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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 25 September 2026 is acknowledged.
Election/Restrictions
The election of Group I, claims 1-11, 17, and 19, in the reply filed on 25 September 2026 is acknowledged. Because supposed errors in the restriction requirement were not distinctly and specifically pointed out, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)), thereby leaving claims 12-16 and 18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. It is noted that the non-elected invention will be eligible for rejoinder if amended to include allowable subject matter and to address any 35 U.S.C. § 112 or other issues.
If it is believed that one or more of the withdrawn claims distinguishes over the applied prior art and/or a combination thereof, then a detailed explanation to this effect made in reply to this Office action will be considered.
Response to Remarks
The detailed response filed on 25 September 2026 addressing related art cited under corresponding foreign prosecution, addressing potential 35 U.S.C. § 112 issues, and addressing potential 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejections is acknowledged.
Piston & Construction Chamber Drive: Among the 25 September 2026 remarks, it is stated that the pending claims distinguish over one or more references due to those references not teaching that inside a peripheral wall and a container base, a piston of a storage device is activated by a piston drive and a build platform of a construction chamber is drivable by a construction chamber drive. See, for example, Rem. 12 addressing WO 2016/055523, for which a US equivalent is cited below as US 2017/0239725.
It is noted, however, that to the extent that the recited piston drive and construction chamber drive are intended to distinguish over the prior art, the current language of claim 1 does not necessarily require these as structurally limiting components of the statutory container being claimed, in particular due to the current language reciting the piston as “actuatable” by a piston drive and the build platform as “drivable” by the construction chamber drive. The current claim 1 language in turn does not require that these components are arranged inside the peripheral wall and container base. If it is intended for the piston drive and construction chamber drive to structurally limit the statutory container presently claimed and to be arranged inside the peripheral wall and container base, then it is suggested that a fully supported amendment be made to this effect, for example by changing “the piston being actuatable by a piston drive” to “a piston drive for actuating the piston”, by moving the term “and” from the end of the 4th to last line of claim 1 to after the comma in the 2nd to last line of claim 1, and by changing “which build platform is drivable by a construction chamber drive” to a recitation beginning in the following line as “a construction chamber drive for driving the build platform”. Otherwise, prior art which does not disclose such drives, or which discloses such drives but not arranged inside a container wall and base, will be construed as meeting what is presently claimed.
Single Drive of WO 2016/055523: Also at Rem. 12, it is stated that WO 2016/055523 discloses up and down movement of the storage device and build platform depending on one another due to use of only one single drive. It is noted, in addition to the response set forth in the preceding paragraph, that as potentially evidenced at least in part by the current language of claim 8, the current language of claim 1 does not necessarily require that the piston drive and construction chamber drive are in fact entirely separate from one another. If this is intended, then it is suggested that a fully supported amendment be made to this effect, for example by adding a wherein clause to this effect at the end of claim 1. Otherwise, the single drive of WO 2016/055523 might be construed as both a piston drive and a construction chamber drive.
It is further noted that an alternative interpretation is set forth below in which the single drive of WO 2016/055523 (cited as US 2017/0239725) is replaced with independent drives under 35 U.S.C. § 103. It is in turn believed that even with the above suggested changes, a further amendment would be necessary to distinguish over applicable art, absent persuasive remarks otherwise contesting the § 102/103 rejections set forth below.
Upon review of the above responses, Applicant’s Representative is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly prior to a formal response being filed for further clarification on any outstanding issues, to discuss potential claim amendments that might help to advance prosecution, and/or to discuss what Applicant believes to be the crux of the claimed and/or disclosed invention as it is believed to distinguish over the prior art.
Priority
It is noted that Figs. 8-9 of the instant application do not appear in foreign priority Application No. DE10 2022 114 262.0. If these figures and/or the alternative embodiment thereof are in fact supported by the written description thereof, then Applicant is invited to submit clarification to this effect in reply to this Office action.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that the following claim recitations are not presently recited in a manner that structurally limits of the statutory container recited by the elected claims, instead corresponding to components or features which may be construed for example as those with which the claimed container is capable of or intended for use (see MPEP § 2111.02(II) and § 2114(II), as relevant):
The claim 1 process chamber;
The claim 1 process chamber base;
The claim 1 piston drive (see relevant passages under Pages 3-4 above);
The claim 1 construction chamber drive (see relevant passages under Pages 3-4 above);
The claim 4 fixing to the process chamber;
The claim 4 second fastening element;
The claim 6 process chamber opening;
The claim 6 ability to connect from below a process opening (due to issue (g) above);
The claim 8 ability to actuate separately (due to the piston and construction chamber drives not structurally limiting as set forth above);
The claim 9 mounting platform;
The claim 19 collecting device; and
The claim 10 overflow slot (due to issue (k) above).
If any such limitations are in fact intended to be structurally limiting to the statutory container presently claimed, then a fully supported amendment should be made to this effect.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: the claim 1 connection interface, piston drive, and construction chamber drive, the claim 2 collection device, and the claim 4 at least one first fastening element and second fastening element.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim 5 line 2 recitation of “is designed as” should be changed, for example, to “comprises”.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In particular:
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear from below what the claim 6 connection interface is “connectable”.
It is unclear if or exactly how the claim 10 storage device opening, construction chamber opening, and overflow slot correspond to the claim 19 opening for the construction chamber, storage device, and collecting device (i.e. whether the claim 10 openings in fact constitute the respective claim 19 openings, or whether these may be construed as distinct from one another).
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Rejection 1
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ufton (US 2017/0239725) in view of Juan et al. (US 11,072,027), or in the alternative over this combination of references and further in view of Pawliczek et al. (US 2020/0079012).
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ufton in view of Juan, or in the alternative over this combination and further in view of Pawliczek as applied above, and further in view of Pawliczek (cited again here to emphasize reliance on this reference for claims 5 and 8 regardless of whether it is required to render obvious claim 1).
As to claim 1, Ufton teaches an interchangeable fig. 3-7 container/module (see the abstract term “mountable” (i.e. interchangeable)), in particular for a process chamber corresponding to that claimed (abstract, figs. 1-2), the container comprising peripheral walls 203, 204, a lip/connection interface 202, a container base 209, a dosing/storage device with piston 210, and a construction chamber with build platform 207. See at least the above figures and their corresponding description as relevant.
Ufton differs from claim 1 due to walls 203, 204 respectively corresponding to the construction chamber and storage device, whereby a common peripheral wall is not disclosed inside which both the construction chamber and storage device are arranged. In this regard, Juan is recognized for similarly disclosing a removable container/module comprising both of a storage device 9 and a construction chamber with build platform 9, whereby a common peripheral wall is provided around both the storage device and construction chamber by a multi-purpose housing 7 providing numerous benefits which include the support and protection not only of internal container/module components, but also of operators therefrom (see at least 3:10-26 in addition to fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Juan into Ufton as providing such a housing to Ufton’s removable container/module as well, in particular for similarly supporting and protecting internal component thereof and protecting operators of the apparatus therefrom. It is noted that such a combination of Juan with Ufton could have been performed by one of ordinary skill in the art while retaining function of Ufton’s foot 209 either by providing such a foot within a bottom of such a housing, or as providing Ufton’s [0038] through holes of foot 209 within the housing itself (i.e. thereby replacing foot 209 with a housing that encompasses the entirety of Ufton’s removable fig. 3-7 container/module’s internal components). It is noted further that for Ufton’s alternative configuration set forth at [0049] in which mounting via foot 209 to component 102 is not required, such a housing could have been provided by one of ordinary skill in the art around the entirety of Ufton’s removable container/module without interfering with the operation thereof.
The claim 1 recitation of a piston being “actuatable” by a piston drive and a build platform “drivable” by a construction chamber drive is met by one or more of the following interpretations (i)-(iii):
Because the current language of claim 1 does not require a piston drive or construction chamber drive as structural components of the statutory container being claimed, recitations pertaining to how such drives perform actuation or driving are likewise not believed to be further limiting. Since the Ufton piston and build platform are believed to be capable of being respectively actuated and driven in the manner claimed, the claimed ability to respectively actuate and drive, using respective drives, is believed to be met.
In addition or in the alternative to interpretation (i), it is noted that Ufton teaches a common drive for moving both of the piston and the build platform (see the abstract mechanism mechanically linking the build platform to the dosing piston, in addition to the alternative [0049] configuration in which movement of the piston is still dictated by build platform movement). Because the current language of claim 1 does not require that the piston drive and construction chamber drive are distinct from one another, Ufton’s common drive may be construed as both a piston drive (on account of the piston thereof being driven thereby) and a construction chamber drive (on account of the build platform thereof being driven thereby).
In the alternative that it is ultimately determined that interpretations (i) and (ii) do not sufficiently meet the claim 1 on account of Ufton’s common drive, then Pawliczek is recognized for similarly disclosing a removable container/module 4 comprising both of a storage device 45 and construction chamber 40, whereby platform 46 corresponding to Ufton’s piston and a build platform 41 are actuatable/drivable by respective [0044] lifting devices. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Pawliczek into (modified) Ufton as providing an art-recognized interchangeable configuration for Ufton’s common drive, in particular whereby the complex nature of Ufton’s common drive is replaced by a simpler configuration of individual piston/platform drives providing a greater degree of freedom over operation thereof on account of their ability to be driven completely independently of one another.
Ufton further teaches the claim 2 arrangement and collecting device 221 (fig. 4), the claim 4 at least one fastening element (as one or more of lip 202, foot 209, or the [0038] through holes or bolts), and the claim 10/19 working surface with respective openings whereby a greater length is provided for overflow slot 221 (see at least fig. 3). The claim 3 closure is provided by the housing incorporated into Ufton by Juan as set forth under the rejection of claim 1 above. The claim 6 ability to connect from below is met either due to this presently recited in a manner which depends on an opening of a process chamber base which is not structurally limiting to the statutory container being claimed, or is met via foot 209 which is arranged below lip 202 and a respective opening in the process chamber to which lip 202 connects. The separate claim 8 actuation is met by the combination of Pawliczek with (modified) Ufton under interpretation (iii) set forth under the rejection of claim 1 above. It is believed that the claim 17 shape and rounded corners would be provided on account of such a shape and rounded corners already existing for Ufton’s fig. 3 frame 201 (see also MPEP §§ 2144.04(I,IV(B)), as relevant).
Ufton teaches the claim 5 stepped shoulder for lip 202, but not a circumferential sealing element. However, Pawliczek is recognized for similarly disclosing a removable container/module 4 comprising both of a storage device 45 and construction chamber 40, whereby such circumferential sealing is disclosed explicitly for example at [0013], including for example to establish gas-tight sealing. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Pawliczek into (modified) Ufton as providing an improvement whereby a respective portion of Ufton’s lip 202 may be similarly sealed against surface 110 of the build chamber.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of references set forth above, or in the alternative over this combination and further in view of Buller et al. (US 11,691,343).
Ufton is not believed to specify the claim 7 connection. However, Juan teaches the above-cited removable build module as comprising an interface circuit 11 that includes a physical power interface believed to correspond to the claimed connection, and it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Juan into Ufton so as to provide power to the container/module thereof. While Juan is not believed to specify exactly where such power interface is provided in the build module, in particular in a wall thereof, it is noted that such an interface would necessarily exist in at least one of the housing top, wall, or base, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed selection from the housing wall in particular as an option therefor which would not interfere with the process chamber base, and in turn a build process (see MPEP § 2141(III) KSR Rational (E), in addition to MPEP § 2144.05(II) regarding routine experimentation as relevant).
In the alternative that it is ultimately determined that Juan’s above teaching of a physical power interface does not necessarily establish use of a plug-in connection in particular, then Buller is recognized for similarly teaching a removable build module (figs. 2-4, etc.), in particular whereby explicit disclosure is made of powering apparatus components for example via plug-in connection (see at least 133:1-25). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Buller into (modified) Ufton as providing such a plug-in connection as being an art-recognized suitable and/or interchangeable power interface for that referenced above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of references set forth above, and further in view of DE 102016013031 (machine translation made of record herewith cited herein).
Ufton is not believed to be sufficiently specific with respect to the exact drive type thereof, in particular with respect to the claim 9 spindle drives. However, DE 102016013031 is recognized for similarly disclosing a removable module/cartridge for an additive manufacturing device, in particular whereby a spindle drive is disclosed as a displacement device of a lifting device for allowing very accurate and precise positioning (see the entirety of this disclosure as relevant). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from DE 102016013031 into (modified) Ufton as providing an art-recognized suitable, interchangeable, and/or improved drive type.
Applicable Rejections 2-3
It is noted that while not outlined herein for the sake of brevity, additional/alternative rejections are also applicable to the pending claims as follows:
At least claim 1 is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a reference such as US 11,072,027, which comprises an interchangeable container 1/101/201/etc. comprising a housing 7/107/207/etc. with a peripheral wall and base, in addition to a connection interface 343, storage device 9/109/209/etc., and construction chamber with a build platform 3/103/203/etc., whereby the claim 1 storage device piston is met by the disclosed component connecting the disclosed build platform to the disclosed drive unit 5/105/205/etc. (i.e. whereby the storage piston and build platform share a common drive due to the current language of claim 1 not specifying such drives both as distinct structural components of the statutory container claimed). Alternatively where the claimed storage piston is determined not to be anticipated as such, at least claim 1 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 over this reference in view of a reference such as US 2017/0239725 or US 2020/0079012 for their respective disclosures of an entirely distinct storage device and construction chamber each provided with a respective piston/platform and drive, for the art-recognized alternative configuration and/or additional benefit(s) that would be associated therewith. Further alternatively whereby it is ultimately determined that US 11,072,027 is not sufficiently specific enough with respect to a location of fastener 343 in particular at an upper edge of the housing wall, then it is noted that this location could have been achieved by one of ordinary skill in the art selecting from practical locations on said housing with which to provide the disclosed engagement, guiding, and fastening with corresponding receiving structure 341, guide structure 337, and fastener member 343 of the host apparatus under which the removable container is attached (see MPEP § 2141(III) KSR Rational (E), in addition to MPEP § 2144.05(II) regarding routine experimentation as relevant), in which case at least claim 1 would be obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 over this reference alone, or alternatively over this reference in view of US 2017/0239725 or US 2020/0079012 as set forth above.
At least claim 1 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 over a reference such as US 8,905,744 disclosing an interchangeable container comprising connection interface 20/21/23/24, a peripheral wall and base defined by component 16, and a construction chamber comprising build platform 8 and drive 18/19 but not a storage device, whereby a reference such as US 2017/0239725 or US 2020/0079012 could have been combined therewith by one of ordinary skill in the art for their respective disclosures of such a storage device provided as part of an interchangeable container, due for example to the added benefit(s) associated therewith.
At least claim 1 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 over a reference such as US 2020/0079012 disclosing an interchangeable container 4 comprising connection interface 43/44, a peripheral wall (figs. 3-6), a storage device comprising piston 46/47, and a construction chamber comprising build platform 41/41a, but whereby a common base/wall is not disclosed within which both of the storage device and construction chamber are arranged. A reference such as US 11,072,027 or US 8,905,744 could have been combined therewith by one of ordinary skill in the art for their respective disclosures of such a peripheral wall and base enclosing components of such a removable module, due for example to the added benefit(s) associated therewith.
These applicable rejections should be addressed in reply to this Office action via amendment and/or remarks.
Interview Request
Applicant’s Representative is encouraged to contact the Examiner upon review of the instant Office action so as to discuss the claimed invention, the above prior art rejection and other applicable prior art, and how it is believed that the crux of the claimed and disclosed invention distinguishes over the prior art as a whole, particularly if it is believed that such a discussion will help to advance prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atul P. Khare whose telephone number is (571)270-7608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Christina A. Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/Atul P. Khare/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
