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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 5-6, and 10-11 are currently amended.
In view of the amendment, filed on 11/26/2025, the following objections / rejections are withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on 08/27/2025.
Objection to claims 5, 6, and 11.
Rejection of claims 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) / (a)(2) as being anticipated by Yuwaki et al. (US 2020/0307082)
New Grounds of the Rejections
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.
Amended claims 1 and 11 recite “at least one stored latency value specific to the feedstock material being extruded” which renders the claimed subject matter vague and indefinite because the scope of phrase “specific to the feedstock material being extruded” is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the scope of “specific to the feedstock material being extruded”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuwaki et al. (US 2020/0307082)
Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) disclose a three dimensional (3D) printing comprising: a control system (500); an ejection section (60) comprising a first supply port (65) for flowing a flowable shaping material, a nozzle (61) from which the flowable material is ejected, and an ejection amount control mechanism (70) responsive to the controller section (500) for controllably stopping and resuming a flow of the flowable shaping material during the operation (see claim 1; ¶ [0019]-[0030], [0041]-[0057]; figures 1, 4-5, 8-10), wherein the ejection section (60) comprises a transfer mechanism (90) in communication with the first supply port (65) for controllably transferring or diverting at least a part of the flowable shaping material in the nozzle (61) and a second supply port (67) to the inside of a recessed part (75) (see paragraphs [0041]-[0047], [0055]; figures 1, 4-5, 8-10), and the ejection amount control mechanism (70) in communication with the first supply port (65) for controllably stopping the flow of the shaping material to the nozzle (61) (see paragraphs [0032], [0051]-[0052]; figures 1, 4-5, 8-10).
[AltContent: textbox (A valve system (70))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
656
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (A nozzle housing (62, 63))][AltContent: textbox (A print nozzle system (60))]
[AltContent: textbox (A diverter valve (90))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A needle valve (96))][AltContent: textbox (A valve part (73))][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
402
488
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) teach an apparatus for extruding material to make a part using a flowable feedstock material, the apparatus comprising: a controller (500, ¶ [0020]); a print nozzle system (an ejection section 60; ¶ [0023]) including: a nozzle housing (a supply flow channel 62, a first partial flow channel 63; ¶ [0060]) for receiving the flowable feedstock material; a nozzle element (61; ¶ [0030]) from which the flowable feedstock material is extruded; and a valve system (an ejection amount control mechanism 70 including a valve part 73 disposed inside the through hole 66; ¶ [0030] and [0032]) responsive to the controller (500) for controllably interrupting and restarting a flow of the flowable feedstock material during a print operation (a first drive section 81 is formed of an actuator and rotates the valve part 73 inside the through hole 66 under the control by the control section 500; ¶ [0032]).
Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) discloses the ejection section (60) comprises a transfer mechanism (90) in communication with the first supply port (65) for controllably transferring at least a part of the flowable shaping material in the nozzle (61) and a second supply port (67) to the inside of a recessed part (75) (see ¶ [0041]-[0047], [0055]; figures 1, 4-5, 8-10).
Even though Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) is silent on disclosing the controller being controlled to implement at least one stored latency value specific to the feedstock material being extruded, when controlling the value system, to take into account a time needed for the value system to respond and at least one of: interrupt the feedstock flow; or when the feedstock flow has been interrupted, to resume feedstock flow, as claimed in claim 1.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of Applicant’s invention, to modify the controller as disclosed by Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) so to be controlled to implement at least one stored latency value specific to the feedstock material being extruded, when controlling the value system, to take into account a time needed for the value system to respond and at least one of interrupt the feedstock flow or when the feedstock flow has been interrupted, to resume feedstock flow in order to control the ejection amount control mechanism to improve the response in ejecting the shaping material from the nozzle when resuming the ejection of the shaping material from the nozzle, as suggested by Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082).
Further, it should be noted that the claimed recitation of “being controlled to implement at least one stored latency value specific to the feedstock material being extruded, when controlling the value system, to take into account a time needed for the value system to respond and at least one of: interrupt the feedstock flow; or when the feedstock flow has been interrupted, to resume feedstock flow” is more toward a manner of operating the system and does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art. See MPEP 2114 (II), therefore, treated as “intended use”. It is believed that the disclosed structure by Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) is capable of operating the same manner as recited in claim 1 and all the claimed structural limitations in claim 1 are met by Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082).
As to claim 2, Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) disclose the valve system (70) includes a diverter valve (a transfer mechanism 90; ¶ [0041]) in communication with the housing (62, 63) for controllably diverting at least a portion of the flow of the feedstock material to the nozzle element (61; ¶ [0041]) when the flow of the feedstock material is to be interrupted.
Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) teach the transfer mechanism (90) includes a cylinder (95), a plunger (96) moveable linearly between first and second positions to selectively block flow through the transfer mechanism (90) (see ¶ [0045]-[0047]; figure 9).
As to claim 3, Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) disclose the diverter valve (90) includes at least one of a needle valve (96) movable linearly between first and second positions to selectively block flow through the diverter valve (90).
Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) teach the ejection amount control mechanism (70) is provided with a valve part (73) rotatable between different rotational positions for controllably changing a flow of the shaping material to the nozzle (61). (see ¶ [0032], [0051]-[0052]; figures 1, 4-5, 8-10)
Therefore, as to claim 4, Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) disclose the valve system (70) includes a nozzle valve (a valve part 73; ¶ [0032]) in communication with the housing (62, 63) for controllably interrupting the flow of the feedstock material to the nozzle element (61).
Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) disclose the ejection amount control mechanism 70 is provided with a valve part 73 rotatable between different rotational positions for controllably changing a flow of the shaping material to the nozzle 61 (see ¶ [0042]-[0043]; figures 4-6)
Therefore, as to claim 5, Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) teach the nozzle valve (a valve part 73; ¶ [0032]) includes a rotationally movable valve (73) movable between different rotational positions for controllably interrupting a flow of the feedstock material to the nozzle element. (See Figs. 4-5 and 8-9)
Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) teach the control section (500) controls the ejection amount control mechanism (70) and the transfer mechanism (90) to controllably stop the flow of the shaping material (see ¶ [0051]-[0057]).
Further, Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) disclose the ejection (60) comprises a transfer mechanism (90) in communication with the first supply port (65) for controllably transferring at least a part of the flowable shaping material in the nozzle (61) and a second supply port (67) to the inside of a recessed part (75) (see paragraphs [0041]-[0047], [0055]; figures 1, 4-5, 8-10); and an ejection amount control mechanism (70) in communication with the first supply port (65) for controllably stopping the flow of the shaping material to the nozzle (61) (see paragraphs [0032], [0051]-[0052]; figures 1, 4-5, 8-10).
As to claim 6, Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) teach the valve system (an ejection amount control mechanism 70) includes: a diverter valve (a transfer mechanism 90) in communication with the housing (62, 63) for controllably diverting at least a portion of the flow of the feedstock material to the nozzle element (61) when the flow of the feedstock material is to be interrupted; a nozzle valve (a valve part 73) in communication with the housing (62, 63) for controllably interrupting the flow of the feedstock material to the nozzle element (61); and wherein the diverter valve (90) is arranged upstream, relative to a direction of flow of the feedstock material through the housing (62, 63), from the nozzle valve (a valve part 73).
As to claim 7, Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) disclose the nozzle valve (a valve part 73) is configured to communicate directly with the nozzle element (61). (See figures 1, 4-5, 8-9)
As to claim 8, Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) teach the valve system includes: a diverter valve (a transfer mechanism 90) in communication with the housing (62, 63); a nozzle valve (a valve part 73) in communication with the diverter valve (90); and a common housing for housing both the diverter valve and the nozzle valve.
Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) teach a transfer mechanism (400) moves the stage (300) with respect to the shaping unit (200) to thereby change the relative position between the nozzle (61) and the shaping surface (310). (see ¶ [0021] and figure 1)
As to claim 9, Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) disclose a nozzle motion control subsystem (a first drive section 81 for rotating the valve part 73; ¶ [0032]) for controlling motion of the nozzle system (70) within at least one of: an X axis and Y axis plane.
As to claim 10, Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) disclose the valve system (an ejection amount control mechanism 70 including a valve part 73 disposed inside the through hole 66; ¶ [0030] and [0032]) includes a nozzle valve in communication with the housing (a supply flow channel 62, a first partial flow channel 63; ¶ [0060]) for controllably interrupting the flow of the feedstock material to the nozzle element (a first drive section 81 is formed of an actuator and rotates the valve part 73 inside the through hole 66 under the control by the control section 500; ¶ [0032]); and the controller (500) is configured to apply control signals to each of the diverter valve (a transfer mechanism 90) and the nozzle valve (73) in a desired sequence to controllably interrupt the flow of the feedstock material. (See ¶ [0020])
As to claim 11, Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) disclose an apparatus for extruding material to make a part using a flowable feedstock material, the apparatus comprising: a controller (a control section 500; ¶ [0020]); a print nozzle system including: a nozzle housing (a supply flow channel 62, a first partial flow channel 63; ¶ [0060]) for receiving the flowable feedstock material; a nozzle element (61; ¶ [0030]) from which the flowable feedstock material is extruded; a valve system (an ejection amount control mechanism 70 including a valve part 73 disposed inside the through hole 66; ¶ [0030] and [0032]) responsive to the controller (500) for controllably interrupting and restarting a flow of the flowable feedstock material during a print operation; the valve system (70) including: a diverter valve (a transfer mechanism 90) in communication with the housing (62, 63) for controllably diverting at least a portion of the flow of the feedstock material to the nozzle element when a flow of the feedstock material is to be interrupted (a first drive section 81 is formed of an actuator and rotates the valve part 73 inside the through hole 66 under the control by the control section 500; ¶ [0032]); and a nozzle valve (a valve part 73; ¶ [0032]) in communication with the diverter valve (a transfer mechanism 90).
Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) disclose the nozzle valve (a valve part 73; ¶ [0032]) in communication with the diverter valve (a transfer mechanism 90), however, is silent on disclosing the nozzle valve being disposed downstream of the diverter valve relative to a direction of flow of the feedstock material through the nozzle system. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of Applicant’s invention, to modify the positioning of the nozzle valve relative to the diverter valve so to be disposed downstream of the diverter valve relative to a direction of the feedstock material flow through the nozzle system in order to improve the response in ejecting the shaping material from the nozzle 61 when resuming the ejection of the shaping material from the nozzle 61 and to prevent the shaping material from denaturing in the cylinder 95 while improving the response in ejecting the shaping material from the nozzle 61. (see ¶ [0077]).
Further, even though Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) is silent on disclosing the controller being controlled to implement at least one stored latency value specific to the feedstock material being extruded, when controlling the value system, to take into account a time needed for the value system to respond and at least one of: interrupt the feedstock flow; or when the feedstock flow has been interrupted, to resume feedstock flow, as claimed in claim 11.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of Applicant’s invention, to modify the controller as disclosed by Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) so to be controlled to implement at least one stored latency value specific to the feedstock material being extruded, when controlling the value system, to take into account a time needed for the value system to respond and at least one of interrupt the feedstock flow or when the feedstock flow has been interrupted, to resume feedstock flow in order to control the ejection amount control mechanism to improve the response in ejecting the shaping material from the nozzle when resuming the ejection of the shaping material from the nozzle, as suggested by Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082).
Further, it should be noted that the claimed recitation of “being controlled to implement at least one stored latency value specific to the feedstock material being extruded, when controlling the value system, to take into account a time needed for the value system to respond and at least one of: interrupt the feedstock flow; or when the feedstock flow has been interrupted, to resume feedstock flow” is more toward a manner of operating the system and does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art. See MPEP 2114 (II), therefore, treated as “intended use”. It is believed that the disclosed structure by Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) is capable of operating the same manner as recited in claim 11 and all the claimed structural limitations in claim 11 are met by Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082).
As to claim 12, Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) teach the diverter valve (a transfer mechanism 90) includes at least one of a first linearly movable needle valve (a plunger 96) responsive to first control signals from the controller (a control section 500); and the nozzle valve (a valve part 73) includes a second rotationally movable valve element responsive to second control signals from the controller (500).
As to claim 13, Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) teach a motion control subsystem (a first drive section 81 for rotating the valve part 73; ¶ [0032]) for controlling movement of the nozzle system (70) within at least one of: a plane defined by an X axis and a Y axis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 11/26/2025, with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot in view of the above new grounds of the rejections. The arguments are mainly directed to the newly added limitations to claims 1 and 11 and that the prior art fails to disclose the newly added limitations to claims 1 and 11. However, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because as it has been indicated above in the body of the rejection, even though Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) is silent on disclosing the controller being controlled to implement at least one stored latency value specific to the feedstock material being extruded, when controlling the value system, to take into account a time needed for the value system to respond and at least one of: interrupt the feedstock flow; or when the feedstock flow has been interrupted, to resume feedstock flow.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of Applicant’s invention, to modify the controller as disclosed by Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) so to be controlled to implement at least one stored latency value specific to the feedstock material being extruded, when controlling the value system, to take into account a time needed for the value system to respond and at least one of interrupt the feedstock flow or when the feedstock flow has been interrupted, to resume feedstock flow in order to control the ejection amount control mechanism to improve the response in ejecting the shaping material from the nozzle when resuming the ejection of the shaping material from the nozzle, as suggested by Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082).
Further, it should be noted that the claimed recitation of “being controlled to implement at least one stored latency value specific to the feedstock material being extruded, when controlling the value system, to take into account a time needed for the value system to respond and at least one of: interrupt the feedstock flow; or when the feedstock flow has been interrupted, to resume feedstock flow” is more toward a manner of operating the system and does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art. See MPEP 2114 (II), therefore, treated as “intended use”. It is believed that the disclosed structure by Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082) is capable of operating the same manner as recited in claims 1 and 11 and all the claimed structural limitations in claims 1 and 11 are met by Yuwaki et al. (US ‘082).
Finally, after a full review of the submitted remarks in view of rejections of the claims, it has been concluded that there are differences in interpreting the claimed subject matter and the cited references by between Applicant and the Office. Therefore, Examiner would like to suggest that if Applicant’s Counsel believes an interview can benefit the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant’s Counsel is kindly invited to contact the undersigned examiner.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lewis et al. (US 2020/0086564) disclose a nozzle for a 3D printing system, the nozzle comprising: a flowpath with a material inlet and a material outlet; a valve in fluid communication with the flowpath between the material inlet and the material outlet, the valve including a closed state and an open state, wherein in the closed state the valve obstructs the flowpath between the material inlet and the material outlet, and wherein in the open state the material inlet is in fluid communication with the material outlet. (see the abstract)
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 SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-6215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, SUSAN D. LEONG can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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. 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.
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1754
03/27/2026