DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 06/11/2025, claims 1-2, 4, and 6 are pending. Claims 3, 5, and 9 are canceled. Claim 1 is currently amended. Claims 1-2, 4, and 6 are considered in the current 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 .
Status of Previous Objections/Rejections
Previous objections to the drawing are maintained in view of the Applicant’s argument. See Objection below for explanation.
35 USC 103 rejections of claims are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment. However, new rejections have been established.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitation “physically contacts”. The specification does not provide any specific definition for this limitation. Thus, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) as physical contact includes both direct and indirect contact, thus any indirect physical contact would meet the limitation for the purposes of compact prosecution, which includes thermal transfer of heat as it is a physical phenomenon involving the movement of thermal energy between two different systems.
The Examiner wishes to point out the application claims are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions. The material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus is viewed as recitation of intended use and is given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (Please see MPEP 2112.01 and 2114-2115 for further details).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR2019/0042434 (Cho), machine translation provided in Office Action dated 06/20/2024, in view of US2022/0143924 (“Vega Velasco et al” hereinafter Vega Velasco), KR2020/0063369 (Ju), machine translation provided in Office Action dated 06/20/2024, and US2021/0086443A1 (“Cote et al” hereinafter Cote).
Regarding Claim 1, Cho teaches a nozzle device for an FDM-type 3D printer (page 1, lines 12-13, a nozzle device of an FDM type 3D printer) comprising:
a filament supply unit to which a filament for FDM is supplied (see annotated Figure 4, the filament supply unit comprises of the feeding device 410 for supplying filament 420);
a filament nozzle positioned under the filament supply unit (Figure 4, nozzle 510 position under the feeding device 410 and page 3, lines 21-23) and melting the filament supplied from the filament supply unit to output the molten filament (page 4, lines 27-30 and Figure 3, filament 420 is melted inside the nozzle 510 heated by the high frequency induction heating coil 520 and output molten filament).
a heater block installed around the filament nozzle to melt the filament inside the filament nozzle (Figure 7 and page 4, lines 27-30, filament 420 is melted inside the nozzle 510 heated by the high frequency induction heating coil 520. The coils are installed around the nozzle 510).
Cho fails to explicitly teach temperature of the heater block is between 65°C and 68°C. However, Cho discloses filament 420 is melted inside the nozzle 510 heated by the high frequency induction heating coil 520. The coils are installed around the nozzle 510 (Figure 7 and page 4, lines 27-30). Cho further discloses a nozzle temperature sensor holder 512 is provided at a position next to the upper end of the 22 nozzle (Figure 7 and page 4, lines 21-22). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the heater block of Cho is capable of operating between 65°C and 68°C based on the desired operating temperature measured by the temperature sensor and thus meets all of the structural limitations as claimed. Limitations directed toward the capabilities or intended uses of the apparatus are given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the apparatus. MPEP 2114.
PNG
media_image1.png
474
469
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
647
532
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Cho further discloses a cooling gas injector 550 which injects the cooling gas at a lower position of the nozzle (page 2, lines 28-29) and a transfer pipe for transferring gas vapor from the cooling gas injector 550 and spraying the gas vapor to the molten filament (see annotated Figure 7 above and page 2, lines 28-29. Thus, the cooling gas injector discloses by Cho is capable of injecting a water vapor since vapor is also a gas), wherein the transfer pipe physically contacts the filament supply unit such that heat within the filament supply unit is transferrable to the water vapor transferred within the transfer pipe (see annotated Figure 7. The cooling gas injector comprise of transfer pipe for injecting cooling gas. As the cooling gas within the transfer pipe and the filament supply unit have different heat energy and/or temperature, the transfer pipe indirectly physically contacts the filament supply unit; under BRI, thermal transfer of heat provides an indirect physical contact between the transfer pip and the filament supply unit and thus meets all of the above functional and structural limitations).
Cho fails to explicitly teach cool the molten filament to a temperature of 41°C or less. However, the claim contain limitation, the molten filament is cooled to a temperature of 41 °C or less, which is directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus. These limitations are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2115 for further details. In this particular case, the molten filament is cooled to a temperature of 41 °C or less does not add additional structure to the device and is thus not given patentable weight. Cho discloses cooling the filament (page 2, lines 28-29) and thus is capable of being used as intended.
Cho also discloses the cooling gas injector 550 has a cooling gas inlet port 570 in which cooling gas is supplied to but did not disclose where the cooling gas comes from. Cho, however, fails to teach a humidifier generating water vapor.
However, Vega Velasco discloses the fluid dispenser 103 is in the form of a steam injector, a humidifier or a sprinkler, the controller 104 can start the injector, humidifier or sprinkler, allowing fluid or fluid vapor to be introduced into the interior 130 of the chamber 101 (Figure 1 and [0020]). In other word, the humidifier discloses by Vega Velasco generates water vapor that can be introduced into a closed space.
Cho are Vega Velasco are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of additive manufacturing and using vapor/gas to conditioning the material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus as taught by Cho such that it includes a humidifier that generates water vapor as taught by Vega Velasco to generates water vapor which is then introduced to the cooling gas injector to cool the molten material to control the manufacturing condition and allows the process of treating 3D printed objects with a fluid, such as water, water vapor, steam or vaporized solvent, to be faster and more cost efficient (Vega Velasco, [0022]). Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known way to introduces a water vapor into the cooling gas injector. See MPEP 2143.
Cho further discloses a heat dissipation unit is disposed on an outer periphery of the filament supply unit (see annotated Figure 4 above, cooling cylinder 540), and the transfer pipe wraps around the filament supply unit along the heat dissipation unit (Figure 6, the pipes connected to the cooling gas injector 550 are wrap around the filament supply unit along the heat dissipation unit). Cho fails to teach the heat dissipation unit is formed as a helical concave-convex portion having a cross section forming a rectangular screw thread and a rectangular screw root, and the transfer pipe is inserted into the rectangular screw root.
However, Ju teaches the heat dissipation unit is formed as a helical concave-convex portion (Figure 1, heat dissipation block 110 comprises of groove 111 which is a helical concavo-convex shape) having a cross section forming a rectangular screw thread and a rectangular screw root (Ju, Figure 2, heat dissipation block 110 comprises of groove 111 is a helical concavo-convex shape and the cross section forms a rectangular screw thread and a rectangular screw root) and the transfer pipe is interested into the rectangular screw root (Figure 2 and [0038], heat pipe 120 inserted and coupled along the groove 111).
Cho and Ju are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of filament deposition manufacturing and used a heat dissipation unit to control the temperature of the nozzle neck. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the heat dissipation unit as taught by the modified Cho such that it teaches all of above discussed limitations as taught by Ju to increase the contact area with the nozzle neck to effectively released heat through the heat pipe ([0043]).
The modified Cho fails to teach the heat dissipation unit and the transfer pipe are formed of polytetrafluoroethylene.
However, Cote teaches the heat dissipation unit and the transfer pipe are formed of polytetrafluoroethylene (Figure 2, heat break 142 may comprises polytetrafluoroethylene [0063] and thermal isolators 140 may comprise a polytetrafluoroethylene).
Cho and Cote are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of filament deposition manufacturing and used a heat dissipation unit to control the temperature of the nozzle neck. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the heat dissipation unit as taught by the modified Cho such that it teaches all of above discussed limitations as taught by Cote because the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known material for the heat dissipation unit and the transfer pipe by using high heat resistance material to improve heat transfer. MPEP 2143.
The modified Cho fails to explicitly teach a diameter of the transfer pipe is greater than a diameter of the helical concavo-convex portion. However, Ju teaches the heat pipe 120 also has a diameter corresponding to the groove 111 It may be formed to have a circular cross-section Figure 2 and [0044]). Ju further discloses the heat pipe 120 can be easily inserted and coupled along the groove 111 formed in a spiral shape in the heat dissipation block 110, thereby increasing the contact area, resulting from the nozzle neck 20. Heat can be effectively released through the heat pipe 120 ([0043]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to scale the diameter of the transfer pip to increase the contact area and improve heat efficiency (Ju [0043]).
The modified Cho fails to explicitly wherein a spray amount of the humidifier is 100 to 150 cc/h.
As the humidify level of the extruded filament and the degree of shrinkage of the print portion are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting spray amount of the humidifier, with said humidify level of the extruded filament increasing and degree of shrinkage of the print portion decreasing as the spray amount of the humidifier increased (Chen, page 2, lines 38-46), the precise spray amount of the humidifier would have been considered as a result effective variable by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed spray amount of the humidifier cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the spray amount of the humidifier in the apparatus of the modified Cho to obtain the desired humidify level of the extruded filament and reduce shrinkage of the print portion. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(III).
Regarding Claim 2, the modified Cho teaches the nozzle device of claim 1, wherein an end of the transfer pipe is directed toward a lower end of the filament nozzle (Cho, Figure 7, cooling gas injector 550 which injects the cooling gas at a lower position of the nozzle, page 2, lines 28-29), and the molten filament is cooled by the water vapor as soon as being output from the filament nozzle (since the cooling gas injector 550 injects cooling gas at a lower position of the nozzle, the molten filament are being cooled as soon as it is discharged by the nozzle).
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Cho teaches the nozzle device of claim 3, wherein the filament is formed of polycaprolactone (PCL).
The Claims contain limitation, polycaprolactone, which is directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus. These limitations are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2115 for further details. In this particular case, the polycaprolactone does not add additional structure to the device and is thus not given patentable weight. Furthermore, it is well known in the art to use polymers as filaments for 3D printing and thus, the device of the modified Cho is used with filaments and thus also capable of being used with PCL filament.
Regarding Claim 6, the modified Cho teaches the nozzle device of claim 1, wherein the transfer pipe wraps around the filament supply unit (Cho, Figure 7, the pipes are wrapped around the nozzle 510).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Applicant argues the prior art fails to discloses the heater block temperature as claimed in amended claim 1. Furthermore, the purpose of Cho and Ju are to function as high temperature metal printers and a low heater block temperature would render them non function.
The Examiner respectfully disagreed. The Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Furthermore, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the material worked upon as per MPEP §2115). In this case, Cho discloses filament 420 is melted inside the nozzle 510 heated by the high frequency induction heating coil 520. The coils are installed around the nozzle 510 (Figure 7 and page 4, lines 27-30). Cho further discloses a nozzle temperature sensor holder 512 is provided at a position next to the upper end of the 22 nozzle (Figure 7 and page 4, lines 21-22). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the heater block of Cho is capable of operating between 65°C and 68°C based on the desired operating temperature measured by the temperature sensor and thus meets all of the structural limitations as claimed. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
The Applicant agues Claim 1, as amended, places the spray amount in context, as the spray amount in combination with the PTFE heat dissipation unit, transfer tube, and a block heater in the range of between 65° C and 68° C combine to provide a filament temperature of 41 °C or less, which is suitable for human printing. It is the combination of elements which together provide the critical range. In the present office action, the rational is based on the control of humidity to provide shrinkage. However, the presently presented claims are using the flow rate to control the output temperature. The actual result identified by the office action is a different result than shown by the evidence of the present application. As such, the result expected to be affected by the presence of a humidifier according to the office action is the shrinkage of the filament, not the temperature of the filament. Thus, the cooling results for the flow rate of amended claim 1 is not viewed as expected.
The Examiner respectfully disagreed. In this case, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (MPEP 2144. IV). In this case, the prior art discloses as the humidify level of the extruded filament and the degree of shrinkage of the print portion are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting spray amount of the humidifier and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the spray amount of the humidifier in the apparatus of the modified Cho to obtain the desired humidify level of the extruded filament and reduce shrinkage of the print portion. Furthermore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification into the claim. In this case, nowhere in the current claimed limitation of claim 1 is referring to human printing.
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 XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754