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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-21) in the reply filed on 7/22/25 is acknowledged.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is not within the range of 50 to 150 words in length and does not describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent for details. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 10 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.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “wherein the heating funnel is formed in a Y shape so that an inner diameter of the heating funnel gradually decreases from the inner diameter of the inlet at the top of the heating funnel into the metal block is introduced to the inner diameter of the second discharge nozzle at the bottom thereof through which the second material of metal flow is discharged“ is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite. In particular, “into the metal block is introduced” appears misplaced in the phrase as the phrase is describing the funnel decreasing from the inner diameter at the top into the inner diameter at the bottom. For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as --wherein the heating funnel is formed in a Y shape so that an inner diameter of the heating funnel gradually decreases from the inner diameter of the inlet at the top of the heating funnel, where the metal block is introduced into, to the inner diameter of the second discharge nozzle at the bottom thereof through which the second material of metal flow is discharged.--
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.
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, 6-8, 10, and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2017/0312849, cited in IDS filed 7/24/24) in view of Lavi (US 2020/0206810).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a three-dimensional printing apparatus, the three-dimensional printing apparatus comprising:
a stage providing a support base (support unit 100) for a physical object to be modeled;
a first discharge nozzle (fig 9, nozzle 2120) and a second discharge nozzle (figs 1 and 9, nozzle 220) provided on the stage, the first discharge nozzle discharging a first material in a paste-state or slurry-state that forms an outline of the physical object (intended use, see MPEP 2114(I) and (II), the printing apparatus does not structurally distinguish from prior art, note that Yang teaches extruding a non-metal material 60, fig 9 and paragraph [0068]) and the second discharge nozzle discharging a second material in a liquid phase that fills a filling space surrounded by the outline of the physical object formed from the first material (intended use, see MPEP 2114(I) and (II), the printing apparatus does not structurally distinguish from the prior art, note that Yang teaches extruding a metal material 50, fig 9 and paragraph [0068]);
an extrusion device (fig 9, paragraph [0065], non-metal extrusion unit 2100) for extruding the first material toward the first discharge nozzle, the extrusion device being connected to the first discharge nozzle (fig 9, see extrusion unit 2100 having cylinder 2110 connected to 2120) and discharging the first material in a paste-state or slurry-state (functional limitation), which is a mixture of ceramic particles and a matrix in which the ceramic particles are dispersed (material worked upon, MPEP 2115, does not limit the apparatus claim);
a heating funnel (paragraph [0046], extrusion unit 200) connected to the second discharge nozzle (fig 1, figure 9, connected to discharge nozzle 220) and receiving a metal block and melting the metal block into a molten metal block (functional limitation, note that the metal block is a material worked upon which does not further limit the claim (MPEP 2115) and that the heating funnel only need be capable of receiving a metal block and melting a metal block (functional limitation, MPEP 2114(I)), which the extrusion unit 200 is capable of performing as it includes heater coil unit 300, also note paragraph [0043]), such that the second material is the molten metal block with a liquid phase and discharged through the second discharge nozzle (functional limitation as discussed above, note that the discharged material is metal, fig 9, paragraph [0068], metal material 50).
Yang teaches induction heating coils (see heating unit 300, including coil 340), but is quiet to a heating chamber for accommodating the stage and providing a slow cooling space for the first and second materials accumulated on the stage from the first and second discharge nozzles.
Lavi teaches an additive casting apparatus (abstract) that dispenses a mold material (fig 1, paragraph [0138]), which may be granular materials such as ceramic powders mixed with a binder (paragraph [0034]), to form a mold portion, and then dispenses molten metal into the mold portion (fig 1, paragraph [0040]). Lavi teaches that the apparatus may include an enclosure (160) filled with protective atmosphere for providing the protective atmosphere to the casted layers during casting, protecting against undesirable chemical reactions such as oxidation and carbonization (paragraph [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang such that the 3d printing apparatus is within an enclosure filled with protective atmosphere, as taught in Lavi, so as to protect against undesirable reactions such as oxidation. Note that the enclosure meets the limitation in the claim of a heating chamber, as Yang teaches heaters with the apparatus which is within the chamber, thus capable of performing the claimed function of slow cooling.
Regarding functional limitations, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP 2114(I). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding limitations directed to material worked upon by apparatus, 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). MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation of “wherein an inner diameter of the second discharge nozzle is less than a longest dimension of the metal block introduced into an inlet at the top of the heating funnel connected to the second discharge nozzle at the bottom thereof” is dependent on the metal block to be used, which is a material worked upon and does not further limit the claim. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches wherein a first heat source for melting the metal block introduced into the heating funnel is wound around an outer surface of the heating funnel (Yang, heating coil unit 300).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches wherein the first heat source is located between the heating funnel where the second discharge nozzle is formed at the bottom facing the stage and a discharge unit where the first discharge nozzle is formed at the bottom facing the stage (Yang, fig 9, note that the heating coils are between the unit 200 and unit 2100).
Regarding claim 6, the limitation of “wherein a third temperature of the slow cooling space of the heating chamber is lower than a second temperature of the heating funnel where the second discharge nozzle is formed at the bottom facing the stage and is higher than a first temperature of the discharge unit where the first discharge nozzle is formed at the bottom facing the stage, satisfying a relationship that the second temperature > the third temperature > the first temperature” is directed to the intended use of the apparatus. See MPEP 2114(I) and (II).
Regarding functional limitations, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP 2114(I). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114(II).
The combination is capable of satisfying the temperature relationships as Yang teaches the coil unit 300 including coils 310, 320, 33, and 340, which may respectively receive different currents from each other (paragraph [0047]), and that unit 2100 may have its own set of heating coils (paragraph [0065]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches a first heat source (Yang, figs 1 and 9, coils 310, 320) wound around an outer surface of the heating funnel (Yang, fig 1 and 9) and configured to melt the metal block introduced into the heating funnel (functional limitation); and a second heat source (fig 9, coils 330, 340 may be construed as the second heat source) formed in the heating chamber to control a cooling rate of the first and second materials accumulated on the stage from the first and second discharge nozzles (functional limitation).
Regarding claim 8, the limitation of “wherein, during the takt-time to form a physical object, a first operation time from the start to the end of operation of the first heat source is shorter than a second operation time from the start to the end of operation of the second heat source” is directed towards the intended use of the apparatus, see MPEP 2114(I) and (II), and does not structurally distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches wherein the heating funnel is formed in a Y shape so that an inner diameter of the heating funnel gradually decreases from the inner diameter of the inlet at the top of the heating funnel into the metal block is introduced to the inner diameter of the second discharge nozzle at the bottom thereof through which the second material of metal flow is discharged (Yang, see extrusion unit 200, figs 1 and 3-9).
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “wherein a third temperature of the slow cooling space of the heating chamber is set to a sufficiently high temperature capable of inducing vaporization or volatilization of the matrix mixed in the first material within the slow cooling space” is directed to the intended use of the apparatus. See MPEP 2114(I) and (II).
Regarding functional limitations, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP 2114(I). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114(II).
The combination is capable of performing the claimed function as Yang teaches the coil unit 300 including coils 310, 320, 33, and 340, which may respectively receive different currents from each other (paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “wherein during the takt-time to form a physical object, a second heat source formed in the heating chamber is operated to control the cooling rate of the physical object even after the operation of a first heat source wound around the outer surface of the heating funnel is terminated” is directed towards the intended use of the apparatus, see MPEP 2114(I) and (II), and does not structurally distinguish over the prior art. Note that each of the coils 310, 320, 330, 340, of unit 300, may respectively receive different currents from each other (paragraph [0047]), thus capable of performing the claimed function.
Regarding claim 20, the combination teaches wherein the three-dimensional printing apparatus does not include sintering equipment for solidifying the physical object to complete a physical object in a solid phase (note that Yang is directed to melting solid metal material to form a liquid metal material (abstract) for forming the physical object, thus does not include equipment for sintering the physical object, note that Lavi similarly uses molten metal to form the object).
Regarding claim 21, Yang teaches a three-dimensional printing apparatus comprising:
a stage providing a support base (support unit 100) for a physical object to be manufactured using the three-dimensional printing apparatus (intended use);
a first discharge nozzle (fig 9, nozzle 2120) and a second discharge nozzle (figs 1 and 9, nozzle 220) provided on the stage, the first discharge nozzle discharging a first material in a paste-state or slurry-state that forms an outline of the physical object (intended use, see MPEP 2114(I) and (II), the printing apparatus does not structurally distinguish from prior art, note that Yang teaches extruding a non-metal material 60, fig 9 and paragraph [0068]) and the second discharge nozzle discharging a second material in a liquid phase that fills a filling space surrounded by the outline of the physical object formed from the first material (intended use, see MPEP 2114(I) and (II), the printing apparatus does not structurally distinguish from the prior art, note that Yang teaches extruding a metal material 50, fig 9 and paragraph [0068]);
an extrusion device (fig 9, paragraph [0065], non-metal extrusion unit 2100) connected to the first discharge nozzle (fig 9, see extrusion unit 2100 having cylinder 2110 connected to 2120), the extrusion device extruding the first material in the paste-state or slurry-state from the extrusion device toward the first discharge nozzle (fig 9, note extruding of paste or slurry is a functional limitation), the first material comprising a mixture of ceramic particles and a matrix in which the ceramic particles are dispersed (material worked upon, MPEP 2115, does not limit the apparatus claim);
a heating funnel (paragraph [0046], extrusion unit 200) connected to the second discharge nozzle (fig 1, figure 9, connected to discharge nozzle 220), the heating funnel receiving a metal block and melting the metal block into a molten metal block (functional limitation, note that the metal block is a material worked upon which does not further limit the claim (MPEP 2115) and that the heating funnel only need be capable of receiving a metal block and melting a metal block (functional limitation, MPEP 2114(I)), which the extrusion unit 200 is capable of performing as it includes heater coil unit 300, also note paragraph [0043]), wherein the second material is the molten metal and has a liquid phase (functional limitation as discussed above, note that the discharged material is metal, fig 9, paragraph [0068], metal material 50).
Yang teaches induction heating coils (see heating unit 300, including coil 340), but is quiet to a heating chamber for accommodating the stage and providing a slow cooling space for the physical objected formed by the first and second materials accumulated on the stage.
Lavi teaches an additive casting apparatus (abstract) that dispenses a mold material (fig 1, paragraph [0138]), which may be granular materials such as ceramic powders mixed with a binder (paragraph [0034]), to form a mold portion, and then dispenses molten metal into the mold portion (fig 1, paragraph [0040]). Lavi teaches that the apparatus may include an enclosure (160) filled with protective atmosphere for providing the protective atmosphere to the casted layers during casting, protecting against undesirable chemical reactions such as oxidation and carbonization (paragraph [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang such that the 3d printing apparatus is within an enclosure filled with protective atmosphere, as taught in Lavi, so as to protect against undesirable reactions such as oxidation. Note that the enclosure meets the limitation in the claim of a heating chamber, as Yang teaches heaters with the apparatus which is within the chamber, thus capable of performing the claimed function of slow cooling.
Regarding functional limitations, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP 2114(I). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding limitations directed to material worked upon by apparatus, 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). MPEP 2115.
Claim(s) 5, 11-13, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as modified by Lavi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishida (US 2023/0111896).
Regarding claim 5, the combination is quiet to an embedding block for embedding the first and second discharge nozzles together.
However, Ishida teaches that multiple print head units 1400 can be held together on a head base 1100 (fig 1a-3, paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination such that the extrusion unit 200 and extrusion unit 2100 of the combination are embedded in a head base, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. MPEP 2143(I)(A). The predictable result of including a head base as taught in Ishida, would provide support using a single support section or jig, to the plurality of nozzles, so that the plurality of nozzles can be moved together.
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches an embedding block fixing the position of the first and second discharge nozzles by embedding the first and second discharge nozzles so that a gap between the first and second discharge nozzles is maintained (note combination, Ishida shows embedded with a gap), but is quiet to the gap being between about 3 mm and about 50 mm.
However, note that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches wherein the embedding block surrounds a first heat source wound on the outer surface of the heating funnel together with a discharge unit where the first discharge nozzle is formed at the bottom facing the stage, and the discharge unit is spaced apart from the first heat source wound on the outer surface of the heating funnel and extends parallel to the outer surface of the heating funnel (note combination, where the extrusion units of Yang (fig 9) would be embedded in a head base of Ishida (figs 1A-3)).
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches wherein the embedding block includes an upper block (note combination, Ishida, head unit 1400) embedding a discharge unit where the first discharge nozzle is formed at the bottom facing the stage and the heating funnel where the second discharge nozzle is formed at the bottom facing the stage, and a lower block (note combination, Ishida, head base 1100) formed in the shape of a plate with an expanded area (figs 1a-3, head base 1100 has an expanded area over head units 1400) from the upper block and covering an upper part of the slow cooling space.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation of “wherein a second temperature of the heating funnel is higher than a first temperature of a discharge unit where the first discharge nozzle is formed at the bottom facing the stage” is directed to the intended use of the apparatus. See MPEP 2114(I) and (II).
Regarding functional limitations, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP 2114(I). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114(II).
The combination is capable of performing the claimed function as Yang teaches the coil unit 300 including coils 310, 320, 33, and 340, which may respectively receive different currents from each other (paragraph [0047]) and that the extrusion unit 2100 may have its own heaters (paragraph [0065]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination teaches wherein a temperature difference between the first and second temperatures is induced by thermal resistance of insulating material of the embedding block filling a space between the heating funnel and the discharge unit which extend parallel to each other (note above, functional limitation, as the structure is the same since the embedding block fills the space between the heating funnel and discharge unit, a temperature difference would be induced by thermal resistance in the same way).
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “wherein the second temperature of the heating funnel is set to a sufficiently high temperature above the melting point of the metal block, and the first temperature of the discharge unit is set to a sufficiently low temperature at which vaporization or volatilization of the matrix mixed in the first material is suppressed” is directed to the intended use of the apparatus. See MPEP 2114(I) and (II).
Regarding functional limitations, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP 2114(I). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114(II).
The combination is capable of performing the claimed function as Yang teaches the coil unit 300 including coils 310, 320, 33, and 340, which may respectively receive different currents from each other (paragraph [0047]) and that the extrusion unit 2100 may have its own heaters (paragraph [0065]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as modified by Lavi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Klett (US 2019/0105710).
Regarding claim 9, note that the limitation “wherein a flow rate of the first material discharged onto the stage from the first discharge nozzle is controlled by the rotational speed of a rotary screw driven inside a transfer pipe of the extrusion device, and a flow rate of the second material discharged onto the stage from the second discharge nozzle is controlled by the pressure of gas filling a space on a liquid surface of the second material of metal flow inside the heating funnel” are functional limitations (see MPEP 2114(I)).
The combination teaches a pressure of gas filling a space on a liquid surface of the second material (Yang, fig 9, pressure supply unit 430), thus would similarly control the flow rate of the second material.
However, the combination is quiet wherein a flow rate of the first material discharged onto the stage from the first discharge nozzle is controlled by the rotational speed of a rotary screw driven inside a transfer pipe of the extrusion device.
Klett teaches an apparatus for building an article by additive manufacturing or 3-d printing (abstract), for printing of metal, ceramic, or other particulate slurry materials (paragraph [0003]). Klett teaches the nozzle includes a motor drive and a screw extruder (paragraph [0025], fig 2), so that the pressure to the nozzle outlet can be controlled and that highly-loaded slurries with less binder can be dispensed (paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination so as to include a screw extruder as the extrusion unit for the non-metal material, as Klett teaches the use of the screw extruder provides control of the pressure to the outlet and enables highly-loaded slurries with less binder to be used.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as modified by Lavi and Ishida as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Herrmann (US 2022/0134418).
Regarding claim 14, the combination is quiet to wherein the heating chamber includes a plurality of partition walls that cover side surfaces of the slow cooling space while contacting the lower block through a stepped interface.
Herrmann teaches a 3d metal object manufacturing apparatus (abstract) where the printer 200 is mounted on a support plate 204 (fig 1, paragraph [0018]). The support plate moves within an internal volume of a housing 208 formed by four standing walls to form a rectangularly shaped housing (paragraph [0018], fig 1). The walls enclose the internal volume except for the upper opening in which the support plate 204 fits, where the clearance between the edges of the support plate 204 and the walls of the housing 208 are relatively tight to help hold heat within the housing (paragraph [0018], fig 1). Note that the tight fit of the edges of the support plate to the walls in figure 1 is construed as the stepped interface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination such that the enclosure has partition walls and a support plate fitted to the walls, as Herrmann teaches the arrangement helps hold heat within the housing (paragraph [0018]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACKY YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5749. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JACKY YUEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735