet for receiving a forwardly driven filament of solid deposition material, an outlet, a downstream portion adjacent to the outlet, an upstream portion upstream from the downstream portion, and an internal passage extending from the inlet to the outlet.
Bosveld et al. (US 20130333798 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) a hopper valve for transferring particles from a supply container to a hopper, the hopper valve comprising a valve body coupled to the supply container, a fill tube moveably coupled to the valve body, and a foot member moveably coupled to the fill tube and configured to engage the hopper.
Burton et al. (US 20200398483 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) A 3D printer for printing consumable items, the 3D printer comprising: a print head arranged to position nozzles of a plurality of liquid dispensers to define a regular polygon around a first Z axis; an actuator device operable to dispense a portion of liquid from each liquid dispenser; a print bed comprising a print zone, the print zone comprising a plurality of print locations arranged to define a regular polygon around a second Z axis.
Swanson et al. (US 6722872 B1) – teaches in the (Abstract) Disclosed is a three-dimensional modeling apparatus (10) that builds up three-dimensional objects in a heated build chamber (24) by dispensing modeling material from a dispensing head (14) onto a base (16) in a pattern determined by control signals from a controller (140)
Wagner et al. (US 20190096623 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) The invention provides a gain device having a plurality of channels having a polygonal shape with four or more sides. The invention also provides a method for producing microchannel plates (MCPs) having the steps of providing a pre-polymer; and directing a laser over the pre-polymer into a pre-determined pattern. Also provided is method for efficiently 3D printing an object.
Bruno Alves (US 20190240912 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) a mobile 3D printing robot includes a robot arm, a stand unit for the temporary setup of the robot arm on an underlying surface, and at least one 3D printing device having at least one printhead which is movable the robot arm and dispenses at least one printing material.
Iqtidar et al. (US 20170217013 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) a device comprising a tower covered by a shell, the tower having a base with a first axis of movement around a first joint, a first arm connected to the tower via a second joint along a second axis of movement, a second arm connected to the first arm at a proximal end of the second arm via a third joint defining a third axis of movement.
Maurilio et al. (US 4731003 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) A flat extruder head for extruding plastics materials in the form of sheet or film is constructed in such a way as to guarantee a constant thickness along the whole of the width of the extruded sheet or film.
Teruo Hishiki (US 20170157826 A1) Disclosed is an improved extruder head for a fused filament fabrication 3D printer. It would be beneficial with a thinner nozzle diameter and higher extrusion speed without slippage in the feeding mechanism. The proposed improved extruder head enables extrusion of thinner extruded material at a higher extrusion speed without any slippage in filament feeding mechanism, thereby allowing higher overall building speed of the 3D printer with high quality build.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrés E. Behrens Jr. whose telephone number is (571)-272-9096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM-5:30 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571)-270-7001. 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.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights