91DETAILED 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 .
Status of the application
This is a final rejection in response to the Applicant's remarks and amendment filed on 08/29/2025. Claims 1-5,8-13, 39-41 and 43 are previously presented, claims 6-7,14-38, 42 and 44-47 are cancelled and claims 48-52 are new. Accordingly claims 1-5,8-13,39-41,43 and 48-52 are examined herein.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that claim(s) 1-5, 8-13, 39-41,43, and 8-52 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)).
The term “substantially” in the claims has been interpreted below as a broad but definite term/approximation broadly describing the circular cross- section and the non-circular portion. See MPEP §2173.05(b)(III) (D).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5,9-13,43,48-49 and 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by Kazmer (US 2021/0154916).
Regarding claim 1, Kazmer teaches a flow system (100) capable of being a liquefier for use in an extrusion-based additive manufacturing system (see Fig. 1;[0004-0005] and [0009-0011]), the liquefier describing a passageway (melt channel (1)) having an inlet portion (11) with a substantially circular cross-section for receipt of a filament of material and an outlet (15) downstream of the inlet portion (see Fig. 1;[0127] and [0134]), wherein the passageway (1) transitions from the inlet portion (11) to a non-circular portion (13) downstream of the inlet portion and the non-circular portion or a segment thereof splays or flares toward a substantially circular portion at or toward the outlet (see Fig. 1;[0129-0131]), the non-circular portion having a non-circular cross-section (see Fig. 1;[0127], [0129] and [0131]).
Regarding claim 2, Kazmer further teaches the liquefier, wherein the non-circular portion comprises a plurality of segments (13), each having a different cross-sectional shape or configuration (see Fig. 1;[0127] and [0131]).
Regarding claim 3, Kazmer further teaches the liquefier, wherein a minor dimension of a first of the segments is greater than a minor dimension of a second of the segments, which is downstream of the first segment (see Fig. 1;[0128-0131]).
Regarding claim 4, Kazmer further teaches the liquefier, wherein a minor dimension of a first segment (13) and a corresponding minor dimension of a second segment are rotationally offset from one another (see Fig. 1;[0128-0131]).
Regarding claim 5, Kazmer further teaches the liquefier, wherein the passageway comprises a substantially circular portion (411) intermediate a first segment (13) and a second segment (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Kazmer further teaches the liquefier, comprising a tubular body (2) (see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 10, Kazmer further teaches the liquefier, wherein the tubular body has a substantially constant wall thickness (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Kazmer further teaches the liquefier, wherein the outlet (nozzle orifice 19) comprises an extrusion tip for dispensing material(199) in a molten state (see Fig. 1;[0138-0139] and [0203-0204]).
Regarding claim 12, Kazmer further teaches the liquefier, wherein the liquefier is made of metal (see [0176]).
Regarding claim 13, Kazmer further teaches the liquefier in combination with a heating element for heating a filament of material received, in use, within the liquefier (see [0153-0155]).
Regarding claim 43, Kazmer teaches a flow system (100) capable of being a liquefier for use in an extrusion-based additive manufacturing system(see Fig. 1;[0004-0005] and [0009-0011]), the liquefier describing a passageway (melt channel (1)) comprising: an inlet portion (11) with a substantially circular cross-section for receipt of a filament of material; an outlet (15) downstream of the inlet portion along a flow direction(see Fig. 1;[0127] and [0134]); a non-circular portion (13) with a non-circular cross-section between the inlet portion and the outlet; and a circular portion with a substantially circular cross-section between the non-circular portion and the outlet (see Fig. 1;[0129-0131]); wherein the non-circular portion (13) comprises a minor dimension that decreases along an upstream portion of the non-circular portion and increases along a downstream portion of the non- circular portion (see Fig. 1;[0127], [0129] and [0131]).
Regarding claim 48, Kazmer teaches a flow system (100) capable of being a liquefier for use in an extrusion-based additive manufacturing system (see Fig. 1;[0004-0005] and [009-0011]), the liquefier describing a passageway (melt channel (1)) comprising: an upstream portion (i.e. portion adjacent to an inlet portion (11)) and a downstream portion (15) each having a constant, substantially circular cross-sectional shape extending along part of the passageway (see Fig. 1;[0127] and [0133-0134]); a non-circular portion (13) between the upstream portion and the downstream portion and having a non-circular cross-section (see Fig. 1;[0129-0131]); and an outlet (19) downstream of the downstream portion for dispensing material (182) in a molten state; wherein the outlet has a smaller cross-sectional area than a cross-sectional area of the downstream portion (see Fig. 1;[0135-0139]).
Regarding claim 49, Kazmer further teaches the liquefier, wherein the outlet comprises an extrusion tip (nozzle orifice 19) for dispensing material in a molten state (see Fig. 1;[0138-0139] and [0203-0204]).
Regarding claim 52, Kazmer further teaches the liquefier in combination with a heating element for heating a filament of material received, in use, within the liquefier see [0153-0155]).
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) 39-41 and 50-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazmer (US 2021/0154916) as applied to claims 1 and 48 above, and further in view of Comb (US 6,054,077 – of record).
Regarding claim 39, Kazmer teaches a liquefier as discussed in claims 1 above.
Kazmer does not teach that the liquefier comprising a split-block liquefier.
In the same field of endeavor, liquefying apparatus, Comb teaches a liquefier (259), comprises a split-block liquefier (i.e. a heating block 266 comprised of an outer plate 268, an interior plate 270 and a rear plate 272) (see Fig. 10;column 11, lines 22-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the liquefier as taught by Kazmer with the liquefier comprising a split-block liquefier as taught by Comb since doing so would be an advantageous that the liquefier be removable from the heating block, for replacement and cleaning (see column 11, lines 45-49 of Comb).
Regarding claims 40 and 50, Kazmer teaches a liquefier as discussed in claims 1 and 48 above.
Kazmer does not teach wherein the liquefier comprises multiple blocks each describing part of the passageway. In the same field of endeavor, liquefying apparatus, Comb teaches a liquefier (259), comprises multiple blocks each describing part of the passageway (i.e. a heating block (266) comprised of an outer plate (268), an interior plate (270) and a rear plate (272) block, wherein each plate describing part of the passageway (276) (see Figs. 10A-10B;column 11, lines 22-45 of Comb).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the liquefier as taught by Kazmer with the liquefier comprises multiple blocks each describing part of the passageway as taught by Comb since doing so would be an advantageous that the liquefier be removable from the heating block, for replacement and cleaning (see column 11, lines 45-49 of Comb).
Regarding claims 41 and 51, Kazmer in view of Comb further teaches the liquefier, wherein the blocks (268,270,272) are configured to be secured together (a set through interior block (270) of five bolts extend through outer plate (268), interior plate (270) and rear plate (27)2 to detachably hold together liquefier) (see Figs. 10A-10B’ column 11, lines 45-49 of Comb).
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsen (US 2015/0224699 – of record) in view of MARK (US 2015/0290875).
Regarding claim 1, Larsen teaches a liquefier for use in an extrusion-based additive manufacturing system (see Fig.6 and Fig. 11;[0002]), the liquefier describing a passageway (400) having an inlet portion (304A) with a substantially circular cross- section for receipt of a filament of material and an outlet (304B) downstream of the inlet portion, wherein the passageway transitions from the inlet portion to a non-circular portion (304T) downstream of the inlet portion (see Fig. 7;[0030] and [0037-0038]) and.. the non-circular portion having a non-circular cross-section (see Fig. 7;[0038]).
Larsen does not explicitly teach that the non-circular portion or segment thereof splays or flares toward a substantially circular portion at or toward the outlet.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing apparatus apparatuses, Mark teaches deposition head (200) defines a passageway having an inlet portion (202) and an outlet (206), wherein the passageway transition from the inlet portion to non-circular portion or segment thereof splays or flares toward a substantially circular portion at or toward the outlet (see annotated Fig. 6A below ;[0158-0160]). Mark teaches an increasing deposition head diameter that matches the thermal expansion of the matrix material. As depicted in the figure, the deposition head 200 includes an inlet 202 with a diameter D 1, a section with an increasing diameter 204, and an outlet 206 with a diameter D2 that is greater than the diameter D 1 (see [0158]).
PNG
media_image1.png
442
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the non-circular portion or segment thereof splays or flares toward a substantially circular portion at or toward the outlet as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Mark above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allows for increasing deposition head diameter that matches the thermal expansion of the matrix material (as recognized by MARK at [0158]).
Regarding claim 2, Larsen in view of Mark further teaches the liquefier, wherein the non-circular portion comprises a plurality of segments (400), each having a different cross-sectional shape or configuration (see Fig. 1;[0037]).
Regarding claim 3, Larsen in view of Mark further teaches the liquefier, wherein a minor dimension of a first of the segments is greater than a minor dimension of a second of the segments, which is downstream of the first segment (see Fig. 6;[0037]).
Regarding claim 4, Larsen in view of Mark further teaches the liquefier, wherein a minor dimension of a first segment and a corresponding minor dimension of a second segment are rotationally offset from one another (see Fig. 6;[0037] of Larsen).
Regarding claim 5, Larsen in view of Mark further teaches the liquefier, wherein the passageway comprises a substantially circular portion intermediate a first segment and a second segment (see Fig. 6 of Larsen).
Regarding claim 7, Larsen in view of Mark further teaches the liquefier, wherein the passageway comprises a substantially circular portion at or toward the outlet (304b) (see Fig. 7 of Larsen).
Regarding claim 9, Larsen in view of Mark further teaches the liquefier, comprising a tubular body (300) (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Larsen in view of Mark further teaches the liquefier, wherein the tubular body (300) has a substantially constant wall thickness (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, Larsen in view of Mark further teaches the liquefier, wherein the outlet (304b) comprises an extrusion tip for dispensing material in a molten state (see Fig. 7;[0044],[0046-0048]).
Regarding claim 12, Larsen in view of Mark further teaches the liquefier, wherein the liquefier is made of metal (see [0049]).
Regarding claim 13, Larsen in view of Mark further teaches the liquefier in combination with a heating element for heating a filament of material received, in use, within the liquefier (see [0020]).
Claim(s) 39-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsen (US 2015/0224699 – of record) in view of MARK (US 2015/0290875) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Comb (US 6,054,077 – of record).
Regarding claim 39, Larsen in view of Mark teaches a liquefier as discussed in claim 1 above.
Larsen in view of Mark does not teach that the liquefier comprising a split-block liquefier.
In the same field of endeavor, liquefying apparatus, Comb teaches a liquefier (259), comprises a split-block liquefier (i.e. a heating block 266 comprised of an outer plate 268, an interior plate 270 and a rear plate 272) (see Fig. 10;column 11, lines 22-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the liquefier as taught by Larsen in view of Mark with the liquefier comprising a split-block liquefier as taught by Comb since doing so would be an advantageous that the liquefier be removable from the heating block, for replacement and cleaning (see column 11, lines 45-49 of Comb).
Regarding claim 40, Larsen in view of Mark teaches a liquefier as discussed in claim 1 above.
Larsen in view of Mark does not teach wherein the liquefier comprises multiple blocks each describing part of the passageway. In the same field of endeavor, liquefying apparatus, Comb teaches a liquefier (259), comprises multiple blocks each describing part of the passageway (i.e. a heating block 266 comprised of an outer plate 268, an interior plate 270 and a rear plate 272 block, wherein each plate describing part of the passageway (276) (see Figs. 10A-10B;column 11, lines 22-45 of Comb).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the liquefier as taught by Larsen in view of Mark with the liquefier comprises multiple blocks each describing part of the passageway as taught by Comb since doing so would be an advantageous that the liquefier be removable from the heating block, for replacement and cleaning (see column 11, lines 45-49 of Comb).
Regarding claim 41, Larsen in view of Mark and Comb further teaches the liquefier, wherein the blocks (268,270,272) are configured to be secured together (A set through interior block (270) of five bolts extend through outer plate (268), interior plate (270) and rear plate (27)2 to detachably hold together liquefier) (see Figs. 10A-10B’ column 11, lines 45-49 of Comb).
Response to Arguments
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102, Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s) has/have overcome the claim rejection(s). Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Kazmer (US 2021/0154916). Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
With respect to Applicant’s comments regarding withdrawn claims 4-5, Examiner notes that claims 4-5 are rejoined in view of the amendments files on 08/27/2025.
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 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
/GALEN H HAUTH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743