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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/27/2026 has been entered.
Status of the application
This is a non-final rejection in response to the Applicant's remarks and amendment filed on 08/27/2026. Claims 1-6 are withdrawn, claims 7-9,16 and 18 are currently amended, claims 10-15 and 17 are previously presented. Accordingly claims 7-18 are examined herein.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a regulating device .. designed to regulate a flow rate and pressure of said molten material at an outlet of the processing unit” in claims 9 and 18 with corresponding structure/scope disclosed at [0019-0020] and [0037] of instant publication.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 7-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (CN 110901052 with English Machine Translation attached).
Regarding claim 7, Chen teaches a 3D printing device capable of being an additive manufacturing machine for depositing a molten wire (filaments) in successive layers on a printing support in a manufacturing chamber (frame (28)) to manufacture a three-dimensional part (C) (see Fig. 1, annotated Fig. 8 below and Fig. 9; [0007], [0018],[ 0045] and [0073] of English Machine Translation attached), comprising:
a feed unit for a raw material (a raw material bin (30)) (see annotated Fig. 8 below; [0073] of English Machine Translation attached),
a plasticization unit (extrusion mechanism (1)) designed to change a state of the raw material into a molten material (see annotated Fig. 8 below; [0020-0021] and [0068] and [0072] of English Machine Translation attached), said plasticization unit comprising a thermal energy supply arranged to raise a temperature of the raw material, said thermal energy supply comprising one or more heating collars (heating rings (4)) of said plasticization unit, said plasticization unit being fixed and located outside said manufacturing chamber (see annotated Fig. 8 below; [0029] and [0060-0062] of English Machine Translation attached),
a flexible heating tube (molten material transfer tube (2)) designed to convey the molten material at its processing temperature and viscosity from said fixed plasticization unit (1) to a mobile deposition unit (movable print head (3)) (see annotated Fig. 8 below;[0039], [0060] and [0069] of English Machine Translation attached),
said mobile deposition unit (3) located in said manufacturing chamber (28) and comprising at least one deposition nozzle (20) designed to deposit said molten material in the form of a molten wire in successive layers on said printing support and along a predetermined trajectory until the part to be manufactured is obtained (see Figs. 8-10; [0064] and [0067-0068] of English Machine Translation attached).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
439
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Chen further teaches the machine, characterized in that said plasticization unit (1) comprises at least one screw extruder (see Fig. 3 and Fig. 8; [0062-0064] of English Machine Translation attached).
Regarding claim 10, Chen further teaches the machine, characterized in that said flexible heating tube (molten material transfer tube (2)) is coupled to at least one electrical resistor (a heating wire (11)), positioned around the flexible heating tube (2), and designed to reach and stabilize a setpoint temperature adapted to the molten material being conveyed (see Fig. 8; [0060-0062] of English Machine Translation attached).
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 110901052 with English Machine Translation attached) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Cheng (US 2021/0154910 - of record).
Regarding claim 9, Chen’052 teaches the machine as discussed in claim 7 above.
Chen’052 further teaches a melt material flow control mechanism coupled to the print head (3) for controlling the flow rate of the molten material (see Fig. 4; [0064] of English Machine Translation attached) and a power source controller (7) to control the flow rate or cutoff flow rate of the molten material (see [0067-0069] of English Machine Translation attached). However, Chen’052 does not teach that the regulating device located between said plasticization unit and said flexible heating tube, and designed to regulate a flow rate and pressure of said molten material at an outlet of the processing unit.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing devices, Cheng’910 teaches 3D printing device (200) comprises a processing unit (i.e. a first melt extrusion module (302) and a second melt extrusion module (402) configured to receive/convert a raw material into melts) (see Fig. 2; [0146-0148]); a transporting tube (heating tube) configured to receive melted material from a heating apparatus (384); and a regulating device (i.e. mixing chamber discharge control apparatus (385) disposed at a discharge outlet (383) and configured to control/regulate the discharge speed of the melt at the discharge outlet (383)); and the discharge control apparatus (385) located between the processing unit (302,402) and transporting ube (see annotated Fig. 2 below;[0148]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrange a regulating device between the processing unit and the flexible heating tube, and designed to regulate a flow rate and pressure of said molten material at an outlet of the processing unit as such is known in the art of 3D devices given the discussion of Cheng’910 above presenting a reasonably expectation of success; and doing so would involve only a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. (Please see MPEP 2144.04 VI C for further details). One would have been motivated to rearrange a regulating device located between the processing unit and the flexible heating tube in order to control/regulate the discharge speed of the melt at the discharge outlet.
PNG
media_image2.png
715
738
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 110901052 with English Machine Translation attached) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Davenport (US 2020/00338822 - of record).
Regarding claim 11, Chen’052 teaches the machine as discussed in claim 7 above.
Chen’052 does not teach that said deposition unit comprises a hot block provided with an inlet orifice connected downstream of said flexible heating tube, and a rotary disk comprising at least two deposition nozzles of different cross- sections, angularly offset, one of the at least two deposition nozzles comprising an active deposition nozzle, and further characterized in that the rotary disk is located downstream of said hot block and designed to sequentially align an active deposition nozzle with an outlet orifice of said hot block and allow the molten wire to exit.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing systems, Davenport teaches additive manufacturing 3D print head (see Fig. 1A), comprises a hot end component (3) provided with an inlet guide (4) connected downstream of feed line (12) which conveys a meltable filament from its source to the hot-end component (3) and a rotary disk (rotating plate (8)) comprising at least two deposition nozzles (10) of different cross- sections, angularly offset, one of the at least two deposition nozzles comprising an active deposition nozzle, and further characterized in that the rotary disk (8) is located downstream of said hot block (3) and designed to sequentially align the active deposition nozzle (A) with an outlet orifice of said hot block (3) and allow the molten wire to exit (see Fig. 1A-1B, Fig. 2,annotated Figs. 4a-4c and Fig. 6;[0010],[0023], [0025-0026] and [0029-0030]). Davenport teaches a form of an additive manufacturing hot-end provides the printer the ability to print at different nozzle sizes with quick actuations of tool changes and preform print speeds faster than a stock extruder. This form of a hot-end is small as compared to default extruders and will allow the user to print at fast print speeds without sacrificing tolerance-based prints based on using a combination of small and large nozzle sizes (Abstract).
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 additive manufacturing machine as taught by Chen’052 in view of Davenport with said deposition unit comprises a hot block provided with an inlet orifice connected downstream of said flexible heating tube, and a rotary disk comprising at least two deposition nozzles of different cross- sections, angularly offset, one of the at least two deposition nozzles comprising an active deposition nozzle, and further characterized in that the rotary disk is located downstream of said hot block and designed to sequentially align the active deposition nozzle with an outlet orifice of said hot block and allow the molten wire to exit as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Kim above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would provide to the printer the ability to print at different nozzle sizes with quick actuations of tool changes and preform print speeds faster than a stock extruder. This form of a hot-end is small as compared to default extruders and will allow the user to print at fast print speeds without sacrificing tolerance-based prints based on using a combination of small and large nozzle sizes (as recognized by Davenport’s Abstract) .
Regarding claim 12, Chen’052 and Davenport further teaches the machine, characterized in that said deposition unit (100) is inclined with respect to a vertical line to bring the active deposition nozzle (10) adjacent to the printing support (610) or the three-dimensional part to be manufactured, and to clear the other deposition nozzle(s) (10) of the at least two deposition nozzles which is/are on standby (see Figs. 4A-4C and Fig. 6; [0029], [0035] of Davenport).
Regarding claim 13, Chen’052 and Davenport further teaches the machine, characterized in that the deposition nozzles (10) are positioned on said rotary disk (8) so that, in a working position, an axis of the active deposition nozzle (A) is aligned with a vertical line (see annotated Figs. 4A and Figs. 4B-4C below and Fig. 6;[0029] and [0035] of Davenport).
PNG
media_image3.png
374
593
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Chen’052 and Davenport further teaches the machine, characterized in that said hot block (3) and said rotary disk (8) are coupled by surface contact under pressure (see Fig. 1a-1b;[0025] of Davenport), and in that said rotary disk (8) forms a switch for sequentially opening the hot block (3) when one of said deposition nozzles (A) is aligned with its outlet orifice and closing the hot block (3) when its outlet orifice is located between two deposition nozzles (10) (see annotated Fig. 4A-4C above; [0028-0029] and [0031] of Davenport).
Regarding claim 15, Chen’052 and Davenport further teaches the machine, characterized in that said hot block (3) is mounted in a fixed support block (plate (5)), and is secured by return members (spring and ball mechanism) in a direction of said rotary disk (8) allowing angular displacement of said rotary disk with respect to said hot block (3) during a sequential changeover of the active deposition nozzle (A) (see annotated Fig. 4A-4C above; [0028-0029] and [0031] of Davenport).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 110901052 with English Machine Translation attached) in view of Davenport (US 2020/00338822 - of record) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of O'Neil (US 2015/0283751 - of record).
Regarding claim 16, Chen’052 in view of Davenport teaches the machine as discussed in claim 11 above.
Chen’052 in view of Davenport does not teach said at least two deposition nozzles of the rotary disk are fed with different raw materials, and in that at least said feed unit, said plasticization unit, and said flexible heating tube are duplicated to feed said deposition unit with said different raw materials.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing systems, O'Neil teaches 3D printer system (100) (see Fig. 4), comprises circular carousel (110) rotatably mounted on platform (105), at least two nozzles (439C,439D) attached to the circular platform, and at least one feed tube for supplying different filament (430 C-430D) into print head (438C-438D) (see Fig. 4;[0042-0048]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have said at least two deposition nozzles of the rotary disk are fed with different raw materials and to duplicate said feed unit, said processing unit, and said flexible heating tube to feed said deposition unit with said different raw materials as such is known in the art of 3D printing devices given the discussion of O'Neil above presenting a reasonably expectation of success; and doing so would involve mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have at least two deposition nozzles of the rotary disk are fed with different raw materials, and duplicate said feed unit, said processing unit, and said flexible heating tube to feed said deposition unit with said different raw materials to enable multi-material deposition and to improve throughput and mixing control and to achieve known advantages of supplying different materials simultaneously and control feed/temperature independently for each nozzle.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 110901052 with English Machine Translation attached) in view of Davenport (US 2020/00338822 - of record) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Gelbart (US 2016/0325498 - of record).
Regarding claim 17, Chen’052 in view of Davenport teaches the machine as discussed in claim 11 above.
Chen’052 in view of Davenport does not teach, characterized in that said hot block comprises an internal shutter designed to sequentially open and close said outlet orifice.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing devices, Gelbart teaches a 3D printer comprises a nozzle (2) contains internal channels (22) heated by a heater (31), wherein the nozzles are depositing molten polymers; an internal needle (29) designed to sequentially open (open position as depicted by Fig. 4) and close (close position as depicted by Fig. 3) a nozzle outlet orifice (37) (see Figs. 2-4;[0017],[0022] and [0027-0031]). Gelbart teaches that the valve is mechanical, e.g. needle valve, it can handle extreme pressures and handle high viscosity materials as well as heavily filled materials, including ceramic pastes, metal particle pastes and even molten metals (see [0001]).
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 additive manufacturing machine as taught by Chen’052 and Davenport in view of Gelbart with said hot block comprises an internal shutter designed to sequentially open and close said outlet orifice as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Goldbart above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would handle extreme pressures and handle high viscosity materials as well as heavily filled materials, including ceramic pastes, metal particle pastes and even molten metals (as recognized by Gelbart at [0001]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 110901052 with English Machine Translation attached) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Bernardi (US 2021/0162652 - of record).
Regarding claim 18, Chen’052 teaches the machine as discussed in claim 7 above.
Chen’052 further teaches the machine further comprising a melt material flow control mechanism coupled to the print head (3) for controlling the flow rate of the molten material (see Fig. 4; [0064] of English Machine Translation attached) and a power source controller (7) to control the flow rate or cutoff flow rate of the molten material (see [0067-0069] of English Machine Translation attached). However, Chen’052 does not teach the regulating device located between said flexible heating tube and said deposition unit, and designed to regulate a flow rate and pressure of said molten material at an inlet of the deposition unit.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing devices, Bernardi teaches a three dimensional printer (100) includes a melt pump (106) configured to receive the molten phase from a processing unit (i.e. an extruder (104)); wherein the melt pump located between a heated tubular section (120) of the processing unit (104) and deposition/print head (108) (see Fig. 1A;[0014],[0022] and [0029]); and the melt pump capable of being a regulating device designed to regulate a flow rate and pressure of molten material at an inlet of the deposition/print head (108) (see Fig. 1A;[0025-0029]). Bernardi teaches that molten material exiting an extruder experiences a pulsed flow and incorporation of melt pump (106) will mitigate such pulsing that occurs so that the flow of molten material exiting the melt pump (106) is more uniform than the flow coming into the melt pump (106) (see [0027] of Bernardi). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the regulating device between the flexible heating tube and deposition unit, and designed to regulate a flow rate and pressure of said molten material at an outlet of the processing unit as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Bernardi 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 mitigate pulsing flow that occurs so that the flow of molten material exiting the melt pump is more uniform than the flow coming into the melt pump (as recognized by Bernardi at [0027]) and also to improve control over the extrusion flow rate and achieve consistent deposition quality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 08/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7-18 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chen (CN 110901052 with English Machine Translation attached).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights