DETAILED ACTION
In Request for Continued Examination filed on 02/25/2026, claims 1-11 are pending. Claims 1 and 3 are currently amended. Claims 1-11 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 .
Previous Objections/Rejections
Previous 35 USC 112(a) of claim 3 is withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment.
Previous 35 USC 103 rejections are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendments. However, new rejections have been established.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/25/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recite the limitation “thereby shaping one or more elongated beads to have non-rectangular shapes” fails to comply with the written description requirement. At most, the specification describes “in some examples, shaping solidifiable material may include passing or extruding solidifiable material along a flow path having a circular cross-sectional area at an inlet of a nozzle or nozzle assembly of a three-dimensional printer, and a polygonal cross-sectional area at an outlet of the nozzle or nozzle assembly of a three-dimensional printer ([0019])”, “in some respects, the nozzle 26 may include a flow path with a non-uniform cross-section from a nozzle inlet to the nozzle outlet ([0081])”, and “It may be desirable to provide a particular shape to the elongated beads to achieve a particular design, construction, and/or aesthetic of the finished wall structure 32. As shown in Fig. 3, the first and second elongated beads 60a, 60b have a polygonal (e.g., rectangular, trapezoidal, etc.) cross-sectional shape to achieve a flat wall design ([0091])”. Nothing in the specification positively recited the claimed limitation “thereby shaping one or more elongated beads to have non-rectangular shapes”. For example, a triangular shape is a non-rectangular shape but the specification does not have support for it. Thus, claim 1 is rejected as fails to comply with the written description.
Claims 2-11 are depended upon claim 1 and are rejected for the same reason.
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 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2005/070657 (Khoshnevis), WO2007/050972 (Khoshnevis-2), and WO2023/025857 (“Harmand et al” hereinafter Harmand), machine translation provided in Office Action dated 04/14/2025.
Regarding Claim 1, Khoshnevis teaches a nozzle for a three-dimensional printer (Figure 1, and [0074]), the nozzle comprising:
a body (Figure 1, nozzle 103) comprising an inlet (Figure 1, inlet 115), an outlet (Figure 1, outlet 105), and a flow path connecting the inlet and the outlet (Figure 1, the area between the inlet 115 and outlet 105 is a flow path for material flow [0080]), the body comprising a leading side and a trailing side opposite the leading side (see annotated Figure 1); and
PNG
media_image1.png
548
342
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
380
305
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a tab (see annotated Figure 1) positioned to the outlet and that extends outwardly relative to the trailing side of the body (see annotated Figure 1),
wherein the tab is substantially parallel to extruded material deposited as one or more elongated beads (see annotated Figure 1, at least a part of the tab is substantially parallel to the extruded material), thereby shaping one or more elongated beads to have non-rectangular shape ([0075]-[0076]).
Khoshnevis fails to teach the body including sloped interior walls configured to transition a cross-sectional shape of the extruded material associated with the flow path to achieve the cross-sectional shape different than that of the inlet.
However, Harmand teaches the body including sloped interior walls configured to transition a cross-sectional shape of the extruded material associated with the flow path to achieve the cross-sectional shape different than that of the inlet (Figure 8, the wall of the nozzle body is sloped which resulted in a transition of cross-sectional shape such that the cross-sectional shape of the inlet differ from the cross-sectional shape of the flow path).
Khoshnevis and Harmand are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of additive manufacturing device comprising an applicator head. 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 of the modified Khoshnevis such that it disclosed the above discussed limitations as taught by Harmand to allow the application head to deposit more or less material without modifying the layer of material at the level of its section and its dimensions (page 2, paragraph 11) and to modified the flow of material at the outlet (page 5, paragraph 10). Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known design for the outlet of the nozzle. See MPEP 2143.
Khoshnevis fails to teach the tab including one or more asymmetric arms, the one or more asymmetric arms are disposed in a plane substantially parallel to the exudated material.
However, Khoshnevis-2 teaches the tab including one or more asymmetric arms (see annotated Figure 3a, the two arms are asymmetric to each other), the one or more asymmetric arms are disposed in a plane substantially parrel to the exudated material (see annotated Figure 3a and Figure 14a, the arms are disposed in a plane substantially parallel to the exudated material).
Khoshnevis and Khoshnevis-2 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of additive manufacturing device comprising an applicator head. 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 tab of Khoshnevis such that it disclosed the above discussed limitations as taught by Khoshnevis-2 to achieve desired smoothness of the printed object. Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known design for the tab See MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim 2, the modified Khoshnevis teaches the nozzle of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein a cross-sectional shape of the flow path at the outlet comprises a leading edge defining a first length and a trailing edge defining a second length greater than the first length.
PNG
media_image3.png
408
755
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Harmand teaches a cross-sectional shape of the flow path at the outlet comprises a leading edge defining a first length and a trailing edge defining a second It
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 outlet of the modified Khoshnevis such that it disclosed the above discussed limitations as taught by Harmand to allow the application head to deposit more or less material without modifying the layer of material at the level of its section and its dimensions (page 2, paragraph 11). Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known design for the outlet of the nozzle. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Khoshnevis teaches the nozzle of claim 1, wherein the leading side of the body comprises an interior wall partially defining the flow path (Khoshnevis, Figure 1, the leading side of the body comprises of an interior wall which allows for the flow of material), the interior wall of the leading side having a sloped interior surface (see annotated Figure 1, since the leading side L2 is sloped, the corresponding interior surface must also be sloped).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified Khoshnevis teaches the nozzle of claim 1, wherein the leading side of the body comprises an interior wall partially defining the flow path (Khoshnevis, Figure 1, the leading side of the body comprises of an interior wall which allows for the flow of material), the interior wall of the leading side having a sloped interior surface (see annotated Figure 1, since the leading side L2 is sloped, the corresponding interior surface must also be sloped), the interior wall of the leading side being non-parallel to another interior wall of the trailing side (see annotated Figure 1, the interior wall of the leading side L2, is non parallel to the interior wall of the trailing side, T1 and T2).
Regrading Claim 6, the modified Khoshnevis teaches the nozzle of claim 1, wherein the leading side of the body comprises an interior wall partially defining the flow path (Khoshnevis, Figure 1, the leading side of the body comprises of an interior wall which allows for the flow of material), the interior wall of the leading side having a sloped interior surface (see annotated Figure 1, since the leading side L2 is sloped, the corresponding interior surface must also be sloped), the interior wall of the leading side being non-parallel to another interior wall of the trailing side (see annotated Figure 1, the interior wall of the leading side L2, is non parallel to the interior wall of the trailing side, T1 and T2), the interior wall of the trailing side having a sloped interior surface (see annotated Figure 1, the trailing side T2 is sloped, thus the corresponding interior surface must also be sloped).
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Khoshnevis teaches the nozzle of claim 1, wherein the tab extends both laterally and longitudinally relative to the outlet of the nozzle (Khoshnevis, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 8, the modified Khoshnevis teaches the nozzle of claim 1, wherein the tab is integrated with the body (Khoshnevis, see annotated Figure 1, the tab is connected to the nozzle 103).
Regarding Claim 9, the modified Khoshnevis teaches the nozzle of claim 1, wherein the tab is configured to extend laterally outward relative to one or more of the leading side and a different side of the body (Khoshnevis, see annotated Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 10, the modified Khoshnevis teaches the nozzle of claim 1, wherein a cross-sectional area of the flow path is configured to transition from circular to polygonal in a direction toward the outlet (Khoshnevis, Figure 1 and 3, the body of the nozzle, where the flow path is, has a circular shape, and is transition into a rectangular shape at the outlet [0076]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2005/070657 (Khoshnevis), WO2007/050972 (Khoshnevis-2), and (“Harmand et al” hereinafter Harmand), machine translation provided in Office Action dated 04/14/2025 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US2022/0143865 (“Huth et al” hereinafter Huth).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Khoshnevis teaches the nozzle of claim 1, wherein the flow path has a polygonal cross-sectional shape at the outlet (Khoshnevis, the cross-section of the outlet 105 may vary. It may be circular, rectangular or of some other shape [0076]), but fails to teach wherein the flow path is configured to provide a non-rectangular shape of the one or more elongated beads, the non-rectangular shape including a trapezoidal shape.
However, Huth teaches wherein the flow path is configured to provide a non-rectangular shape of the one or more elongated beads, the non-rectangular shape including a trapezoidal shape ([0010], further additionally or alternatively, the discharge opening may have a quadrangular shape, in particular a trapezoidal shape).
Khoshnevis and Huth are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of additive manufacturing device comprising an applicator head. 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 of the modified Khoshnevis such that it disclosed the above discussed limitations as taught by Huth to discharge materials based on the desired shape ([0010]). Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known design for the outlet of the nozzle. See MPEP 2143.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2005/070657 (Khoshnevis), WO2007/050972 (Khoshnevis-2), and (“Harmand et al” hereinafter Harmand), machine translation provided in Office Action dated 04/14/2025 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR2020/0063922 (“Jong et al” hereinafter Jong), machine translation provided.
Regarding Claim 11, the modified Khoshnevis teaches the nozzle of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the tab comprises a first height adjacent to the body and a second height that is greater than the first height and that is spaced from the body.
PNG
media_image4.png
762
574
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Jong teaches the tab comprises a first height adjacent to the body and a second height that is greater than the first height and that is spaced from the body (see annotated Figure 1, H2 is greater than the H1).
Khoshnevis and Jong are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of additive manufacturing device comprising an applicator head. 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 tab of the modified Khoshnevis such that it disclosed the above discussed limitations as taught by Jong to control the direction angle of the material by controlling the discharge pipe 100 ([0033]). Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known design for the tab. See MPEP 2143.
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.
Conclusion
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.
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1754
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights