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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 09/21/2026, with respect to claim 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The §35 U.S.C. 112(f) of claim 16 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 09/21/2026, with respect to claim 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The §35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claim 18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 19, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, arguments A. Ueda Does Not Teach an Electric Current from to the Bundle and the Substrate and B. Ueda Does Not Teach an Electric Current to Melt the Bundle to Fuse to the Substrate.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Mckiel’s teaching of the external first and second drivers destroys the exit channel, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant is urged to consider the rejection of each claim as a whole. Mckiel was used to modify Ueda to have external drivers, Mckiel was never intended to teach a wire merger or the other limitations found in claims 1, 19, and 20. Therefore the point of Mckiel does not teach, said merger is a moot point.
Furthermore, the applicant claims that the two entry orifices and exit channel would not be taught if this modification was made, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The MPEP is clear, in section 2144.04 VI C, that the rearrangement of parts, does not change the function of the apparatus, therefor it is not a patentable distinction.
Furthermore, the applicant argues that the rationales are conclusory and hindsight, the examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The applicant also argues “wherein the first wire and the second wire are directed such that the bundle is in parallel”, the examiner does agree in part. The examiner would urge the applicant to view the rejection of the claims as a whole and consider all refences used. Debora was relied on to only teach the first and second wire was in parallel with the bundle, whereas the merger of Ueda teaches the two. The examiner agrees with the arguments set forth by the applicant but the claim language does not support what the applicant argues. The examiner interprets the claim language quoted above as that the first and second wire is parallel to the newly formed (by the first and second wire) bundle. The arguments seem to explain that the first and second wire remain parallel once it forms the bundle. If this is what is intended to be the claim it should read “wherein the first wire and the second wire are directed such that the first and second wire within the bundle are in parallel”.
Furthermore, applicant argues that the rational of duplication of parts is improper in claims 14, 16, and 17. Regarding claim 14 and 16, the examiner points applicant to MPEP 2144.04, that states “ It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP § 2144.04 §§ VI.B. As for claim 16, the rejection below has be updated because of the amendment changing the scope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. “a substrate” found in claims 1, 19, and 20 is not mention in the specification, the claims 1, 19, and 20 recite “the substrate is a second electrode of an electrical circuit comprising the power source.”, but when looking at figure 1 of the instant application, the second electrode of the power source is connected directly to the support 102.
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.
In claim 1, 19, and 20, the limitation of “a substrate” seems unclear. While the specification discloses “In such electric circuit, the feedstock may be a first electrode, and the support may be a second electrode. If the feedstock is in physical contact with the support and the power source supplies the electrical current from the guide through the feedstock and to the support, or vice versa, the feedstock and the support are in electrical contact.” in ¶0068, the specification does not provide information about a substrate. Furthermore, in figure 1 of the instant application, the second electrode of the power supply is connected to the support 102 and not said substrate. The examiner is using the citation above to interchange “substrate” with “support”, as shown in figure 1 in the instant application, for the purpose of advancing prosecution.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8, 9, and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 8 requires the merger to direct the first and second wire towards the exit orifice. This is already required in claim 1 in that the bundle is directed to the exit orifice.
claim 9 requires the wire merger to direct the bundle towards the exit orifice, but this is already met by claim 1's limitation of "the wire merger is configured to emit the bundle via the exit orifice.".
Claim 11 requires the wire merger to direct to bundle out of the exit orifice towards the guide. However, this is met by claim 1 requiring the wire merger "configured to emit the bundle via the exit orifice" and "a guide configured to receive the bundle from the exit orifice.".
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170210074 A1 – Ueda in view of US 20160052208 A1 – Debora, US 20170165917 A1 – McKiel, JR, and US 20170320277 A1 - Wang.
Regarding claim 1, Ueda is directed towards a three-dimensional printing system. Ueda does teach a first driver configured to (i) accept a first wire and (ii) direct the first wire towards a wire merger ([0061] The material feed device 8 is configured to feed the filament FL.), a second driver configured to (i) accept a second wire and (ii) direct the second wire towards the wire merger ([0064] The fiber introducing device 9 is configured to feed the carbon fibers FB.), the wire merger comprising two entry orifices, an exit channel, and an exit orifice, wherein the exit channel is positioned between the two entry orifices and the bundling channel, exit orifice (See figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
646
980
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ueda also teaches wherein the wire merger is configured to receive the first wire from the first driver and the second wire from the second driver via the two entry orifices respectively and simultaneously, wherein the Wire merger is configured to combine the first wire and the second wire into a between the exit channel and the exit orifice, and wherein the wire merger is configured to emit the bundle via the exit orifice ([0051] The head 4 has a nozzle 7, a material feed device (a resin pushing device, a material feeder, or a first feeder) 8 configured to feed the filament (a resin material, a base material, or a first continuous material including a resin) FL to the nozzle 7, and a fiber introducing device (a fiber guide unit, a fiber feeder, or a second feeder) 9 configured to supply the filament FL with carbon fiber(s) (a carbon fiber bundle, fiber(s), a functional material, or a second continuous material including fiber(s)) FB which is continuously formed. In one embodiment, the molding device 1 further has a cutting device (a cutting unit or a cutter) 10 configured to cut the carbon fiber(s) FB and a filament heating device (a resin softening unit, a heater, or a first heating unit) 21 configured to heat the filament FL. In an example, at least a portion of the filament heating device 21 is provided in the nozzle 7. In an example, the material feed device 8 is configured to feed the filament FL while pushing the filament FL through the nozzle 7.), and a controller in communication with the first driver and the second driver, wherein the controller is configured to control the first driver and the second driver ([0050] In one embodiment, as shown in FIG. 1, a molding device 1 has a casing 2, a platform (a support member or a pad) 3 which is disposed inside the casing 2, a head (a printer head) 4 which supplies the platform 3 with a filament FL, and a control device (a controller) 5 as main constitution elements. In FIG. 1, an arrow Z indicates a vertical direction (upward and downward), an arrow X indicates one direction in a horizontal direction, and an arrow Y indicates a direction that is a horizontal direction and is perpendicular to the Z direction and the X direction.).
Ueda does not expressly teach wherein the first driver is external to the wire merger, wherein the second driver is external to the wire merger, the first wire and the second wire are directed such that the bundle is in parallel, and a guide configured to receive the bundle from the exit orifice and to direct the bundle towards and in contact with a substrate; and a power source in electrical communication with the bundle and the substrate, wherein the power source is configured to supply electrical current through the bundle and the substrate under conditions sufficient to melt the bundle to fuse the bundle to the substrate, wherein the bundle is a first electrode and the substrate is a second electrode of an electrical circuit comprising the power source.
McKiel is directed towards a transposing extruded materials to fabricate an object surface. McKiel does teach the first driver is external to the wire merger, wherein the second driver is external to the wire merger (Figure 1 and elements 104a (first wire driver) and 104b(second wire driver)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ueda to include the first driver is external to the wire merger, wherein the second driver is external to the wire merger because the wire drivers of McKiel with the mergers of Ueda allow for the user to maintain the drivers easier since they are external from the rest of the unit.
Debora is directed towards an extrusion device. Debora does teach the first wire and the second wire are directed such that the bundle is in parallel ([0028] In some embodiments, the first feedstock and the second feedstock may be selected from a plurality of feedstock that are positioned in parallel and attached to an actuator allowing relative motion between the plurality of feedstock and the cutting module.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ueda to include the first wire and the second wire are directed such that the bundle is in parallel because the parallel process of Debora allows the wire merger of Ueda to use the material at the same rate.
Wang is directed towards an electric melting method. Wang does teach Wang is directed towards an electric melting method. Wang does teach a guide (6) configured to receive the wire from the exit orifice and to direct the wire towards and in contact with a substrate; and a power source (12) in electrical communication with the wire and the substrate, wherein the power source is configured to supply electrical current through the wire and the substrate under conditions sufficient to melt the bundle to fuse the wire to the substrate, wherein the wire is a first electrode and the substrate (N-1..3 layer) is a second electrode of an electrical circuit comprising the power source. (Figures 1A-1B and [0027-0028]).
The combination of the power connections of Wang with the merger system of Ueda allows the heating of the wire to build 3d printing shapes for manufacturing.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ueda to include a guide configured to receive the wire from the exit orifice and to direct the wire towards and in contact with a substrate; and a power source in electrical communication with the wire and the substrate, wherein the power source is configured to supply electrical current through the wire and the substrate under conditions sufficient to melt the bundle to fuse the wire to the substrate, wherein the wire is a first electrode and the substrate is a second electrode of an electrical circuit comprising the power source because the power connections of Wang with the merger system of Ueda allows the heating of the wire to build 3d printing shapes for manufacturing.
Regarding claim 2, Ueda, McKiel, Debora, and Wang does teach the limitations of claim 1. Ueda does teach a first wire source configured to hold the first wire (Figure 1, the spool for FB), and a second wire source configured to hold the second wire (Figure 1, the spool for FL).
Regarding claim 3, Ueda, McKiel, Debora, and Wang does teach the limitations of claim 1. Ueda does teach the first driver comprises a first grooved roller ([0062] In an example, the filament driving rollers 16 can have tire-shaped rollers and filament holding grooves), and the second driver comprises a second grooved roller ([0129] FIG. 21, the guide part 81 has a groove 175 that is provided near the inlet ports 173 of the nozzle member 172. In an example, the fiber(s) FB is guided along a bottom surface of the groove 175).
Regarding claim 5, Ueda, McKiel, Debora, and Wang does teach the limitations of claim 1. Ueda does teach the first wire and the second wire converge between the two entry orifices and the exit channel (Figure 1, within the printer head (4)).
Regarding claim 6, Ueda, McKiel, Debora, and Wang does teach the limitations of claim 1. Ueda does teach further comprising a Y-shaped passageway (Figure 1 the merger point of filament FL and FB).
Regarding claim 7, Ueda, McKiel, Debora, and Wang does teach the limitations of claim 6. Ueda does teach the Y-shaped passageway terminates at the exit channel (Figure 1 and see rejection of claim 1 above.).
Regarding claim 8, Ueda, McKiel, Debora, and Wang does teach the limitations of claim 1. Ueda does teach the Wire merger is further configured to direct the first wire and the second wire towards the exit orifice (Figure 1 and see rejection of claim 1 above.).
Regarding claim 9, Ueda, McKiel, Debora, and Wang does teach the limitations of claim 1. Ueda does teach the wire merger is further configured to direct the bundle towards the exit orifice (Figure 1 and see rejection of claim 1 above.).
Regarding claim 10, Ueda, McKiel, Debora, and Wang does teach the limitations of claim 1. Ueda does not expressly teach the electrical current is supplied through the bundle and the substrate via the guide. (See the rejection of claim 1 above, Wang section)
Regarding claim 11, Ueda, McKiel, Debora, and Wang does teach the limitations of claim 10. Ueda does teach the wire merger is configured to direct the bundle out of the exit orifice towards the guide (Figure 1 and see rejection of claim 1 above.).
Regarding claim 12, Ueda, McKiel, Debora, and Wang does teach the limitations of claim 1. Ueda does teach the exit channel and the exit orifice are in connection to form a continuous pathway for the first wire and the second wire (Figure 1 and see rejection of claim 1 above.).
Regarding claim 18, Ueda, McKiel, Debora, and Wang does teach the limitations of claim 1. Ueda does teach the controller is in communication with the wire merger to control combining of the first wire and the second wire into the bundle ([0050] In one embodiment, as shown in FIG. 1, a molding device 1 has a casing 2, a platform (a support member or a pad) 3 which is disposed inside the casing 2, a head (a printer head) 4 which supplies the platform 3 with a filament FL, and a control device (a controller) 5 as main constitution elements. In FIG. 1, an arrow Z indicates a vertical direction (upward and downward), an arrow X indicates one direction in a horizontal direction, and an arrow Y indicates a direction that is a horizontal direction and is perpendicular to the Z direction and the X direction.).
Regarding claim 19, Ueda, McKiel, Debora, and Wang does teach a first wire source configured to hold a first wire; a second wire source configured to hold a second wire; a first driver configured to (i) accept the first wire from the first wire source and (ii) direct the first wire towards a wire merger, wherein the first driver is external to the wire merger; a second driver configured to (i) accept the second wire from the second wire source and (ii) direct the second wire towards the wire merger wherein the second driver is external to the wire merger; the wire merger comprising two entry orifices, an exit channel, and an exit orifice; wherein the exit channel is positioned between the two entry orifices and the exit orifice(See rejection of claim 1 above).; a guide configured to receive the bundle from the exit orifice, wherein the guide is configured to deposit the bundle onto a substrate of a 3D printing system (See rejection of claim 10 and 11 above);
Ueda also teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the power source to supply an electrical current to the bundle and the substrate ([Claim 1] and [0108] Alternatively, a part that is in contact with the carbon fibers FB is set as an electrode, and the carbon fibers FB are electrified and heated via the part. For example, the rollers 18 (refer to FIG. 1) of the fiber introducing device 9 and other rollers (not shown) may be set as a pair of electrodes, and a current can be applied to the carbon fibers FB via these rollers).
Ueda does not expressly teach a power source in communication with the controller.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill that a power source in communication with the controller is necessary to run the unit of Ueda. Evidence of this is at least but not limited to ¶0050 which states “a controller configured to control an operation device including at least one of the head, the platform, and the cutting device is provided.” And claim 1 which states “ a controller configured to control an operation device associated with at least one of the head, the platform, and the cutting device, wherein the first continuous material includes a linear resin which extends continuously, and the operation device includes a feeder configured to drive at least the first continuous material toward the nozzle and a heating unit configured to soften the linear resin such that the fibers are introduced into the linear resin at a coupling position between the feeder and the outlet of the nozzle.”
Regarding claim 20, providing a first wire, a second wire, and a wire merger, wherein the wire merger comprises two entry orifices, an exit channel, and an exit orifice; wherein the exit channel is positioned between the two entry orifices and the exit orifice; (See rejection of claim 1 above).
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170210074 A1 – Ueda, US 20160052208 A1 – Debora, US 20170165917 A1 – McKiel, JR, and US 20170320277 A1 - Wang in view of US 9144862 B2 - Hemmert.
Regarding claim 4, Ueda, McKiel, Debora, and Wang does teach the limitations of claim 3. Ueda does not expressly teach the first driver comprises at least one additional groove adjacent to the groove, wherein the second driver comprises at least one additional groove adjacent to the groove.
Hemmert is directed towards a multi-diameter wire feeder. Hemmert does teach wherein a drive roll has two grooves ([Col.8 Ln. 18-20] The drive roll 42 includes two grooves 120 and 122, one on each side of the drive roll 42).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ueda to include a drive roll has two grooves because using the multiple grooved rollers of Hemmert allows the two rollers of Ueda to be able to handle multiple sizes of wire with no replacement of parts. furthermore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the same teachings of more than one groove on the roller of Hemmert to the multiple rollers of Ueda, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 17, Ueda, McKiel, Debora, and Wang does teach the limitations of claim 1. Ueda does not expressly teach the first wire is a first material and the second wire is a second material, wherein the bundle comprises the first material and the second material, wherein the first material and the second material are selected from the group consisting of steel, stainless steel, iron, chromium, nickel, titanium, platinum ,palladium, aluminum, and any combination thereof.
Hemmert does teach the first wire is a first material and the second wire is a second material, wherein the bundle comprises the first material and the second material, wherein the first material and the second material are selected from the group consisting of steel ([Col. 2 Ln. 43-45] FIG. 7 is a side view of an embodiment of the drive roll of FIG. 4, including grooves for conveying steel wire of different sizes;).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ueda to include steel wire because the steel wire of Hemmert allows the system of Ueda to preform specific functions that would require a steel wire. Furthermore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a specific material (steel) of Hemmert to the first and second wires of Ueda, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170210074 A1 – Ueda, US 20160052208 A1 – Debora, US 20170165917 A1 – McKiel, JR, and US 20170320277 A1 - Wang in view of US 20170368739 A1 – Brennan.
Regarding claim 14, Ueda, McKiel, Debora, and Wang does teach the limitations of claim 1. Ueda does not expressly teach a first conduit and a second conduit for providing respective continuous passageways for the first wire and the second wire to the wire merger.
Brennan does teach a first conduit and a second conduit for providing respective continuous passageways for the first wire and the second wire to the wire merger ([0050] Generally, the exemplary material deposition system 10 as described herein may be applicable to nearly any additive manufacturing system that uses material feedstock fed through conduits or passages.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ueda to include a conduit for providing continuous passageways for the first wire and the second wire to the wire merger because the passages of Brennan allow the material to flow freely and directly in the system of Ueda. Furthermore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the conduits/passages of Brennan to the first and second conduits/passages of Ueda, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170210074 A1 – Ueda, US 20160052208 A1 – Debora, US 20170165917 A1 – McKiel, JR, and US 20170320277 A1 - Wang in view of US 5902537 A - Almquist.
Regarding claim 16, Ueda, McKiel, Debora, and Wang does teach the limitations of claim 1. Ueda does teach the position adjusting mechanism comprises a stage holding the driver and one or more linear actuators mechanically attached to the stage. ([0053] In one embodiment, the platform 3 has a rectangular shape plate (a base plate) which is parallel to a bottom surface 2a of the casing 2. The platform 3 is disposed under the head 4 and near a bottom portion of the casing 2. In an example, the platform 3 is driven to be capable of being vertically moved by a platform driving device 11 in a Z axis direction (a vertical direction).).
Ueda does not expressly teach each of the first driver and the second driver comprises a position adjusting mechanism to move the first driver into alignment with the first wire and move the second driver into alignment with the second wire.
Almquist does teach each of the driver comprises a position adjusting mechanism to move the driver into alignment with the material ([[Col. 13 Ln. 3-8] The frame which positions roller 30 may also be mounted on a multipoint, e.g., 3 or 4 point, stand (not shown) which may be manually or automatically adjustable based on manual or automatic sensing of the plane along which roller 30 is swept.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ueda to include to move the driver into alignment with the material because driver adjustment means of Almquist allows the two rollers of Ueda to be able to align the wire with the driver to avoid the wire from slipping or jamming. furthermore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the adjustment means of Almquist to apply to the first and second rollers of Ueda, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE whose telephone number is (571)272-5853. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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, Steven W Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights