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/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-19, drawn to an additive manufacturing system, classified in B29C64/209.
II. Claim 20, drawn to a method for additive manufacturing, classified in B33Y10/00.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions II and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the process of Invention II does not require a control circuit in electrical communication with the first cartridge assembly, the second cartridge assembly, the first positioning system, and the second positioning system as required by Invention I.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
a. the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different/separate classification;
b. the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
c. the inventions require a different field of search (as defined in MPEP § 808.02; for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
d. the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
e. the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Robert Sovesky on 07/23/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-19. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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:
“first nozzle positioning system ..capable to move the first nozzle independently of the second nozzle” and “second nozzle positioning system .. capable to move the second nozzle independently of the first nozzle” and “a third positioning system .. capable to move the third nozzle independently of the first and second nozzles” in claims 1-3 with corresponding structure/scope disclosed at [0025-0026] of instant publication.
“a first feed system configured to apply a pressure to the ink composition in the first nozzle; and a second feed system configured to apply a pressure to the second ink composition in the second nozzle” in claim 15 with corresponding structure/scope disclosed at [0035-0036] and [0043] of instant publication.
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.
Note
Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that claim(s) 1-19 is/are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under the following conditions. The process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (See MPEP 2114 II and 2115 for further details). For apparatuses, the claim limitations will define structural limitations (See MPEP 2114-2115) or functional limitations properly recited (See MPEP 2173.05 (g)). For example “the first ink composition and the second ink composition” in the claims below are considered as a material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2019/0047227) in view of Murphy (US2015/0037445).
Regrading claim 1, Li teaches an additive manufacturing system (see Fig. 1; [0026]), the system comprising:
a first cartridge assembly (a nozzle assemblies (405)) comprising a first nozzle (4057), wherein the first cartridge assembly is capable to dispense an ink composition through the first nozzle (see Fig. 4 and Fig. 6; [0027] and [0029]);
a second cartridge assembly (a nozzle assemblies (405)) comprising a second nozzle (4057), wherein the second cartridge assembly is capable to dispense an ink composition through the second nozzle (see Fig. 4 and Fig. 6; [0027] and [0029]);
a first nozzle positioning system (403, 404, 407,411) operatively coupled to the first cartridge assembly and capable to move the first nozzle independently of the second nozzle and in.. rotation relative to the second nozzle (see Figs. 4-5; [0027-0028]);
a second nozzle positioning system (403,404,411) operatively coupled to the second cartridge assembly capable to move the second nozzle independently of the first nozzle and in .. a rotation relative to the first nozzle (see Figs. 4-5; [0027-0028]); and
Li does not explicitly teach the first positioning systems capable to move the first nozzle independently of the second nozzle in at least three degrees of freedom and the second nozzle positioning system to move the second nozzle independently of the first nozzle in at least three degrees of freedom.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing systems, Murphy teaches a three dimensional bio printer comprises a printer head includes at least three cartridges, wherein each cartridges of the at least three cartridges comprises a needle (nozzle) containing bio-ink (see Fig. 22;[0059]); actuation means coupled to each cartridge and the needle, and configured to position the cartridge’s needle in at least three degrees of freedom relative to a receiving surface to produce a particular three-dimensional geometry, wherein the actuation means operating independently from other actuation means (see Fig. 22 and Fig. 26; [0016-0017], [0068-0069] and [0112]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the system as taught by Li with the first positioning systems capable to move the first nozzle independently of the second nozzle in at least three degrees of freedom and the second nozzle positioning system to move the second nozzle independently of the first nozzle in at least three degrees of freedom as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Murphy above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would increase the degrees of freedom for nozzle movement and enhancing the independent movement of the nozzle assemblies with a three degrees of freedom.
Li in view of Murphy further teaches a control circuit (70) in electrical communication with the first cartridge assembly (405), the second cartridge assembly (405), the first positioning system, and the second positioning system, wherein the control circuit is capable to dispense an ink composition through the first nozzle and the second nozzle utilizing the first cartridge assembly and the second cartridge assembly (see Fig. 1;[0026] and [0034-0035] of Li).
Regrading claim 2, Li in view of Murphy further teaches the system, further comprising: a third cartridge assembly (405) comprising a third nozzle (4057), wherein the third cartridge assembly is capable to dispense an ink composition through the third nozzle; and a third positioning system operatively coupled to the third cartridge assembly and capable to move the third nozzle independently of the first and second nozzles and in at least three degrees of freedom relative to the first and second nozzles (see Fig. 4 and Fig. 6;[0029] and [0034-0035] of Li).
Regrading claim 3, Li in view of Murphy further teaches the system, further comprising: at least two additional cartridge assemblies (405), each comprising an additional nozzle (4057), wherein each cartridge assembly is capable to dispense an ink composition through their respective nozzle; and at least two additional positioning systems (403,404,411), each additional positioning system operatively coupled to one additional cartridge assembly and capable to move the respective nozzles of the one additional cartridge assembly independently of each other nozzle and in at least three degrees of freedom relative to each other nozzle (see Figs. 4-6 and Fig. 6; [0027-0029] and [0034-0035] of Li).
Regrading claim 4, Li in view of Murphy further teaches the system, wherein the first positioning system comprises at least three actuators (407) (see Fig. 4;[0028] of Li).
Regrading claim 5, Li in view of Murphy further teaches the system, wherein each of the at least three actuators are operatively coupled to the first cartridge (405) assembly by a linkage assembly (connecting rods (406)) (see Fig. 4; [0027-0028] of Li).
Regrading claim 6, Li in view of Murphy further teaches the system, wherein each linkage assembly comprises at least two components selected from the group consisting of a joint, a bar, a spring, and a combination thereof (see Figs. 4-5;[0027-0028] of Li).
Regrading claim 7, Li in view of Murphy further teaches the system, wherein the first cartridge assembly (405) defines a longitudinal axis and the linkage assemblies (406) are substantially evenly spaced about the longitudinal axis (see Figs. 4-5; [0027]).
Regrading claim 8, Li in view of Murphy further teaches the system, wherein each linkage assembly (406) is intermediate the first nozzle (4057) and a respective actuator (407) (see Figs. 4-6;[0027-0028] of Li).
Regrading claim 9, Li in view of Murphy further teaches the system, further comprising a stage (base frame (12)) capable of supporting a substrate (platform (30)); a print head (40) comprising the first cartridge assembly (405), the second cartridge assembly (405), the first nozzle positioning system, and the second nozzle positioning system; and a print head positioning system (six-axis robot arm (20)) capable to move the print head relative to the stage (see Fig. 1 and Figs. 3-5; [0026-0027], [0033] and [0035] of Li).
Regrading claim 10, Li in view of Murphy further teaches the system, wherein the first nozzle positioning system is capable to move the first nozzle (4057) while ink composition is being dispensed from the first nozzle (see Figs. 4-6; [0027-0028] of Li).
Regrading claim 11, Li in view of Murphy further teaches the system, wherein the print head positioning system (six-axis robot arm (20)) moves the first nozzle positioning system and the second nozzle positioning system simultaneously (see Fig. 1 and Figs. 3-5; [0026-0027], [0033] and [0035] of Li).
Regrading claim 12, Li in view of Murphy further teaches the system, wherein the first and second nozzle (4057) are capable to simultaneously contact the substrate (30) (see Fig. 1 and Figs. 3-5; [0026-0027], [0033] and [0035] of Li).
Regrading claim 13, Li in view of Murphy further teaches the system, wherein, during extrusion, the first nozzle (4057) is intermediate the stage (30) and the first nozzle positioning system (see figs. 3-5; [0027-0028] and [0035] of Li).
Regrading claim 14, Li in view of Murphy further teaches the system, further comprising a detector (camera (50)) capable to determine the position, orientation, or a combination thereof of the first and second nozzles (4057) (see Fig. 1; [0035] of Li).
Regrading claim 15, Li in view of Murphy further teaches the system, further comprising: a first feed system (a first air conveying tube (62) coupled to air compressor (60)) configured to apply a pressure to the ink composition in the first nozzle (4057) to dispense the ink composition from the first nozzle and onto a substrate (30) ; and a second feed system (a second air conveying tube (62)) configured to apply a pressure to the second ink composition in the second nozzle (4057) to dispense the ink composition from the second nozzle and onto the substrate (see Fig. 1 and Figs. 3-4; [0010-0013], [0031-0033] of Li).
Regrading claim 16, Li in view of Murphy further teaches the system, wherein the first ink composition and the second ink composition are different (i.e. the system of Li in view of Murphy capable to process the material wherein the first ink composition and the second ink composition are different) (see [0002], [0016], [0029] and [0034] of Li). Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claim 16 is directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions. The material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus is viewed as recitation of intended use and is given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (Please see MPEP 2114 R1-2115 R2 for further details).
Regrading claim 17, Li in view of Murphy further teaches the system, wherein the first ink composition and the second ink composition are the same (see [0029] and [0034] of Li). Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claim 17 is directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions. The material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus is viewed as recitation of intended use and is given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (Please see MPEP 2114 R1-2115 R2 for further details).
Regrading claim 18, Li in view of Murphy further teaches the system, wherein the first ink composition capable to comprise a viscosity in a range of 20 cP to 10,000,000 cP as measured at 25 degrees Celsius with a rheometer with a 25 mm parallel plate spindle and a shear rate in a range of 0.1 s-1 to 100 s-1 (see [0002], [0016], [0029] and [0034] of Li). Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claim 18 is directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions. The material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus is viewed as recitation of intended use and is given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (Please see MPEP 2114 R1-2115 R2 for further details).
Regrading claim 19, Li in view of Murphy further teaches the system, wherein the first nozzle comprises a capillary tube having an outer diameter in a range of 0.7 pm to 8 pm (see [0105] and [0165-0166] of Murphy).
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Liu (CN 113001975 A) teaches a multi-color nozzle device for 3D printing comprises an extruding mechanisms and a switching mechanism; a plurality of nozzles (31) and a first driving piece (see abstract and Figs. 1-2).
Honda (US 2018/0009164) teaches a three-dimensional laminating and shaping apparatus (100) includes a plurality of cartridges assemblies (121-124), wherein each cartridge (121) can move to an arbitrary position on a shaping surface (160) by the X-direction stage 161 and the Y-direction stage 162 move independently of each other (see Fig. 1;[0054-0059]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AHMED ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-0347. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM-7:30 PM.
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.
/MOHAMED K AHMED ALI/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights