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 .
Election/Restrictions
There are two claim sets in the record. A first claim set was filed on 06/29/2023 as preliminary amendments and a second claim set filed was on 01/17/2024 as an original set to comply with a PCT requirement. Examiner contacted Applicant’s representative regarding the two claim sets, and Applicant’s representative confirmed that the claims filed on 06/29/2023 are intended for examination. Accordingly, claims filed on 06/29/2023 are examined herein.
Applicant’s election of Group II, claims 7-18 in the reply filed on 10/21/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Note
Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that claim(s) 7-18 is/are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under the following conditions. The process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (See MPEP 2114 II and 2115 for further details). For apparatuses, the claim limitations will define structural limitations (See MPEP 2114-2115) or functional limitations properly recited (See MPEP 2173.05 (g)).
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 processing unit designed to change a state of the raw material into a molten material” in claims 7,9,16 and 18 with corresponding structure/scope disclosed at [0032-0033] and [0039] of instant publication.
“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 § 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.
Claims 11-13 and 15-17 are 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.
In claim 11, the phrase “an active deposition nozzle” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether an active deposition nozzle is one of the at least two deposition nozzles in line 4 or is it an additional deposition nozzle. For purpose of examination, an active deposition nozzle is examined below as --one of the at least two deposition nozzles--.
In claim 12, the phrase “an active deposition nozzle” is indefinite. Is “an active deposition nozzle” same or different from the “active deposition nozzle” of claim 11. For purpose of examination, an active deposition nozzle is examined as --the active deposition nozzle--.
In claim 12, is the “other deposition nozzle(s) which are on standby” the other of the at least two deposition nozzles? If using “nozzle(s)”, the recitation should be changed to --nozzle(s) which is/are--.
Claims 12, recites “The machine according to claim 11, characterized in that said deposition unit is inclined with respect to a vertical line to bring an active deposition nozzle as close as possible to a print support or a part to be manufactured, and to clear other deposition nozzle(s) which are on standby” which is indefinite. It is unclear whether “a print support” and “ a part” are the same or different from the printing support and three dimensional part from claim 7. The limitation has been examined below as if it read --The machine according to claim 11, characterized in that said deposition unit is inclined with respect to a vertical line to bring an active deposition nozzle as close as possible to the printing support or the three dimensional part to be manufactured, and to clear other deposition nozzle(s) which are on standby--.
The phrase “as close as possible” in line 3 of claim 12 renders the scope of the claim indefinite. The phrase “as close as possible” does not set for with specific clarity what distance/gap is covered by “as close as possible” and therefore not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what distance/gap should be between the active deposition nozzle and the printing support in order to be considered “as close as possible” to meet the limitations of the claim.
In claim 13, the phrase “an active deposition nozzle” is indefinite. Is “an active deposition nozzle” same or different from the “active deposition nozzle” of claim 11. For purpose of examination, an active deposition nozzle is examined as --the active deposition nozzle--.
In claim 15, the phrase “an active deposition nozzle” is indefinite. Is “an active deposition nozzle” same or different from the “active deposition nozzle” of claim 11. For purpose of examination, “an active deposition nozzle” is examined as --the active deposition nozzle--.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 11 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
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) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zwiesele (US 2023/0256671) in view of Kim (US 2022/0242050).
Regarding claim 7, Zwiesele teaches a printing device (200) capable of being an additive manufacturing machine for depositing a molten wire (filament) in successive layers on a printing support (214) in a .. to manufacture a three-dimensional part (see annotated Fig. 3below; [0002-0004]), comprising:
a feed unit (funnel (204)) for a raw material, a processing unit (an extrusion device (202) designed for the melting of plastic material) designed to change a state of the raw material into a molten material (see annotated Fig. 3 below;[0063-0064]), said processing unit (extrusion device 202) being fixed (i.e. the extrusion device can be designed to be stationary). This means that the extrusion device can be fixedly placed at a location during operation) (see [0042]), a flexible heating tube (flexible heated hose (208) coupled to a heating element (210)) designed to convey the molten material at its processing temperature and viscosity from said fixed processing unit (202) to a mobile deposition unit (i.e. printhead (100)) is movable by a movement arrangement (212), embodied as a robot (212)) (see annotated Fig. 3 below; [0039] and [0065-0066]) and said mobile deposition unit comprising at least one deposition nozzle (i.e. the printhead (100) have a discharge nozzle (104)) designed to deposit said molten material in the form of a molten wire (melt filament) in successive layers on said printing support (214) and along a predetermined trajectory until the part to be manufactured is obtained (see Fig. 3;[0047] and [0066] of Zwiesele).
PNG
media_image1.png
325
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Zwiesele does not teach that the printing support is in a manufacturing chamber, said processing unit located outside said manufacturing chamber, and said mobile deposition unit located in said manufacturing chamber.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing devices, Kim teaches a 3D printer (100) for making 3D objects (see annotated Fig. 5 below;[0029]), comprises a housing (150), printing support (a bed (10)) located in a housing (150) (see annotated Fig. 5 below;[0069]); a processing unit (i.e. feeder (160 or 170) is a device for pressurizing fluid material, such as an extruder, a piston printer and a churros extruder, thus, the feeders is capable of being a processing unit) (see annotated Fig. 5 below; [0071]); and the feeder device (160,170) located outside the manufacturing chamber (housing (150)) (see annotated Fig. 5 below;[0070-0071]). Kim discloses that an openable door may be provided on one wall of the housing (150), and the door may be closed during printing, and may be opened to take out an object upon completion of printing and the housing (see [0070]).
PNG
media_image2.png
603
559
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 of Zwiesele in view of Kim by placing the extrusion unit outside a controlled chamber while positioning the build platform and the deposition unit within the chamber 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 optimize structural design and reduce mechanical complexity inside the chamber; and improve printing consistency and material quality by isolating the build environment.
Regarding claim 8, Zwiesele in view of Kim further teaches the machine, characterized in that said processing unit (202) comprises at least one screw extruder (see Fig. 5;[0064] of Zwiesele).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zwiesele (US 2023/0256671) in view of Kim (US 2022/0242050) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Cheng (US 2021/0154910).
Regarding claim 9, Zwiesele in view of Kim teaches the machine as discussed in claim 7 above.
Zwiesele further teaches the machine further comprising a switch valve (130) has a first valve element (132) located downstream of said processing unit (202) configured to enable a metered supplying of the melted plastic material through the discharge nozzle (104) (see Figs. 1-2;[0058-0059]). However, Zwiesele in view of Kim does not teach that the regulating device located between said processing 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 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 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_image3.png
715
738
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zwiesele (US 2023/0256671) in view of Kim (US 2022/0242050) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of MCNANEY (US 2021/0078257).
Regarding claim 10, Zwiesele in view of Kim teaches the machine as discussed in claim 7 above.
Zwiesele further teaches the machine, characterized in that said flexible heating tube (208) is coupled to at least one heating arrangement (210), positioned around the flexible heating tube, and designed/capable to reach and stabilize a setpoint temperature adapted to the molten material being conveyed (see Fig. 3;[0039] and [0065]). However, Zwiesele in view of Kim does not explicitly teach the flexible heating tube is coupled to at least one electrical resistor.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing devices, MCNANEY teaches a system for additive manufacturing (10) (see Fig. 10), includes the extrusion apparatus (12) configured to accept a raw material for extrusion, heating it, and extruding it through an outlet (20); a flexible heating conduit (14) is fluidly connected to the outlet (20) of the extrusion apparatus (12) and receives the melted extrudate therefrom (see Fig. 1;[0019-0020]). MCNANEY teaches that the heating conduit is coupled to at least one electrical resistor (21), positioned around the heating conduit, wherein the heated conduit includes a dedicated controller (23) for controlling the temperature of the heating element (21) (and thus the passage within the conduit 14) (see Fig. 1;[0020]) and the temperature and state of the flowable extrudate may be precisely controlled via control over the heating element (21) of the heated conduit (14) (see [0025] and [0033]).
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 machine as taught by Zwiesele in view of Kim with the flexible heating tube is coupled to at least one electrical resistor positioned around the flexible heating tube as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of MCNANEY above; and doing so is simple substitution of one Know element for another to obtain predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would effectively control the temperature and state of the flowable extrudate may be precisely controlled via control over the heating element of the heated conduit (as recognized by MCNANEY at [0025] and [0033]).
Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zwiesele (US 2023/0256671) in view of Kim (US 2022/0242050) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Davenport (US 2020/00338822).
Regarding claim 11, Zwiesele in view of Kim teaches the machine as discussed in claim 7 above.
Zwiesele in view of Kim does not teach that said deposition unit (16) comprises a hot block (20) provided with an inlet orifice (22) connected downstream of said flexible heating tube (15), and a rotary disk (25) comprising at least two deposition nozzles (24) of different cross- sections, angularly offset, and in that the rotary disk (25) is located downstream of said hot block (20) and designed to sequentially align an active deposition nozzle (24) with an outlet orifice (23) of said hot block (20) 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, and in that the rotary disk (8) is located downstream of said hot block (3) and designed to sequentially align an 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 Zwiesele in view of Kim 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, and 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 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, Zwiesele in view of Kim and Davenport further teaches the machine, characterized in that said deposition unit (100) is inclined with respect to a vertical line to bring an active deposition nozzle (10) as close as possible to a print support (610) or a part to be manufactured, and to clear the other deposition nozzle(s) (10) which are on standby (see Figs. 4A-4C and Fig. 6;[0029],[0035] of Davenport).
Regarding claim 13, Zwiesele in view of Kim 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 an 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_image4.png
374
593
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Zwiesele in view of Kim 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, Zwiesele in view of Kim 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 an 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 Zwiesele (US 2023/0256671) in view of Kim (US 2022/0242050) and Davenport (US 2020/00338822) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of O'Neil (US 2015/0283751).
Regarding claim 16, Zwiesele in view of Kim and Davenport teaches the machine as discussed in claim 11 above.
Zwiesele in view of Kim and 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 processing 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 Zwiesele (US 2023/0256671) in view of Kim (US 2022/0242050) and Davenport (US 2020/00338822) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Gelbart (US 2016/0325498).
Regarding claim 17, Zwiesele in view of Kim and Davenport teaches the machine as discussed in claim 11 above.
Zwiesele in view of Kim and 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 Zwiesele in view of Kim and Davenport 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 Zwiesele (US 2023/0256671) in view of Kim (US 2022/0242050) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Bernardi (US 2021/0162652).
Regarding claim 18, Zwiesele in view of Kim teaches the machine as discussed in claim 7 above.
Zwiesele further teaches the machine further comprising a switch valve (130) has a first valve element (132) located downstream of said processing unit (202) configured to enable a metered supplying of the melted plastic material through the discharge nozzle (104) (see Figs. 1-2;[0058-0059]). However, Zwiesele in view of Kim 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.
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