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 .
Claims 1-11, 18, and 20-24 are pending and under examination. Claims 12-17 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 refers to an equation, but there does not appear to be an equation present on the claims submitted 9/25/2026. This claim is not specified as amended, but is different from the previous 3/16/2026 submission. Accordingly, the claim is not clear as currently drafted.
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)(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) 1-11 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harris (US Patent No. 4,721,589).
Regarding claims 1 and 5-6, Harris discloses a positive displacement pump (screw 14 or gear pump 24) comprising (see Fig. 1):
(a) a motor (22) having a rotatable output shaft and electrically connected to a controller (screw motor control 36) (7:4-7:27);
(b) at least one rotatable screw (14) that is attached to the output of the motor (as described in 7:9, the motor rotates the screw, meaning that it is inherently attached to the motor) and disposed within a first portion of a housing having a hollow region and positioned to surround the screw (barrel 11) (Fig. 1), and
(c) a passage (25) disposed within a second portion of the housing downstream of the first portion (containing the screw) (as shown in Fig. 1, the passage 25 is further downstream from the barrel 11 containing the screw 14) the passage configured to receive material, cause heating of the material from a first temperature at an inlet to the passage and a second temperature at the outlet of the passage, and wherein the controller is configured to control a rotation rate of the output shaft of the motor (the algorithm in 7:9-7:24 describes adjusting the rotation rate of the screw based on the detected pressure), thereby causing heated material to be expelled out of the passage at a flow rate proportional to the rotation rate of the motor and at a constant flow rate for fixed rotation rate of the output shaft regardless of changes in system pressure (7:13-7:24). See also 10:43-11:17.
Regarding claim 2, Harris discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and this limitation is considered to be an intended use. It is also seemingly met as the heating does not occur on the gear pump 24.
Regarding claim 3, Harris discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses a nozzle (die 27 having orifice 29) (6:48-6:52).
Regarding claims 4 and 22-23, Harris discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that there is a heater near the passage or around the second portion of the housing (heating elements 18; 7:43-7:57).
Regarding claim 7, Harris discloses the subject matter of claim 6, and further discloses that there is a guide (feeder 23) (6:30-6:32; Fig. 1) positioned to direct the material into a gap defined between the one rotatable screw and housing.
Regarding claim 8, Harris discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that there is at least one rotatable gear, including a gear pump (24) with two gears (30, 31) meshed together as required in the claim (6:53-6:64) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 9-10, Harris discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the screw has less than 4 turns (see Fig. 3) and is in a conical shape.
Regarding claim 11, Harris discloses the subject matter of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose that the length of the passage is defined by the equation in claim 11.
However, Examiner notes that this limitation is interpreted in view of the instant specification, which provides that this equation comes from a textbook, meaning that this knowledge would be generally attributable to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Furthermore, the equation depends on elements such as “a volumetric flow rate of a material”; “a thermal diffusivity of a material”; meaning that this is limited by its mode of operation, which is not considered limiting to an apparatus claim. See MPEP 2114.
The specific material or article worked upon by a claimed structure is also generally not considered limiting. See MPEP 2115.
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.
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.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris (US Patent No. 4,721,589) in view of Gerada et al. (US 2022/0097293), hereinafter Gerada.
Regarding claim 18, Harris discloses a positive displacement pump (screw 14 or gear pump 24) comprising (see Fig. 1) [“for an additive manufacture (AM) application” is considered to be an intended use]:
(a) a motor (22) having a rotatable output shaft and electrically connected to a controller (screw motor control 36) (7:4-7:27);
(b) at least one rotatable screw (14) that is attached to the output of the motor (as described in 7:9, the motor rotates the screw, meaning that it is inherently attached to the motor) and disposed within a first portion of a housing having a hollow region and positioned to surround the screw (barrel 11) (Fig. 1), and
(c) a passage (25) disposed within a second portion of the housing downstream of the first portion (containing the screw) (as shown in Fig. 1, the passage 25 is further downstream from the barrel 11 containing the screw 14) the passage configured to receive material, cause heating of the material from a first temperature at an inlet to the passage and a second temperature at the outlet of the passage, and wherein the controller is configured to control a rotation rate of the output shaft of the motor (the algorithm in 7:9-7:24 describes adjusting the rotation rate of the screw based on the detected pressure), thereby causing heated material to be expelled out of the passage at a flow rate proportional to the rotation rate of the motor and at a constant flow rate for fixed rotation rate of the output shaft regardless of changes in system pressure (7:13-7:24). See also 10:43-11:17.
Harris does not appear to explicitly disclose one of the options in claim 18 for curing the material in the last portion of the claim.
However, like Harris above, Gerada likewise uses a system that uses a screw or worm (24) (Gerada, par. 0067; Fig. 1) for depositing a material. Gerada additionally discloses the use of a second heating means (62) which can include an infrared radiator (which reads upon the claimed ‘radiation emitter’ or a heated substrate (Gerada, par. 0074-0076). Accordingly, in order to likewise assist in curing the material being deposited or extruded in Harris above, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have specified that there is a radiation emitter or heated substrate/heater near the substrate as to have cured the material being deposited.
*The limitation of “the nozzle positioned to deposit material exiting the nozzle onto an ever growing substrate that is a product of AM” is not considered limiting as it is an intended use. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 20, Harris/Gerada discloses the subject matter of claim 18, and the only element from Applicant’s specification that can read upon this element is the gear pump, which is met as outlined above. Applicant’s disclosure is not construed to include features that are not described therein.
Claim(s) 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris (US Patent No. 4,721,589) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marshall (US Patent No. 2,767,437).
Regarding claims 21 and 24, Harris discloses the subject matter of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose that the passage is coiled.
However, Marshall discloses a similar extruder/pump to that of Harris above and Marshall (Fig. 3) describes an extruder pump that has a coiled section (26) (Marshall, 6:40-6:61) that is used with a loop/coil in order to obtain a higher back pressure while at the same time decreasing the length of the passage and the space required for extruding/pumping the material out of the machine.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have incorporated such a coiled section into the apparatus of Harris above as to likewise have achieved the higher back pressure while decreasing the overall length of the passage as is required in the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all 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.
All other arguments have been previously addressed with respect to the interpretation of certain dependent claims.
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 D GRAHAM whose telephone number is (469)295-9232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM (CST).
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.
/ANDREW D GRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
