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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “the assembled insulation elbow” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim limitation. Furthermore, claim 1 in which claim 10 depends upon is silent to having a assembled insulation elbow, therefore, it is vague and indefinite whether placing the plurality of insulation elbow segments in the package, gets assembled once it reaches its desired destination or it gets packaged as it is stacked. The Examiner interprets the claim as assembly occurs at desired destination by user. Claim 14 also includes the term “the assembled insulation elbow” and is similarly rejected as in claim 10.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas et al. (US 2014/0074274 A1) in view of Cooper (US 2021/0122087 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Douglas et al. teach a method of manufacturing an additively manufacturing an object ([0003], [0011]-[0026]),
the method comprising the steps of: placing raw material at a processing machine ([0012]-[0016] uses plastic as raw material); implementing, at the processing machine, object and sub-object processing instructions for creating a plurality of object sub-object/segments from the raw material ([0019]-[0045] uses processor, controller, for creating a plurality of sub-object sections to form the object, [0050]-[0055] discloses creating a number of sub-objects that can be fit into the build volume, which later assembled to form the object), wherein each of the plurality of object segments corresponds to the shaped object such that the plurality of object segments are configured to be assembled to form at least part of the object ([0050]-[0065] disclose that plurality of sub-object assembled to form the part of the object or the object itself); creating, at the processing machine, the plurality of object (sub-object) segments from the raw material according to the object processing instructions ([0050]-[0059]); and placing the plurality of sub-object (in a package) which can then be assembled to form the object ([0061]-[0068] disclose instructions for assembly, identifiers, so that these subj-objects can be assembled appropriately; it is obvious that a package or a container to store the sub-object would be used for final assembly).
However, Douglas et al. fail to teach forming plurality of segment of insulation elbow which then forms the insulation elbow.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to additively manufacturing part from plurality of separable elements, Cooper teaches forming plurality of segment of insulation elbow which then forms the insulation elbow (see Fig. 1 – 3, item 110- additively manufacturing a hollow mandrel/pipe that includes plurality of separable elements 132 that are connected together via plurality of links to form the entirely of the object; Fig 2. shows the mandrel 210 includes various portions separable elements 216,216,214,220, 222, including central elbow 214, that are separately additively manufactured and then assembled to form the entirely of the mandrel; [0021]-[0029], [0031]-[0045]; the Examiner notes that term “insulation” is merely used without reciting any material for the elbow, thus any materials used as discussed for forming the mandrel is considered to be insulation as it includes specific thickness and length can be together be used in a system).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have modified the additively manufacturing parts as taught by Douglas et al. with specifically manufacturing plurality of segments of insulation elbow, as taught by Cooper, for the benefit of reducing cost, and are adaptable to a range of geometries and use (see [0001]).
As for claim 2, Douglas et al. further suggests for producing the object processing instructions specify one or more features for each sub-object/segment of the plurality of sub-object segments the one or more features specified by the object processing instruction for each sub-object corresponding to the object to be assembled (see Douglas et al. [0061]-[0065]). Cooper as noted above discloses producing plurality of separable elements for producing a mandrel (see Figs 1-3), thus in combination, based on the product produced (tubular/mandrel), it would have been obvious to specify one or more features for the mandrel, for connection purposes.
As for claim 3, Douglas et al. in view of Cooper provides suggestion for having taking into consideration of the plurality of sub-segments/elements for a larger object/product/mandrel to be produced as applied above, thus, claim limitation pertaining to taking length, diameter, radius of curvature are all known variables (see Cooper [0057],[0034], [0035], [0037], Figs. 1-3; also see Douglas et al. claim 15), that are within the scope of Douglas et al. and Cooper, for producing a final product (mandrel, tube) that is assembled from plurality of sub-objects/element (see Cooper Figs. 1-3; [0057], [0034]).
As for claim 4, Douglas et al. in view of Cooper provides suggestion for creating the insulation elbow processing instructions from a digital model of the insulation elbow (see Douglas [0041], [0049] discloses processing instruction from a digital model of the object; see Cooper [ 0075]-[0085]).
As for claim 5, Douglas et al. in view of Cooper provides suggestion for wherein creating the insulation elbow processing instructions comprises segmenting the digital model of the insulation elbow to form a first set of insulation elbow processing instructions corresponding to a first insulation elbow segment of the plurality of insulation elbow segments and a second set of insulation elbow processing instructions corresponding to a second insulation elbow segment of the plurality of insulation elbow segments (see Douglas et al. [0049]-[0058] pertains to processing instructions for producing an object from plurality of sub-objects, creating plurality of sub-object models, including different sets of instructions for each, and having plurality of files; also see Cooper which pertains to specifically producing mandrel/elbow that includes plurality of insulation elbow segments as shown on Figs. 1-3; also see [0026]-[0062]) .
As for claim 6, Douglas et al. in view of Cooper provides suggestion for wherein the first set of insulation elbow processing instructions includes a first insulation elbow segment inner diameter, a first insulation elbow segment outer diameter, and a first insulation elbow segment radius of curvature derived from the segmented digital model of the insulation elbow and corresponding to a proportion of the first insulation elbow segment to the insulation elbow, and wherein the second set of insulation elbow processing instructions includes a second insulation elbow segment inner diameter, a second insulation elbow segment outer diameter, and a second insulation elbow segment radius of curvature derived from the segmented digital model of the insulation elbow and corresponding to a proportion of the second insulation elbow segment to the insulation elbow (see Douglas et al. [0049]-[0058] pertains to processing instructions for producing an object from plurality of sub-objects, creating plurality of sub-object models, including different sets of instructions for each, and Cooper Figs. 1-3 shows producing an insulation elbow/mandrel that would includes taking into consideration of the claimed parameters including inner diameter, radius of curvature, outer diameter, also see [0035], [0037]).
Claim 7, Douglas et al. in view of Cooper teaches forming a tubular object (mandrel/tube of Cooper), and also suggest processing instructions for producing an object from plurality of sub-objects, creating plurality of sub-object models, including different sets of instructions for each (Douglas, [0049]-[0058], also [0041], [0049] discloses processing instruction from a digital model of the object, Cooper Figs. 1-3 shows producing an insulation elbow/mandrel that would include taking into consideration of the claimed parameters including inner diameter, radius of curvature, outer diameter, also see [0035], [0037]). It is noted that in creating the mandrel/tube shaped object, Douglas in view of Cooper provides suggestion for creating digital model of the object, taking into consideration of the objects length, the outer diameter, radius of curvature, elbow length, outer diameter, and assembling the plurality of sub-object/segments/elements to form the object (tube/mandrel/insulation elbow).
As for claims 10-11, Douglas in view of Cooper provides suggestion for placing a first insulation elbow segment identifier on a first insulation elbow segment of the plurality of insulation elbow segments, the first insulation elbow segment identifier indicating a location of the first insulation elbow segment relative to the assembled insulation elbow (see [0061] of Douglas; Figs. 1-3 of Cooper); placing a second insulation elbow segment identifier on a second insulation elbow segment of the plurality of insulation elbow segments, the second insulation elbow segment identifier differing from the first insulation elbow segment identifier such that the second insulation elbow segment identifier indicates a location of the second insulation elbow segment relative to the assembled insulation elbow differing from the location of the first insulation elbow segment relative to the assembled insulation elbow (see Douglas [0061], and Figs. 1-3 of Cooper).
Claim 12-13, pertaining having the plurality of insulation elbow segments are placed stacked in the single box container for shipment would have been obvious based on assembly at the user’s size when a large object is formed (see Douglas pertains to producing sub-objects then assembly afterwards; [0057]-[0065]).
As for claim 14, Douglas et al. in view of Cooper further provide suggestion for wherein each of the plurality of insulation elbow segments includes an insulation elbow segment identifier that indicates a location of the respective insulation elbow segment relative to the assembled insulation elbow (see [0061]), and it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art to place the plurality of insulation elbow segments in the package comprises stacking the plurality of insulation elbow segments on top of one another in an order relative to the insulation elbow segment identifier of each, for the benefit of shipping and assembling the object at desired location or time (see [0061]-[0066] of Douglas).
Claim(s) 8 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas et al. (US 2014/0074274 A1) in view of Cooper (US 2021/0122087 A1) in further view of either one of Simpleware Limited (GB 2478067 A) or Hascher et al. (US 2018/0001561 A1).
Regarding claim 8-9, Douglas et al. and Cooper teach al the limitations to the claim invention as discussed above, including forming the digital model of the object, including plurality of insulation elbow segments, having various processing instructions for each of the segments, for forming the insulation elbow (see Figs. 1-3, [0023] of Cooper which states that mandrel is hollow, see Douglas et al. [0050] regarding slicing, additionally see [0041]-[0058]), however, both Douglas et al. and Cooper fail to specifically teach slicing the hollowed out digital solid piece as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing objects, Simpleware Limited states the conventional approach to hollowing out a solid CAD object starts with a CAD representation of the object, which is a collection of vector-based representations of graphical entities corresponding to the different outer surfaces of the object. To achieve hollowing out, the conventional approach moves the outer surfaces inwards by a fixed amount (typically specified by the user). The set of surfaces spawned by this movement are designated as internal surfaces, whereby the original (external) and spawned (internal) surfaces are used to define the exterior and interior of the hollowed-out model (see page 1 lines 30 to page 2 lines 30). Also, in the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing, Hascher et al. teach a single solid 3D model may be divided into a plurality of solid 3D models. Each of the plurality of solid 3D models may be processed individually on the CAD device (110) so that hollow 3D models (120) may be created for each of the plurality of solid 3D models. Each of the plurality of hollow 3D models may then be sent to the 3D printing device (130) ([0039]). By doing so, Hascher et al. produces a desired shaped 3D printed object that includes hollow interior (see [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art further combine hollowing out solid CAD object, as suggested by Simpleware Limited or Hascher et al. in the 3D printing process, as taught by Douglas et al. and Cooper, for the benefit of efficiently producing an actual 3D a printed object with desired internal surface feature.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2023/0172314 A1 – pertains to hollowing solid objects for 3D printing as a known concept.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights