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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the printing plate includes textured sections and the layout of the printing file causes a top portion of each pick of the plurality of picks to be printed on one of the textured sections” and “printing each of the plurality of picks to include at least one recess in the surface of the pick, and filling the at least one recess with one or more layers to form the at least one graphic,” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Examiner notes that the present drawings appear to only depict “fin” labeled as part 150, 250, 350, 450, 550, and 650 in Fig. 1-7. There does not appear to be a depiction of any “printing plate” or “textured section” or “recess” or “graphic”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zuzu “Does a 3D printed guitar pick suck? (spoiler, it’s actually awesome)” https://blog.prusa3d.com/does-a-3d-printed-guitar-pick-suck-spoiler-its-actually-awesome_53320/ published July 23, 2021.
Regarding claim 4, Zuzu meets the claimed method of manufacturing a pick, (Zuzu teaches 3D printing a guitar pick from PLA, see pg. 1-2) the method comprising: determining a printing file, (Zuzu teaches the file is “sculpted it in Blender” and “used the color change feature in PrusaSlicer” see pg. 4) the printing file including a layout for printing a plurality of picks on a printing plate; (Zuzu depicts a layout on pg. 3, top image, pg. 8, top image. Zuzu teaches then create as many of those as you like. In PrusaSlicer, make copies, pg. 2, which is understood to mean in the layout) and printing the plurality of picks on the printing plate, wherein printing the plurality of picks on the printing plate (pg. 8 top image displays a printing plate with a plurality of picks) comprises: depositing a plurality of filament lines, wherein one or more of the plurality of filament lines varies in at least one of height or width in predetermined portions of the plurality of picks. (Zuzu discloses the pick to have a “textured grip” achieved by “emboss a simple pattern”, pig. 5, which is understood to mean varying the deposition of filament in height, based on the images and text of pg. 4-8).
Regarding clam 12, Zuzu meets the claimed method of manufacturing a pick, (Zuzu teaches 3D printing a guitar pick from PLA, see pg. 1-2) the method comprising: determining a printing file, (Zuzu teaches the file is “sculpted it in Blender” and “used the color change feature in PrusaSlicer” see pg. 4) the printing file including a layout for printing a plurality of picks on a printing plate; (Zuzu depicts a layout on pg. 3, top image, pg. 8, top image. Zuzu teaches then create as many of those as you like. In PrusaSlicer, make copies, pg. 2, which is understood to mean in the layout) and printing the plurality of picks on the printing plate, wherein printing the plurality of picks on the printing plate comprises: printing each of the plurality of picks to include at least one recess in a surface of the pick, and filling the at least one recess with one or more layers to form at least one graphic, (Zuzu depicts “The Pick of Destiny” pg. 4, which includes green body with recesses filled with black colored filament to form a graphic design) wherein at least one graphic is substantially flat with a plane the surface of the pick or raised above the plane of the surface of the pick; (the green areas of “The Pick of Destiny” form a raised plane, pg. 4).
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuzu “Does a 3D printed guitar pick suck? (spoiler, it’s actually awesome)” https://blog.prusa3d.com/does-a-3d-printed-guitar-pick-suck-spoiler-its-actually-awesome_53320/ published July 23, 2021, in view of Gardiner (US 2017/0232679 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zuzu meets the claimed method of manufacturing a pick, (Zuzu teaches 3D printing a guitar pick from PLA, see pg. 1-2) the method comprising: determining a printing file, (Zuzu teaches the file is “sculpted it in Blender” and “used the color change feature in PrusaSlicer” see pg. 4) the printing file including a layout for printing a plurality of picks on a printing plate; (Zuzu depicts a layout on pg. 3, top image, pg. 8, top image. Zuzu teaches then create as many of those as you like. In PrusaSlicer, make copies, pg. 2, which is understood to mean in the layout) and printing the plurality of picks on the printing plate, (pg. 8 top image displays a printing plate with a plurality of picks)
Zuzu does not teach wherein the printing plate includes textured sections and the layout of the printing file causes a top portion of each pick of the plurality of picks to be printed on one of the textured sections.
Gardiner teaches wherein the printing plate includes textured sections and the layout of the printing file causes a top portion of each pick of the plurality of picks to be printed on one of the textured sections. (Gardiner teaches [0073] The fixing plate 160 provides one or more fixtures 161 and/or textured regions, such as a perforated region 162, which a fabricated object (not shown) can adhere to. Gardiner teaches [0033] The CAD software typically divides the 3D model geometry into a plurality of cross-sectional layers and/or paths and derives the computer instructions therefrom which direct the apparatus 1 to deposit material to form corresponding layers and/or paths, in order to fabricate the object 2.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the plate with textured regions of Gardiner with the 3D printing method of Zuzu because it allows for printing and object having ‘over-hanging’ or ‘undercut’ surfaces or portions which could be prone to slumping due to gravity before the deposited material the object is fabricated from cures (hardens), see Gardiner [0028].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuzu “Does a 3D printed guitar pick suck? (spoiler, it’s actually awesome)” https://blog.prusa3d.com/does-a-3d-printed-guitar-pick-suck-spoiler-its-actually-awesome_53320/ published July 23, 2021, in view of Gardiner (US 2017/0232679 A1), Liu et al. (US 2022/0161496 A1), and Swanson (US 6722872 B1)
Regarding claim 2, Zuzu as modified is silent on the claimed method of claim 1, the method further comprising one or more of the following: heating a portion of the printing plate to a first temperature ranging between approximately 60 degrees Celsius and approximately 120 degrees.
Liu meets the claimed heating a portion of the printing plate to a first temperature ranging between approximately 60 degrees Celsius and approximately 120 degrees. (Zuzu teaches the materials to be PLA or PTEG, pg. 9. Liu teaches PETG to be 3D printed with a build plate heated to 75 degrees Celsius, see Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the heated build plate at 75 degrees Celsius of Liu with the 3D printing process of Zuzu because a high internal temperature for a long enough period of time to allow the polymer chains in each layer to be mobile and fluid, permitting sufficient inter-layer chain entanglements to reduce and eliminate layer lines, see [0001].
Zuzu as modified is silent on and heating a chamber containing the printing plate to a second temperature ranging between 60 degrees Celsius and approximately 80 degrees Celsius while printing the plurality of picks. (Examiner notes that this limitation is considered an alternative and the claim met above)
Swanson teaches and heating a chamber containing the printing plate to a second temperature ranging between 60 degrees Celsius and approximately 80 degrees Celsius while printing the plurality of picks.
Liu teaches The printer could feature additional controls such as an actively heated or cooled build environment, [0091] and teaches Liu teaches PETG to be 3D printed with a build plate heated to 75 degrees Celsius, see Table 1, where PETG has a Tg of 78-83C.
Swanson teaches Col. 2, lines 20-28, the temperature of the chamber should be maintained below the glass transition temperature (Tg) of the modeling material, so that the model does not become so weak that it droops. The preferred temperature of the build chamber is in a range between the material's solidification temperature and its creep relaxation temperature (creep relaxation temperature is defined as the point at which the stress relaxation modulus has dropped by a factor of ten from its low temperature limit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to select the chamber temperature of 75C as generic chamber temperature of Liu because Liu teaches 75C for PETG build plates in Table 1 and Swanson teaches a temperature below the Tg.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuzu “Does a 3D printed guitar pick suck? (spoiler, it’s actually awesome)” https://blog.prusa3d.com/does-a-3d-printed-guitar-pick-suck-spoiler-its-actually-awesome_53320/ published July 23, 2021, in view of Gardiner (US 2017/0232679 A1) and Mueller (US 2022/0168960 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Zuzu teaches the method of claim 1, the method further comprising one or more of the following: depositing a plurality of filament lines, wherein one or more of the plurality of filament lines varies in at least one of height or width in predetermined portions of the plurality of picks; (Zuzu discloses the pick to have a “textured grip” achieved by “emboss a simple pattern”, pig. 5, which is understood to mean varying the deposition of filament in height, based on the images and text of pg. 4-8); printing at least one graphic on a surface of the pick, (Examiner notes that this limitation is considered an alternative and the claim met above) comprising: printing each of the plurality of picks to include at least one recess in the surface of the pick, and filling the at least one recess with one or more layers to form the at least one graphic, (Zuzu depicts “The Pick of Destiny” pg. 4, which includes green body with recesses filled with black colored filament to form a graphic design) wherein at least one graphic is substantially flat with a plane the surface of the pick or raised above the plane of the surface of the pick; (the green areas of “The Pick of Destiny” form a raised plane, pg. 4).
Zuzu does not teach wherein printing the plurality of picks on the printing plate comprises: depositing a plurality of filament lines at a flow rate and print speed, wherein at least one of flow rate and print speed varies in predetermined portions of the plurality of picks.
Gardiner teaches wherein printing the plurality of picks on the printing plate comprises: depositing a plurality of filament lines at a flow rate and print speed, wherein at least one of flow rate and print speed varies in predetermined portions of the plurality of picks. Gardiner [0054] teaches as the array of nozzles 170 rotates to fabricate a thinner portion, the flow rate is proportionally decreased. Similarly, as the array of nozzles 170 travels around a curved path, the nozzle 170 arranged at the outside of the curve deposits at a greater rate than the nozzle arranged at the inside of the curve.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to vary the flow rate as taught by Gardiner in the 3D printing process of Zuzu to achieve thinner portions or maintain thickness on curved portion, see [0054].
Zuzu as modified does not teach sanding a playing portion of each of the plurality of picks after printing.
Muller teaches sanding a playing portion of each of the plurality of picks after printing.
Mueller [0016] teaches post-processing by sanding is frequently performed to eliminate surface defects and achieve a desired aesthetic or functionally smooth surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the sanding step of Mueller with the 3D printing process of Zuzu because it is frequently performed to eliminate surface defects and achieve a desired aesthetic or functionally smooth surface, see [0016].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuzu “Does a 3D printed guitar pick suck? (spoiler, it’s actually awesome)” https://blog.prusa3d.com/does-a-3d-printed-guitar-pick-suck-spoiler-its-actually-awesome_53320/ published July 23, 2021, in view of Liu et al. (US 2022/0161496 A1), and Swanson (US 6722872 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Zuzu as modified is silent on the claimed method of claim 4, the method further comprising one or more of the following: heating a portion of the printing plate to a first temperature ranging between approximately 60 degrees Celsius and approximately 120 degrees.
Liu meets the claimed : heating a portion of the printing plate to a first temperature ranging between approximately 60 degrees Celsius and approximately 120 degrees. (Zuzu teaches the materials to be PLA or PTEG, pg. 9. Liu teaches PETG to be 3D printed with a build plate heated to 75 degrees Celsius, see Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the heated build plate at 75 degrees Celsius of Liu with the 3D printing process of Zuzu because a high internal temperature for a long enough period of time to allow the polymer chains in each layer to be mobile and fluid, permitting sufficient inter-layer chain entanglements to reduce and eliminate layer lines, see [0001].
Zuzu as modified is silent on and heating a chamber containing the printing plate to a second temperature ranging between 60 degrees Celsius and approximately 80 degrees Celsius while printing the plurality of picks. (Examiner notes that this limitation is considered an alternative and the claim met above)
Swanson teaches and heating a chamber containing the printing plate to a second temperature ranging between 60 degrees Celsius and approximately 80 degrees Celsius while printing the plurality of picks.
Liu teaches The printer could feature additional controls such as an actively heated or cooled build environment, [0091] and teaches Liu teaches PETG to be 3D printed with a build plate heated to 75 degrees Celsius, see Table 1, where PETG has a Tg of 78-83C.
Swanson teaches Col. 2, lines 20-28, the temperature of the chamber should be maintained below the glass transition temperature (Tg) of the modeling material, so that the model does not become so weak that it droops. The preferred temperature of the build chamber is in a range between the material's solidification temperature and its creep relaxation temperature (creep relaxation temperature is defined as the point at which the stress relaxation modulus has dropped by a factor of ten from its low temperature limit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to select the chamber temperature of 75C as generic chamber temperature of Liu because Liu teaches 75C for PETG build plates in Table 1 and Swanson teaches a temperature below the Tg.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuzu “Does a 3D printed guitar pick suck? (spoiler, it’s actually awesome)” https://blog.prusa3d.com/does-a-3d-printed-guitar-pick-suck-spoiler-its-actually-awesome_53320/ published July 23, 2021, in view of Gardiner (US 2017/0232679 A1) and Mueller (US 2022/0168960 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Zuzu meets in the claimed method of claim 4, printing at least one graphic on a surface of the pick, (Zuzu depicts “The Pick of Destiny” pg. 4, which includes green body with recesses filled with black colored filament to form a graphic design) comprising: printing each of the plurality of picks to include at least one recess in the surface of the pick, and filling the at least one recess with one or more layers to form the at least one graphic, (Zuzu depicts “The Pick of Destiny” pg. 4, which includes green body with recesses filled with black colored filament to form a graphic design) wherein at least one graphic is substantially flat with a plane the surface of the pick or raised above the plane of the surface of the pick; (the green areas of “The Pick of Destiny” form a raised plane, pg. 4).
Zuzu does not teach the method further comprising one or more of the following: depositing a plurality of filament lines at a flow rate and print speed, wherein at least one of flow rate and print speed varies in predetermined portions of the plurality of picks. (Examiner notes that this limitation is considered an alternative and the claim met above)
Gardiner teaches the method further comprising one or more of the following: depositing a plurality of filament lines at a flow rate and print speed, wherein at least one of flow rate and print speed varies in predetermined portions of the plurality of picks. Gardiner [0054] teaches as the array of nozzles 170 rotates to fabricate a thinner portion, the flow rate is proportionally decreased. Similarly, as the array of nozzles 170 travels around a curved path, the nozzle 170 arranged at the outside of the curve deposits at a greater rate than the nozzle arranged at the inside of the curve.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to vary the flow rate as taught by Gardiner in the 3D printing process of Zuzu to achieve thinner portions or maintain thickness on curved portion, see [0054].
Zuzu as modified does not teach sanding a playing portion of each of the plurality of picks after printing.
Muller teaches sanding a playing portion of each of the plurality of picks after printing.
Mueller [0016] teaches post-processing by sanding is frequently performed to eliminate surface defects and achieve a desired aesthetic or functionally smooth surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the sanding step of Mueller with the 3D printing process of Zuzu because it is frequently performed to eliminate surface defects and achieve a desired aesthetic or functionally smooth surface, see [0016].
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuzu “Does a 3D printed guitar pick suck? (spoiler, it’s actually awesome)” https://blog.prusa3d.com/does-a-3d-printed-guitar-pick-suck-spoiler-its-actually-awesome_53320/ published July 23, 2021, in view of Gardiner (US 2017/0232679 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Zuzu does not teach claimed method of claim 4, wherein the printing plate includes textured sections and the layout of the printing file causes a top portion of each pick of the plurality of picks to be printed on one of the textured sections.
Zuzu discloses a pick in the image pg. 7 to be textured on the top portion.
Gardiner teaches wherein the printing plate includes textured sections and the layout of the printing file causes a top portion of each pick of the plurality of picks to be printed on one of the textured sections. (Gardiner teaches [0073] The fixing plate 160 provides one or more fixtures 161 and/or textured regions, such as a perforated region 162, which a fabricated object (not shown) can adhere to. Gardiner teaches [0033] The CAD software typically divides the 3D model geometry into a plurality of cross-sectional layers and/or paths and derives the computer instructions therefrom which direct the apparatus 1 to deposit material to form corresponding layers and/or paths, in order to fabricate the object 2.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the plate with textured regions of Gardiner with the 3D printing method of Zuzu because it allows for printing and object having ‘over-hanging’ or ‘undercut’ surfaces or portions which could be prone to slumping due to gravity before the deposited material the object is fabricated from cures (hardens), see Gardiner [0028].
Regarding claim 8, Zuzu meets the claimed method of manufacturing a pick, (Zuzu teaches 3D printing a guitar pick from PLA, see pg. 1-2) the method comprising: determining a printing file, (Zuzu teaches the file is “sculpted it in Blender” and “used the color change feature in PrusaSlicer” see pg. 4) the printing file including a layout for printing a plurality of picks on a printing plate; (Zuzu depicts a layout on pg. 3, top image, pg. 8, top image. Zuzu teaches then create as many of those as you like. In PrusaSlicer, make copies, pg. 2, which is understood to mean in the layout) and printing the plurality of picks on the printing plate, (pg. 8 top image displays a printing plate with a plurality of picks).
Zuzu does not teach wherein printing the plurality of picks on the printing plate comprises: depositing a plurality of filament lines at a flow rate and print speed, wherein at least one of flow rate and print speed varies in predetermined portions of the plurality of picks.
Gardiner teaches wherein printing the plurality of picks on the printing plate comprises: depositing a plurality of filament lines at a flow rate and print speed, wherein at least one of flow rate and print speed varies in predetermined portions of the plurality of picks. Gardiner [0054] teaches as the array of nozzles 170 rotates to fabricate a thinner portion, the flow rate is proportionally decreased. Similarly, as the array of nozzles 170 travels around a curved path, the nozzle 170 arranged at the outside of the curve deposits at a greater rate than the nozzle arranged at the inside of the curve.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to vary the flow rate as taught by Gardiner in the 3D printing process of Zuzu to achieve thinner portions or maintain thickness on curved portion, see [0054].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuzu “Does a 3D printed guitar pick suck? (spoiler, it’s actually awesome)” https://blog.prusa3d.com/does-a-3d-printed-guitar-pick-suck-spoiler-its-actually-awesome_53320/ published July 23, 2021, in view of Gardiner (US 2017/0232679 A1), in further view of Liu et al. (US 2022/0161496 A1), and Swanson (US 6722872 B1).
Regarding claim 9, Zuzu does not teach the method of claim 8, the method further comprising one or more of the following: heating a portion of the printing plate to a first temperature ranging between approximately 60 degrees Celsius and approximately 120 degrees; and heating a chamber containing the printing plate to a second temperature ranging between 60 degrees Celsius and approximately 80 degrees Celsius while printing the plurality of picks.
Liu meets the claimed heating a portion of the printing plate to a first temperature ranging between approximately 60 degrees Celsius and approximately 120 degrees. (Zuzu teaches the materials to be PLA or PTEG, pg. 9. Liu teaches PETG to be 3D printed with a build plate heated to 75 degrees Celsius, see Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the heated build plate at 75 degrees Celsius of Liu with the 3D printing process of Zuzu because a high internal temperature for a long enough period of time to allow the polymer chains in each layer to be mobile and fluid, permitting sufficient inter-layer chain entanglements to reduce and eliminate layer lines, see [0001].
Swanson teaches and heating a chamber containing the printing plate to a second temperature ranging between 60 degrees Celsius and approximately 80 degrees Celsius while printing the plurality of picks. (Examiner notes that this limitation is considered an alternative and the claim met above)
Liu teaches The printer could feature additional controls such as an actively heated or cooled build environment, [0091] and teaches Liu teaches PETG to be 3D printed with a build plate heated to 75 degrees Celsius, see Table 1, where PETG has a Tg of 78-83C.
Swanson teaches Col. 2, lines 20-28, the temperature of the chamber should be maintained below the glass transition temperature (Tg) of the modeling material, so that the model does not become so weak that it droops. The preferred temperature of the build chamber is in a range between the material's solidification temperature and its creep relaxation temperature (creep relaxation temperature is defined as the point at which the stress relaxation modulus has dropped by a factor of ten from its low temperature limit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to select the chamber temperature of 75C as generic chamber temperature of Liu because Liu teaches 75C for PETG build plates in Table 1 and Swanson teaches a temperature below the Tg.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuzu “Does a 3D printed guitar pick suck? (spoiler, it’s actually awesome)” https://blog.prusa3d.com/does-a-3d-printed-guitar-pick-suck-spoiler-its-actually-awesome_53320/ published July 23, 2021, in view of Gardiner (US 2017/0232679 A1) and Muller (US 2022/0168960 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Zuzu meets the claimed method of claim 8, the method further comprising one or more of the following: depositing a plurality of filament lines, wherein one or more of the plurality of filament lines varies in at least one of height or width in predetermined portions of the plurality of picks; (Zuzu discloses the pick to have a “textured grip” achieved by “emboss a simple pattern”, pig. 5, which is understood to mean varying the deposition of filament in height, based on the images and text of pg. 4-8) printing at least one graphic on a surface of the pick, (Examiner notes that this limitation is considered an alternative and the claim met above) comprising: printing each of the plurality of picks to include at least one recess in the surface of the pick, and filling the at least one recess with one or more layers to form the at least one graphic, wherein at least one graphic is substantially flat with a plane the surface of the pick or raised above the plane of the surface of the pick. (Zuzu depicts “The Pick of Destiny” pg. 4, which includes green body with recesses filled with black colored filament to form a graphic design)
Zuzu as modified does not teach sanding a playing portion of each of the plurality of picks after printing.
Muller teaches sanding a playing portion of each of the plurality of picks after printing.
Mueller [0016] teaches post-processing by sanding is frequently performed to eliminate surface defects and achieve a desired aesthetic or functionally smooth surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the sanding step of Mueller with the 3D printing process of Zuzu because it is frequently performed to eliminate surface defects and achieve a desired aesthetic or functionally smooth surface, see [0016].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuzu “Does a 3D printed guitar pick suck? (spoiler, it’s actually awesome)” https://blog.prusa3d.com/does-a-3d-printed-guitar-pick-suck-spoiler-its-actually-awesome_53320/ published July 23, 2021, in view of Gardiner (US 2017/0232679 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Zuzu does not teach the method of claim 8, wherein the printing plate includes textured sections and the layout of the printing file causes a top portion of each pick of the plurality of picks to be printed on one of the textured sections.
Zuzu discloses a pick in the image pg. 7 to be textured on the top portion.
Gardiner teaches wherein the printing plate includes textured sections and the layout of the printing file causes a top portion of each pick of the plurality of picks to be printed on one of the textured sections. (Gardiner teaches [0073] The fixing plate 160 provides one or more fixtures 161 and/or textured regions, such as a perforated region 162, which a fabricated object (not shown) can adhere to. Gardiner teaches [0033] The CAD software typically divides the 3D model geometry into a plurality of cross-sectional layers and/or paths and derives the computer instructions therefrom which direct the apparatus 1 to deposit material to form corresponding layers and/or paths, in order to fabricate the object 2.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the plate with textured regions of Gardiner with the 3D printing method of Zuzu because it allows for printing and object having ‘over-hanging’ or ‘undercut’ surfaces or portions which could be prone to slumping due to gravity before the deposited material the object is fabricated from cures (hardens), see Gardiner [0028].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuzu “Does a 3D printed guitar pick suck? (spoiler, it’s actually awesome)” https://blog.prusa3d.com/does-a-3d-printed-guitar-pick-suck-spoiler-its-actually-awesome_53320/ published July 23, 2021, in view of Muller (US 2022/0168960 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Zuzu meets the claimed the method of claim 12, the method further comprising one or more of the following: heating a portion of the printing plate to a first temperature ranging between approximately 60 degrees Celsius and approximately 120 degrees; heating a chamber containing the printing plate to a second temperature ranging between 60 degrees Celsius and approximately 80 degrees Celsius while printing the plurality of picks; depositing a plurality of filament lines, wherein one or more of the plurality of filament lines varies in at least one of height or width in predetermined portions of the plurality of picks;
depositing the plurality of filament lines at a flow rate and print speed, wherein at least one of flow rate and print speed varies in predetermined portions of the plurality of picks. (Examiner notes each of the above limitations is an alternative and the claim is met below).
Zuzu as modified does not teach sanding a playing portion of each of the plurality of picks after printing.
Muller teaches sanding a playing portion of each of the plurality of picks after printing.
Mueller [0016] teaches post-processing by sanding is frequently performed to eliminate surface defects and achieve a desired aesthetic or functionally smooth surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the sanding step of Mueller with the 3D printing process of Zuzu because it is frequently performed to eliminate surface defects and achieve a desired aesthetic or functionally smooth surface, see [0016].
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuzu “Does a 3D printed guitar pick suck? (spoiler, it’s actually awesome)” https://blog.prusa3d.com/does-a-3d-printed-guitar-pick-suck-spoiler-its-actually-awesome_53320/ published July 23, 2021, in view of Gardiner (US 2017/0232679 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Zuzu does not teach the method of claim 12, wherein the printing plate includes textured sections and the layout of the printing file causes a top portion of each pick of the plurality of picks to be printed on one of the textured sections.
Gardiner teaches wherein the printing plate includes textured sections and the layout of the printing file causes a top portion of each pick of the plurality of picks to be printed on one of the textured sections. (Gardiner teaches [0073] The fixing plate 160 provides one or more fixtures 161 and/or textured regions, such as a perforated region 162, which a fabricated object (not shown) can adhere to. Gardiner teaches [0033] The CAD software typically divides the 3D model geometry into a plurality of cross-sectional layers and/or paths and derives the computer instructions therefrom which direct the apparatus 1 to deposit material to form corresponding layers and/or paths, in order to fabricate the object 2.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the plate with textured regions of Gardiner with the 3D printing method of Zuzu because it allows for printing and object having ‘over-hanging’ or ‘undercut’ surfaces or portions which could be prone to slumping due to gravity before the deposited material the object is fabricated from cures (hardens), see Gardiner [0028].
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuzu “Does a 3D printed guitar pick suck? (spoiler, it’s actually awesome)” https://blog.prusa3d.com/does-a-3d-printed-guitar-pick-suck-spoiler-its-actually-awesome_53320/ published July 23, 2021, in view of Muller (US 2022/0168960 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Zuzu meets the claimed method of manufacturing a pick, the method comprising: determining a printing file, (Zuzu teaches the file is “sculpted it in Blender” and “used the color change feature in PrusaSlicer” see pg. 4) the printing file including a layout for printing a plurality of picks on a printing plate; (Zuzu depicts a layout on pg. 3, top image, pg. 8, top image. Zuzu teaches then create as many of those as you like. In PrusaSlicer, make copies, pg. 2, which is understood to mean in the layout) printing the plurality of picks on the printing plate. (Zuzu pg. 8).
Zuzu as modified does not teach sanding a playing portion of each of the plurality of picks after printing.
Muller teaches sanding a playing portion of each of the plurality of picks after printing.
Mueller [0016] teaches post-processing by sanding is frequently performed to eliminate surface defects and achieve a desired aesthetic or functionally smooth surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the sanding step of Mueller with the 3D printing process of Zuzu because it is frequently performed to eliminate surface defects and achieve a desired aesthetic or functionally smooth surface, see [0016].
Regarding claim 16, Zuzu meets the claimed method of claim 15, the method further comprising one or more of the following: heating a portion of the printing plate to a first temperature ranging between approximately 60 degrees Celsius and approximately 120 degrees; heating a chamber containing the printing plate to a second temperature ranging between 60 degrees Celsius and approximately 80 degrees Celsius while printing the plurality of picks; depositing a plurality of filament lines, (Examiner notes this is an alternative limitation and the claim is met below) wherein one or more of the plurality of filament lines varies in at least one of height or width in predetermined portions of the plurality of picks; (Zuzu discloses the pick to have a “textured grip” achieved by “emboss a simple pattern”, pig. 5, which is understood to mean varying the deposition of filament in height, based on the images and text of pg. 4-8).
depositing the plurality of filament lines at a flow rate and print speed, wherein at least one of flow rate and print speed varies in predetermined portions of the plurality of picks; and printing at least one graphic on a surface of the pick, comprising: printing each of the plurality of picks to include at least one recess in the surface of the pick, and filling the at least one recess with one or more layers to form the at least one graphic, wherein at least one graphic is substantially flat with a plane the surface of the pick or raised above the plane of the surface of the pick. (Examiner notes this is an alternative limitation and the claim is met above).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuzu “Does a 3D printed guitar pick suck? (spoiler, it’s actually awesome)” https://blog.prusa3d.com/does-a-3d-printed-guitar-pick-suck-spoiler-its-actually-awesome_53320/ published July 23, 2021, in view of Gardiner (US 2017/0232679 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Zuzu meets the claimed method of claim 15, wherein the printing plate includes textured sections and the layout of the printing file causes a top portion of each pick of the plurality of picks to be printed on one of the textured sections.
Gardiner teaches wherein the printing plate includes textured sections and the layout of the printing file causes a top portion of each pick of the plurality of picks to be printed on one of the textured sections. (Gardiner teaches [0073] The fixing plate 160 provides one or more fixtures 161 and/or textured regions, such as a perforated region 162, which a fabricated object (not shown) can adhere to. Gardiner teaches [0033] The CAD software typically divides the 3D model geometry into a plurality of cross-sectional layers and/or paths and derives the computer instructions therefrom which direct the apparatus 1 to deposit material to form corresponding layers and/or paths, in order to fabricate the object 2.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the plate with textured regions of Gardiner with the 3D printing method of Zuzu because it allows for printing and object having ‘over-hanging’ or ‘undercut’ surfaces or portions which could be prone to slumping due to gravity before the deposited material the object is fabricated from cures (hardens), see Gardiner [0028].
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuzu “Does a 3D printed guitar pick suck? (spoiler, it’s actually awesome)” https://blog.prusa3d.com/does-a-3d-printed-guitar-pick-suck-spoiler-its-actually-awesome_53320/ published July 23, 2021, in view of Liu et al. (US 2022/0161496 A1), and Swanson (US 6722872 B1).
Regarding claim 18, Zuzu meets the claimed method of manufacturing a pick, the method comprising: determining a printing file, (Zuzu teaches the file is “sculpted it in Blender” and “used the color change feature in PrusaSlicer” see pg. 4) the printing file including a layout for printing a plurality of picks on a printing plate; (Zuzu depicts a layout on pg. 3, top image, pg. 8, top image. Zuzu teaches then create as many of those as you like. In PrusaSlicer, make copies, pg. 2, which is understood to mean in the layout) and printing the plurality of picks on the printing plate. (Zuzu pg. 8).
Zuzu does not teach heating at least one of: a portion of the printing plate to a first temperature ranging between approximately 60 degrees Celsius and approximately 120 degrees, and heating a chamber containing the printing plate to a second temperature ranging between 60 degrees Celsius and approximately 80 degrees Celsius while printing the plurality of picks.
Liu meets the claimed heating a portion of the printing plate to a first temperature ranging between approximately 60 degrees Celsius and approximately 120 degrees. (Zuzu teaches the materials to be PLA or PTEG, pg. 9. Liu teaches PETG to be 3D printed with a build plate heated to 75 degrees Celsius, see Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the heated build plate at 75 degrees Celsius of Liu with the 3D printing process of Zuzu because a high internal temperature for a long enough period of time to allow the polymer chains in each layer to be mobile and fluid, permitting sufficient inter-layer chain entanglements to reduce and eliminate layer lines, see [0001].
Swanson teaches and heating a chamber containing the printing plate to a second temperature ranging between 60 degrees Celsius and approximately 80 degrees Celsius while printing the plurality of picks.
Liu teaches The printer could feature additional controls such as an actively heated or cooled build environment, [0091] and teaches Liu teaches PETG to be 3D printed with a build plate heated to 75 degrees Celsius, see Table 1, where PETG has a Tg of 78-83C.
Swanson teaches Col. 2, lines 20-28, the temperature of the chamber should be maintained below the glass transition temperature (Tg) of the modeling material, so that the model does not become so weak that it droops. The preferred temperature of the build chamber is in a range between the material's solidification temperature and its creep relaxation temperature (creep relaxation temperature is defined as the point at which the stress relaxation modulus has dropped by a factor of ten from its low temperature limit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to select the chamber temperature of 75C as generic chamber temperature of Liu because Liu teaches 75C for PETG build plates in Table 1 and Swanson teaches a temperature below the Tg.
Regarding claim 19, Zuzu as modified meets the method of claim 18, the method further comprising one or more of the following: depositing a plurality of filament lines, wherein one or more of the plurality of filament lines varies in at least one of height or width in predetermined portions of the plurality of picks; (Zuzu discloses the pick to have a “textured grip” achieved by “emboss a simple pattern”, pig. 5, which is understood to mean varying the deposition of filament in height, based on the images and text of pg. 4-8) depositing the plurality of filament lines at a flow rate and print speed, wherein at least one of flow rate and print speed varies in predetermined portions of the plurality of picks; (Examiner notes this limitation is considered an alternative and the claim met above).printing at least one graphic on a surface of the pick, comprising: printing each of the plurality of picks to include at least one recess in the surface of the pick, and filling the at least one recess with one or more layers to form the at least one graphic, (Zuzu depicts “The Pick of Destiny” pg. 4, which includes green body with recesses filled with black colored filament to form a graphic design) wherein at least one graphic is substantially flat with a plane the surface of the pick or raised above the plane of the surface of the pick; (the green areas of “The Pick of Destiny” form a raised plane, pg. 4) sanding a playing portion of each of the plurality of picks after printing. (Examiner notes this limitation is considered an alternative and the claim met above).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuzu “Does a 3D printed guitar pick suck? (spoiler, it’s actually awesome)” https://blog.prusa3d.com/does-a-3d-printed-guitar-pick-suck-spoiler-its-actually-awesome_53320/ published July 23, 2021, in view of Liu et al. (US 2022/0161496 A1), and Swanson (US 6722872 B1) and in further view of Gardiner (US 2017/0232679 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Zuzu does not meet the claimed the method of claim 18, wherein the printing plate includes textured sections and the layout of the printing file causes a top portion of each pick of the plurality of picks to be printed on one of the textured sections.
Gardiner teaches wherein the printing plate includes textured sections and the layout of the printing file causes a top portion of each pick of the plurality of picks to be printed on one of the textured sections. (Gardiner teaches [0073] The fixing plate 160 provides one or more fixtures 161 and/or textured regions, such as a perforated region 162, which a fabricated object (not shown) can adhere to. Gardiner teaches [0033] The CAD software typically divides the 3D model geometry into a plurality of cross-sectional layers and/or paths and derives the computer instructions therefrom which direct the apparatus 1 to deposit material to form corresponding layers and/or paths, in order to fabricate the object 2.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the plate with textured regions of Gardiner with the 3D printing method of Zuzu because it allows for printing and object having ‘over-hanging’ or ‘undercut’ surfaces or portions which could be prone to slumping due to gravity before the deposited material the object is fabricated from cures (hardens), see Gardiner [0028].
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MacNeil et al. (US 2020/0086569 A1) teaches [0040] In one aspect, the conveyer 104 may include a number of different working areas with different surface treatments adapted for different build materials or processes. For example, different areas may have different textures (e.g., smooth, abraded, grooved, etc.). Additionally, or alternatively, different areas may be formed of different materials.
Goel et al. (US 2019/0039288 A1) teaches [0102] At block 1404, a surface of the plate hint 128-P is designed to have a projection 608 of a visual appearance of the 3D object 126 using physical characteristics 602. To do so, a 3D appearance of the 3D object 126 can be projected onto an upper side of the 2D surface of the plate hint 128-P and then printed using at least one color or texture.
Copner (US 2024/0060027 A1) teaches PETG was printed where the bed temperature (the ambient temperature of the closed printing environment) was 70 degrees Celsius.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M. ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0467. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-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, Sam Zhao can be reached at (571)270-5343. 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.
/MICHAEL M. ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744