DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13 are pending and currently under review.
Claims 5 and 12 are cancelled.
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 Amendment
The amendment filed 7/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13 remain(s) pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 4/23/2026.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vader et al. (US 2015/0273577) in view of Zhou et al. (CN115056477, machine translation referred to herein), Lethen (DE2243769, machine translation referred to herein), Keating et al. (US 2013/0295338), Chang et al. (US 2017/0043538), Nakaumura et al. (US 2024/0083112), Ogden et al. (US 3,344,305), and Miyashita et al. (JP2004160287, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claim 1, Vader et al. discloses printer for depositing liquid conductive material such as molten metal by melting a metal wire [abstract, 0031, fig.1].
Vader et al. does not expressly teach providing said metal wire with a structure of a feed motor with a shaft, feed rollers, and a thrust gear as claimed. Zhou et al. discloses a melt extrusion 3D printer [0001]; wherein said printer includes a filament feeding unit which is designed to enable continuous supply of the filament [0036, fig.3-5]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the system of Vader et al. to have a wire feeding unit as taught by Zhou et al. for the aforementioned benefit. Said filament feeding unit of Zhou et al. includes:
A motor (210) coupled to a series of gears (ie. gearbox) by a shaft located above said motor
A pair of feeding turbine rollers (224) (ie. first and second feed rollers coordinated with each other to advance the wire) located partly in a plane that is between an uppermost gear (223) and motor (210)
A hollow feed screw (215) through which the wire passes (ie. thrust gear with central perforation) [0041-0044, fig.3-5].
Said motor, feeding turbine rollers, and hollow feed screw are all interconnected through gears such that the hollow feed screw rotates with the feeding turbine rollers and advancement of the metal wire as depicted by Zhou et al. Alternatively, Zhou et al. does not expressly teach that the feed rollers are arranged on an axis between the feed motor and gearbox. However, this limitation merely pertains to a specific arrangement of the aforementioned components which is a prima facie obvious design choice because one of ordinary skill would understand the arrangement of Zhou et al. to have the same effect of advancing a metal wire. See MPEP 2144.04(I) & MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Zhou et al. further teaches that the feeding unit is located above a chamber area where the wire is melted, which meets the limitation of a casting chamber arranged below the thrust gear.
Vader et al. further discloses:
A chamber (220) located below the wire which receives molten material (ie. casting chamber), which would naturally be located below the feeding unit of Zhou et al. because both Vader et al. and Zhou et al. teach a wire located and fed directly above a melting chamber [fig.2-6].
An induction coil (510) outside of the chamber (220)
A housing (ie. ventilation chamber) which contains and contacts (ie. supports) the chamber (220) and coil (510) of Vader et al. [fig.2-6]. The examiner notes that the induction coil of Vader et al. serves to melt metal material and is therefore entirely capable of causing a magnetic field with sufficient power to melt metal wire as claimed [0049].
The housing includes a gas inlet (630) which is entirely capable of introducing external gas [fig.6]. One of ordinary skill would understand external gas to be at a lower temperature than the coils such that said external gas is entirely capable of dissipating heat as claimed. Vader et al. does not teach that the inlet is inclined; however, this limitation merely pertains to a specific arrangement/shape of the inlet which is a prima facie obvious design choice because one of ordinary skill would understand the arrangement of Vader et al. to have the same effect of introducing external gases. See MPEP 2144.04(I) & MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A-B). Vader et al. alternatively does not expressly teach inclined ventilation slots for cooling as claimed. Lethen discloses that it is known to cool induction coil furnaces by providing inclined cooling channels (14,15) with cooling air into a wall structure such that both the induction coils and furnace itself can be cooled [0005-0010, fig.1]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the housing of Vader et al. to have inclined cooling channels as taught by Lethen for the aforementioned benefit, wherein said channels meet the claimed limitations of slots.
Regarding the recitation of a drill pusher and bottom nozzle, Zhou et al. further depicts a threaded extruder (218, 219) located below and connected to the hollow feed screw (215), said extruder having a drill-like threaded portion which rotates and serves to extrude melted material out of nozzle (24) [fig.3-5]. Said extruder of Zhou et al. is depicted to have inclined bottom surfaces and is entirely capable of achieving the claimed features of pressing and controlling advancement of the molten material.
Vader et al. further teaches that all the components are supported together and form a printhead (102) which is supported and secured to a tower (104) that is located on a base (108, 110) [0028, fig.1]. One of ordinary skill would readily understand that a means of securing as claimed would have naturally flowed from the disclosure of Vader et al. Vader et al. does not expressly teach that the printhead (102) is secured to an end of a robotic arm with a support plate which avoids vibrations as claimed. Keating et al. discloses that it is known to utilize fabricator arms for additive manufacturing to improve cost and accuracy of 3D printing in any environment [0092]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the system of Vader et al. by replacing the tower-mounted printhead of Vader et al. with a fabricator arm-mounted printhead for the aforementioned benefits as taught by Keating et al. Keating et al. further teaches that the fabricator arm has at least 6 degrees of freedom (ie. movement in any X, Y, and/or Z direction), can be mounted to a platform which one of ordinary skill would understand to meet the limitation of a support plate, and has motion tracking capabilities to compensate for (ie. nullify) vibrations of the arm [0052, 0092-0093].
Vader et al. further teaches:
A base (108, 110) (ie. worktable) which is depicted to support on its surface a tower/robotic arm (104) as suggested by the above combination of Vader et al. and Keating et al. [fig.1]. Said base is also depicted to have a surface area spanning a desired work area to be printed [fig.1]
A platform (112) (ie. work surface) located on said base (108, 110) which receives metal drops from the nozzle. Vader et al. does not expressly teach that the platform is removable as claimed. Chang et al. discloses that it is known to utilize a detachable printing plate (145) detachable from a platform (142) such that time-consuming operations such as cleaning the platform etc. can be overcome [abstract, 0007, fig.1]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the system of Vader et al. by utilizing a detachable plate work surface for the aforementioned benefit taught by Chang et al.
Vader et al. does not expressly teach a frame having walls and at least one access door as claimed. Nakamura et al. discloses a three-dimensional printing apparatus (1) having a case (11) (ie. receiving frame) located on a base (10), said case (11) having space to accommodate internal mechanisms of the printer and being made of acrylic resin transparent material and provided with a door [0028, fig.1]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the system of Vader et al. by including an acrylic case to achieve a transparent case that is able to accommodate internal mechanisms as taught by Nakamura et al. above. One of ordinary skill would understand that capability of accommodating internal mechanisms naturally meets the limitation of having sufficient dimensions (ie. height) to allow movement in any desired direction (X, Y, and/or Z). Said case (11) is depicted to form a closed enclosure as claimed, wherein one of ordinary skill would understand a door can be in an open or closed position to allow or prevent passage of external materials.
Nakamura et al. expressly depicts a controller (5) located outside of the case (11) and further teaches that computer control can be achieved by an external apparatus such as via the internet which would naturally be located outside of the case (11) [0057, fig.1-2]. One of ordinary skill would readily understand that the basic, commonly known operation of 3d printing relies upon instructions that control movement of a printhead to desired positions for material deposition without damage or contact of the printhead with the housing. The prior art is further silent regarding collisions between the print head and walls, such that one of ordinary skill would readily understand that this phenomena does not occur.
The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach that the controller controls pressure inside the casting chamber by controlling feed rate of the wire with respect to a corresponding working amperage of the feed motor as claimed. However, the examiner submits that this concept would have been obvious over the prior art. Firstly, Ogden et al. discloses that it is known to correlate the feed rate of a wire and variations therein with a corresponding amperage level of the motor that drives the wire drive rollers (26, 28) during welding [col.4 ln.3-35, fig.1-4]. Miyashita et al. further discloses a means for monitoring a liquid deposition apparatus [0001]; wherein a predetermined set of conditions such as supply amount are established by a controller, and wherein any deviations from said conditions results in adjustment means to adjust an amount of supplied material and corresponding pressure level to achieve uniform and desired deposition [0012-0013, 0021]. Accordingly, the examiner submits that the prior art combination suggests establishing a predetermined set of conditions while monitoring liquid deposition (taught by Miyashita et al. above), wherein said set of conditions can be a working amperage of a motor which corresponds to an amount of supplied material (taught by Ogden et al. above). Deviations in said predetermined conditions result in adjustment (ie. increase in supplied material and corresponding pressure as taught by Miyashita et al. above), wherein the controller responds by controlling a feed rate (ie. stopping) of the wire via the motor amperage (taught by Ogden et al. above) until the conditions return back to said desired predetermined conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the system of Vader et al. by utilizing the control suggested by Ogden et al. and Miyashita et al. such that uniform and desired deposition can be achieved.
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the recitations of delivery speed are instances of functional language which merely recite what the system does rather than any particular structure. See MPEP 2114. Accordingly, apparatus of Vader et al. which utilizes a similar induction coil (as shown below) would be entirely capable of achieving a deposition speed as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claim 1 (see previous). Keating et al. discloses at least 6 degrees of freedom in movement as stated above which meets the limitation of 6 directions of interrelated movement (ie. articulations).
Regarding claim 4, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claim 1 (see previous). Nakamura et al. discloses acrylic sidewalls as stated above.
Regarding claim 9, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claim 1 (see previous). Vader et al. further teaches that the working range of the coil is from 10 to 1000 V and 10 to 1000 A, which corresponds to 0.1 to 1000 kW as determined by the examiner [0045]. The examiner notes that the overlap between the range of Vader et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 13, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the limitations of claim 13 merely pertain to a material worked upon which does not further limit the claimed system. See MPEP 2115. Nonetheless, Vader et al. further teaches deposition of aluminum [0030, 0039].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vader et al. (US 2015/0273577) and others as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sachs (US 2017/0252829).
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not specify a deposition rate as claimed. Sachs discloses a liquid metal deposition apparatus [abstract]; wherein a deposition rate can be varied from one droplet per hour to thousands of droplets per second to achieve desired accuracy and speed of fabrication [0036]. One of ordinary skill would understand that this range overlaps with the claimed range based on a typical droplet size deposited by the discharge orifice (218) of Sachs based on a relative length of up to 2cm of the chamber (208) [0046]. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the system of the aforementioned prior art by specifying a deposition rate as disclosed by Sachs for the aforementioned benefit.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vader et al. (US 2015/0273577) and others as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gore (US 5,598,200).
Regarding claims 6-7, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not specify a material of the chamber, pusher, and nozzle as claimed. Gore discloses that it is known to utilize alumina as a sidewall material for containing molten metals because alumina is a heat-resistant ceramic which performs better than conventional materials that are attacked by molten metal at high temperatures [col.3 ln.20-33]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the system of the aforementioned prior art by utilizing alumina for the sidewalls (ie. of the casting chamber) for the aforementioned benefit as taught by Gore. One of ordinary skill would further understand that any component that contacts molten metal would benefit from the aforementioned teaching of Gore, including the claimed pusher and nozzle components. One of ordinary skill would also recognize that alumina is a ceramic having the formula Al2O3.
Regarding claim 8, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art is silent regarding the claimed properties. However, one of ordinary skill would readily understand and recognize that conventional alumina naturally has the claimed properties of hardness, compressive strength, and thermal resistance.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vader et al. (US 2015/0273577) and others as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Redding et al. (US 2018/0221954).
Regarding claim 10, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not specify size of the work surface as claimed. Redding et al. discloses that it is known to provide 3D printers with large area printing beds such as up to 100m2 or more to build large object [0059]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the system of the aforementioned prior art by specifying a build plate size of 100m2 or more for building large objects as taught by Redding et al. The examiner notes that the aforementioned area of Redding et al. corresponds to overlapping lengths/widths relative to the claimed ranges which is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vader et al. (US 2015/0273577) and others as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (CN107351399, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claim 11, the aforementioned prior art discloses the system of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not specify a means as claimed. Li et al. discloses a device for lifting a 3D printing platform [0005, fig.1-2]; said lifting device comprising a plurality of wheels (4) wherein a distance from the wheels and a lower base is modified during lifting and wherein a locking mechanism of top rods (7) is included [0011-0013, fig.1-2]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the system of the aforementioned prior art by utilizing a mechanism as taught by Li et al. to allow for lifting of the platform.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/2026 regarding the 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejections are based on impermissible hindsight because the rejection relies upon 8 different prior art references. The examiner cannot concur. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Furthermore, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Since the rejections do not rely on knowledge gleaned only from the instant specification, the examiner cannot concur.
Applicant then argues that the coil of Vader is not an induction coil which melts metal because the coil of Vader is used to dispense molten metal. The examiner cannot concur. Vader expressly teaches that the coil can be used to heat and melt aluminum as stated above. Furthermore, the instant claim does not specifically recite an AC vs. DC coil, such that applicant’s arguments are further moot.
Applicant argues that the apparatus of Zhou et al. would result in vibrations which are avoided by the instant claims, and applicant further argues that the apparatus of Zhou et al. is not disclosed to apply pressure to the melting chamber as claimed. The examiner cannot concur. Firstly, the instant claims do not recite any features regarding avoidance/nullification of vibration/wear as argued by applicant, such that these arguments are moot. Furthermore, as explained above, the examiner notes that the depicted apparatus of Zhou et al. having inclined bottom surfaces would be entirely capable of achieving the claimed functional language of pressing and controlling advancement of the molten material absent concrete evidence to the contrary, which applicant has not presented. Therefore, the examiner cannot concur with applicant’s mere conclusory remarks absent evidence or reasoning to the contrary.
Applicant repeatedly argues against the references individually. 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 that the ventilation slots of Lethen are not inclined. The examiner cannot concur. The slots of Lethen are clearly inclined according to broadest reasonable interpretation of the figures of Lethen. If applicant is of the position that the claims require some particular degree or orientation of inclination, the examiner cannot concur because the claims do not recite these features.
Applicant argues that the prior art combination does not achieve bottom-up natural convection as required by claim 1. However, these features are not recited in the claim, such that the examiner cannot concur.
Applicant argues that using the arm of Keating or structure of Zhou et al. would require restructuring the apparatus of Vader which is not obvious. The examiner cannot concur. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Express motivation for combining the disclosures of Zhou et al. and Keating have already been provided as explained above.
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 NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights