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.
Claim 14 is 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.
With regards to claim 14, the claim states that bins are ordered in an array but the limitation is optional. It is unclear if the limitation is required or not, making the claim indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Polk, Jr. (US 2013/0193611).
With regards to claim 1, Polk, Jr. discloses a device including:
An extrusion die including an extrusion output, the extrusion output slit-shaped to produce a film (Figure 1 item 190, paragraph 39)
A preform assembly platform (Figure 1 item 210)
A translation stage, where motion by the translation stage causes relative motion between the extrusion output and the preform assembly platform (Figure 1 item 200)
Controller circuitry communicatively coupled to the translation stage; the controller circuitry configured to send motion commands to the translation stage to position the preform assembly platform such that current film generated by extrusion die is layered on top of previous film generated by the extrusion die to create a preform stack (paragraph 44).
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, 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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 - 7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polk Jr. (US 2013/0193611) in view of Yen et al (US 2014/0339722).
With regards to claim 2, the teachings of Polk, Jr. are presented above. Polk, Jr. discloses that the resin is fed to a feeder or hopper of the injection head of the extrusion device (paragraph 41). Polk, Jr. fails to explicitly disclose that the feeding the extrusion die is via multiple extrusion inputs.
Yen discloses a method of forming a multilayer porous membrane by extrusion (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Polk, Jr. where Yen discloses that the feedblock will have multiple inputs prior to exiting a single extrusion die as a single sheet (paragraph 72). While Yen does not explicitly state that 12 inputs are used, Yen states that multiple inputs are used for multiple extrusion lines which can be added for additional layers or regions (paragraph 72), where one of ordinary skill would appreciate that, depending on the needed layers, would require 12 inputs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used multiple extrusion inputs to feed the extrusion die, as suggested by Yen, ion Polk, Jr.’s device. The rationale being that, as stated by Yen, the number of inputs depend on the needed layers for the sheet being extruded (paragraph 72).
With regards to claim 3, the teachings of Polk, Jr. and Yen are presented above. Additionally, Yen teaches that the feeding the extrusion die includes feeding the extrusion die via channels that force material form the multiple extrusion inputs into a single stream for the extrusion output to produce a multi-sublayer film at the extrusion output (paragraph 72).
With regards to claim 4, the teachings of Polk, Jr. and Yen are presented above. Additionally, Yen teaches that feeding the extrusion die includes feeding a subset of multiple extrusion inputs from a single material feed line to produce multiple same-material sublayers within the film (paragraphs 72 and 73).
With regards to claim 5, the teachings of Polk, Jr and Yen are presented above. Additionally, Yen teaches that the subset includes odd-film-sublayer extrusion inputs (paragraphs 72 and 73).
With regards to claim 6, the teachings of Polk, Jr. and Yen are presented above. Additionally, Yen teaches that feeding the extrusion die includes feeding a complement set of extrusion inputs from another single material feed line, the complement set including the complement set of the subset, where the complement set includes even-film-sublayer extrusion inputs (paragraphs 72 and 73).
With regards to claim 7, the teachings of Polk, Jr. and Yen are presented above. Additionally, Yen teaches that the method further includes applying a roller on top of the current layer to impart vertical pressure on preform stack (Figure 1 item 50).
With regards to claim 12, the teachings of Polk, Jr. and Yen are presented above. Additionally, Yen teaches that extruding the film includes extruding a film between 10 microns and 1,000 microns thick (paragraph 59).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polk Jr. (US 2013/0193611) in view of Yen et al (US 2014/0339722) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bogucki et al (US 2016/0082641).
With regards to claim 8, the teachings of Polk, Jr. and Yen are presented above. Polk, Jr. states that after forming a layer pressure is applied to form the product (Figure 6 item 612). Polk, Jr. and Yen fail to explicitly disclose that the device comprises a cutter and that the controller is configured to control a cutter for cutting the layer after covering the previous layer.
Bogucki discloses a fiber reinforced polymer part fabricated by extrusion (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Polk, Jr., where Bogucki discloses a device comprising a cutter for cutting the current layer after covering a previous layer (paragraphs 28 and 41), and where the controller is further configured to determine that the previous layer has been covered responsive to the preform assembly platform reaching a layer-end travel point (paragraphs 28 and 41); at the time the translation stage is at the layer-end travel point, causing a cutter to perform the cutting (paragraphs 28 and 41); determining a layer-begin point for the preform assembly platform (paragraphs 28 and 41); and after the cutting, causing the preform assembly platform to move to the layer-begin point (paragraphs 28 and 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cut the current layer after covering the previous layer, as suggested by Bogucki, in Polk Jr and Yen’s method. The rationale being that one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date would appreciate that cutting is a well-known process to separate one layer from another layer further defining the desired product.
With regards to claim 9, the teachings of Polk, Jr., Yen and Bogucki are presented above. Additionally, Bogucki teaches that the cutter includes an edge cutter, a laser cutter or a heater (paragraph 28).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polk Jr. (US 2013/0193611) in view of Brackman et al (US Patent 6,113,374).
With regards to claim 10, the teachings of Polk, Jr. are presented above. Polk, Jr. fails to explicitly disclose to shield the preform stack from dust while on the preform assembly stack.
Brackman discloses an extrusion system (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Polk, Jr., where Brackman teaches that the system comprises an enclosure (Figure 1A item 40), which would shield he preform stack from dust while on the preform assembly stack.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have shielded the preform stack from dust while on the preform assembly stack, as suggested by Brackman, in Polk, Jr.’ device. The rationale being that, as stated by Brackman, it provides a high quality product (column 3 lines 28 – 43).
With regards to claim 11, the teachings of Polk, Jr. and Brackman are presented above. Additionally, Brackman teaches further having an enclosure around the preform assembly platform and the extrusion output, where the enclosure includes a dust resistant or moisture resistant enclosure, the enclosure includes a heater communicatively coupled to a controller circuitry, the controller circuitry configured to send enclosure commands to cause the heater to hold the enclosure temperature at a layer-adhesion temperature for the preform stack and the enclosure includes a vacuum-sealed-enclosure held at least at low vacuum (column 9 lines 1 – 30).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 15 - 22 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art made of record does not teach or suggest an extrusion device that comprises an assembly robotic arm including a sheet grip disposed on the distal end of the robotic arm.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHEL RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)270-7655. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12pm - 8pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/JOSHEL RIVERA/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights