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 .
Response to Petition
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner notes that only arguments filed 8/07/2025 are addressed herein.
Applicant argues (pg. 8) “Huang teaches the use of precursor fluids like metal-organic liquids, suspensions, and sol-gels-not powders or granulates ([0063]),” but this is not found persuasive. Huang teaches a variety of material compositions including ceramic powder [0063]. Examiner notes the claimed granulate or powder is the intended use of the apparatus, see MPEP 2114. The device of Huang is capable of use with various materials that can be extruded.
Applicant argues (pg. 8) that “Huang instead contains optional heating elements (25a, 25b) for thermal conditioning ([0039]), but this is for fluids only,” but this is not found persuasive. Again, the claim recites only the intended use of the apparatus and the materials are not positively recited elements. Moreover, as depicted in Fig. 1b, 2, and 3 the material labeled “26” is clearly not a liquid state (takes the shape of the container) but a solid powder (displays uneven leveling in the container). Huang teaches in paragraph [0024] the fluid comprises both a volatile liquid ingredient ( water, ethanol, methanol) a fluid material selected from the group consisting of polymeric, organic, organo-metallic, ceramic, glass, carbonaceous, metallic materials. Thus the “fluid material” of Huang is a solid powder.
Applicant argues (pg. 9) that “John is merely cited for disclosure of "the first connecting channel via which build material is at least temporarily conductible/conducted to a receiving region which does not correspond to the exit opening of the printing nozzle," not the above- referenced features.” Examiner agrees with this statement, the combination meets the claim. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant (pg. 9) argues that “Huang discloses a needle-like valve that regulates backflow, and that the valve adjusts cross-sectional area, thus controlling flow. In Huang, however, this is in the back-flow channel, not the first connecting channel” and “Huang also describes a valve means in relation to fluid control, including a needle valve. Again, the needle valve is in the back-flow channel, not necessarily the first connecting channel” but this is not found persuasive. Huang teaches needle 46 being inserted into the channel 34A,34B to a shallow position the material back-flow rate from 34A to 34B, and re-entering the reservoir, is higher, see [0043].
Applicant argues (pg. 10) “Regarding claim 18, the rejection thereof states that paragraphs [0051] and [0042] of Huang allegedly disclose each limitation thereof. Huang, however, does not disclose or suggest these features,” but this is not found persuasive. Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 2005/0015175 A1) in view of John et al. (US 2021/0347117 A1) hereinafter John, and in further view of Saurwalt (US 2023/0139210 A1). Saurwalt teaches the plunger 72 comprises a valve device 73, arranged to close off the output channel 5, subsequently stopping the output flow of the liquefied material through the nozzle 6, see [0023]. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues (pg. 10) that “Claim 19, however, recites two distinct connecting channels, each with its own closure means. In stark contrast to these features, paragraph [0051] of Huang refers only to a single back-flow channel with a single valve” but this is not found persuasive. The claim is met by the combination of Huang and John. Huang teaches a first valve means in a printhead, [0051] and a needle 46 in channel 34A and 34B. John teaches bypass channel 9, Fig. 2 to send material to collection receptable 4, Fig. 2, see [0039]. Thus the arrangement of the two closure means is obvious in view of the combination. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues (pg. 11) regarding claim 21 “nothing in Huang discloses or suggests open-loop or closed-loop control or control unit as defined in automation/control engineering” but this is not found persuasive. Huang teaches “operating a CAD computer for generating control signals, where the dispensing head 38 is also controlled to dispense the fluid material, continuously or intermittently,” [0046]. Huang teaches cross-section area of channel 34A,34B through which the material can back flow is effectively adjusted by this position, which can be readily changed by using an actuator, e.g., a linear motion device 53 powered by a stepper motor 52, see [0042]. Furthermore, Huang as modified by John teaches the apparatus is controllable by open-loop and/or closed-loop control. This rotary drive can, in turn, be influenced by the electronic controller, which is used anyhow for the particular additive production of components, so as to influence, or completely halt, the volume flow of extruded plastically deformable material fed for manufacturing, see John [0017].
Applicant argues (pg. 11-12) regarding claim 21 “Huang makes no mention of controlling closure means or opening degrees,” but this is not found persuasive. Huang teaches “the cross-section area of channel 34A,34B through which the material can back flow is effectively adjusted by this position, which can be readily changed by using an actuator, e.g., a linear motion device 53 powered by a stepper motor 52,” see [0042]. In combination with the other teachings of Huang, this renders the control of the “opening degrees” obvious.
Applicant argues regarding claim 23 (pg. 12) that “MPEP §2115 indicates that when a claim recites a specific material (like "short fibers") being processed by an apparatus, the material is treated as a limitation on the claim, and prior art must teach or suggest that specific material being used or processed by the machine” but this is not found persuasive. Examiner cannot find any such quotation in MPEP §2114 or MPEP §2115, it is not clear what Applicant is citing. Examiner contends that MPEP §2115 states the following and does not include any such interpretation. In fact, MPEP §2115 states “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” MPEP §2115 states:
MATERIAL OR ARTICLE WORKED UPON DOES NOT LIMIT APPARATUS CLAIMS
Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).
Applicant argues (pg. 13) regarding claim 23 “Huang does not expressly disclose ‘short fibers”” but this is not found persuasive. Examiner notes that claim 23 depends on claims 16-22 which recites extrusion “in which the powder and/or granulate-form build material is plasticizable/plasticized” (claim 16). Therefore, the addition of “short fibers” of claim 23 to the build material of claim 16 is understood to result in a single plasticized material that is extruded through a nozzle. The claim does not recite a length of diameter of the fibers that requires structural modification to the apparatus. The claim does not limit the possibility that the fibers are plasticized or solid when extruded. Applicant has not shown that the claimed nozzle has structural characteristics that are required for short fibers within a plasticized material. Moreover, Huang teaches a variety of material compositions including “ceramic powder dispersed in a polymer melt” [0063]. Examiner notes the short fibers is the intended use of the apparatus, see MPEP 2114. The device of Huang is capable of use with various materials that can be extruded.
Applicant argues (pg. 13) regarding claim 25 “John’s Figure 1 does show a receptacle 4. However, there no visible fasteners, hinges, or interfaces that clearly indicate detachability” but this is not found persuasive. Examiner notes that claim 25 requires only “detachably connectable to the additive manufacturing apparatus”. The claim does not recite fasteners, hinges, or interfaces. The claim is met by the receptable 4 of John that is capable of being removed from the apparatus, given John depicts receptacle with independent side walls in Figure 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues (pg. 14) regarding claim 26 “there is no explicit disclosure in Huang that this channel is ‘downstream of the plasticizing means’” but this is not found persuasive. In the rejection of independent claim 16, the claimed plasticizing means is met by Huang teaching heating elements 25a,25b to help the fluid material in the reservoir 24 and chamber 32 maintain a desired constant temperature, see [0039], Fig. 1b. Huang Fig. 2 depicts channel 32 and 34A branching off downstream of the plasticizing outlet 30 which is downstream of parts 25a,25b, 24, and 32.
Applicant argues (pg. 14) that in Huang “there is no melting or transformation of granulate/powder into plasticized material” but this is not found persuasive. Huang teaches fluid material may be in a hot melt (e.g., thermoplastic), a liquid containing a liquid soluble second component, see [0063]. Thus the material may be plasticized in the apparatus of Huang depending on the material chosen and temperature achieved by heating elements 25a and 25b. Since Huang explicitly teaches “hot melt” material, it is apparent the device is capable of plasticizing.
Applicant argues (pg. 15) regarding claim 28 “while Huang [0041] discloses a screw extruder that conveys material, it does not clearly or explicitly disclose that the screw forms part of the plasticizing means as required by claim 28” but this is not found persuasive. Huang teaches gear 28a,28b and heating elements 25a,25b. Huang teaches fluid material may be in a hot melt (e.g., thermoplastic), a liquid containing a liquid soluble second component, see [0063]. Thus the material may be plasticized in the apparatus of Huang depending on the material chosen and temperature achieved by heating elements 25a and 25b and extruded by gears 28a,28b. Since Huang explicitly teaches “hot melt” material, it is apparent the device is capable of plasticizing.
Applicant argues (pg. 15-16) regarding claim 30 “Huang never teaching heating in the printing nozzle” but this is not found persuasive. Examiner notes claim 30 is broader that described by Applicant. In fact, claim 30 recites “heating means via which thermal energy is transferable to a build material conducted in the plasticizing means and/or in the printing means”. Thus, it is not clear that a printing means is a required element of claim 30, and the claim is met by a generic device capable of plasticizing including heating elements, which is exactly what Huang teaches. That is, Huang gears 28a,28b and heating elements 25a,25b form the plasticizing means.
Applicant argues (pg. 16) regarding claim 31 “Huang does not describe any explicit or implied branching structure that splits the flow to two different endpoints simultaneously or selectively”. Again, it appears Applicant has inferred structure not recited in the claim. Claim 31 broadly recites “the plasticizing means has configured therein a branch at which the first and the at least one further connecting channel branch off”. Nowhere in the claim is selective flow recited. The claim is met by a channel that branches off another channel, which is shown in Huang as channel 32 and 34A branching off downstream of the plasticizing outlet 30.
Applicant argues (pg. 17) regarding claim 32 “there is no disclosure in [0051] or anywhere else in Huang of a closure means arranged in proximity to the receiving region” but this is not found persuasive. Examiner notes that the limitation “arranged in proximity to the receiving region” is an alternative recited after the limitation “and/or”. Huang teaches in paragraph [0051] to modify the embodiments of Fig. 2 to include additional elements such as an inkjet jet nozzle to include closure means such as a piezo-electric actuator or a thermal actuation element, see [0051]. This embodiment meets the claim.
Applicant argues (pg. 17) regarding claim 33 Huang does not teach “that the needle valve (the alleged “closure means”) is arranged in proximity to the receiving region” but this is not found persuasive. Applicant appears to argue that the needle valve 46 is not close enough to the reservoir 24 to meet the claim. Firstly, the term “in proximity” is a broad term and Huang meets the broadest reasonable interpretation. Secondly, the instant application depicts a receiving region 10 downstream of closure means 12 while material follows a dotted line 26 back to a reservoir, Fig. 1. Therefore, in light of the specification the claim would only require the closure means to be in proximity to a channel, where the channel that leads to a reservoir.
Applicant argues (pg. 18-19) regarding claim 34 “Huang does not teach extrusion of powder/granulate-form build materials” and “it requires that the material already be in a pre-fluidized state or dispensable fluid”. Examiner disagrees with these statements; Huang teaches a variety of material compositions including ceramic powder [0063], which is a material that cannot be melted. Huang teaches fluid material may be in a hot melt (e.g., thermoplastic), a liquid containing a liquid soluble second component, see [0063]. Thus, the apparatus of Huang is capable of fluidizing some materials. Regardless, claim 31 only imparts the structure required to achieve a process such as FDM/FFF/FLM/EAM. Since FDM stands for fused deposition modeling, any apparatus capable of 3D printing a fluid would meet this claim. Claim 31 does not require the material to be transformed from a solid state to a liquid state. However, Huang teaches at least some of the materials are thermoplastics, which are heated and dispensed as fluids, and meets the claim.
Applicant argues (pg. 19-20) regarding clam 35, “there is no explicitly disclosure that the entire build material flow is diverted under control logic tied to closure states”. Firstly, the claim recites a process but no control logic structure. The claim recites “wherein when in the state” which is contingent limitation that is not necessarily ever achieved. The PTAB has held that "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”, see Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential), MPEP 2111(II).
Examiner notes that claim 35 is met by the combination of Huang and John. Huang teaches a valve means that controls the flow [0051], John teaches bypass channel 9, Fig. 2 to send material to collection receptable 4, Fig. 2, see [0039]. John teaches to achieve that feeding of extruded plastically deformable material for manufacture is halted when flowing through the bypass channel, [0013]. Thus, the combination meets the claim.
Regarding claim 18 (pg. 21) Applicant does not provide any arguments against the combination of Huang, in view of John, in further view of Saurwalt.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 16, 17, and 19-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 2005/0015175 A1) in view of John et al. (US 2021/0347117 A1) hereinafter John.
Regarding claim 16, Huang meets the claimed additive manufacturing apparatus ( a layer-by-layer manner in accordance with a design created on a computer, see [0001] and [0016]) for extrusion-based production of a shaped article starting from a build material present in the form of a granulate and/or a powder, (variety of material compositions including ceramic powder [0063] Examiner notes the claimed granulate or powder is the intended use of the apparatus, see MPEP 2114. The device of Huang is capable of use with various materials that can be extruded using a screw extruder or gear pump, see [0041]) comprising:
a plasticizing means in which the powder and/or granulate-form build material is plasticizable/plasticized; (optional heating elements 25a,25b to help the fluid material in the reservoir 24 and chamber 32 maintain a desired constant temperature, see [0039], Fig. 1b)
a printing nozzle provided with an exit opening (inkjet printhead 38 [0041]) via which the plasticized build material is selectively depositable/deposited domain-dependently in a build plane to form the shaped article (precursor fluid material is dispensed onto a surface of the device substrate 43 to form a desired pattern of the deposited material 42, see [0040])
and a first connecting channel (F, Fig. 2) via which the build material is at least temporarily conductible/conducted from an outlet of the plasticizing means to the exit opening of the printing nozzle, (flow direction of the precursor fluid material from the chamber 32 to the dispensing head is referred to as forward flow, designated by the letter F in FIG. 2 and FIG. 3) and a further connecting channel (backflow channel 34A, Fig. 2)
Huang does not teach the first connecting channel via which build material is at least temporarily conductible/conducted to a receiving region which does not correspond to the exit opening of the printing nozzle.
John teaches the first connecting channel via which build material is at least temporarily conductible/conducted to a receiving region which does not correspond to the exit opening of the printing nozzle. (John teaches the apparatus to be used for generative manufacturing or 3D printing, see [0003] and [0028]. John teaches bypass channel 9, Fig. 2 to send material to collection receptable 4, Fig. 2, see [0039]. John teaches to achieve that feeding of extruded plastically deformable material for manufacture is halted when flowing through the bypass channel, [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the nozzle control for a 3D printing system of Huang with the 3D printing bypass nozzle of John because material flow cannot be started and stopped easily and 3D printing applications require non-continuous flow, thus it improves the process to flush unwanted material instead of pausing, see John [0001-[0006].
Regarding claim 17, Huang as modified by John meets the claimed additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 16, further comprising: a closure means (the printhead 41 may contain a conventional office inkjet printhead with the valve means comprising either a piezo-electric actuator or a thermal actuation element, see [0051]) that is arranged or configured in the first connecting channel, (channel F, Fig. 2) wherein the closure means is configured to control a volume flow of the plasticized build material passed through the connecting channel. (Huang teaches a desired amount of fluid material is discharged out of the orifice 41 in the form of minute droplets, [0041]. Examiner notes that this indirectly teach the material flow through channel F, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Huang as modified by John meets the claimed additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 18, wherein the first connecting channel has a first closure means (printhead 41 contains valve means, [0051]) and the at least one further connecting channel at least one further closure means arranged or configured in it, (needle 46 being inserted into the channel 34A,34B to a shallow position the material back-flow rate from 34A to 34B, and re-entering the reservoir, is higher, [0043] John teaches bypass channel 9, Fig. 2 to send material to collection receptable 4, Fig. 2, see [0039], thus the arrangement of the two closure means is obvious in view of the combination) and an opening degree of the closure means is controllable. (cross-section area of channel 34A,34B through which the material can back flow is effectively adjusted by this position, which can be readily changed by using an actuator, e.g., a linear motion device 53 powered by a stepper motor 52, see [0042]).
Regarding claim 20, Huang as modified by John meets the claimed additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 19, wherein at least the further closure means is a needle valve. (needle 46, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 21, Huang as modified by John meets the claimed additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 20, wherein the opening degree of the first closure means and at least one further closure means (Huang teaches cross-section area of channel 34A,34B through which the material can back flow is effectively adjusted by this position, which can be readily changed by using an actuator, e.g., a linear motion device 53 powered by a stepper motor 52, see [0042]. Huang teaches a first valve means in a printhead, [0051] and a needle 46 in channel 34A and 34B. John teaches bypass channel 9, Fig. 2 to send material to collection receptable 4, Fig. 2, see [0039], thus the arrangement of the two closure means is obvious in view of the combination) is controllable by open-and/or closed-loop control, via a control unit. (Huang teaches operating a CAD computer for generating control signals, where the dispensing head 38 is also controlled to dispense the fluid material, continuously or intermittently, [0046]. Huang teaches cross-section area of channel 34A,34B through which the material can back flow is effectively adjusted by this position, which can be readily changed by using an actuator, e.g., a linear motion device 53 powered by a stepper motor 52, see [0042]. Examiner notes that this meets the claimed closed-loop control because the system of Huang responds to input signals with control signals. Furthermore, Huang as modified by John teaches the apparatus is controllable by open-loop and/or closed-loop control. This rotary drive can, in turn, be influenced by the electronic controller, which is used anyhow for the particular additive production of components, so as to influence, or completely halt, the volume flow of extruded plastically deformable material fed for manufacturing, see John [0017].)
Regarding claim 22, Huang as modified by John meets the claimed additive manufacturing apparatus according to according to claim 21, wherein an employed build material is at least partially composed of plastics material. (fluid material may be in a hot melt (e.g., thermoplastic), a liquid containing a liquid soluble second component, see [0063]).
Regarding claim 23, Huang as modified by John meets the claimed additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 22, wherein the build material comprises short fibers. (Examiner notes the material consumed by the apparatus is considered the material worked upon, see MPEP 2115. Huang teaches wide variety of material compositions, including organic, polymeric, metallic, ceramic, carbonaceous, glass, organo-metallic, and combinations thereof, see [0063]).
Regarding claim 24, Huang as modified by John meets the claimed additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 23, wherein the receiving region into which the further connecting channel opens, (John teaches bypass die 5, into a collection receptacle 4) comprises a build material collection reservoir (collection receptable 4) in which the build material conducted in the further connecting channel is receivable/received.
Regarding claim 25, Huang as modified by John meets the claimed additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 24, wherein material collection reservoir is configured as a build material collection container (collection receptable 4, Fig. 1) which is detachably connectable to the additive manufacturing apparatus. (Examiner nots the part 4 of John is capable of being detached given the design shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 26, Huang as modified by John meets the claimed additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 25, wherein the outlet region of the further connecting channel arranged downstream of the plasticizing means is connected to a feed section of the plasticizing means, so that the build material conducted by the connecting channel is suppliable/supplied to a plasticizing means-side plasticizing process for plasticizing the build material. (Huang teaches the material can be recycled where the flow through a channel 34A,34B and an outlet 36 back into the reservoir 24. [0042])
Regarding claim 27, Huang as modified by John meets the claimed additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 26, further comprising: a robot unit (Examiner notes that “robot unit” is given the broadest reasonable interpretation and that no definition is found in the specification) that is configured to carry a printing means comprising at least the printing nozzle and moving this printing means over the build plane, (Huang teaches three-dimensional motion controller is electronically linked to the mechanical drive means and is operative to actuate the mechanical drive means (e.g., those comprising stepper motors) in response to "X", "Y", "Z" axis drive signals for each layer received from the CAD computer, see [0059] Examine notes that this meets the claim robot unit) such that build material is selectively deposited domain-dependently on the build plane to form the shaped article. (precursor fluid material is dispensed onto a surface of the device substrate 43 to form a desired pattern of the deposited material 42, see [0040])
Regarding claim 28, Huang as modified by John meets the claimed additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 27, wherein the plasticizing means comprises at least one conveying and/or pressurizing means in the form of a screw (screw extruder [0041]).
Regarding claim 29, Huang as modified by John meets the claimed additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 28, wherein the screw is a screw extruder. (screw extruder [0041]).
Regarding claim 30, Huang as modified by John meets the claimed additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 29, wherein the plasticizing means and/or a printing means comprising at least one printing nozzle is provided with a heating means via which thermal energy is transferable to a build material conducted in the plasticizing means and/or in the printing means. (Huang teaches optional heating elements 25a,25b to help the fluid material in the reservoir 24 and chamber 32 maintain a desired constant temperature, see [0039], Fig. 1b)
Regarding claim 31, Huang as modified by John meets the claimed additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 30, wherein a channel section downstream of the outlet of the plasticizing means has configured therein a branch at which the first and the at least one further connecting channel branch off. (Huang Fig. 2 depicts channel 32 and 34A branching off downstream of the plasticizing outlet 30).
Regarding claim 32, Huang as modified by John meets the claimed additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 31, wherein at least one closure means is arranged in proximity to the printing nozzle (Huang teaches inkjet jet nozzle to include closure means such as a piezo-electric actuator or a thermal actuation element, see [0051]) and/or in proximity to the receiving region.
Regarding claim 33, Huang as modified by John meets the claimed additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 32, wherein the first closure means is arranged in proximity to the printing nozzle (Huang teaches an inkjet nozzle to include closure means such as a piezo-electric actuator or a thermal actuation element, see [0051]) and the further closure means is arranged in proximity to the receiving region. (Huang teaches needle 46 being inserted into the channel 34A,34B).
Regarding claim 34, Huang as modified by John meets the claimed additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 33, wherein the additive manufacturing apparatus is configured to extrude a powder- and/or granulate-form build material according to an extrusion additive manufacturing process (EAM), and/or fused deposition modelling process (FDM), and/or fused filament fabrication process (FFF), and/or fused layer modelling process (FLM). (Examiner notes the broadest reasonable interpretation of these terms includes the commonly understood meaning. Wikipedia defines FDM and FFF to include “Hot extrusion of pellets”, see provided copy pg. 3. Therefore the method of Huang meets the claimed EAM, FDM, FFF, and FLM).
Regarding claim 35, Huang as modified by John meets the claimed process for additive manufacturing of at least one shaped article using an additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 34, wherein a first closure means controls the supplying of plasticized build material to the exit opening of the printing nozzle (printhead 41 contains valve means, [0051]) and a further closure means controls the supplying of plasticized build material to a receiving region, (needle 46 being inserted into the channel 34A,34B to a shallow position the material back-flow rate from 34A to 34B, and re-entering the reservoir, is higher) and wherein when in the state of a closed first closure means and an open further closure means the supplying of an entirety of the build material, to the receiving region is performed via the further connecting channel. (Huang teaches backflow channel 34A, Fig. 2. John teaches bypass die 5, into a collection receptacle 4. John teaches to achieve that feeding of extruded plastically deformable material for manufacture is halted when flowing through the bypass channel, [0013]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 2005/0015175 A1) in view of John et al. (US 2021/0347117 A1) hereinafter John, and in further view of Saurwalt (US 2023/0139210 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Huang as modified by John meets the claimed wherein the closure means is a needle valve. (Huang teaches the printhead 41 may contain a conventional office inkjet printhead with the valve means comprising either a piezo-electric actuator or a thermal actuation element, see [0051]).
Saurwalt meets the claimed wherein the closure means is a needle valve. (Saurwalt teaches the plunger 72 comprises a valve device 73, arranged to close off the output channel 5, subsequently stopping the output flow of the liquefied material through the nozzle 6, see [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to select the needle valve nozzle of Saurwalt in place of the inkjet printhead of Huang because a larger aperture improves printing speed for fast assembly of printed objects, see [0038].
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Marino (US 2016/0039148 A1) teaches the 3-D printer includes a nozzle for extruding a material, apparatus for controllably positioning the nozzle in accordance with the specification; and apparatus for generating a feedback signal that is indicative of at least one characteristic of a most recently extruded portion of the material, [0005], where the nozzle 12 is controllably translated in the x-y plane in order to extrude a layer of material, see [0009].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL M. ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0467. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at (571)270-5343. 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.
/MICHAEL M. ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744