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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 paragraph 4, filed 01/09/2026, with respect to claims 2, 3, and 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) of 08/21/2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 01/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues Shen does not teach wherein the first chamber comprises a gas having a “constant pressure P1” and “when the 3D printing apparatus is exposed to an external environment having a pressure P2 being less than the constant pressure P1 of the gas in the first chamber, the gas in the first chamber that maintains the constant pressure P1 exerts a force on the seal” and instead teaches wherein the alleged pressure P1 of Shen is varied for the purpose of making the extrusion precise and controllable and does not disclose the claimed constant pressure P1 (pg 7 last paragraph through pg 8 first full paragraph). Applicant further argues, that in view of the foregoing, claim 1 and claims 2-18, which depend from claim 1, are patentable over Shen and the remaining prior art (pg 9 paragraphs 1-2).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees the current amendments and argument renders claims 1-18 allowable. Claims 1-18 are directed to “[a] 3D printing apparatus” (see claims 1-18). However, the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have also held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have also held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). As applied to the instant application, the apparatus structure of Shen could be operated to maintain a constant pressure. Shen teaches the micro-motion air source system 4 “can provide compressed gas with different pressures” (paras 0024 and 0035, emphasis added). The use of “can” indicates that different pressures are not always required. Additionally, the structure disclosed by Shen could utilize a constant pressure when a constant extrusion rate is desired (see para 0037 disclosing a control component to control the amount of gas delivered to the to the air pipe 6 and, thus, to the chamber above the seal 10).
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.
Claim 5 is 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 reference to claim 5:
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the gas comprises a noble gas, and wherein the gas comprises one or more of neon, argon, krypton, or xenon”. It is unclear whether the limitation is intended to require 2 separate gases, a “noble gas” and one of the specific noble gases listed, or that the noble gas comprises at least one or more of the specific noble gases listed. For the purposes of examination the claim limitation is interpreted as the “a noble gas” comprises one or more of neon, argon, krypton, or xenon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shen (CN207255249U).
In reference to claim 1:
Shen discloses a 3D printing apparatus (para 0002), the 3D printing apparatus comprising:
a housing (Fig. 1 numeral 1);
a seal arranged movably inside the housing (para 0038, Fig. 2 numeral 10) such that the seal partitions the housing into first and second chambers that are fluidically isolated from each other (Fig. 2 showing first and second chambers located above piston 10),
the first chamber comprising a gas having a pressure P1 (Fig. 2 showing the chamber above piston 10);
the second chamber comprising a printing material (pare 0034, Fig. 2 showing the lower chamber being fed by feed interface 7); and
a nozzle in fluid connection with the second chamber (para 0034, Fig. 2);
wherein when the 3D printing apparatus is exposed to an external environment having a pressure P2 being less than the pressure P1 of the gas in the first chamber, the gas in the first chamber exerts a force on the seal which in turn exerts a force on the printing material thereby extruding the printing material out of the second chamber through the nozzle (para 0034, Fig. 2).
Shen does not disclose wherein the gas in the first chamber has a constant pressure, that the constant pressure is maintained, the apparatus is for printing a satellite component, or wherein the extruding is to print the satellite component. However, the Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use, for an old product, does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114.II). As applied to the instant application, the apparatus of Shen would be capable of producing a “satellite component” on earth and, as it teaches all of the positively recited structural elements of the claimed apparatus, anywhere the claimed apparatus could with a “constant pressure” in the first chamber by operating the air source system to maintain a constant pressure (see para 0028 of Applicant’s specification, as published, disclosing an inlet for introducing gas having a pressure P1 into the first chamber).
In reference to claim 5:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Shen discloses wherein the gas can be from an external gas supply device or an air pump (para 0038) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the gas comprises a noble gas. However, the use of an “air pump” would pump ambient air from the environment. As ambient air generally contains approximately 0.934% argon at sea level, the gas would “comprise” a noble gas, i.e. argon.
In reference to claim 7:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Shen further discloses comprising a printing platform for receiving printing material extruded out of the second chamber through the nozzle, wherein the printing platform is positioned adjacent to the nozzle (para 0036).
In reference to claim 14:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Shen further discloses comprising
a first inlet in fluid connection with the first chamber for introducing the gas having a pressure P1 into the first chamber (Fig. 2 numeral 9); and
a second inlet in fluid connection with the second chamber for introducing the printing material into the second chamber (Fig. 2 numeral 7).
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) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Solorzano (US20200138602).
In reference to claims 2 and 3:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Shen does not disclose wherein the nozzle comprises a temperature control module (claim 2) or wherein the temperature control module is arranged to control the temperature of the printing material being extruded from the nozzle in a range of from −50° C. to 150° C. (claim 3). However, this would have been obvious in view of Solorzano. Solorzano teaches a 3D printing apparatus (abstract). Solorzano further teaches utilizing a temperature control module (para 0058) to control the temperature of the printing material being extruded from the nozzle in a range of 0 C to 100 C (para 0058). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Shen with the temperature control module of Solorzano in order to obtain an apparatus which can adjust temperature based on the material being printed (para 0058).
While Solorzano further teaches wherein the temperature control module comprises a Peltier module (claim 2) and the temperature is in a range of from −20° C. to 150° C (applies to claim 3)(para 0058), the Examiner notes that the term “optionally” renders these limitations as “optional” for the purposes of examination.
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Weiss (US20190047309).
In reference to claims 4, 11, and 12:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Shen does not disclose wherein the printing material comprises a liquid photopolymer (claim 4) a curing device for curing printing material extruded out of the second chamber through the nozzle (claim 11) or wherein the curing device comprises an ultraviolet light source, and wherein the curing device comprises an opaque screen for shading at least a portion of the nozzle from the ultraviolet light source (claim 12). However, this would have been obvious in view of Weiss. Weiss discloses an extrusion based 3D printing apparatus (para 0008). Weiss further teaches a curing device for curing printing material extruded out of the extruder nozzle (para 0023, Fig. 1) comprising an ultraviolet light source (para 0024) and an opaque a screen for shading at least a portion of the nozzle from the ultraviolet light source (para 0027, Figs. 2A, 2B). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 3D printing apparatus of Shen with the UV curing and UV shielding apparatus of Weiss in order to obtain a system which could print UV curing materials without curing material inside the nozzle and compromising accuracy (para 0024).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen.
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Shen does not explicitly disclose wherein the pressure P1 of the gas is less than 1 atm. However, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). As applied to the instant application, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a P1 less than ambient pressure would be required to prevent constant/unwanted extrusion. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a P1 less than 1 atm, at least when the apparatus is not extruding material, in order to prevent constant/unwanted extrusion.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen as applied to claim 7, above, and further in view of Kunihiro (US20200384683).
In addition to the discussion of claim 7, above, Shen does not disclose a motor arranged to rotate the 3D printing apparatus with respect to the printing platform. However, this would have been obvious in view of Kunihiro. Kunihiro discloses a 3D printing apparatus (abstract, Fig. 1). Kunihiro further discloses a motor arranged to rotate the 3D printing apparatus with respect to the printing plat form in order to output different types of materials (paras 0046, 0095, Fig. 9). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Shen with the rotating motor of Kunihiro in order to obtain an apparatus which could output different types of materials.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 15, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Kemmer (US20150076732).
In reference to claims 9, 10, 15, and 18:
As discussed above, Shen discloses a 3D printing apparatus according to claim 1.
Shen does not explicitly disclose a linear pushing mechanism arranged to move the printing platform away from the nozzle (claim 9), wherein the linear pushing mechanism comprises one or more motor driven wheels (claim 10), the system is for positioning a satellite component, the system comprising satellite component attached between the printing platform and a fixed attachment point, wherein the 3D printing apparatus is arranged to print an elongate structure, and wherein printing of the elongate structure is arranged to move the printing platform away from the fixed attachment point to position the satellite component (claim 15), or wherein the printed elongate structure is a cylinder (claim 18). However, this would have been obvious in view of Kemmer. Kemmer teaches a 3D printing apparatus (abstract) having a linear pushing member comprising one or more motor driven wheels to move the printing platform away from the nozzle (para 0058, Fig. 4A). Kemmer further teaches wherein the 3D printing apparatus comprising a satellite component attached between the printing platform and a fixed attachment point (para 0053, Figs. 1-7), and the 3D printing apparatus is arranged to print a cylindrical, elongate structure (Figs. 1-3), wherein printing the elongate structure is arranged to move the printing platform away from the fixed attachment point to position the elongate satellite component (paras 0011, 0082, Figs. 1-7, 20). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Shen with the movement system of Kemmer in order to obtain a 3D printing apparatus capable of producing extended parts incapable of being formed using conventional additive manufacturing devices (abstract).
In reference to claim 16:
In addition to the discussion of claim 15, above, modified Shen does not tach wherein positioning the satellite component comprises unfolding or unrolling the satellite component. However, the Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use, for an old product, does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114.II). As applied to the instant application, the prior art teaches all of the positively recited structural limitations and would be capable of the intended use by attaching an unfolding or unrolling component to the based on the elongate structure (See Kemmer Figs. 1-19).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Ramot (US20250001692).
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Shen does not disclose a sealing element for reversibly sealing an end of the nozzle, wherein the sealing element comprises a plug. However, this would have been obvious in view of Ramot. Ramot teaches a vacuumed sealed 3D printing apparatus (abstract). Ramot further teaches a sealing element for reversibly sealing an end of the nozzle, wherein the sealing element comprises a plug to prevent leakage of printing material (paras 0193, 0200-0202). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Shen with the plug of Ramot in order to obtain an apparatus which prevents material leakage from the nozzle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
After search the prior art regarded as nearest the claimed invention is Shen (CN207255249U). Shen discloses a 3D printing apparatus (para 0002), the 3D printing apparatus comprising: a housing (Fig. 1 numeral 1); a seal arranged movably inside the housing (para 0038Fig. 2 numeral 10) such that the seal partitions the housing into first and second chambers that are fluidically isolated from each other (Fig. 2 showing first and second chambers located above piston 10), the first chamber comprising a gas having a pressure P1; the second chamber comprising a printing material (pare 0034, Fig. 2 showing the lower chamber being fed by feed interface 7); and a nozzle in fluid connection with the second chamber (para 0034, Fig. 2); wherein when the 3D printing apparatus is exposed to an external environment having a pressure P2 being less than the pressure P1 of the gas in the first chamber, the gas in the first chamber exerts a force on the seal which in turn exerts a force on the printing material thereby extruding the printing material out of the second chamber through the nozzle (para 0034, Fig. 2). Shen does not explicitly disclose the system is for positioning a satellite component, the system comprising satellite component attached between the printing platform and a fixed attachment point, wherein the 3D printing apparatus is arranged to print an elongate structure, and wherein printing of the elongate structure is arranged to move the printing platform away from the fixed attachment point to position the satellite component (claim 15) or wherein the printed elongate structure is a cylinder (claim 18). However, this would have been obvious in view of Kemmer. Kemmer teaches a 3D printing apparatus (abstract). Kemmer further teaches wherein the 3D printing apparatus comprising a satellite component attached between the printing platform and a fixed attachment point (para 0053, Figs. 1-7), and the 3D printing apparatus is arranged to print a cylindrical, elongate structure (Figs. 1-3), wherein printing the elongate structure is arranged to move the printing platform away from the fixed attachment point to position the elongate satellite component (paras 0011, 0082, Figs. 1-7, 20). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Shen with the movement system of Kemmer in order to obtain a 3D printing apparatus capable of producing extended parts incapable of being formed using conventional additive manufacturing devices (abstract). Shen, in view of Kemmer and the other relevant prior art, fails to teach wherein the satellite component comprises a folded solar panel, and wherein printing of the elongate structure is arranged to move the printing platform away from the fixed attachment point to unfold the folded solar panel; or a stowed antenna, and wherein printing of the elongate structure is arranged to move the printing platform away from the fixed attachment point to unfold or unroll the stowed antenna. The Office is unable to discern a reasonable rationale from the prior art that such features are taught, suggested, or otherwise rendered obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 ANDREW L SWANSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1724. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0800-1900 and every other Friday 0800-1600.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/ANDREW L SWANSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1745