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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-13 and 20 in the reply filed on 06/23/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground that “Applicant believes it would not be an undue burden on the Examiner to examine all of claims 1-20 together” (Remarks, Pg 6-7).
This is not found persuasive because a substantive examination of Groups I and II require different text searches and classification searches.
The restriction requirement mailed 04/24/2026 is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 14-19 are withdrawn from further consideration
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 1, “including” should read –comprising--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Functional language is often associated with a "control subsystem" in the claims (see instant claims 9-10). The specific language associated with the " control subsystem " will determine what subject matter must be given.
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 4-8 and 12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “ones of the plurality of magnets are arranged to be supported by the holder structure to fully circumscribe the vat of resin” in line(s) 2-3. Claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter. A claim is indefinite if the scope of the claim is not clear to a hypothetical person possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. One cannot ascertain whether “ones of the plurality of magnets” recited in line 2 comprises one of the plurality of magnets, more than one of the plurality of magnets, or another subset of the plurality of magnets in order to fully circumscribe the vat of resin. Claims 5-7 which depend from claim 4 are similarly rejected.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “fully circumscribe” in line 3. The claim indefinite because of the use of relative terminology in claim language and the scope of the term is not understood when read in light of the specification. MPEP 2173.05(b)(I). For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as -- circumscribe --. Claims 5-7 which depend from claim 4 are similarly rejected.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the vat of resin” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no earlier recitation of the limitation. MPEP 2173.05(e). For compact prosecution, the limitation has been examined as if it read --the resin vat--. Claims 5-7 which depend from claim 4 are similarly rejected.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “fully circumferentially” in lines 2-3. The claim indefinite because of the use of relative terminology in claim language and the scope of the term is not understood when read in light of the specification. MPEP 2173.05(b)(I). For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as -- circumferentially --.
Claims 8 and 12 recite the limitation “the holder” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no earlier recitation of the limitation. MPEP 2173.05(e). For compact prosecution, the limitation has been examined as if it read --the holder structure--.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “disc-like shape” in line(s) 1. The addition of the word “like” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression as to render it indefinite. MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(E). For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as --disc shape--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-4, 6, 8, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martin, J. et. al., “Designing bioinspired composite reinforcement architectures via 3D magnetic printing” (of record, hereinafter “Martin”).
Regarding claim 1, Martin teaches a 3D magnetic printing setup (projection stereolithography apparatus) comprising a DLP projector and resin container (a light projector for projecting a two dimensional image into a resin vat containing a quantity of photoresponsive resin) (Pg 3-4, see Fig 2a below); solenoids (a plurality of magnets) (Pg 3-4, see Fig 2a below); and brackets holding the solenoids (a holder structure for supporting the plurality of magnets, wherein the plurality of magnets are spaced at least partially around the resin vat) (Pg 3-4, see Fig 2a below).
Examiner notes that the limitation “the plurality of magnets generating a magnetic field for controllably aligning molecules in the resin while forming a three dimensional part in a layer-by-layer process using the two dimensional image projected by the light projector” is a recitation of intended result. However, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and thus, an apparatus claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114(II). Here, the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus.
PNG
media_image1.png
542
264
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, as applied to the system of claim 1, Martin teaches a system wherein at least one of the plurality of magnets comprises an electromagnet (Pg 3-4 and Fig 2a).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, as applied to the system of claim 1, Martin teaches a system wherein the plurality of magnets are arranged to be supported by the holder structure to fully circumscribe the vat of resin; the plurality of magnets configured to produce a magnetic field in a selected direction within at least one of an X/Y plane or a Z plane; and wherein the plurality of magnets comprise a plurality of electromagnets (Pg 3-4 and Fig 2a).
Regarding claim 8, as applied to the system of claim 1, Martin teaches a system wherein the holder is configured to support the plurality of magnets equidistantly spaced apart from one another fully circumferentially around the plurality of magnets (Pg 3-4 and Fig 2a).
Regarding claim 11, as applied to the system of claim 1, Martin teaches a system wherein the plurality of magnets have a common dimension and shape (Pg 3-4 and Fig 2a).
Regarding claim 20, Martin teaches a 3D magnetic printing setup (projection stereolithography apparatus) comprising a DLP projector and resin container (a light projector for projecting a two dimensional image into a resin vat containing a quantity of photoresponsive resin) (Pg 3-4, see Fig 2a below); solenoids (a donut-shaped magnet) (Pg 3-4, see Fig 2a below); and brackets holding the solenoids (a holder structure for supporting the donut-shaped magnet fixedly thereon, wherein the holder has a central cutout sufficiently large to receive the resin vat therein) (Pg 3-4, see Fig 2a below).
PNG
media_image1.png
542
264
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that the limitation “the donut-shaped magnet generating a magnetic field for controllably aligning molecules in the resin while forming a three dimensional part in a layer-by-layer process using the two dimensional image projected by the light projector” is a recitation of intended result. However, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and thus, an apparatus claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114(II). Here, the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 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.
Claims 2, 5, 7, 9-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin, as applied to claim 1, and in view of Erb (US20170136699A1) (of record).
Regarding claim 2, as applied to the system of claim 1, Martin does not specify a system wherein at least one of the plurality of magnets comprises a permanent magnet.
However, in the same field of endeavor, apparatus for producing a composite part, Erb teaches a system wherein the solenoids 142 are controllable under control of the processor unit 160, which can control the strength and duration of the magnetic field applied by each solenoid to apply a magnetic field in any three-dimensional orientation through the build layer (¶0150). Erb discloses that it will be appreciated that any other suitable magnetic field system can be used (¶0151). For example, the magnetic fields can be applied from permanent magnet (¶0151).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify system disclosed in Martin by substituting the solenoid disclosed in Martin with the permanent magnet disclosed in Erb since the simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143(B).
Regarding claim 5, as applied to the system of claim 4, Martin does not specify a system the plurality of magnets comprise a plurality of permanent magnets.
However, in the same field of endeavor, apparatus for producing a composite part, Erb teaches a system wherein the solenoids 142 are controllable under control of the processor unit 160, which can control the strength and duration of the magnetic field applied by each solenoid to apply a magnetic field in any three-dimensional orientation through the build layer (¶0150). Erb discloses that it will be appreciated that any other suitable magnetic field system can be used (¶0151). For example, the magnetic fields can be applied from permanent magnet (¶0151).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify system disclosed in Martin by substituting the plurality of solenoids disclosed in Martin with permanent magnets disclosed in Erb since the simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143(B).
Regarding claim 7, as applied to the system of claim 6, Martin does not specify a system further comprising an electromagnetic signal generating subsystem for generating a plurality of current signals for controllably energizing select ones of the plurality of electromagnets.
However, in the same field of endeavor, apparatus for producing a composite part, Erb teaches a system wherein the solenoids 142 are controllable under control of the processor unit 160 (electromagnetic signal generating subsystem), which can control the strength and duration of the magnetic field applied by each solenoid to apply a magnetic field in any three-dimensional orientation through the build layer (¶0150). Erb discloses that it will be appreciated that any other suitable magnetic field system can be used (¶0151). For example, the magnetic fields can be applied from current-carrying wires (generating a plurality of current signals for controllably energizing select ones of the plurality of electromagnets). (¶0151).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the system disclosed in Martin by applying the known technique of an electromagnetic signal generating subsystem for generating a plurality of current signals for controllably energizing select ones of the plurality of electromagnets disclosed in Erb to the system comprising a plurality of electromagnets disclosed in Martin with predictable results and resulting in an improved system. MPEP 2143(D).
Regarding claims 9-10, as applied to the system of claim 1, Martin does not specify a system further comprising a motion control subsystem for translating the holder structure in a Z plane perpendicular to the X/Y plane nor wherein the motion control subsystem comprises a 5-axis motion control subsystem.
However, in the same field of endeavor, apparatus for producing a composite part, Erb teaches a system comprising open-source software (Creation Workshop) (a motion control subsystem) to control a digital light projector (ViewSonic PJD7820hd) and two NEMA-17 stepper motors for the vertical or z-axis motion, and wherein the magnetic field sources can be attached in other locations near the build plate of the system or in the space around the material during the manufacturing process (¶0145, 0151, 0179).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the system disclosed in Martin to further comprise a motion control subsystem for translating the holder structure in at least one of an X/Y plane or a Z plane perpendicular to the X/Y plane and wherein the motion control subsystem comprises a 5-axis motion control subsystem by applying the known technique wherein the magnetic field sources can be attached in other locations near the build plate of the system or in the space around the material during the manufacturing process disclosed in Erb to the system disclosed in Martin with predictable results and resulting in an improved system. MPEP 2143(D).
Regarding claim 13, as applied to the system of claim 1, Martin does not specify a system wherein the magnetic field generated by the plurality of magnets is greater than 100 mT.
However, in the same field of endeavor, apparatus for producing a composite part, Erb teaches a system wherein each of the horizontal solenoids can include an iron core to increase the strength of its magnetic field (¶0149). The strength of the magnetic field can range from 50 Oersted to 1000 Oersted (wherein the magnetic field generated by the plurality of magnets is greater than 100 mT) (¶0139).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the system disclosed in Martin by applying the known technique wherein the magnetic field generated by the plurality of magnets is greater than 100 mT as disclosed in Erb to the system disclosed in Martin with predictable results and resulting in an improved system. MPEP 2143(D).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin, as applied to claim 1, and in view of Kulkarni (US2023/0375102A1).
Regarding claim 12, as applied to the system of claim 1, Martin teaches a system wherein the holder forms a disc shape (Pg 3-4 and Fig 2a).
Martin does not specify a system wherein the holder is constructed of a non-magnetic and non-electrically conductive material.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (non-magnetic and non-electrically conductive materials for the holder structure; see MPEP 2141.01(a)), Kulkarni discloses a system wherein solenoid actuator 104 may further include a wire coil 224 arranged within the solenoid housing 112 (¶0028). The wire coil 224 may be wrapped around a bobbin 228 (holder structure) (¶0028). The bobbin 228 may be fabricated from a non-magnetically-conductive material (e.g., plastic) and may be arranged within the solenoid housing 112 so that the wire coil 224 wraps around at least a portion of the armature 128 (¶0028).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the system taught by Martin substitute the material of the holder structure of Martin with the plastic bobbin taught by Kulkarni since the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kolb (US 2005/0024174 A1) teaches that a typical solenoid is constructed with copper wire on a non-conductive, non-magnetic bobbin that creates a coil assembly (Fig 1 and ¶0006).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JaMel M Nelson whose telephone number is (571)272-8174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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 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 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.
/JAMEL M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights