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.
Claims 5 and 14-15 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.
Claims 5 and 14-15 recites the limitation deactivating the clamp but is unclear what applicant is referring to when reciting the limitation deactivating. Is applicant referring to unclamping? For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting it as unclamping. Claim 15 is dependent on clam 14 and indirectly/directly includes all the claim limitation of claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darrieux (US 6540000 B1) and further in view of Wilenski (US 2018/0141284 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Darrieux discloses a method of additively manufacturing an object, comprising: extending a nozzle (6) of a print head to push a tag end of material toward a compaction roller during a feeding routine (13 is pushing against 11); extending the compaction roller to sandwich the tag end against an underlying surface (see figure 8);
Darrieux does not explicitly disclose activating an energy device to expose the tag end to cure energy and thereby adhere the tag end as an anchor. However, it is conventionally well known that curing is required in order to solidify a layer. Analogous art Wilenski depicts a curing unit (14) to cure a tag end (see figure 1). 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 activating an energy device to the method taught by Darrieux to cure the tag end and thereby adhere the tag end as an anchor for the benefit of adhering the layers together [0003].
Regarding claim 2, Darrieux 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 (figures 3-8).
Regarding claim 4, Darrieux discloses clamping (column 5 lines 56-60). Although Darrieux does not disclose clamping the nozzle, MPEP 2144.04 states it has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400. 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 activating a clamp rigidly connected to the nozzle during the extending, such that the extending causes the tag end to move with the nozzle into the method taught by Darrieux since it is in the skillset of one ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Darrieux 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) 3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darrieux (US 6540000 B1) and further in view of Wilenski (US 2018/0141284 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Tyler (US2018/0065306 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Darrieux teaches further including extending the nozzle further toward the compaction roller (11) during the moving of the print head away from the anchor (see figures 3-7) 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 Darrieux based on the design requirements of the final product.
Regarding claim 5, Darrieux discloses clamping (column 5 lines 56-60) but does not disclose 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, discloses 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 Darrieux as it is within the skillset of one ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Darrieux 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) 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darrieux (US 6540000 B1) and further in view of Wilenski (US 2018/0141284 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Debora (US2016/0052208 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Darrieux depicts further including retracting the nozzle at a start of a cutting routine (figure 8 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 the combination of Darrieux since MPEP 2144.04 states splitting of steps is a prima facie evidence of obviousness.
Regarding claim 9, Darrieux discloses clamping (column 5 lines 56-60) while Debora discloses retracting the material [0022]. 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 retracted the material while clamping to ensure the material is held tight while it’s retracted to ensure the material has tension and is properly retracted. "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).
Regarding claim 10, Darrieux 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 the combination of Darrieux based on the compaction.
Regarding claim 11, Darrieux 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 Darrieux for the benefit of saving complexity, cost and physical space.
Regarding claim 12, Darrieux teaches including 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).
Claim(s) 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darrieux (US 6540000 B1) in view of Tyler (US2018/0065306 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Darrieux teaches a method of additively manufacturing an object, comprising: anchoring a tag end of material extending from a nozzle (6) of a print head under a compaction roller (11) during a feeding routine ( see figure 8); moving the print head away from the anchored tag end to cause the material to be pulled out of the nozzle by the movement (figures 5- 9); and
extending the nozzle toward the compaction roller during initial movement of the print head away from the anchored tag end (see figures 5-9), 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 Darrieux based on the design requirements of the final product.
Regarding claim 14, Darrieux discloses activating a clamp (column 5 lines 56-60) during the extending.
Regarding claim 15, Darrieux discloses clamping (column 5 lines 56-60) but does not disclose 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, discloses 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 Darrieux as it is within the skillset of one ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 16, Darrieux 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 17, Darrieux teaches including retracting the compaction roller away (column 5 lines 22-25) from the underlying surface after start of the cutting routine ( column 5 lines 43-56).
Regarding claim 18, Darrieux discloses clamping (column 5 lines 56-60) while Debora discloses retracting the material [0022]. 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 a clamp rigidly connected to the nozzle during the retraction to ensure the material is held and to ensure the material has tension and is properly retracted. "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).
Further, although Darrieux does not disclose clamping the nozzle, MPEP 2144.04 states it has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400. 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 activating a clamp rigidly connected to the nozzle during the extending, such that the extending causes the tag end to move with the nozzle into the method taught by Darrieux since it is in the skillset of one ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darrieux (US 6540000 B1) and further in view of in view of Tyler (US2018/0065306 A1), as applied to claim 17/18, and further in view of Debora (US2016/0052208 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Darrieux 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 Darrieux for the benefit of saving complexity, cost and physical space.
Regarding claim 20, Darrieux teaches including 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).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights