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 without traverse of Group I (claims 1-10 and 15-20) in the reply filed on 12/18/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/18/2025.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that claim(s) 1-10 and 15-20 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)).
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, 4-6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Choi (US 2019/0329274).
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches a nozzle holder assembly (a head unit (120)) for a three-dimensional printer (a printing apparatus (100)) (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 4; [0031]), the nozzle holder assembly comprising:
a head holder (121) capable of being a mount operable to be secured to the three-dimensional printer (see Fig. 2, Fig. 4 and annotated Fig. 6 below; [0054] and [0059]);
a printer nozzle shaft movably coupled to the mount and operable to shift relative to the mount along a predetermined length (see annotated Fig. 6 below; [0066-0068]); and
a locking mechanism (a slit adjusting member (122) configured to adjust a width of a slit (206) to clamp/mount the printer nozzle shaft relative to the mount) with a protruding portion (member 122 is clearly shown as rotatable knob which inherently has a protruding portion/screw projecting into 206 to adjust the size of 206) capable to be operable to shift to directly or indirectly engage the printer nozzle shaft to fix the printer nozzle shaft relative to the mount at any position along the predetermined length (i.e. the length of 302 is inserted into 204 in Fig. 6 while most length of 302 is inserted into 204 and locked by 122 at the shown position in Fig. 7) (see annotated Fig. 6 below; [0061]).
PNG
media_image1.png
445
427
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Choi further teaches the nozzle holder assembly, further comprising a shaft holder operatively associated with the mount (121), wherein the printer nozzle shaft is movably coupled to the mount via the shaft holder (see annotated Fig. 6 above and Fig. 7; [0066-0068]).
Regarding claim 5, Choi further teaches the nozzle holder assembly, wherein the shaft holder is shiftable relative to the mount (121) (see annotated Fig. 6 below and Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 6, Choi further teaches the nozzle holder assembly, wherein the shaft holder defines a channel (first channel) through which the printer nozzle shaft extends (see annotated Fig. 6 below and Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image2.png
435
367
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Choi further teaches the nozzle holder assembly, wherein the locking mechanism (i.e. a slit adjusting member (122) configured to adjust a width of a slit (206) to clamp/mount the printer nozzle shaft relative to the mount, thus, slit adjusting member capable of being a fastener (see annotated Fig. 6 above; [0061]).
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2019/0329274) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ciscon (US 2019/0030817).
Regarding claim 2, Choi teaches the nozzle holder assembly as discussed in claim 1 above.
Choi does not teach that the nozzle holder assembly further comprising a sensor configured to detect movement between the printer nozzle shaft and the mount.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing devices, Ciscon teaches a 3D printer calibration system includes a controller controlling movement of a 3D printer printhead (120) in a first axis, such as the z-axis (Abstract, Fig. 1), wherein the system further includes an optical sensor assembly (164) configured for z-axis position detection within 10 microns of the printhead (120) (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 5; [0045-0046], [0059] and [0065]). Ciscon teaches that the system allow for the inclusion of the proposed alignment system, improves z-axis precision to several microns; and the optical sensor assembly is disposed on the printhead to improve accuracy in deflection detection, and improving first axis positional awareness (see [0013]). Unlike the prior art techniques for optical recognition for printhead positioning, positional accuracy is achieved by including circuitry elements in close proximity to the printhead (120) (see [0045] of Ciscon).
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 nozzle holder assembly as taught by Choi in view of Ciscon with using an optical sensor disposed on the printhead, configured for z-axis position detection within 10 microns of the printhead and capable to detect movement between a printer nozzle shaft and a mount as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Ciscon 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 for the inclusion of the proposed alignment system, improves z-axis precision to several microns; and also in order to improve accuracy in deflection detection, and improving first axis positional awareness (see [0013] and [0045] of Ciscon).
Regarding claim 3, Choi in view of Ciscon further teaches the nozzle holder assembly, wherein the sensor (i.e. a sensor assembly (164) includes (a light sensor (162) and an emitter (160)) is capable to be configured to emit a signal representative of movement between the printer nozzle shaft and the mount (see Fig. 5; [0045-0049] and [0058] of Ciscon).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2019/0329274) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Vanacker (EP 3117982).
Regarding claim 7, Choi teaches the nozzle holder assembly as discussed in claim 6 above.
Choi further teaches the nozzle holder assembly, wherein the channel is a first channel (see annotated Fig. 6 above). However, Choi does not explicitly teach that the shaft holder includes a bearing extending into the first channel and defining a second channel through which the shaft extends.
In the same field of endeavor, Nozzle assembly for 3D printing devices, Vanacker teaches a nozzle assembly (81-88) used by 3D printing system (Abstract; Fig. 5A and [0054]), wherein the nozzle assembly comprises a bearing assembly (90, 91) extends into a first channel of nozzle assembly, effectively defining a second channel for a shaft/tube (92) to pass through (see annotated Fig . 5A below; [0055-0056]). Vanacker teaches that the bearing assembly is secured between a retainer and a sealing component, allowing the nozzle assembly to rotate freely with minimal friction (see [0054-0055]).
PNG
media_image3.png
328
355
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the nozzle holder assembly as taught by Choi in view of Vanacker with a bearing extending into the first channel and defining a second channel through which the shaft extends as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Vanacker 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 for the nozzle’s assembly to rotate freely with minimal friction (see [0054-0055] of Vanacker).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2019/0329274) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Voiculescu (WO 2014/117249).
Regarding claim 8, Choi teaches the nozzle holder assembly as discussed in claim 1 above.
Choi does not teach wherein the locking mechanism comprises an actuator that actuates the protruding portion to fix the printer nozzle shaft relative to the mount.
In the same field of endeavor, locking mechanisms for locking device member in a selected position using a locking mechanism, Voiculescu teaches a locking mechanism having a locking pin (protruding portion) used to lock the actuator piston (2) in a fixed position with respect to the locking pin (102) by interfering with the movement of the actuator piston (2) (see Figs. 1-2; [0035]); wherein the locking mechanism further include actuator (a mechanical bias (107)) that forces the locking pin (102) towards the extended position to interfere with the actuator piston (2) (see Figs. 1-5;[0038]).
Voiculescu further teaches that the use of the mechanical bias (107) provides a lower cost locking pin assembly (100) because a secondary hydraulic system to extend the locking pin (102) to interfere with the actuator piston (2) is not required (see Figs. 1-2; [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the nozzle holder assembly as taught by Choi in view of Voiculescu with locking mechanism a locking mechanism include actuator (a mechanical bias (107)) that actuates a protruding portion and capable to fix the printer nozzle shaft relative to the mount as such is known in the art of locking mechanisms given the discussion of Voiculescu 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 reliable form of locking a linear actuator in a specific position (see [0007] of Voiculescu).
Regarding claim 9, Choi in view of Voiculescu further teaches the nozzle holder assembly, wherein the protruding portion comprises a locking pin (102) (see Fig. 1;[0035-0038]).
Claim(s) 15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stockton (WO 2022/232022) in view of Choi (US 2019/0329274).
Regarding claim 15, Stockton teaches a three-dimensional printer (110) for printing a plurality of parts (see Fig. 10;[0042]), the printer comprising:
a build platform (support table (112)) for supporting the plurality of parts (see Fig. 10; [0042]);
a frame (Z-axis plate (164)) shiftable above the build platform (see Fig. 10 and Figs. 13-15; [0045-0047]); and
a plurality of nozzle assemblies (122) attached to the frame (164) (see Fig. 10 and Figs. 13-15; [0042-0043] and [0054]), each of the plurality of nozzle assemblies comprising:
amount (nozzle clamp (156)) operable to couple to the frame (see Fig. 10 and Fig. 12; [0044-0045]),
a printer nozzle shaft (154) movably coupled to the mount (156) along a predetermined length (see Fig. 12; [0043]), and the nozzle (122) affixed to the z-axis plate assembly (126) by a mechanical fasteners (162) (see Fig. 13; [0045]); however, Stockton does not explicitly teach the fastener configured to fix the printer nozzle shaft relative to the mount at any position along the predetermined length.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing devices, Choi teaches a printing apparatus (100) for printed electronics (see Fig. 4; [0031]), comprises a nozzle holder assembly (a head unit 120), a mount (a head holder (121)), a printer nozzle shaft movably coupled to the mount (see annotated Fig. 6 below; [0054] and [0066-0068]); a slit adjusting member (122) configured to adjust a width of a slit (206) to clamp/mount the printer nozzle shaft relative to the mount, thus, slit adjusting member capable of being fastener configured to fix the printer nozzle shaft relative to the mount at any position along the predetermined length; and the slit adjusting mechanism designed to allow for continuous positional adjustment along the shaft’s length which aligns with the requirement of fixing the shaft at any position along the predetermined length (see annotated Fig. 6 below; [0061]).
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 apparatus as taught by Stockton in view of Choi with configuring the fastener to fix the printer nozzle shaft relative to the mount at any position along the predetermined length as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Choi 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 slit adjusting member allow for a quick too-free adjustment and ensure that each nozzle can be fine-tuned without disturbing the entire setup.
PNG
media_image4.png
445
463
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Stockton in view of Choi and Ciscon further teaches the three-dimensional printer, wherein each of the plurality of nozzle assemblies comprises: a shaft holder operatively associated with the mount, wherein the printer nozzle shaft is movably coupled to the mount (121) via the shaft holder (see annotated Fig. 6 below and Fig. 7; [0066-0068] of Choi).
Regarding claim 19, Stockton in view of Choi and Ciscon further teaches the three-dimensional printer, wherein the shaft holder of each of the plurality of nozzle assemblies is shiftable relative to the mount (121) (see annotated Fig. 6 below and Fig. 7 of Choi).
PNG
media_image4.png
445
463
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Stockton in view of Choi and Ciscon further teaches the three-dimensional printer, wherein the fastener of each of the plurality of nozzle assemblies comprises a threaded portion (see annotated Fig. 6 below and Fig. 7 of Choi).
PNG
media_image5.png
445
437
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stockton (WO 2022/232022) in view of Choi (US 2019/0329274) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Ciscon (US 2019/0030817).
Regarding claim 16, Stockton in view of Choi teaches the three-dimensional printer as discussed in claim 15 above.
Stockton further teaches wherein each of the plurality of nozzle assemblies comprises a sensor assembly (128) configured to indicate the location of the nozzle (122) relative to the support table (112) (see Fig. 10;[0043]). However, Stockton does not explicitly teach that a sensor configured to detect movement between the printer nozzle shaft and the mount.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing devices, Ciscon teaches a 3D printer calibration system includes a controller controlling movement of a 3D printer printhead (120) in a first axis, such as the z-axis (Abstract, Fig. 1), wherein the system includes an optical sensor assembly (164) configured for z-axis position detection within 10 microns of the printhead (120), thus optical sensor assembly (164) capable to detect movement between the printer nozzle shaft and the mount in along the Z-axis (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 5; [0045-0046], [0059] and [0065]). Ciscon teaches that the system allow for the inclusion of the proposed alignment system, improves z-axis precision to several microns; and the optical sensor assembly is disposed on the printhead to improve accuracy in deflection detection, and improving first axis positional awareness (see [0013]). Unlike the prior art techniques for optical recognition for printhead positioning, positional accuracy is achieved by including circuitry elements in close proximity to the printhead (120) (see [0045] of Ciscon ).
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 nozzle holder assembly as taught by Stockton in view of Ciscon with an optical sensor disposed on the printhead configured for z-axis position detection within 10 microns of the printhead and capable to detect movement between a printer nozzle shaft and a mount as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Ciscon 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 for the inclusion of the proposed alignment system, improves z-axis precision to several microns; and in order to improve accuracy in deflection detection, and improving first axis positional awareness (see [0013] and [0045] of Ciscon).
Regarding claim 17, Stockton in view of Choi and Ciscon further teaches the three-dimensional printer, wherein the sensor (i.e. a sensor assembly (164) includes (a light sensor (162) and an emitter (160)) of each of the plurality of nozzle assemblies is capable to be configured to emit a signal representative of movement between the printer nozzle shaft and the mount (see Fig. 5;[0045-0049] and [0058] of Ciscon).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 and 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 14-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,878,465.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are coextensive in the scope.
Independent claim 1 of the instant application reads on claim 1 of patented claim.
Independent claim 15 of the instant application reads on claim 14 of patented claim.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 15-20 recite various features which are also recited or obvious over claims 2-9 and 13-18 of the patented claims.
Conclusion
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