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 .
Status of Claims and Application
This final action on the merits is in response to the remarks and amendments received by the office 22 May 2026. Claims 1-8 are pending. Claims 1 and 6 are amended. No claims have been cancelled or added.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(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.
Claims 1-8 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. Independent claims 1 and 6 have been amended to recite the limitation “. . . the modelling material being stored in a container and being supplied to the plasticizing device through a supply path. . . .” The specification as originally filed does not support the claimed container. The original specification teaches a “material supply unit” which is described as being able to hold and feed powder or pellets and is disclosed as being a hopper (see applicant’s disclosure at at least paragraph 0034). “Container” is a broader term than this disclosure supports – encompassing other structure, such as cartridges or other structure for feeding material in other than powder or pellet form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0213419 to Skubic et al. (‘419 hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, ‘419 teaches a plasticizing device comprising: a nozzle configured to extrude a modeling material (Fig 9 item 104), the modeling material being stored in a material container and being supplied from the container to the plasticizing device through a supply path (paragraph 0023 and Fig 1B item 13), the modeling material in the material supply unit containing either a crystalline resin or a non-crystalline resin (Fig 1A items 14 and 20); a drive motor (Fig 1 item 18); a screw configured to be rotated by the drive motor and including a groove formation surface in which a groove is formed (Fig 9 item 94); a barrel including a facing surface facing the groove formation surface and provided with a heater and a communication hole (Fig 9 items 86 and 88); a first heating unit disposed in the barrel and configured to heat the modeling material supplied between the groove formed in the groove formation surface and the barrel at a first region of the barrel (Fig 9 item 110); a second heating unit disposed in the barrel and configured to heat the modeling material supplied to the nozzle (Fig 9 item 110); a third heating unit configured to heat the modeling material supplied between the groove formed in the groove formation surface and the barrel at a second region of the barrel (Fig 9 item 110); and a control unit configured to control the drive motor, the first heating unit, and the second heating unit, and the third heating unit, wherein the control unit is configured to control at least one of the first heating units and the second heating unit, and the third heating unit to(i) reduce a difference between a first temperature corresponding to a temperature of the barrel and a second temperature corresponding to a temperature of the nozzle when the modeling material contains the crystalline resin, and (ii) is capable of increasing the difference between the first temperature and the second temperature when the modeling material contains the non-crystalline resin based upon a desired temperature profile which may be the result of a resin being a crystalline resin or a non- crystalline resin (paragraphs 0050 and 0061-0063) as the device of Skubic provides a controller with independently controlled heating zones to achieve a heating profile previously determined similar to applicant’s controller which receives external material data and adjusts the heating profile accordingly (see paragraph 0065 of the instantly filed specification). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. The limitations regarding the particular material worked upon do not structurally distinguish the prior art device from the claimed device. Examiner notes that the cited paragraph does not explicitly state that the difference is reduced from some greater temperature difference. However, the prior art as cited does recognize the need to maintain the resin in a melted state throughout the extrusion apparatus and that the heaters are independently controllable. Since this limitation is regarded as an intended use of the claimed apparatus and the cited prior art teaches all of the claimed structural limitations, this limitation is regarded as being met by the prior art. The resin is regarded as a material worked upon by the claimed apparatus and not accorded patentable weight.
Further, ‘419 teaches that the heating elements 110, may be increased or reduced in number, placed as needed and independently controlled in a feedback manner via thermocouples (paragraph 0045). Figure 9 of ‘419 shows three heating elements 110, located in the upper barrel part 88 on the left and right as well as in lower barrel part 86 on the left. This teaching anticipates the claims as instantly drafted. However, should applicant argue that this teaching does not teach or suggest every element of the invention claimed, this teaching would also render the claim obvious, since the reference teaches that it is known to place independently controlled heating elements as needed to achieve a desired temperature profile and adjustment of the individual heating elements to alternative locations within the barrel of the extruder presents a mere rearrangement of parts barring a showing of unexpected results (See MPEP 2144.04.VI.C). One of ordinary skill would be motivated to use a plurality of alternative locations given the suggestion in the art and the desire to heat given portions of the plastic shaping device in a controlled manner.
PNG
media_image1.png
160
823
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1 - Inset of relevant portion of Fig. 9 of '419 reference
Regarding claim 2, ‘419 teaches the plasticizing device wherein the first temperature is a temperature of the barrel, and the second temperature is a temperature of the nozzle (paragraph 0061).
Regarding claim 3, ‘419 teaches the plasticizing device according wherein the facing surface has the first region and the second region farther from the communication hole than is the first region, and the temperature of the barrel is a temperature in the first region (Fig 9 items 86, 88, 110, 130 132).
Regarding claim 4, ‘419 teaches the plasticizing device according wherein the first temperature is a temperature of the first heating unit, and the second temperature is a temperature of the second heating unit (paragraph 0061).
Regarding claim 5, ‘419 teaches the plasticizing device wherein the facing surface has the first region and the second region farther from the communication hole than is the first region, and the first heating unit is disposed in the first region (Fig 9 items 90 and 110).
Regarding claim 6, ‘419 teaches a three dimensional model device comprising: a plasticizing device wherein the plasticizing device includes a nozzle configured to extrude a modeling material (Fig 9 item 104), the modeling material being stored in a material container and being supplied from the container to the plasticizing device through a supply path (paragraph 0023 and Fig 1B item 13), the modeling material in the material supply unit containing either a crystalline resin or a non-crystalline resin (Fig 1A items 14 and 20); a drive motor (Fig 1 item 18); a screw configured to be rotated by the drive motor and including a groove formation surface in which a groove is formed (Fig 9 item 94); a barrel including a facing surface facing the groove formation surface and provided with a heater and a communication hole (Fig 9 items 86 and 88); a first heating unit disposed in the barrel and configured to heat the modeling material supplied between the groove formed in the groove formation surface and the barrel at a first region of the barrel (Fig 9 item 110); a second heating unit disposed in the barrel and configured to heat the modeling material supplied to the nozzle (Fig 9 item 110); a third heating unit configured to heat the modeling material supplied between the groove formed in the groove formation surface and the barrel at a second region of the barrel (Fig 9 item 110); and a control unit configured to control the drive motor, the first heating unit, and the second heating unit, and the third heating unit, wherein the control unit is configured to control at least one of the first heating units and the second heating unit, and the third heating unit to(i) reduce a difference between a first temperature corresponding to a temperature of the barrel and a second temperature corresponding to a temperature of the nozzle when the modeling material contains the crystalline resin, and (ii) is capable of increasing the difference between the first temperature and the second temperature when the modeling material contains the non-crystalline resin based upon a desired temperature profile which may be the result of a resin being a crystalline resin or a non- crystalline resin (paragraphs 0050 and 0061-0063) as the device of Skubic provides a controller with independently controlled heating zones to achieve a heating profile previously determined similar to applicant’s controller which receives external material data and adjusts the heating profile accordingly (see paragraph 0065 of the instantly filed specification). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. The limitations regarding the particular material worked upon do not structurally distinguish the prior art device from the claimed device. Examiner notes that the cited paragraph does not explicitly state that the difference is reduced from some greater temperature difference. However, the prior art as cited does recognize the need to maintain the resin in a melted state throughout the extrusion apparatus and that the heaters are independently controllable. Since this limitation is regarded as an intended use of the claimed apparatus and the cited prior art teaches all of the claimed structural limitations, this limitation is regarded as being met by the prior art. The resin is regarded as a material worked upon by the claimed apparatus and not accorded patentable weight.
Further, ‘419 teaches that the heating elements 110, may be increased or reduced in number, placed as needed and independently controlled in a feedback manner via thermocouples (paragraph 0045). Figure 9 of ‘419 shows three heating elements 110, located in the upper barrel part 88 on the left and right as well as in lower barrel part 86 on the left. This teaching anticipates the claims as instantly drafted. However, should applicant argue that this teaching does not teach or suggest every element of the invention claimed, this teaching would also render the claim obvious, since the reference teaches that it is known to place independently controlled heating elements as needed to achieve a desired temperature profile and adjustment of the individual heating elements to alternative locations within the barrel of the extruder presents a mere rearrangement of parts barring a showing of unexpected results (See MPEP 2144.04.VI.C). One of ordinary skill would be motivated to use a plurality of alternative locations given the suggestion in the art and the desire to heat given portions of the plastic shaping device in a controlled manner.
PNG
media_image1.png
160
823
media_image1.png
Greyscale
2 - Inset of relevant portion of Fig. 9 of '419 reference
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘419 as applied to claim 1 and 6, respectively, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0118467 to Neboian et al. (‘467 hereafter).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, ‘419 does not teach receiving information regarding the degree of crystallinity of the modelling material to be used.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘203 teaches a plasticizing device wherein the control unit is configured to receive modeling material information indicating if the modeling material contains a crystalline resin or a non-crystalline resin (paragraph 0077) for the benefit of specifying optimum operating conditions for the apparatus to apply when using a supplied material. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘419 with those of ‘467 for the benefit of operating an extrusion-based additive manufacturing apparatus at optimum conditions for a supplied material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has argued that the previously applied prior art does not teach the newly amended limitation of heating units placed in first, second, and third locations within the barrel. The previous prior art rejection has been modified (see above) to better demonstrate the teachings of the prior art with respect to instant claim limitations.
Applicant, in support of this argument, further argues that the applied prior art reference ‘419 does not teach heating in at least two different regions, due to the heating units 110 being located in housings 86 and 88, and not that the housings contain a second group of heaters 110. Examiner is unpersuaded by this line of reasoning for several reasons. First, groups of heaters is not currently a claimed limitation. Rather, the claims set forth first, second and third heating units. Second more importantly, the heaters 110 are shown to be distributed around and about the liquefier cavity 108 both to the left and right as well as the upper and lower parts of the cavity. Examiner regards this as teaching the claimed different regions with at least the specificity claimed.
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 John P Robitaille whose telephone number is (571)270-7006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JPR/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights