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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species A: a method for identifying a material of a component (claims 1-12)
Species B: a mobile terminal for identifying a material of an additively manufactured component (claims 13-17)
Species C: a method for producing a component for a container treatment plant (claim 18)
Species D: a component for a container treatment plant (claims 19-20)
The species are independent or distinct because claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
There is an examination and search burden for these patentably distinct species due to their mutually exclusive characteristics. The species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species; and/or the species are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
During a telephone conversation with David Tener on 4/2/26 an election was made without traverse to prosecute Species A, claims 1-12. Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matusik et al (WO 2021/086392, already of record).
For claims 1-6 and 10, Matusik et al teach a method for identifying a material of a component, wherein the method comprises: providing the component, which is manufactured via an additive manufacturing device (Fig. 1 – element 116, [0001]); irradiating the component with electromagnetic radiation via a radiation source (element 118, [0014]); recording a spectrum of the irradiated component via a recording device (element 118a); evaluating the recorded spectrum for a match with at least one predetermined spectrum which is associated with a predetermined material having at least one nanoparticle marker for identifying the predetermined material via an evaluation device ([0016], [0027]-[0028]); outputting a result of the evaluation via an output device; the recording device and the output device are integrated in a mobile terminal; retrieving, when a match with the predetermined spectrum associated with the predetermined material is found during the evaluation, additional information associated with this predetermined material from a data store; and outputting the retrieved additional information via the output device; wherein the additional information comprises an instruction (plan to which the inkjet 216 deposits fabrication material); adapting an operation of a machine depending on the result of the evaluation; and when the result is output, information about an existing match is output if a match is found during the evaluation (Fig. 2B, elements 212 & 214, [0059]).
For claims 8-9, Matusik et al teach the component is formed entirely from a plurality of adjacent additively manufactured material layers and all material layers have one or more different nanoparticle markers ([0027] and [0052]); and the base material granulate is plastic granulate ([0061]).
For claim 11, Matusik et al teach predetermining a plurality of spectra, which are associated with different predetermined materials, each with at least one nanoparticle marker for identifying the respective predetermined material; and evaluating the recorded spectrum for a match with one of the plurality of predetermined spectra ([0028]).
For claim 12, Matusik et al teach the different predetermined materials, for identifying the respective predetermined material, differ by different nanoparticle markers ([0027]-[0028]).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matusik et al (WO 2021/086392, already of record) in view of what is well known in the art.
Matusik et al teach the invention as discussed above.
Matusik et al do not teach the server device is a cloud server device.
However, it is well known to use a cloud server device for a server device, and as such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the server device be a cloud server device in order to take advantage of economies of scale from a cloud server device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-7007. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Galen Hauth can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES SANDERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights