DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 04/30/2026, claims 1-3, 7-10, and 13-19 are pending. Claims 1 and 14 are currently amended. Claims 4-6, 11-12, and 20-21 are canceled, and no claim is newly added. Claims 1-3, 7-10, and 13-19 are considered in this Office 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 04/30/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 should be corrected to “[[a]]the print head of the extruder” in line 2.
Claim 7 recites the preamble “The system of claim 6” in line 1. The dependency of claim 7 should be corrected to non-canceled claims. For the purpose of examination, the preamble would be interpreted as “The system of claim 1.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 14 recite the limitation “food product material” in several instance. The limitation of each claim would be considered as the same.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an adaptor … configured for transferring food product material expelled laterally under extrusion driving force by the extruder directly into vertically-oriented food product material for vertical additive deposition by each nozzle of the print head” in lines 17-20. Here, the adaptor with the underlined term would be interpreted as an adaptor having a 90 ° turn, as being supported by Instant Specification FIGURES 2 and 3.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “an adaptor … configured to transfer food product material expelled laterally under extrusion driving force from the at least one screw directly into vertically-oriented food product material for vertical additive deposition by each nozzle of the print head” in lines 5-8. Here, the adaptor with the underlined term would be interpreted as an adaptor having a 90 ° turn, as being supported by Instant Specification FIGURES 2 and 3.
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.
Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claims are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions:
The limitations which are directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2115 and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) for further details.
The limitations which are directed to intended uses or capabilities of the claimed apparatus are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2114, Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) for further details.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 6,280,785 B1) in view of Van Lengerich (US 5,077,074) and Wang (US 20170295816 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a commercial-scale three dimensional food product printing system for food product printing at commercial production rates (claim 1, fig. 1; here, the limitations “commercial-scale” and “for food printing at commercial production rates” are intended use or capability of the claimed apparatus, and the limitation does not affect the structure of the claimed apparatus (see MPEP 2114); also, the limitation “commercial-scale” would be interpreted as a recitation of dimensions of the 3D food product printing system, and the recitation of the dimensions would not make the claim to be patentably distinct from the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04)), comprising:
an extruder for food product material extrusion (col. 6 lines 35-54 and FIGURES 1-3: dispensing head 18 includes a chamber 26, and the food composition in this chamber is supplied, intermittently or continuously, from a material delivery means 20 such as a screw extruder; col. 10 line 59 – col. 11 line 19 and FIGURE 4: dispensing head having a plurality of nozzles: claims 1, 3),
a printed food product transport system adapted to provide a print platform for receiving three dimensional additive deposition of food product material from the extruder to print three dimensional food products, the printed food product transport system including an actuator system adapted to move the print platform in at least one dimension for shaping additive deposition of food product material to form the printed three dimensional food products (col. 9 line 64 – col. 10 line 41: a support member 16 is movable along the X, Y, and Z axes by three linear motion devices powered by three separate motors),
[wherein the printed product transport system includes a conveyor supporting the print platform], and
a control system for operating the printed food product transport system, the control system configured to determine movement of the print platform for shaping additive deposition of food product material from the extruder to form the printed three-dimensional food products, and to communicate commands to the printed food product transport system based on the determined movement (col.4 lines 15-25, col. 4 lines 36-48, col. 6 lines 40-42; col. 9 lines 21-36, claim 1),
wherein the extruder (col. 6 lines 35-54 and FIGURES 1-3: combination of dispensing head 18, a chamber 26, and a material delivery means 20 such as a screw extruder) includes a print head (dispending head as shown in fig. 1) [including a plurality of nozzles, each nozzle adapted for simultaneously shaping additive deposition of food material onto the print platform, the print head including an adaptor comprising a geometrically defined interior flow passage configured for transferring food product material expelled laterally under extrusion driving force by the extruder directly into vertically-oriented food product material for vertical additive deposition by each nozzle of the print head at a formation pressure at the print head],
[wherein the print head of the extruder is adapted for additive deposition of food product material onto the print platform at the formation pressure within the range of about 750 psi to about 2000 psi at the print head at a rate within the range of 1100 lb/hr to 3300 lb/hr under the extrusion driving force of the extruder].
Yang does not specifically teach the bracketed limitation(s) as presented above, but Van Lengerich and Wang teach the limitations as follows:
Regarding “the extruder,” Van Lengerich teaches a method and an apparatus for production of cookie products using extrusion (col. 1 lines 16-18; figs. 1-4). The apparatus comprises an extruder (second stage mixer/extruder 34 as shown in figs. 3-4) for food product material extrusion, wherein the extruder includes a print head (a portion, at least, including flow diverter 76 and manifold 80) including a plurality of nozzles (a plurality of die orifices), each nozzle adapted for simultaneously shaping additive deposition of food material onto the print platform (col.3 lines 33-37; col. 9 lines 9-32; figs. 3-4), the print head including an adaptor (flow diverter 76) comprising a geometrically defined interior flow passage configured for transferring food product material expelled laterally under extrusion driving force by the extruder directly into vertically-oriented food product material for vertical additive deposition by each nozzle of the print head at a formation pressure at the print head (col. 9 lines 9-32; figs. 3-4). Van Lengerich also teaches that the print head of the extruder is adapted for additive deposition of food product material onto the print platform at the formation pressure [within the range of about 750 psi to about 2000 psi] at the print head at a rate within the range of 1100 lb/hr to 3300 lb/hr under the extrusion driving force of the extruder (col. 9 lines 9-32; figs. 3-4; col. 17 lines 61-68: the extruder throughput or mass flow rates utilized in the present invention with a Werner and Pfleiderer ZSK-57 twin screw cooker extruder are generally from about 150 lbs/hr to about 850 lbs/hr of extrudate, and a higher rates may be achieved with other models, for example, a throughput rate of 6000 lbs/hr may be achieved using a Werner and Pfleiderer model Continua 120 cooker extruder; of note, the throughput rate from about 150 lbs/hr to 6000 lbs/hr would be achievable by appropriately choosing a commercially available extruder; here, although the disclosed ranges does not anticipates the recited range, the disclosed throughput range overlaps1 with the recited range between 1100 lbs/hr and 3300 lbs/hr).
Van Lengerich is silent about the bracketed limitation as presented above – i.e., the print head of the extruder is adapted for additive deposition of food product material onto the print platform at the formation pressure [within the range of about 750 psi to about 2000 psi]. Rather, Van Lengerich discloses that dough-like mixtures of the present invention are extrudable through a die into a continuous rope or sheet, and the pressure drop upon extrusion or across the extruder die is generally less than about 20 bars (i.e., 290 psi) absolute (col. 4 lines 48-52), and here, it is implied that the print head is adapted to operate at least up to 20 bars (i.e., 290 psi) or higher for safety purpose in the production operation. Without any further structure recited to be configured to operate at the specific formation pressure, the print head of Van Lengerich is capable of performing the function or intended use of additive deposition of food product material at a pressure within the range between 750 psi and 2000 psi. Moreover, such formation pressure would be variable or adjusted based on various factors or operation conditions such as dimensions of extruder/screw/adapter/print head/nozzles, a rotating speed of screw, a heating temperature, a type of material, and a viscosity of material at the extruding condition. Thus, the specific formation pressure would be considered as intended use, or in part, contributed to the material worked upon the apparatus, which does not require further structural element in the apparatus of Van Lengerich.
Both Yang and Van Lengerich teach a method and an apparatus for discharging food extrudate using an extruder (Yang: abstract; Van Lengerich: abstract). Yang further teaches that one embodiment of a print head includes a plurality of nozzles (Yang: col. 10 line 59 – col. 11 line 19 and fig 4: dispensing head having a plurality of nozzles (188A and 188B), each is capable of simultaneously shaping additive fluid flow). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to substitute the food material delivery arrangement (an assembly comprising the screw extruder and the dispensing head) for 3D printing food products of Yang with the known extruding system comprising the laterally arranged screw extruder, a plurality of the print heads, and the adapter directly guiding the laterally extruded food product into vertical discharge as taught by Van Lengerich in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of securely locating the relatively heavy extruder in lateral, enabling to feed raw material by gravity, and providing continuous, controlled, and high-throughput vertical delivery of a dough-like or viscous food composition through a downstream printing head for dispensing (Van Lengerich: derived from col. lines 38-42; col. 17 lines 18-27).
Regarding “a conveyor,” Wang teaches a 3D food printer (abstract). The 3D food printer comprises a conveying system for automatically outputting a printed food product and a drive system for driving the 3D food printer to move in the X-, Y-, and Z- directions (abstract; [0050-0051]: conveying system 300; along X-direction as shown in FIGURE 1; [0047] and claim 1: a control system for controlling the entire 3D food printer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the apparatus for 3D printing food products of modified Yang to further have a conveying system controlled by a control system as taught by Wang in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of operating 3D printing while automatically outputting a printed food product for improved throughput and reduced labor involved (Wang: derived from abstract, claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Yang teaches that the actuator system is adapted to move the print platform in at least two dimensions (Yang: col. 9 line 64 – col. 10 line 41: a support member 16 is movable along the X, Y, and Z axes by three linear motion devices powered by three separate motors; FIGURES 1, 2).
Regarding claim 3, modified Yang teaches that the actuator system is adapted to move the print platform in at least three dimensions, and a print head of the extruder remains stationary (Yang: col. 9 line 64 – col. 10 line 41: a support member 16 is movable along the X, Y, and Z axes by three linear motion devices powered by three separate motors; FIGURES 1, 2).
Regarding claims 7-8, modified Yang teaches that the conveyor defines a linear operation direction along which the conveyor translates, and the linear operation direction of the conveyor comprises a dimension of movement providing one of the at least one dimension of movement of the print platform (Wang: abstract: a 3D food printer; [0050-0051]: conveying system 300; along X-direction as shown in FIGURE 1; the 3D food printer comprises a conveying system for automatically outputting a printed food product and a drive system for driving the 3D food printer to move in the X-, Y-, and Z- directions).
Thus, modified Yang teaches all the claimed limitations, and the motivation to combine applied to claim 1 equally applies here.
Regarding claim 13, modified Yang teaches that the actuator system is adapted to move the print platform in a height dimension and a lateral dimension (Yang: col. 9 line 64 – col. 10 line 41: a support member 16 is movable along the X, Y, and Z axes by three linear motion devices powered by three separate motors; FIGURES 1, 2).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by
Yang (US 6,280,785 B1), Van Lengerich (US 5,077,074) and Wang (US 20170295816 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Liao (US 20170343263 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yang teaches all the claimed limitations but does not specifically teach that the actuator system includes a rack and pinion operator for moving the print platform.
Liao teaches systems and method using three-dimensional printing techniques for ice sculptures. A platform 120 whose height is vertically adjustable by a single column 122, which can be actuated by a hydraulic cylinder, rack and pinion gear, or other actuator ([0078]; FIGURE 9).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing inventio to modify the driving system performing X- and Y-directional motions of modified Yang to have the rack and pinion gear at least in one directional motion as taught by Liao in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of moving the platform with advantages of the rack and pinion gear such as a simple and compact design with a small number of parts, high accuracy in movement, and a cost effective performance, and thus, resolution of 3D printing product would be improved in a simple and less expensive way.
Regarding claim 10, modified Yang teaches that the rack and pinion operator moves the print platform along one of the width and/or height dimensions (Y-direction as shown in FIGURE 1 of Yang), orthogonal to a linear operation direction (X-direction as shown in FIGURE 1 of Yang) of the printed product transport system (Yang: col. 9 line 64 – col. 10 line 41: a support member 16 is movable along the X, Y, and Z axes by three linear motion devices powered by three separate motors FIGURE 1; Liao: [0078]; FIGURE 9). Thus, modified Yang teaches all the claimed limitations, and motivation to combine applied to claim 9 equally applies here.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Wang (US 20170295816 A1) in view of Van Lengerich (US 5,077,074).
Regarding claim 14. Wang teaches a commercial-scale three dimensional food product printing system for food product printing at commercial production rates (claim 1, FIGURES 1, 2; here, the limitations “commercial-scale” and “for food printing at commercial production rates” are intended use or capability of the claimed apparatus, and the limitation does not affect the structure of the claimed apparatus; also, the limitation “commercial-scale” would be interpreted as a recitation of dimensions of the 3D food product printing system, and the recitation of the dimensions would not make the claim to be patentably distinct from the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04), comprising:
an extruder system (print head 100) having at least one screw (screw 14), a print head (nozzle 2) [having a plurality of nozzles adapted for simultaneously] shaping three-dimensional additive deposition of food product material onto a print platform (cling film 39 on substrate 35) ([0047-0048]: print head 100 comprising a screw 14 and a nozzle 2; claim 1; FIGURE 1), and
[an adapter comprising geometrically defined interior flow passage configured to transfer food product material expelled laterally under extrusion driving force from the at least one screw directly into vertically oriented food product material for vertical additive deposition by each nozzle of the print head at a formation pressure at the print head within the range of about 750 psi to about 2000 psi at a rate within the range of 1100 lb/hr to 3300 lb/hr under the extrusion driving force of the extruder], and
a control system for operating the extruder system in coordination with a printed food product conveyor system to form printed three-dimensional food products ([0050, 0053], claims 1, 5, 7, 9: a drive system including conveying system 300; [0041, 0054], claims 1, 7, 9: a control system; FIGURE 1).
Wang does not teach the bracketed limitations as presented above, but Van Lengerich teaches the limitations as follows:
Van Lengerich teaches a method and an apparatus for production of cookie products using extrusion (col. 1 lines 16-18; figs. 1-4). The apparatus comprises an extruder system (second stage mixer/extruder 34 as shown in figs. 3-4) having at least one screw, a print head (a portion, at least, including flow diverter 76 and manifold 80) having a plurality of nozzles (a plurality of die orifices) adapted for simultaneously shaping three dimensional additive deposition of food product material onto a print platform (col. 3 lines 33-37; col. 8 lines 1-5; col. 9 lines 9-32; figs. 3-4) and an adapter (flow diverter 76) comprising geometrically defined interior flow passage configured to transfer food product material expelled laterally under extrusion driving force from the at least one screw directly into vertically oriented food product material for vertical additive deposition by each nozzle of the print head at a formation pressure at the print head [within the range of about 750 psi to about 2000 psi] at a rate within the range of 1100 lb/hr to 3300 lb/hr under the extrusion driving force of the extruder (col. 9 lines 9-32; figs. 3-4; col. 9 lines 9-32; figs. 3-4; col. 17 lines 61-68: the extruder throughput or mass flow rates utilized in the present invention with a Werner and Pfleiderer ZSK-57 twin screw cooker extruder are generally from about 150 lbs/hr to about 850 lbs/hr of extrudate, and a higher rates may be achieved with other models, for example, a throughput rate of 6000 lbs/hr may be achieved using a Werner and Pfleiderer model Continua 120 cooker extruder; of note, the throughput rate from about 150 lbs/hr to 6000 lbs/hr would be achievable by appropriately choosing a commercially available extruder; here, although the disclosed ranges does not anticipates the recited range, the disclosed throughput range overlaps2 with the recited range between 1100 lbs/hr and 3300 lbs/hr).
Van Lengerich is silent about the bracketed limitation as presented above – i.e., the print head of the extruder is adapted for additive deposition of food product material onto the print platform at the formation pressure [within the range of about 750 psi to about 2000 psi]. Rather, Van Lengerich discloses that dough-like mixtures of the present invention are extrudable through a die into a continuous rope or sheet, and the pressure drop upon extrusion or across the extruder die is generally less than about 20 bars (i.e., 290 psi) absolute (col. 4 lines 48-52), and here, it is implied that the print head is adapted to operate at least up to 20 bars (i.e., 290 psi) or higher for safety purpose in the production operation. Without any further structure recited to be configured to operate at the specific formation pressure, the print head of Van Lengerich is capable of performing the function or intended use of additive deposition of food product material at a pressure within the range between 750 psi and 2000 psi. Moreover, such formation pressure would be variable or adjusted based on various factors or operation conditions such as dimensions of extruder/screw/adapter/print head/nozzles, a rotating speed of screw, a heating temperature, a type of material, and a viscosity of material at the extruding condition. Thus, the specific formation pressure would be considered as intended use, or in part, contributed to the material worked upon the apparatus, which does not require further structural element in the apparatus of Van Lengerich.
Both Wang and Van Lengerich teach a method and an apparatus for discharging food extrudate using an extruder (Wang: abstract, claim 1; Van Lengerich: abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to substitute the food material delivery arrangement (an assembly comprising the screw extruder and the dispensing head) for 3D printing food products of Wang with the known extruding system comprising the laterally arranged screw extruder, a plurality of the print heads, and the adapter directly guiding the laterally extruded food product into vertical discharge as taught by Van Lengerich in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of securely locating the relatively heavy extruder in lateral, enabling to feed raw material by gravity, and providing continuous, controlled, and high-throughput vertical delivery of a dough-like or viscous food composition through a downstream printing head for dispensing (Van Lengerich: derived from col. lines 38-42; col. 17 lines 18-27).
Regarding claim 15, modified Wang teaches that the print head is adapted to move in no more than two dimensions (Wang: [0053]: the drive system comprises stepper motors for implementing the Z-directional motion of the print head 100 and the X-Y directional motion of the conveying system 300).
Regarding claim 16, modified Wang teaches that the control system is adapted to move the print head in coordination with the print platform such that the print head moves in no more than two dimensions and the print platform moves in at least one dimension (Wang: [0053]: the drive system comprises stepper motors for implementing the Z-directional motion of the print head 100 and the X-Y directional motion of the conveying system 300; [0041, 0054], claims 1, 7, 9: a control system).
Regarding claim 17, modified Wang teaches that the control system is adapted to move the print head and the print platform in a combined total of three dimensions (Wang: [0053]: the drive system comprises stepper motors for implementing the Z-directional motion of the print head 100 and the X-Y directional motion of the conveying system 300; [0041, 0054], claims 1, 7, 9: a control system).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by
Wang (US 20170295816 A1) and Van Lengerich (US 5,077,074) as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Liao (US 20170343263 A1).
Regarding claim 18, modified Wang teaches that the control system is configured to coordinate movement of the print head in coordination with movement of [a rack and pinion operator] of the print platform (Wang: [0050, 0053], claims 1, 5, 7, 9: a drive system including conveying system 300; [0041, 0054], claims 1, 7, 9: a control system; FIGURE 1), but does not specifically teach the bracketed limitation.
Liao teaches systems and method using three-dimensional printing techniques for ice sculptures. A platform 120 whose height is vertically adjustable by a single column 122, which can be actuated by a hydraulic cylinder, rack and pinion gear, or other actuator ([0078]; FIGURE 9).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing inventio to modify the driving system performing X- and Y-directional motions of modified Wang to have the rack and pinion gear at least in one directional motion as taught by Liao in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of moving the platform with advantages of the rack and pinion gear such as a simple and compact design with a small number of parts, high accuracy in movement, and a cost effective performance, and thus, resolution of 3D printing products would be improved in a simple and less expensive way.
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Wang (US 20170295816 A1) and Van Lengerich (US 5,077,074) as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Yang (US 6,280,785 B1).
Regarding claim 19, modified Wang, as applied to claim 14, does not specifically teach that that the control system is configured to operate the extruder with the print head stationary and the print platform moving in three dimensions to provide three-dimensional printed food product.
Yang teaches a layer manufacturing method that uses a food composition for producing a complex-shape 3D food object (col. 1 lines 5-8). Yang teaches the control system is configured to operate the extruder with the print head stationary and the print platform moving in three dimensions to provide three-dimensional printed food product (Yang: col. 9 line 64 – col. 10 line 41 describes a support member 16 is movable along the X, Y, and Z axes by three linear motion devices powered by three separate motors; claim 1: control means; FIGURE 1).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the 3D food printer of modified Wang to have a stationary print head and a support member movable along in three dimensions as taught by Yang in order to yield known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of obtaining a 3D printing apparatus comprising an extruder without being limited to its size, weight, or complexity of its operation, which could be a constraint when the extruder required to be movable during 3D printing process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/30/2026 have been fully considered, but they are moot or not persuasive in part. It is noted that the applicant has modified the claims with the latest amendment dated 04/30/2026, and wherein the arguments are based upon these changes.
The basis of the applicant’s argument is based upon the changes regarding the commercial-scale 3D food product printing system for food product printing at commercial production rates, reciting the limitation “the print head of the extruder is adapted for additive deposition of food product material onto the print flatform within the range of about 750 psi to about 2000 psi at the print head at a rate within the range of 1100 lb/hr to 3300 lb/hr under the extrusion driving force of the extruder.” After further search and reconsideration, the Van Lengerich reference is applied to the rejection instead of the Qin reference. Thus, when Yang’s and Wang’s teachings are modified in view of Van Lengerich, modified Yang and modified Wang teach/suggest all the claimed limitations and the motivation to combine as recited in claims 1 and 14, respectively.
Any arguments related to Qin are moot.
The Applicant further argues (see page 8) that converting Yang’s and Wang’s vertically-extruding and vertically-dispensing system to a lateral-extrusion vertical-dispensing system would not have been an obvious alternative to a POSITA as such modification represents a dramatic chang in overall design under extraordinary problems standing in opposition.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. Yang is silent about whether the material delivery means 20 such as a screw extruder is vertically oriented or not (Yang: col. 6 lines 35-54 and figs. 1-3). Although the printing head (i.e., dispensing system) is vertically oriented (Yang: as shown see fig. 4) for dispensing food material, it does not necessarily mean that Yang’s screw extruder should be limited to a vertical extruding system. Yang’s screw extruder would have any known configuration. Moreover, although Wang explicitly discloses a vertically-extruding and vertically-dispensing system, it would have been obvious to substitute to another known configuration of the extrusion-based dispensing system to obtain predictable results of dispensing food material in a dispensing platform. When Van Lengerich teaches a laterally-extruding extruder and a vertically-dispensing dispensing head with an adapter connecting the extruder and the dispensing head, the combined teachings of these references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art the 3D printing system comprising the laterally-extruding extruder and the vertically-dispensing dispensing head with the adapter, as recited in claim 1 or claim 14. See MPEP 2143 (I) and 2145 (III).
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed on 04/30/2026 has been fully considered but is moot (as the Qin reference is withdrawn) or insufficient to overcome the rejection of the amended claims 1 and 14 based upon 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth above in this section.
Thereby, after reconsideration, claims 1 and 14 remain rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hildebolt (US 4,128,051) teaches that an extrusion die, expelling a laterally-extruded food material by an extruder into a vertically-oriented food product therethrough is suitable to practice in the range of about 1000 to about 1400 psi (fig. 1 and col. 4 lines 28-30).
Cheng (US 20210154910 A1) teaches a 3D printing device and method applicable for food (abstract, [0213], figs. 1-2).
Brouwers (US 20210267904 A1) teaches a 3D printing device and method applicable for food (abstract, [0005], fig. 3).
Axerod (US 20110081453 A1) teaches a method of extruding edible compositions with utility in the form of three-dimensional edible products (abstract, FIGURE 13).
Hoff (US 20200045990 A1) teaches a print head comprising a nozzle for printing a food product layer-by-layer and conveyor for conveying food (abstract, FIGURE 2).
Warner (US 20180035689 A1) teaches systems and methods of 3D printing devised for partitioning of difficult-to-process material (abstract, FIGURE 7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INJA SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1605. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached on (571)270-5343. 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.
/INJA SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
1 In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
2 In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Prosecution Insights