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 of Group I (i.e., claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 05/28/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Un-elected withdrawn claim(s) 11-15 is/are canceled. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-10 is/are examined herein.
Drawings
Figures 6A and 6B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract comprises implied/legal language such as “According to some embodiments of the present disclosure”. Furthermore, the abstract describes devices already known in the art (See prior art rejection below). Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 7 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7, “where pedestal” should be changed to --wherein the pedestal--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a deposition source configured to …” in claim 1 with corresponding structure disclosed at least in [0025] and [0041-0044] of Applicant’s published application.
“a traction driver configured to engage …” in at least claim(s) 1 with corresponding structure disclosed at least in least [0027] and [0045-0046] of Applicant’s published application.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crump (US 20140048980).
Regarding claim 1, Crump (US 20140048980) discloses an additive manufacturing device (P0005, 0088) comprising:
a deposition source (240) configured to deposit material for a three-dimensional structure (250) on a deposition surface (296a) of a pedestal (P0093, Figs. 6-9; wherein 240 is structurally and functionally equivalent to the claimed deposition source), wherein the pedestal (292) has an elongate shape (L-shape) defining an axis and providing the deposition surface at an end of the pedestal (P0089, 0105, Figs. 6-9; additionally, the “pedestal” is not positively recited as an element of the device, and therefore, it is not necessarily required);
a traction driver (294) configured to engage with the pedestal and the three-dimensional structure to move the pedestal and the three-dimensional structure in a direction (286) of the axis of the pedestal (P0091, 0094-0095, 0097-0098, Figs. 6-9; wherein 294 is structurally and functionally equivalent to the claimed traction driver); and
a controller (280) coupled with the deposition source and the traction driver (P0097, P0072-0076, 0088, Figs. 8-9), wherein the controller is configured to, control the deposition source to deposit the three-dimensional structure on the deposition surface of the pedestal while controlling the traction driver to move the pedestal in the direction of the axis away from the deposition source (P0088, 0093-0094, 0097, 0101-0102, Figs. 6-9). Thus, Crump discloses the device substantially as claimed by applicant. Crump further discloses Applicant’s concept of printing while supporting long 3D printing parts (P0101-0102, Figs. 6-9).
Regarding claim 2, Crump further discloses wherein the material comprises a three-dimensional print material (P0067, 0071, 0075, 0088, Fig. 6), and wherein the deposition source comprises a printhead (240) configured to selectively dispense the three-dimensional print material in a plane (x-y plane) that is orthogonal with respect to the direction of the axis responsive to control from the controller (P0072-0073, 0075, 0088, Figs. 6-9).
Regarding claim 3, Crump further discloses wherein the deposition source comprises a gantry (242) configured to move the printhead in a plane (x-y plane) that is orthogonal with respect to the direction of the axis responsive to control from the controller (P0069, 0088, 0091, Figs. 6-9).
Regarding claim 4, Crump further discloses wherein the traction driver comprises a rotational engagement device (306) configured to engage with the pedestal and the three-dimensional structure such that rotation of the rotational engagement device moves the pedestal away from the deposition source (P0094-0095, 0097-0098, Figs. 6-9).
Regarding claim 5, Crump further discloses wherein the rotational engagement device comprises at least one of a traction belt (306b) and/or a traction wheel (306/306a) configured to engage with the pedestal and the three-dimensional structure (P0094-0095, 0097-0099, Figs. 6-9).
Regarding claim 6, Crump further discloses wherein the traction driver comprises a plurality of rotational engagement devices (306) distributed around the pedestal and/or the three-dimensional structure (P0094-0095, 0097-0098, Figs. 6, 8A, and 9).
Regarding claim 7, Crump further discloses wherein the pedestal (292) has an outer cross sectional shape (rectangular cross sectional shape of 296a) in a plane that is orthogonal with respect to the direction (286) of the axis, wherein the three dimensional structure (250) has an outer cross sectional shape in a plane that is orthogonal with respect to the direction (286) of the axis, and wherein the outer cross sectional shape of the three dimensional structure (250) is the same as the outer cross sectional shape of the pedestal (at least the portion 252 of the three dimensional structure 250 has the same outer rectangular cross-sectional shape as 296a: Fig. 8A; P0098 further teaches/suggest to make the outer shapes of the pedestal and printed 3D part equivalent for the benefit(s) of providing proper/continuous engagement).
Regarding claim 8, Crump further discloses wherein the outer cross-sectional shapes of the pedestal and the three-dimensional structure are one of a circle, an oval, a square, a rectangle, a triangle, a pentagon, or a hexagon (rectangle: P0098, Fig. 8A).
Regarding claim 9, Crump further discloses wherein the controller is configured to control the deposition source to deposing the three-dimensional structure by, controlling the deposition source to deposit a first layer of the three-dimensional structure on the deposition surface with the pedestal in a first position such that the deposition surface is at a first distance from the deposition source, after depositing the first layer of the three-dimensional structure, controlling the traction driver to move the pedestal in the direction of the axis from the first position to a second position such that the deposition surface is at a second distance from the deposition source, with the second distance being greater than the first distance, and after moving the pedestal to the second position, controlling the deposition source to deposit a second layer of the three-dimensional structure on the first layer (P0088, 0093-0094, 0097, 0101-0102, Figs. 6-9; layer by layer deposition and indexing: P0094).
Regarding claim 9, Crump further discloses wherein the controller (280) is configured to control the deposition source to deposing the three-dimensional structure by, controlling the deposition source to deposit a first layer of the three-dimensional structure on the deposition surface with the pedestal in a first position such that the deposition surface is at a first distance from the deposition source, after depositing the first layer of the three-dimensional structure, controlling the traction driver to move the pedestal in the direction of the axis from the first position to a second position such that the deposition surface is at a second distance from the deposition source, with the second distance being greater than the first distance, and after moving the pedestal to the second position, controlling the deposition source to deposit a second layer of the three-dimensional structure on the first layer (P0088, 0093-0094, 0097, 0101-0102, Figs. 6-9; 280 is capable of controlling indexing of 292 layer-by-layer in direction 286 away from 240 by controlling 294 right after controlling depositing of each layer via 240: P0094, Figs. 6-9).
Regarding claim 10, Crump further discloses wherein the controller (280) is configured to control the deposition source to deposit the three-dimensional structure by, controlling the deposition source to deposit the three-dimensional structure from the deposition source on the deposition surface while controlling the traction driver to continuously move the pedestal in the direction of the axis away from the deposition source (P0088, 0093-0094, 0097, 0101-0102, Figs. 6-9; 280 is capable of controlling indexing of 292 away from 240 by controlling 294 while controlling printing/depositing via 240: P0011, claim 18, Figs. 6-9; furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known/deduce that are limited options (i.e., simultaneous or sequential) available to control operation of the deposition source and the traction driver via the controller and the option of simultaneous controlling of the deposition source and the traction driver yields the predictable benefit of increasing efficiency).
Conclusion
Additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered to be pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure.
Crump (US 20140048981) discloses a relevant additive manufacturing devices (Figs. 14A and 15 and accompanying text).
Teken (US 20140203479) discloses the technique of operating/moving a deposition source (123) and a pedestal (110) simultaneously or sequentially (P0012, Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0625. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00-10:00 PM PT.
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.
JERZI H. MORENO HERNANDEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights