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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 02/10/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that claim(s) 1-13 is/are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under the following conditions. The process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (See MPEP 2114 II and 2115 for further details). For apparatuses, the claim limitations will define structural limitations (See MPEP 2114-2115) or functional limitations properly recited (See MPEP 2173.05 (g)).
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 11/18/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 11,897,186 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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.
Claims 1-13 are 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 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 12, the limitation "an amount that approximately equals a characteristic thickness of a single layer" is the indefinite limitation. First, the term “approximately" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "approximately" is not defined in the claim or specification. While the specification mentions examples of layer thickness (5, 10, 15, or 30 microns), it also mentions other thicknesses are not excluded from the scope of the present invention [0271]. It does not define what "approximately" means in terms of deviation (e.g., ±1%, ±10%, ±20%). This creates issues, for example: if the characteristic thickness is 15 microns, does "approximately" mean 14–16 microns, 10–20 microns, or something else? Secondly, since the scope of the term "a characteristic thickness of a single layer” is variable in view of ([0271]), the approximation is also variable and unclear. See MPEP 2173.05 (b) (II).
Claim(s) 2-13 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 1 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
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) 1, 3-4 ,10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell (US 2008/0042321 – of record) in view of Bradshaw (US 6,264,295).
Regarding claim 1, Russell teaches a system (10) for three-dimensional printing (see Fig. 1; [0026]), comprising:
a rotary tray (rotary build drum (12)) configured to rotate about a vertical axis (see Fig. 1);
a printing head (48), having a plurality of nozzles (304), and being configured to reciprocally move relative to said tray along a radial direction (see Fig. 3; [0048], [0055-0057] and [0083]); and
a controller (73) configured for: (i) controlling said printing head to dispense, during said rotation, droplets of building material in layers, such as to print a three-dimensional object on said tray (12) (see Figs. 1-3; [0048], [0059] and [0063]). However, Russell does not explicitly teach that the controller configured for (ii) ceasing said dispensing during said reciprocal motion of said head.
In analogous art, Bradshaw teaches a radial printing system (200) configured to radially print onto a media (220) that rotates in relation to a printing head assembly (210) (see Fig. 2; column 1, lines 1-5), wherein the system comprises a controller (servo system (206)) configured for: (i) controlling a printing head to dispense dots (i.e. the servo system 206 control movement of the head assembly 210 including the printhead (302) that dispensing dot on a rotatable platter (201)) (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 4; column 6, lines 25-35); and an imaging system (202) coupled to the controller (206) and represents a mechanism for controlling when the head assembly (210) initiates and terminates printing a particular dot, swath, strip, or pattern that forms part of the image to be reproduced onto the media (220) as the head assembly traverses different areas of the media (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 4; column 6, lines 32-45). Bradshaw further teaches that the imaging system is further configured to reduce printing distortion that arises from matching the image points with respective ones of the ink dispensement areas and/or from a rotational motion of the rotating media (see column 3, lines 35-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the system as taught by Russell in view of Bradshaw with configuring the controller for ceasing said dispensing during said reciprocal motion of said head as such is known in the art of ink jet printing given the discussion of Bradshaw above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would reduce printing distortion, avoid misplace material and ensure precision (see column 3, lines 35-40 of Bradshaw).
Regarding claim 3, Russell in view of Bradshaw teaches the system as discussed in claim 1 above.
Bradshaw further teaches the system, wherein said controller is capable to be configured to resume said dispensing, following said reciprocal motion (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 4; column 6, lines 32-45).
Russell in view of Bradshaw does not explicitly teach, wherein said controller is configured to resume said dispensing at an azimuthal coordinate which is offset relative to an azimuthal coordinate at which said dispensing was ceased.
However, Bradshaw teaches that the controller configured for controlling when the head assembly (210) initiates and terminates printing a particular dot, swath, strip, or as the head assembly traverses different areas of the media (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 4; column 6, lines 32-45); and the print head is offset from a previous location of the print head during a first rotation which is advantageous when there is a limit to how fast ink may be dispensed for a given rotation speed and further it allows for finer resolution between dots or print areas (see column 17, lines 40-45 and lines 50-52). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the system as taught by Russell in view of Bradshaw with configuring the controller to resume the dispensing, following the reciprocal motion, at an azimuthal coordinate which is offset relative to an azimuthal coordinate at which said dispensing was ceased given the discussion of Bradshaw above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so is advantageous when there is a limit to how fast ink may be dispensed for a given rotation speed and further it allows for finer resolution between dots or print areas (see column 17, lines 40-45 and lines 50-52 of Bradshaw).
Regarding claim 4, Russell in view of Bradshaw further teaches the system, wherein said controller is configured to vary a rotation speed of said tray responsively to a radial position of said head (see column 9, lines 62-64 of Bradshaw).
Regarding claim 10, Russell in view of Bradshaw further teaches the system, wherein at least one of said tray (201) and said printing head (301) is configured to move along a vertical direction parallel to said vertical axis so as to vary a vertical distance between said tray and said printing head (see Figs. 2-3; column 10, lines 26-33), and wherein said controller (206) is configured to continue said dispensing during said motion along said vertical direction (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 4; column 10, lines 26-40 of Bradshaw).
Regarding claim 13, Russell in view of Bradshaw further teaches the system, wherein said controller is configured to compensate for errors of a radial location of said printing head (i.e. the apparatus includes a sensor in communication with the controller to monitor at least one performance characteristic of the apparatus, such as print quality, printing errors, print speed, printhead condition, thus, the controller as disclosed by Russell capable to be configured to compensate for errors of a radial location of said printing head) (see [0014] and [0057] of Russell).
Claim(s) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell (US 2008/0042321 – of record) in view of Bradshaw (US 6,264,295) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Molinari (US 2015/0183167).
Regarding claim 2, Russell in view of Bradshaw teaches the system as discussed in claim 1 above.
Bradshaw further teaches that controller (206) represents a mechanism for controlling when the head assembly (210) initiates and terminates printing a particular dot, swath, strip, or pattern as the head assembly traverses different areas of the media, thus, the controller is capable to configured to resume the dispensing, following said reciprocal motion (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 4; column 6, lines 32-45).
However, Russell in view of Bradshaw does not explicitly teach wherein said controller is configured to resume said dispensing, following said reciprocal motion, at the same azimuthal coordinate at which said dispensing was ceased.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing devices, Molinari discloses a three dimensional printer (50) natively controllable in a spherical coordinate system (see Fig. 3; [0025]), comprises a printhead (12) configured to move relative to a rotatable turntable (78) a long radial direction (see Fig. 4; [0030]), a motion controller (18) in electrical communication with both a first motor (62) and a second motor (70) to respectively control the azimuth angle (64) and radial positioning (72) of the print head (12) (see Figs. 3-4;[0029]). Molinari further teaches the controller is configured to control the motion of the print head relative to a work surface by specifying a radial distance, a polar angle, and an azimuth angle for the print head relative to the work surface (see [0006] and [0029]), thus, the motion controller (18) as disclosed by Molinari is capable for to resume the dispensing, following said reciprocal motion, at the same azimuthal coordinate at which said dispensing was ceased.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the system as taught by Russell in view of Molinari with the controller capable to resume said dispensing, following said reciprocal motion, at the same azimuthal coordinate at which said dispensing was ceased given the discussion of Molinari above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would provide a controller configured to control the motion of the print head relative to the work surface in three dimensions and may further be configured to control the respective feed rate of each of the first and second filament feeders (see [0006] of Molinari).
Regarding claim 9, Russell in view of Bradshaw teaches the system as discussed in claim 1 above.
Russell further teaches the system comprising a plurality of printing heads (48), wherein for at least two of said printing heads configured to reciprocally move along said radial direction (see Fig. 3; [0048] and [0055]). However, Russell in view of Bradshaw does not teach that said reciprocal motion along said radial direction is independent and at a different azimuthal angle.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing devices, Molinari discloses a three dimensional printer (50) natively controllable in a spherical coordinate system (see Fig. 3; [0025]), comprises a printhead (12) configured to move relative to a rotatable turntable (78) a long radial direction (see Fig. 4; [0030]), a motion controller (18) in electrical communication with both a first motor (62) and a second motor (70) to respectively control the azimuth angle (64) and radial positioning (72) of the print head (12) (see Figs. 3-4;[0029]). Molinari further teaches that the hemispherical material layer formed by printing a plurality of material, each at a different azimuth angle (64) between 90 degrees, wherein varying the azimuth angle (64) is useful for reducing the stair-stepped edge contour (see [0031]). As such configuration allow 3D printer to print a natively continuous circle that greatly simplifies the computational requirements needed to generate the numerical control program (as compared with Cartesian-based control that must coordinate the actuation of two different actuators to generate a similar circle) (see [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the system as taught by Russell in view of Molinari with the reciprocal motion along said radial direction is independent and at a different azimuthal angle given the discussion of Molinari above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would allow the 3D printer to print a natively continuous circle that greatly simplifies the computational requirements needed to generate the numerical control program (as compared with Cartesian-based control that must coordinate the actuation of two different actuators to generate a similar circle) (see [0031] of Molinari).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 11-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding claim 5, the primary reason why the claimed invention is deemed novel and non- obvious over the prior art of record to a system as instantly claimed is that the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the wherein said controller is configured to control said head to dispense said droplets such that an azimuthal distance between sequentially dispensed droplets varies as a function of a position of said head along said radial direction.
Therefore, claim 5 is deemed novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Regarding claims 6-8, they depend from claim 5; thus, they are also deemed novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Regarding claims 11-12, the primary reason why the claimed invention is deemed novel and non- obvious over the prior art of record to a system as instantly claimed is that the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest wherein said motion along said vertical direction is executed such that said tray and said printing head experience at least two different vertical distances therebetween during a single rotation of said tray and wherein said motion along said vertical direction is executed such that during a single rotation of said tray, said vertical distance is increased by an amount that approximately equals a characteristic thickness of a single layer of said building material.
Therefore, claims 11-12 are deemed novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wen (US 6,019,151) teaches an printing system (see Fig. 4), comprising a rotatable disc (22), a printhead (28) is aligned radially of disc (22) and being configured reciprocally move relative to the disc and prints continuously along the azimuthal direction (see Fig. 4; column 3, lines 53-60).
Jones (US 7,085,017) teaches a radial printing system (200) (see Fig. 2), comprising a circular media (210), a ink jet pen (220) is aligned radially of circular media (210) and a pen control system fires ink jet pen (220), such that ink objects (212) impinge at target radii (216) along radial axis (218) and angle (226) during a rotation (214) of circular media (see Fig. 2; column 1, lines 36-50).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AHMED ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-0347. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM-7:30 PM.
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.
/MOHAMED K AHMED ALI/Examiner, Art Unit 1743