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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-6, and Species A, Figs. 1-7, in the reply filed on 12/09/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 7 is a linking claim that requires all of the elements of claim 1 and cannot be practiced without the apparatus of claim 1. Applicant argues that claim 1 cannot practice a different process such as metals or adhesives. This is not found persuasive because a recitation of intended use in the preamble of an apparatus claim is not limiting when the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention. MPEP 2111.02 (II). Furthermore, materials worked upon do not limit apparatus claims. MPEP 2115. Applications claiming inventions in different statutory categories (apparatus and process) require only one-way distinctness to support a restriction requirement.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/09/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/19/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention. For an apparatus, the abstract should include its organization and operation. 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).
Claim Interpretation
The examined claims are to a device/apparatus. Recitations directed toward a manner of operating a device do not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. MPEP 2114 (II). Furthermore, materials or articles worked upon by an apparatus in its intended use do not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP 2115. The claimed apparatus requires at most structure capable of performing the intended use.
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(s) 1-6 is/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.
The term “extreme” (“extreme performance”) in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “extreme” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, the relative claim language is unclear as to whether or not “extreme” requires or implies any particular structure or capability of the apparatus. For further examination, an apparatus that meets the structural requirements of the claim is considered to meet an extreme performance capability.
Claim 1 recites “a cold side including a heatsink…” The specification only describes the cold side and the heatsink as the same element ([0024]). Accordingly, the claim appears to present two separate elements but is unclear as to what distinction is present between a “cold side” and a “heatsink” in view of the present disclosure. For further examination, an apparatus that includes either element is interpreted to meet both a “cold side” and a “heatsink.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the hotside" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “strategically” (“strategically placed”) in claim 1, next to last line, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “strategically” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, the relative claim language is unclear as to whether/how “strategically” limits the placement of holes in the tube structure. For further examination, an apparatus that meets the structural requirements of the claim is considered to meet strategic placement.
The term “high” (“high temperatures”) in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high temperatures” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, the relative claim language is unclear as to what temperatures would or would not be considered “high” in a given application. The specification provides no particular temperatures or ranges to provide guidance as to the interpretation. For further examination, an apparatus that meets the structural requirements of the claim is considered to meet a high temperature capability.
Claim 3 recites that the holes in the tube structure “can alternate in location and pattern to…” The limitation is unclear as to how a feature such as the location/pattern of physical holes in a tube structure could alternate, or change. These features are understood in view of the specification to be fixed in a given tube structure. For further examination, the limitation is interpreted to mean that the holes are arranged in an alternating pattern/location.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the surroundings" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites that the length of the hot side “can be increased to…” The limitation is unclear as to how a feature such as the length of a structural element could be increased, or change. The specification does not appear to disclose any adjustable length elements. This feature is understood in view of the specification to be fixed for a given hotend. The claim is further unclear as to what the length is “increased” relative to – a prior configuration of the same device? A prior art configuration? A standard configuration? For further examination, any of these interpretations would apply.
The terms “precise” and “consistent” (“precise and consistent prints”) in claim 5 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “precise” and “consistent” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, the relative claim language is unclear as to what would or would not be considered “precise” or “consistent” in a given application. The disclosure provides no particular parameters, specifications, or other data for ascertaining a level of precision or consistency. For further examination, an apparatus that meets the structural requirements of the claim is considered to meet the intended capability.
The indicated dependent claims are rejected for the reasons provided above.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wilk et al., US 20210187843 A1.
PNG
media_image1.png
1718
1470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Wilk discloses an extreme performance hotend (print head, Figs. 1-3) for solid polymers (for a printing material, [0008], in filament form, [0003], suitable for polymers, [0024]), comprising:
a) a cold side including a heatsink (cold zone 16 with head body 10, Fig. 1, [0016]) through which a solid polymer filament enters (printing material enters through leading sleeve 28, Fig. 1, [0019]) and heat conducted from [a] hotside (hot zone 18, Fig. 1, [0016]) through a heatbreak (tube 14 spanning/separating hot and cold zones, Fig. 1, [0016]) is dissipated (the cold zone 16 and tube 14 are cooled by air flow, e.g., from vents 30, Fig. 1, [0022]),
b) a hot side (hot zone 18, Fig. 1, [0016]) including at least one heatblock (heating block 20, Fig. 1, [0017]) with a cavity for transferring heat energy to the filament (cavity through which tube 14 extends, Fig. 1), and
c) a tube structure (housing structure including screen 26, Figs. 1-3, [0021]) mechanically connecting the cold side and hot side (Figs. 1-3), said tube structure having holes (Figs. 2-3) strategically placed to provide thermal resistance and structural support throughout the length of the hotend (Figs. 2-3, screen has low heat capacity and thermal conductivity and is made from metal, [0021], i.e., has the depicted manufactured holes and provides thermal resistance and is structurally supportive).
Regarding claim 2, Wilk discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the tube structure comprises a rigid material with low thermal conductivity (metal with low thermal conductivity, [0021]) and is capable of sustaining high temperatures (a metal, [0021]; the device being suitable for working on high-temperature materials, [0024]).
Regarding claim 3, Wilk discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the holes in the tube structure can alternate in location and pattern (alternating pattern/location of holes in housing/screen, Fig. 3) to maintain structural rigidity while minimizing thermal transfer to the surroundings and the cold side (formed of metal, i.e., structurally rigid, and intended as a structural element with low heat capacity and thermal conductivity, [0021], i.e., to minimize thermal transfer to surrounding elements and cold side).
Regarding claim 4, Wilk discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the length of the hot side can be increased (a much larger heating block 20 can be used compared to prior art print heads, [0017], the heating block primarily defining a length of the hot side 18, Fig. 1) to accommodate higher extrusion rates while maintaining strength and support provided by the tube structure (a larger heating block would accommodate heating of more material and thus higher extrusion rates in use, while mechanical strength is enhanced/maintained via the attachment of the heating block to the body/housing structure as opposed to a guiding tube, [0017]).
Regarding claim 5, Wilk discloses the limitations of claim 4, wherein the hotend is dimensionally stable at various temperatures, enabling precise and consistent prints (the hotend is intended to work on high-temperature and different materials, such as metals and high-temperature polymer composite materials, [0024], and thus is sufficiently dimensionally stable at various temperatures for enabling successful, i.e., precise and consistent, prints).
Regarding claim 6, Wilk discloses a 3D printer (3D printer, [0016]) incorporating the hot end of claim 1 (used in connection with the disclosed print head, [0016], see claim 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20140159284 A1, Leavitt (Figs. 2-7), and US 20120164256 A1, Swanson et al. (e.g., Figs. 21-25), disclose relevant hot end configurations.
US 20220274319 A1, Taniguchi discloses forming a hot end from materials including titanium.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm ET.
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 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. 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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754