DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-28 are pending, and claims 1-9, 11-12, and 26-28 are currently under review.
Claims 10 and 13-25 are withdrawn.
Claims 26-28 are newly added.
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 Amendment
The amendment filed 1/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-25 and newly submitted claim(s) 26-28 remain(s) pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/30/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 12, and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birmingham (US 2020/0369516) in view of Xie et al. (CN108705085, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claim 1, Birmingham discloses an apparatus for 3D printing [abstract, 0001-0002]; wherein said apparatus includes a molten material reservoir (608) for molten metal materials, in addition to a bottom manifold (632) having an array of tubes (ie. openings) into said reservoir [0054-0055, 0063, fig.6]. The examiner considers the reservoir and manifold of Birmingham to meet the limitations of a reservoir and plate, respectively.
Birmingham does not expressly teach that the manifold tubes further include detachable tubular structures having longitudinal bores as claimed. Xie et al. discloses that it is known to provide a 3D printer with an array of nozzles (802) attached to a fixing plate (801) connected to the 3D printing device in order to achieve fast and efficient printing [0009, 0059, fig.2]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the apparatus of Birmingham by adding the nozzle array of Xie et al. in order to achieve fast and efficient printing as taught by Xie et al. Alternatively, or furthermore, Birmingham and Xie et al. are directed to the same concept of controlling molten deposition using electromagnetic open/close control, where Birmingham teaches an electrode plate (636) to control molten material flow [0055, fig.6], and Xie et al. teaches electromagnetic valves in the nozzles which serve to melt and dispense metal material [0026, 0058]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to replace the electrode plate of Birmingham with the nozzle array of Xie et al. because these features are art-recognized equivalent structures useful for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06 & MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Xie et al. further teaches that said nozzles are detachable and depicts said nozzles to be tubular and having longitudinal bores therein [0064, fig.1-5]. The examiner notes that the nozzles of Xie et al., which are depicted to be hollow tubes, are entirely capable of receiving and dispensing liquid metal at respective ends, which meets the limitation of a needle as claimed. The above combination also further suggests dispensing molten metal (as taught by Birmingham) through the nozzle structure of Xie et al., which also meets the limitations of a needle configured to receive and dispense liquid metal as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned prior art discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see previous). Xie et al. further depicts a plurality of nozzles each attached to an opening of the arrangement of openings [fig.2-3].
Regarding claims 3-6, the aforementioned prior art discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see previous). Birmingham further depicts a reservoir as shown in [fig.6]. The reservoir of Birmingham is depicted to have a chamfer (ie. sloped) region located above the manifold (632), has a height of much less than 70% of the reservoir height, has a curved wall angle which one of ordinary skill would recognize to have a range of slopes from 0 to 90 degrees, and a cross-section area of an upper reservoir region being larger than the manifold (632). The examiner notes that the overlap between the parameters of Birmingham and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 7, the aforementioned prior art discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see previous). Xie et al. further depicts that the nozzles include an aperture tip, which one of ordinary skill would recognize to meet the limitation of a nozzle [fig.2-5].
Regarding claim 12, the aforementioned prior art discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach the molten metal material. However, the examiner notes that the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115. Accordingly, the apparatus of the aforementioned prior art which handles liquid metal material would be entirely capable of handling gallium which is a metal, especially as one of ordinary skill would understand the melting point of gallium to be close to room temperature such that high temperature considerations are not required.
Regarding claim 26, the aforementioned prior art discloses the apparatus of claim 2 (see previous). Xie et al. further depicts that the nozzles are uniformly spaced [fig.3].
Regarding claim 27, the aforementioned prior art discloses the apparatus of claim 2 (see previous). The examiner notes that the recitation of “are configured to concurrently…” is an instance of functional language which merely requires the capability of concurrent dispensing. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Accordingly, the examiner notes that the nozzle control of Xie et al. would be entirely capable of achieving concurrent dispensing as claimed [0027]. Nonetheless, Xie et al. expressly teaches that the nozzles work “at the same time” [0027]. As stated above, the above combination suggests dispensing molten metal (as taught by Birmingham) through the nozzle structure of Xie et al., which also meets the limitations of a needle configured to receive and dispense liquid metal as claimed.
Regarding claim 28, the aforementioned prior art discloses the apparatus of claim 8 (see previous). Xie et al. further teaches that a single nozzle can be removed and replaced relative to other surrounding nozzles [0027, 0064]. The examiner further notes that the instant claims merely recite tubular structures that are separate and detachable, which is prima facie obvious because it is obvious to desirably making components separate and separable. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C) & MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claim(s) 8-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birmingham (US 2020/0369516) and Xie et al. (CN108705085, machine translation referred to herein) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Warner et al. (US 2017/0251713).
Regarding claims 8-9 and 11, the aforementioned prior art discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a locking/attachment means as claimed. Warner et al. discloses an additive manufacturing apparatus [abstract]; wherein deposition nozzles can be attached by easily attachable means such as luer locks [0131]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the apparatus of the aforementioned prior art by specifying a luer lock as the connection means to attach nozzles as an easily attachable means as taught by Warner et al. The examiner notes that a luer lock reasonably meets the limitations of a locking mechanism and attachment means.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birmingham (US 2020/0369516) and Xie et al. (CN108705085, machine translation referred to herein) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Silverbrook (US 2004/0143358).
Regarding claim 12, the aforementioned prior art discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach gallium as a material as claimed. Silverbrook discloses that Ga is a known metal material for molten metal deposition [abstract, 0163]. The examiner notes that all of the claimed limitations are disclosed in the prior art, although not necessarily in a single reference, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the aforementioned teachings of the prior art to arrive at the predictable result of the suggested apparatus of Birmingham and Xie et al. that can further deposit a known molten metal material such as Ga as taught by Silverbrook. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments 1/30/2026 regarding the 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the teachings of Xie et al. regarding fast and efficient printing apply to the entire apparatus of Xie et al. and not only to the detachable nozzle structure as relied upon in the rejection. The examiner cannot concur. Xie et al. expressly teaches that the “array nozzle achieves fast and efficient printing”. Therefore, the examiner cannot concur with applicant’s unreasonably narrow interpretation of Xie et al.
Applicant argues that the office action does not provide motivation to graft the nozzles of Xie et al. onto the structure of Birmingham. The examiner cannot concur. Express motivation is not a requirement of KSR. As expressly stated in the MPEP, obviousness exists when the features are all disclosed in the prior art, although not necessarily in a single reference, wherein simple substitution of one feature in the prior art for another would have achieved predictable results, which has already been explained in the previous rejection sections. Nonetheless, express motivation has already been established above.
Applicant then argues that the manifold tubes of Birmingham do not extend away from the manifold and are not detachable. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is noted that the structure of Xie et al. is relied upon to meet these features. If applicant is trying to argue that the structure of the prior art are so different such that they cannot be combined, the examiner cannot concur. Regardless of the specific physical structure, the manifold of Birmhingham and nozzle array of Xie et al. are disclosed to be used for the same purpose (ie. dispensing material) and so would be recognized as known, equivalent elements useful for the same purpose.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734