DETAILED ACTION
The papers submitted on 27 February 2026, amending claim 1, are acknowledged.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 12, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al.(US 11,292,193 B2) in view of Yuwaki et al. (US 2020/0016833 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses an extrusion print head for printing a viscous material (title/abstract), wherein the print head comprises:
a plurality of nozzles, wherein each nozzle of the plurality of nozzles comprises a nozzle chamber for collecting therein the viscous material;
a viscous material distributor arranged for distributing a flow of viscous material to the plurality of nozzles, wherein the viscous material distributor comprises:
a channel that defines therein, for each nozzle, a flow path that extends from an inlet of the channel to the nozzle chamber of the nozzle,
wherein the channel is structured such that a pressure drop over each flow path of the defined flow paths is substantially equal (FIG. 2A; 11:66-12:16),
wherein the plurality of nozzles comprises at least a first and second separate plurality of nozzle arrays,
the first plurality and second plurality of nozzle arrays arranged for alternately printing and/or filling with respect to each other, and
wherein the viscous material distributor is arranged and capable of receiving and processing a continuous feed of viscous material by at least alternately filling the nozzle chambers of the first and second plurality of nozzle array (FIG. 1D; 17:30+).
Liu does not appear to expressly disclose node-valves.
However, Yuwaki discloses a similar apparatus for extrusion printing with a viscous material distributor (title/abstract) comprises a node-valve arranged for regulating flow of viscous material through the first common branching node (FIG. 5-6; ¶¶ 45-46)
wherein the node-valve is able to assume either one of:
a first position, wherein the viscous material is only supplied to the first plurality of nozzles for the filling of the nozzle chambers (FIG. 5), and
a second position, wherein the viscous material is only supplied to the second plurality of nozzles for the filling of the nozzle chambers (FIG. 6).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the branched runner of Liu to include the node-valves of Yuwaki, in order to control the flow of material to each nozzle as desired.
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses that the channel forms a branching tree that branches out from the inlet towards the plurality of nozzles such that each of the defined flow paths ends at a separate single nozzle of the plurality of nozzles, and
wherein each flow path at least shares a first common branching node with all other flow paths of the defined flow paths (FIG. 2B-C; 12:17-44).
Regarding claim 3, Liu discloses that the channel branches out in stages such that each flow path at least shares a second common branching node with only some of the other flow paths of the defined flow paths (FIG. 2B-C; 12:17-44).
Regarding claim 4, Liu discloses that the channel is formed such that branches of the channel of a same stage have a same inner geometry, with regard to at least one property taken from the group consisting of: length, roughness, inner diameter, branching bend, internal obstacles, and curvature (FIG. 2B-C; 12:34+).
Regarding claims 6, Liu and Yuwaki suggests node-valve is arranged for regulating flow of viscous material through the first common branching node (FIG. 5-6; ¶¶ 45-46).
Regarding claim 7, Liu suggests a third array of nozzles are configured to dispense Material 3 (FIG. 1D; 17:30+). The skilled artisan would recognize that such a third array would require a node-valve to be able to assume a third position in which the flow of viscous material is diverted away from the plurality of first and second nozzles.
Regarding claim 8, Yuwaki suggests that each nozzle of the plurality of nozzles comprises a piston by which the nozzle is actuatable for expelling the viscous material from the respective valve chamber of the nozzle for printing, and
wherein the first plurality of nozzles is actuated through a first common actuator,
wherein the second plurality of nozzles is actuated through a second common actuator, and
wherein the first common actuator and the second common actuator are independently operable (FIG. 2; ¶¶ 30-31, 85).
Regarding claim 9, Liu discloses that each nozzle of the plurality of nozzles comprises an outlet valve, that is arranged for assuming either one of:
a closed position to allow for the filling of the nozzle chamber, while preventing printing, and
an open position to allow material to be expelled from the nozzle for printing (FIG. 3; 13:47+).
Regarding claim 10, Yuwaki suggests a valve that is capable of acting as the claimed containment valve arranged for regulating the flow of viscous material through a common branching node, and
wherein the containment valve is able to assume either one of:
an open position wherein material is allowed to flow to each nozzle of the plurality of nozzles that is downstream of the common branching node; and
a closed position wherein material is prevented from flowing to each nozzle of the plurality of nozzles that is downstream of the common branching node (FIG. 5-7, 11-12; ¶¶ 45-47, 80-81).
Regarding claims 11 or 19, Yuwaki suggests that each nozzle of the plurality of nozzles comprises a piston by which the nozzle is actuatable for expelling the viscous material from the respective valve chamber of the nozzle for printing,
wherein each nozzle comprises a fill path extending between the channel and a part the nozzle chamber, and
wherein the part of the nozzle chamber is located underneath an ultimate position of the piston during printing (FIG. 2; ¶¶ 30-31, 85).
Regarding claim 12, Liu discloses that each nozzle of the plurality of nozzles comprises a temperature control for providing a substantially same temperature across the plurality of nozzles (FIG. 3; 13:62+).
Regarding claim 14, Liu discloses that the first plurality of nozzles and the second plurality of nozzles each have an N number of nozzles, wherein the nozzle density for the first plurality of nozzles and the second plurality of nozzles N/cm2is the same (FIG. 1D; 17:30+).
Regarding claim 15, Liu discloses that the printer is arranged for handling and printing the viscous material having a viscosity which falls within the claimed range (9:29+; MPEP § 2131.03).
Regarding claim 16, Liu discloses that each flow path passes through a same number of nodes (FIG. 2B-C; 12:17-44).
Regarding claim 18, Yuwaki suggests that the common actuators are operable in sequence (¶ 31).
Regarding claim 20, Liu discloses a temperature sensor and a heating element (FIG. 3; 13:62+).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art taken either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102 or §103 would be proper. Specifically, the claimed “inlet for receiving viscous material from a pump, such that the viscous material is supplied to the distributor at a pressure head.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that Liu discloses a sequence of steps for printing dosage units with the distribution module and does not discloses the claimed two separate groups of nozzles which are part of the distribution module. However, this is not what is taught by the prior art. Rather, the Examiner’s position is that Liu broadly teaches an extrusion print head with a first, second, third and fourth array of nozzles which are intended to be used sequentially. The skilled artisan would recognize that Yuwaki discloses a known means for sequentially supplying separate arrays of nozzles with extrusion print material. It would be prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Liu with Yuwaki to supply Liu’s separate array of nozzles with the means of Yuwaki absent evidence to the contrary. Such a modification suggests that the separate arrays be linked by a common distributor and independently supplied by the switching of the node-valve, as claimed. This would still be within the teachings of Liu’s printing material being supplied to fill each of the nozzles of the array, while not being supplied to the nozzle arrays that are not printing.
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 Benjamin A Schiffman whose telephone number is (571)270-7626. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-530p 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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
/BENJAMIN A SCHIFFMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742