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 .
Drawings
(i) The drawings are objected to because:
FIG. 1 – the figure is too blurry to accurately ascertain what structure/feature each reference character lead line is pointing to, reference character 34 is unnecessarily circled, and reference character 24 needlessly has two lead lines or there is a lead line at the bottom right of the figure without a reference character;
FIG. 2 – the figure is too blurry to accurately ascertain what structure/feature each reference character lead line is pointing to, the figure contains what appears to be a hand drawn circle/writing at the bottom left of the figure which cannot be ascertained whatsoever, and the figure contains handwritten reference characters which are indecipherable;
FIG. 3 – contains hand written reference characters which are indecipherable;
FIG. 4 – appears to be a generic and blurry photograph of an extruder of a 3D printing system in which no details/structure can be ascertained; and
FIG. 5 – contains handwritten reference characters which are indecipherable, the right side of the figure is essentially non-existent, and paragraph [0021] of the specification as filed states that “FIG. 5 is a partial view showing an alternate embodiment hereof” which FIG. 5 does not accomplish showing.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
(ii) The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: extruder 60 and nozzle 62 in paragraph [0034] of the specification as filed; and vertical extruder 110, source 112, conduit 114, and heated nozzle 116 in paragraph [0043]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
(iii) The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: FIG.1 – reference character 22 and reference character 44. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “… for FFF/FDM …” should be amended to properly introduce the acronyms FFF/FDM, such that the recitation reads “… for Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF)/Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) ” before continuing to use the acronym in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 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.
Regarding claim 1: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation “the bottom” in line 8. It is not clear if the recitation “the bottom” is referring to the bottom wall introduced in line 2, or if the recitation is referring to the bottom of a different component of the mold (e.g., the medial porous top surface). For the purposes of prior art rejections, the recitation “the bottom” wall is being interpreted such that it is referring to the bottom wall introduced in line 2.
Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation “the mold interior” in line 6 and “the interior” in line 9. Claim 1 introduces “an open interior” in line 5 and it is not clear if the recitations “the mold interior” and “the interior” are intending to reference the open interior previously introduced in the claim or if these recitations are intending to refer to an interior different and distinct from the open interior. For the purposes of prior art rejections, the recitations “the mold interior” and “the interior” are being interpreted such that they refer to the open interior introduced in line 5. Claims 2-4 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg et al. (US 2023/0364831) in view of Gearhart et al. (US 2021/0187793).
As to claim 1: Goldberg discloses the claimed vacuum mold for FFF/FDM processing (i.e., additive manufacturing mold for forming a molded product) (Goldberg at [0042], [0087], [0116], FIG. 22), comprising:
(a) a bottom wall and sidewall, the sidewall extending upwardly from the bottom wall and terminating at a perimetral edge (Goldberg at [0116], FIG. 22 – see the annotated version provided below);
PNG
media_image1.png
608
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b) a medial porous top surface deposited beneath the perimetral edge, the walls and the top surface cooperating to create an open interior (i.e., the mold screen 2202 has an infill density of 60-65% indicative it is porous) (Goldberg at [0116], FIG. 22 – see the annotated version provided above); and
(d) a port provided in the bottom for securing a vacuum source thereto such that the vacuum draws material into the interior, and wherein the top surface enables securement of a template for a part to be molded (i.e., channel 2208 through which a vacuum is drawn, the vacuum pulling material onto the mold to form the shape of the part) (Goldberg at [0006], [0116], FIG. 22).
In the embodiment disclosed in Goldberg and relied upon above, mold 2200 is cylindrical in shape and therefore meets the claimed vacuum mold comprising a bottom wall and a sidewall (Goldberg at [0116], FIG. 22); though, Goldberg fails to explicitly disclose in a single embodiment, the claimed vacuum mold comprising (a) sidewalls and a front wall.
However, Goldberg teaches that given a specific computer model for a desired molded part, a computer model for each of the porous forming and processing molds necessary for any particular manufacturing line can be generated by simply dictating the desired attributes of the molds such as porosity and shape, with FIG. 13 in Goldberg illustrating an embodiment of a mold with three sidewalls and a front wall (Goldberg at [0037], [0146], [0148]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a mold having multiple sidewalls and a front wall in addition to a bottom wall and at least one sidewall, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. Further, one would have been motivated to select the shape of a cube/cuboid for the purpose of molding a particular structure/product.
Moreover, Goldberg discloses porous molds being manufactured using additive manufacturing to have sufficient porosity to allow the molds to operate as a forming mold and as a processing mold, where when adapting additive manufacturing systems for creating porous molds, it has been determined that porous molds may be created through selection and control of mold manufacturing parameters commonly provided by slicer software programs and one of the functions performed by the slicer software program is to allow the user to dictate how the interior of an object, the “infill”, is to be made and through the selection of a particular infill pattern and a infill density, the user can control how the infill of the mold is made (Goldberg at [0048], [0049], [0050]-[0054]). Though, Goldberg fails to explicitly disclose the claimed (c) a lattice formed in the mold interior, the lattice comprising a plurality of directional alternating layers having gaps between the layers.
However, Gearhart teaches 3D printing a composite mold tool, where after completion of the 3D printing of the lower mold 12, the lower mold 12 is formed with an interior infill structure 60 that has a porous and open internal lattice structure; specifically, a 3D crisscross lattice pattern being used for the infill (i.e., a lattice formed in the mold interior, the lattice comprising a plurality of directional alternating layers having gaps between the layers) (Gearhart at [0005], [0015], [0040], FIGs. 6A-6E, FIG. 8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the lattice infill formed in a mold interior, the lattice comprising a plurality of directional alternating layers having gaps between the layers, as such is known in the art of vacuum molds given the discussion of Gearhart above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of the internal lattice structure as the infill providing strength for the mold (as recognized by Gearhart at [0040]).
As to claim 2: Goldberg and Gearhart disclose the vacuum mold of claim 1. Goldberg further discloses the claimed wherein the mold is an additive manufactured mold (Goldberg at [0035], [0036], [0048], [0049]).
As to claim 3: Goldberg and Gearhart disclose the vacuum mold of claim 1. Gearhart further reads on the claimed wherein the lattice is an infill grid (Gearhart at [0005], [0015], [0040], FIGs. 6A-6E, FIG. 8), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 4: Goldberg and Gearhart disclose the vacuum mold of claim 1. Goldberg further discloses the claimed wherein the bottom wall comprises at least one solid layer of additive manufacturing deposited infill (i.e., machine attachment portion 2012 of the mold) (Goldberg at [0107], FIG. 20), the mold further comprising: (a) a medial section overlying the bottom wall having an upper portion comprising a dense support layer and which comprises from about 75% to 95% of the total infill used for the lattice (i.e., highly porous mold core 2206, the infill pattern being set to an infill density ) (Goldberg at [0048], [0049], [0050]-[0054], [0064], [0116], FIG. 22); wherein further: (b) the top surface overlying the medial section (Goldberg at [0116], FIG. 22).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Patrov (US 2016/0346999) discloses infilling techniques for three-dimensional printing, and specifically to infill patterns that improve strength and dimensional stability of a fabricated object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILEIGH K. DARNELL whose telephone number is (469)295-9287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, MST.
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 H. 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.
/BAILEIGH KATE DARNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
