DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 06/26/2026, claims 1-4 and 10-11 are pending. Claim 1 is currently amended. Claims 9 and 12 are canceled. Claims 1-4 and 10-11 are considered in the current Office Action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Previous Objections/Rejections
Previous 35 USC 112(b) rejection is withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment.
Previous 35 USC 103 rejections are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment. However, new rejections have been established.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner wishes to point out the application claims are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions. The material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus is viewed as recitation of intended use and is given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (Please see MPEP 2112.01 and 2114-2115 for further details).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “tunable heat filter” and the Examiner is interpretating the limitation as any heat source that provide heat energy at a selected temperature is considered as tunable heat filter which corresponded to [0025] of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-4 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a tunable heat filter…. a heat block filter…” fails to comply with the written description requirement. At most, the specification discloses “the heat filter 106 discussed herein may be tunable; that is, the heat filter may deliver heat energy at a selected frequency or frequencies, at a selected temperature or temperatures, or the like ([0025])” and “it will be appreciated that the heat filtering may take forms other than nonphysical layers. By way of example, a heat block filter may be provided as heat filtering 106, such as may have one or multiple levels of suitably-sized filtering holes along a heated substrate. Thereby, upon arrival of the solution at the top most level of the heat block filter 106, the carrier is removed and the print particles made molten as the jetted solution passes through the heat block filter 106 ([0028])”. In other words, the instant specification discloses a single heat filter (which is further supported by Figure 1 of the instant application) that may be tunable and/or as a heat block. The specification fails to disclose a plurality of heat filters or a tunable heat filter with a heat block filter. Thus, claim 1 is rejected as fails to comply with the written description.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2020/0023397 (“Hart et al” hereinafter Hart), US2009/0014916 (“Nagai et al” hereinafter Nagai), and US2016/0102398 (“Smith et al” hereinafter Smith).
Regarding Claim 1, Hart teaches an apparatus (Figure 4A and 9B) for anti-cake material jetting for a print build ([0009] and [0111]), the apparatus (Figure 4A and 9B) comprising:
a controller (Figure 1, controller) comprising: at least one processor (Figure 1, all controller comprises of at least one processor); and memory storing instructions that (Figure 1 and [0073], The controller responds by sending a print command to a signal generator, which outputs an electrical signal pulse to eject the particle and fed back to the controller if necessary for adjustment of process parameters affecting particle trajectory and substrate registry, which implied the presence of a memory to store print commands and feedback information), when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform operations (Figure 1 and [0073]);
a solution dispenser having a solution (Figure 4A and 9B, DPE print head and [0008]-[0009], liquid including particles exit the digital particle ejection (DPE) printhead through the orifice of the printhead), wherein a solute of the solution comprises photosensitive polymers ([0055], DPE printing can use any particulate feedstock including polymers that are melted and can solidify once delivered to the surface [0020] which is the characteristic of a photosensitive polymer) suspended within the solution ([0067], DPE can print virtually any solid object capable of being suspended in a liquid), wherein the photosensitive polymers have a size of 1-5 microns ([0022] and [0064], experiments show that DPE can eject particles in the 1-100 μm size range. The Claims contain limitations which are directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus. These limitations are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2115. In this case, the apparatus of Hart is capable of printing particles in the 1-100 μm size range and the photosensitive polymers size does not add additional structure to the device and is thus not given patentable weight);
a jet (Figure 4A, DPE print head comprises a single print nozzle, or an array of print nozzle [0076], liquid including particles exit the digital particle ejection (DPE) printhead through the orifice of the nozzle) configured to dispense the solution ([0069] and [0079]; thus, the apparatus of Hart is capable of being used as intended as discussed above and thus meets all of the structural limitations as claimed);
a tunable heat filter positioned below the jet (Figure 4A and 9B, the energy source is positioned below the nozzle of the printhead); and
an ultraviolet actuator to provide UV light, wherein the UV light is directed to the print build ([0006], there can be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or more energy sources and additional photonic sources to modify the composition of the droplet. A droplet of photo-curable liquid can be exposed to a UV light source in flight, causing the droplet composition to gel or solidify [0106]);
wherein the operations comprise: dispersing, by the jet, the solution from the solution dispenser (Figure 1 and [0010]); and adjusting the tunable heat filter to a temperature ([0128], heating profile can be adjusted based on the desired liquid evaporation rate) to (i) burn off, at least in-part, a solvent of the dispersed solution ([0091], [0093], and [0102], as the heat source impart thermal energy to the particle during printing, it is inevitably that some liquid evaporated) and (ii) make molten the photosensitive polymers, as the solution passes through the heat filter downwardly ([0074]); and actuating the molten photosensitive polymers upon receipt at the print build via the ultraviolet actuator ([0106]).
Hart fails to teach a tunable heat filter configured to supply multiple infrared frequencies to create at least two discrete heating zones providing different temperatures per zone as the dispensed solution passes through the heat filter downwardly.
However, Nagai teaches a tunable heat filter configured to supply multiple infrared frequencies to create at least two discrete heating zones providing different temperatures per zone (Figure 3 and [0054], the light source may be an apparatus for emitting ultra violet rays or infrared rays, but a laser light is preferable. The radiation output of the laser light may also be adjusted to control the viscosity of the droplets after irradiation. Furthermore, the radiation output of the laser light may be varied for each discharged droplet [0041]; thus, the radiation output of the light source of Nagai, which is directly proportional to frequency, is capable of supply multiple frequency and different light frequency will generate different heating zone and different temperature. In other words, as the radiation output various based on the droplets, the first droplet will have a first radiation output and the second droplet might have a second radiation output that is different from the first radiation output. As a result, the apparatus of Nagai is capable of creating a different heating zone with different temperatures as intended as discussed above and thus meets all of the structural limitations as claimed. See MPEP 2114) as the dispensed solution passes through the heat filter downwardly ([0065], when the discharged droplet is irradiated with laser light 3 , the solvent is evaporated, the polymer particle included in the droplet is heated, and the polymer particle is melted from a solid to a high-viscosity liquid; thus, as different droplet is irradiated will different radiation output, a temperature gradient is created).
Hart and Nagai are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of inkjet printing to generate a 3D object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the tunable heat filter as taught by Hart such that it disclosed the above discussed limitations as taught by Nagai to reduce the stress load on the printed 3D object ([0041]).
The modified Hart fails to teach a heat block filter comprising at least one level of filtering holes along a heated substrate, wherein upon arrival of the solution at the heat block filter at least part of the solvent is removed.
However, in the analogous art that is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of evaporating solvent from a solution ([0028]), Smith teaches a heat block filter (Figure 1, heated filter 31) comprising at least one level of filtering holes (all filter has at least one filtering holes and [0042], the filter element is a porous metal filter) along a heated substrate ([0029], the filter is heated), wherein upon arrival of the solution at the heat block filter at least part of the solvent is removed ([0028]-[0029], heated filter stay at the operating temperature while providing enough heat to vaporize droplets).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus of the modified Hart such that it teaches all of the above limitations as taught by Smith to remove undesired liquid droplets from entering the build chamber ([0005] and [0028]).
Regarding Claim 2, The modified Hart teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the polymers have a size of 1-2 microns.
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).
The Claims contain limitations (the polymers have a size of 1-2 microns) which are directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus. These limitations are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2115. In this particular case, the polymers have a size about 1-2 microns does not add additional structure to the device and is thus not given patentable weight. Furthermore, [0022] and [0064] of Hart discloses experiments show that DPE can eject particles in the 1-100 μm size range. In this case, the apparatus of Hart is capable of printing particles in the 1-100 μm size range and the polymers size does not add additional structure to the device and is thus not given patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Hart teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the polymers comprise polypropylene.
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).
The Claims contain limitations (the polymers comprises polypropylene) which are directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus. These limitations are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2115. In this particular case, polypropylene does not add additional structure to the device and is thus not given patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Hart teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the solvent of the solution comprises water.
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).
The Claims contain limitations (solution comprises water) which are directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus. These limitations are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2115. In this particular case, water does not add additional structure to the device and is thus not given patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 10, the modified Hart teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach the operations further comprising: second dispersing, by the jet, the solution from the solution dispenser; and second energizing the ultraviolet actuator to cure the photosensitive polymers on the print build.
However, Hart teaches the apparatus is used for layer-by-layer deposition and dispersing solutions by the jet (Figure 4A and 9B, DPE print head and [0008]-[0009], liquid including particles exit the digital particle ejection (DPE) printhead through the orifice of the printhead); and droplets of photo-curable liquid can be exposed to a UV light source in flight, causing the droplet composition to gel or solidify [0106]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the operations of the modified Hart such that it teaches the above discussed limitation in order to achieved a final product with desired layer thickness and shape ([0008]-[0009]).
Regarding Claim 11, the modified Hart teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the tunable heat filter is configured to be tuned automatically via the controller base on a knowledge as detailed in a print plan of at least one of the photosensitive polymer material, a print rate (Nagai, [0041], radiation output of the laser light may also be adjusted to control the viscosity of the droplets after irradiation. Furthermore, the radiation output of the laser light may be varied for each discharged droplet. Viscosity of the droplet is directly related to the print rate), and a print head speed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/LARRY W THROWER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights