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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner notes that if the newly added limitations of claim 1 were incorporated within controller configured to and/or specific programming limitations the current rejection would be overcome.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Lewis does not teach “wherein printing the secondary nozzle using the nozzle print head occurs in the three-dimensional printer concurrently with printing the first portion of the object using the primary print head with the primary nozzle in the three-dimensional printer” (pg 6 last paragraph). While the Examiner agrees that this specific order of operations is not taught by Lewis, or the other prior art of record, the Examiner respectfully disagrees the limitation, as currently claimed, overcomes the prior art. As discussed below, the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). As applied to the instant application, the printer of Lewis is capable of performing the intended use.
Applicant next argues, in reference to claim 4, that the prior art does not teach the newly added limitations of claim 1, from which claim 4 depends. For the reasons discussed above, this is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lewis (US20190070786A1).
In reference to claim 1:
Lewis discloses a three-dimensional printer comprising:
a primary print head with a primary nozzle (para 0070-0071 discloses a “primary print head with a primary nozzle” as basic micronozzle 700);
a nozzle print head configured to print different nozzles for additive manufacturing of an object (paras 0081-0082 disclosing the ultra-high resolution portion and the low resolution portion may be printed separately, e.g. by a nozzle print head configured to print different nozzles);
a secondary nozzle printed by the nozzle print head (para 0070-0071 disclosing a “secondary nozzle printed by the nozzle print head” as the high resolution micronozzle 710); and
wherein the primary nozzle is configured to print a first portion of the object, wherein the secondary nozzle is configured to print a second portion of the object (para 0075-0076 disclosing using low and high resolution nozzles to produce the same product).
Lewis does not explicitly disclose wherein printing the secondary nozzle using the nozzle print head occurs in the three-dimensional printer concurrently with printing the first portion of the object using the primary print head with the primary nozzle in the three-dimensional printer. However, the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). As applied to the instant application, the printer of Lewis is capable of performing the intended use.
In reference to claim 2:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Lewis further discloses:
a first material for performing additive manufacturing of objects using the primary print head (“first material” which is used for the 3D product, para 0052);
a second material for performing additive manufacturing of nozzles using the nozzle print head (“second material” used to print the 3D printing unit, i.e. the nozzle, para 0054); and
wherein the second material has a higher melting temperature than the first material (para 0086).
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) 3, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Lee (US20190016150A1).
In reference to claims 3, 21, and 22:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Lewis further discloses:
a conveyer configured for automatically exchanging the primary nozzle and the secondary nozzle on the primary print head (para 0088 disclosing the 3D printing unit may be installed in the 3D printer by a machine, see para 0026 of Applicant’s specification as published disclosing the “conveyer 112 can be any electro-mechanical apparatus capable of automatically retrieving the secondary nozzle 110 from the portion 102A of the platform 102, transporting the secondary nozzle 110 to the print head 104, removing a nozzle from the print head 104, and attaching the secondary nozzle 110 to the print head 104”).
Lewis does not explicitly disclose the exchanging uses a fixturing mechanism (claim 3), wherein the fixturing mechanism comprises a threading mechanism (claim 21), or wherein the fixturing mechanism comprises a mechanical interlocking mechanism (claim 22). However, this is taught by Lee. Lee teaches a quick release print head (abstract). Lee further teaches fixing the nozzle to the heating block using threads (para 0023, “mechanical interlocking” is interpreted as including threads within the broadest reasonable interpretation. See MPEP 2111) allows for quick disassembly and easy maintenance (abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the printer of Lewis with the thread fixturing mechanism of Lee in order to obtain a system which allows for quick disassembly and easy maintenance.
Claim(s) 4, 24, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Mark (US20200371509A1).
In reference to claim 4:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Lewis further discloses a computer-readable medium that is communicatively coupled to the three dimensional printer (para 0039), wherein the computer readable medium stores programing configured to receive as input characteristics of the object and characteristics of the primary print head and generate as output characteristics of the secondary nozzle (paras 0036, 0052-0054), and wherein the secondary nozzle is printed by the nozzle print head according to the characteristics of the secondary nozzle generated from the programming (paras 0079-0081, Fig. 4 step 410).
Lewis does not explicitly disclose wherein the programming is a machine learning model. However, this would have been obvious in view of Mark. Mark teaches manufacturing optimization for additive manufacturing (abstract, para 0012). Mark further teaches the use of a machine learning model proactively improves manufacturing processes (para 0065) as opposed to the reactive nature of operators (para 0002). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the three-dimensional printer of Lewis with the machine learning model of Mark in order to obtain a three-dimensional printer which proactively improves the manufacturing process.
In reference to claim 24:
In addition to the discussion of claim 4, above, Lewis further discloses wherein the characteristics of the object comprise a CAD model of the object that is stored in a stereolithography (STL) file format (paras 0067, 0078).
In reference to claim 25:
In addition to the discussion of claim 4, above, Lewis further discloses wherein the characteristics of the primary print head comprise an existing nozzle geometry on the primary nozzle (paras 0068-0071, Fig. 7B).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis and Lee as applied to claim 3, above, and further in view of Swanson (US20170297321A1).
In addition to the discussion of claim 3, above, modified Lewis fails to disclose wherein the fixturing mechanism comprises magnets. However, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). As applied to the current application, Swanson teaches a magnetically coupled print head (abstract). Swanson further teaches the use of magnets for attaching removable and replaceable pieces of an additive manufacturing device (paras 0006-0009). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the magnetic attachment of Swanson for the mechanical attachment of modified Lewis as each mechanism is known for releasably attaching printer components and the combination yields predictable results, e.g. the components are held by magnets rather than threads.
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 ANDREW L SWANSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1724. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0800-1900 and every other Friday 0800-1600.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/ANDREW L SWANSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights