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 § 102
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Evans (US2017/0028625 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Evans teaches a method of additively manufacturing an object (abstract), comprising: extending a nozzle (112) of a print head to push a free tag end of material protruding from the nozzle to a location under toward a compaction roller during a feeding routine (see figures 12, 25); after the tag end is positioned at the location, extending the compaction roller to sandwich the tag end against an underlying surface (figures 12-14); and while the compaction roller presses the tag end against the underlying surface (figure 14), activating an energy device to expose the tag end to a cure energy and thereby adhere the tag end to the underlying surface as an anchor (claim 253, [0153]).
Regarding claim 2, Evans teaches further including moving the print head away from the anchor to cause the material to be pulled out of the nozzle by the movement (figure 23; [0463. 0222]).
Regarding claim 8, Evan teaches further including retracting the nozzle away from the compaction roller at a start of a cutting routine (figure 18) [0634].
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.
Claim(s) 3, 5-6, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US2017/0028625 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Tyler (US2018/0065306 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Evans teaches further including extending the nozzle further toward the compaction roller (figures 12 and 25) during the moving of the print head away from the anchor (see figure 14) but does not explicitly disclose to reduce a tension acting on the anchor. Analogous art, Tyler, discloses "as will be described in more detail below, it has been determined that a tension vector associated with each continuous fiber discharged by head 20 may contribute to a characteristic (e.g., a stiffness and/or strength) of structure 12. For example, a stiffness and/or strength of structure 12 may be generally greater in an axial direction of each fiber, and greater by an amount related to the level of residual tension in that fiber. Accordingly, during a pre-processing (e.g., design) phase and/or processing phase of fabricating structure 12, care may be taken to provide a desired amount, size, and/or shape of particular fibers in alignment with particular trajectories and/or to generate desired tension levels within each of the fibers prior to and/or during curing, such that structure 12 performs according to required specifications" [0025]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reduce a tension action on the anchor into the method taught by the combination of Evan based on the design requirements of the final product.
Regarding claims 4-5, Evan does not disclose activating a clamp rigidly connected to the nozzle during the extending, such that the extending causes the tag end to move with the nozzle and deactivating the clamp at conclusion of the feed routine, such that the material is free to move through the nozzle during normal deposition of the material from the nozzle. However, it is conventionally known to open/unclamp material once the material is clamped. Further, analogous art, Tyler, disclose clamping/ unclamping the material at conclusion of the feed routine (“open the die” [0109]). MPEP 2144 states "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated unclamping the material at conclusion of the feed routine into the method taught by the combination of Evan as it is within the skillset of one ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Evans does not explicitly disclose including wetting a reinforcement with a matrix inside of the first module to form the material during the extending. However, Tyler discloses including wetting a reinforcement with a matrix inside of the first module to form the material during the extending [0017]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wetting a reinforcement with a matrix inside of the first module to form the material during the extending in order to efficiently transfer the reinforcements in the modules and based on the design needs of the final product.
Regarding claim 13, Evan teaches a method of additively manufacturing an object, comprising: anchoring a free tag end of material extending from a nozzle of a print head under a compaction roller during a feeding routine (see figures 12 and 25); moving the print head away from the anchored tag end to cause the material to be pulled out of the nozzle by the movement (figure 23; [0463. 0222]) ; and extending the nozzle toward the compaction roller during initial movement of the print head away from the anchored tag end (figures 12-14)
Evan does not explicitly disclose to reduce a tension acting on the anchor. Analogous art, Tyler, discloses "as will be described in more detail below, it has been determined that a tension vector associated with each continuous fiber discharged by head 20 may contribute to a characteristic (e.g., a stiffness and/or strength) of structure 12. For example, a stiffness and/or strength of structure 12 may be generally greater in an axial direction of each fiber, and greater by an amount related to the level of residual tension in that fiber. Accordingly, during a pre-processing (e.g., design) phase and/or processing phase of fabricating structure 12, care may be taken to provide a desired amount, size, and/or shape of particular fibers in alignment with particular trajectories and/or to generate desired tension levels within each of the fibers prior to and/or during curing, such that structure 12 performs according to required specifications" [0025]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reduce a tension action on the anchor into the method taught by Evans based on the design requirements of the final product.
Regarding claims 14-15, Evan does not explicitly disclose clamping and unclampling a clamp. However, it is conventionally known to open/unclamp material once the material is clamped. Further, analogous art, Tyler, disclose clamping/ unclamping the material at conclusion of the feed routine (“open the die” [0109]). MPEP 2144 states "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated unclamping the material at conclusion of the feed routine into the method taught by the combination of Evan as it is within the skillset of one ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 16, Evan does not explicitly disclose including wetting a reinforcement with a matrix inside of the first module to form the material during the extending . However, Tyler discloses including wetting a reinforcement with a matrix inside of the first module to form the material during the extending [0017]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wetting a reinforcement with a matrix inside of the first module to form the material during the extending in order to efficiently transfer the reinforcements in the modules and based on the design needs of the final product.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US2017/0028625 A1) as applied to claim 1, and in view of Wilenski (US 2018/0141284 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Evans does not explicitly disclose reducing an intensity of the energy device to a positive level after conclusion of the feeding routine. However, Wilenski disclose reducing an intensity of the energy device to a positive level after conclusion of the feeding routine [0018]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reduced an intensity of the energy device to a positive level after conclusion of the feeding routine based on the requirement of adjusting the cure rate based on the compaction.
Claim(s) 8, 11-12, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US2017/0028625 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Debora (US2016/0052208 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 12, Evans depicts further including retracting the nozzle at a start of a cutting routine (figure 18 shows a retraction). If Applicant does not agree with this interpretation, analogous art, Debora, discloses the method may further include retracting the first feedstock before feeding the distal end of the second feedstock [0022] and cutting it [0283]. In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated including retracting the nozzle at start of a cutting routine into the method taught by Evans since MPEP 2144.04 states splitting of steps is a prima facie evidence of obviousness.
Regarding claim 11, Evan does not explicitly disclose retracting the nozzle crates a space adjacent the material; and the method further includes extending a blade through the space to sever the material. Analogous art, Debora, discloses the method may further include retracting the first feedstock before feeding the distal end of the second feedstock [0022] and cutting it [0283]. One ordinary skill in the art would understand retracting will create a space since the module is withdrawn in. As for the extending a cutting module through the space to sever the material, Debora discloses extending the feedstock through the guide [0091] to cut it [0266] for the benefit of saving complexity, cost and physical space. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated disclose retracting the nozzle to create a space adjacent the material; and the method further includes extending a blade through the space to sever the material, as taught by Debora, into the method taught by Evan for the benefit of saving complexity, cost and physical space.
Regarding claim 17, Evan teaches a method of additively manufacturing an object (abstract) comprising: discharging a material from a nozzle of a print head, wherein the nozzle defines a channel through which the material passes during the discharging (see figures 2-3);
retracting the nozzle away from a compaction roller at a start of a cutting routine to create a space adjacent the material between the nozzle and the compaction roller; and extending a blade through the space to sever the material
Evans depicts further including retracting the nozzle at a start of a cutting routine (figure 18 shows a retraction). If Applicant does not agree with this interpretation, analogous art, Debora, discloses the method may further include retracting the first feedstock before feeding the distal end of the second feedstock [0022] and cutting it [0283]. In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated including retracting the nozzle at start of a cutting routine into the method taught by Evans since MPEP 2144.04 states splitting of steps is a prima facie evidence of obviousness.
Regarding claim 21, Evans teaches wherein the compaction roller 812) is engaged with the material during the cutting (210) routine (see figure 23)
Claim(s) 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US2017/0028625 A1) in view of Debora (US2016/0052208 A1) as applied to claim 8, and further in view of Tyler (US2018/0065306 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Evan does not disclose activating a clamp rigidly connected to the nozzle during the extending. However, it is conventionally known to open/unclamp material once the material is clamped. Further, analogous art, Tyler, disclose clamping/ unclamping the material at conclusion of the feed routine (“open the die” [0109]). MPEP 2144 states "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated unclamping the material at conclusion of the feed routine into the method taught by the combination of Evan as it is within the skillset of one ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18, Evans does not explicitly disclose activating a clamp rigidly connected to the nozzle during the retracting to increase a tension in the material. However, it is conventionally known to open/unclamp material once the material is clamped. Further, analogous art, Tyler, disclose clamping/ unclamping the material at conclusion of the feed routine (“open the die” [0109]). MPEP 2144 states "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated unclamping the material at conclusion of the feed routine into the method taught by the combination of Evan as it is within the skillset of one ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US2017/0028625 A1) in view of Debora (US2016/0052208 A1) as applied to claim 8, and further in view of Wilenski (US 2018/0141284 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Evans does not explicitly disclose further including increasing an intensity of the energy device during the cutting routine. However, Wilenski disclose reducing an intensity of the energy device to a positive level after conclusion of the feeding routine [0018]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention further including increasing an intensity of the energy device during the cutting routine based on the requirement of adjusting the cure rate into the method taught by Evans based on the compaction.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US2017/0028625 A1) in view of Debora (US2016/0052208A1 ) as applied to claim 17, and further in view of Darrieux (US 6540000 B1)
Regarding claim 20, Evan teaches retracting the compaction roller away from an underlying surface after completion of the cutting routine (figures 19-20). Further, if Applicant does not agree, analogous art Darrieux depicts retracting the compaction roller away (column 5 lines 22-25) from the underlying surface after completion of the cutting routine ( column 5 lines 43-56). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the step of retracting the compaction roller away from an underlying surface after completion of the cutting routine since it would be within the skillset of one ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument in light of the newly cited reference Evans (US2017/0028625 A1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
