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
The Amendment filed Aug. 18, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-8 and 10-11 remain pending in the application.
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 1-8, 10-11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the receiving part" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear which or where the item(s) are pointed out. The claim 1 is indefinite.
Claims 2-8, 10-11 depended on claim 1 are rejected as well.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180117822 (“McGee”) in view of Wolf et al. (US 2016/0236408).
Regarding claim 1, McGee teaches a local heating type three-dimensional (3D) printer head (Abstract, extrusion die system with heater), the local heating type 3D printer comprises:
a syringe ([0041] extrusion die 14) configured (Fig. 6A, die 14 is held on the barrel 48) to receive a printing composition and to eject the printing composition ([0040] material received from feed housing and extrude from die 14) through a lower nozzle part ([0047], material exits from the tip 56), the syringe including:
a barrel part ([0040] barrel 48) to receive the printing composition, and
a nozzle part ([0047], material exits from the tip 56) to eject the printing composition, wherein the nozzle part has a smaller diameter than that of the receiving part; and
a syringe fixing part (item 24 in Fig. 2 (i.e., a housing member) ([0040])) configured to hold an upper portion of the receiving part of the syringe;
a head frame (at least, the adapter plate 26 is one portion of the head frame (as shown in Fig. 2) ([0040])) provided spaced apart from the syringe and configured to support the syringe fixing part; and
a heating part ([0042] cartridge heater 70 in Fig. 6A) configured to locally heat around the nozzle part;
a plurality of cartridge heaters ([0042] at least two cartridge heater(s) 70 in Fig. 6A) configured to be inserted into the heater insertion holes for heating around the nozzle part.
However, McGee does not disclose the heating part directly fixed to the head frame. McGee also does not disclose the heating part including a heating block separately from the nozzle part.
In the same field of endeavor, 3d printing, Wolf discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 9, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, a heating block provided separably from the nozzle part and the barrel part (e.g., as illustrated in Fig. 17, item 216 is considered as providing the separate heating block ([0102])) and configured to be fixed to the head frame (item 176 is considered as one portion of the head frame (as shown in Figs. 14, 20); it is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 19A, the sleeve 226 can have a threaded extension or extender 228 that engages the threaded portion 224 of the base 216 ([0110], lines 5-8)), and having a center hole (e.g., as illustrated in Fig. 19A, item (threaded portion) 224 is considered as providing the central hole ([0110])) and heater insertion holes (i.e., as illustrated in Fig. 17, item 220 ([0107])); and
wherein the nozzle part of the syringe is configured to be inserted into the center hole of the heating block (as shown in Fig. 19A).
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of McGee to have the printing head with the syringe as Wolf teaches that it is known to have the heating part directly fixed to the head frame and the heating part including a heating block separately from the nozzle part. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 2, McGee teaches the heating part but does not explicitly disclose a heating part adjustment plate.
Wolf discloses that, the top of the heating part further comprises a heating part adjustment plate (Fig. 17, items 212, 232, 234 ([0100], [0119]); here, the item 212 is considered as a lower heating part adjustment plate and items 232, 234 are considered as a upper heating part adjustment plate) that covers a bottom of the syringe and the heating part to ensure a minimum heating area. As indicated in claim interpretation, the limitation “to ensure a minimum heating area” is considered intended use of a claimed apparatus, and the structure disclosed by McGee is capable of performing the claimed use, the extrusion device in McGee teaches the elements in claim 2. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP 2115.
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of McGee to have the printing head with the syringe as Wolf teaches that it is known to have the heating part including the heating part adjustment plat(s). It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 3, McGee teaches wherein the upper part of the heating part adjustment plate wraps around the outer peripheral surface of the syringe and the heating part (Fig. 6A, upper part of housing 50 covers the outer peripheral surface of the die 14 and the heater 70).
Regarding claim 4, McGee teaches wherein the bottom of the heating part (Fig. 6A, bottom of heater 70) further comprises a heating part adjustment plate installed to wrap around an outer peripheral surface of a nozzle part (Fig. 6A, housing 50 covers outer peripheral surface of nozzle 62) to secure a minimum heating area. As indicated in claim interpretation, the limitation “to ensure a minimum heating area” is considered intended use of a claimed apparatus, and the structure disclosed by McGee is capable of performing the claimed use, the extrusion device in McGee teaches the elements in claim 4. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 7, McGee teaches wherein the middle end of the syringe is provided with a heat sink part (Fig. 4, cooling system 16 is on the middle end of die 14) that dissipates high heat to prevent the syringe from overheating ([0044] cooling system 16 provides cooling gas to lower temperature of the die 14). As indicated in claim interpretation, the limitation “dissipates high heat to prevent the syringe from overheating” is considered intended use of a claimed apparatus, and the structure disclosed by McGee is capable of performing the claimed use, the extrusion device in McGee teaches the elements in claim 7. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 8, McGee teaches wherein a thermoplastic polymer is used in the printing composition ([0035], thermoplastic elastomer is used as printing material).
Regarding claim 10, McGee teaches wherein the cartridge heaters are located at the same point on either side of the syringe (Fig. 6A, cartridge heaters 70 are located at the same point on either side of die 14 and inserted into the slots 68 as the heater insertion holes).
Regarding claim 11, McGee teaches further comprises a temperature measurement part ([0043] thermocouple 80 measures temperature) installed at a side of the heating part (Fig. 6B, thermocouple 80 is on left side of the heater 70) to measure the temperature of the syringe ([0043] thermocouple 80 measures temperature of die housing 50).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of US 20180117822 (“McGee”) and Wolf et al. (US 2016/0236408) as applied to claim 2 above, in view of US 20180333915 (“Montgomery”).
Regarding claim 5, McGee does not teach wherein the thickness of the heating part adjustment plate is formed to be less than or equal to the thickness of the heating part.
However, the thickness of the heating part adjustment plate is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Montgomery teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention that adjusting the thickness of the heating part adjustment plate will improve thermal isolation performance ([0078], reduce the thickness of the housing covering the heater in order to improve thermal isolation performance). Therefore, keeping the thickness of the heating part adjustment plate to be less than or equal to the thickness of the heating part will prevent excessive temperature dissipation. For that reason, the thickness of the heating part adjustment plate would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the thickness of the heating part adjustment plate cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thickness of the heating part adjustment plate in the apparatus of McGee to obtain the desired thermal isolation efficiency as taught by Montgomery (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of US 20180117822 (“McGee”) and Wolf et al. (US 2016/0236408) as applied to claim 2 above, in view of US 20240001609 (“Poddar”).
Regarding claim 6, McGee teaches wherein the head frame is provided with a syringe fixing part ([0041] threaded portion 64) for fixing the syringe ([0041] threaded portion threadedly fixed the die 14).
McGee does not teach the syringe fixing part is located at an upper front face of the head frame.
Poddar teaches an extrusion system (Fig. 3), wherein an upper front face of the head frame (Fig. 3, upper front face of frame 509) is provided with a syringe fixing part ([0054] nozzle 110 is connected to the frame 509).
McGee and Poddar are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of additive manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the syringe fixing part in McGee to incorporate attaching to the upper front face of the head frame as taught by Poddar, in order to enable moving the syringe on a scaffold (Poddar, [0050]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/18/2025 have been fully considered.
In response to applicant’s arguments (as amended) in claim 1 that neither do the cartridge heater slots/holes 68 have a center hole, not are the extruder tip 56, it is persuasive.
Regarding the arguments (as amended) in claim 2 that the base reference McGee does not disclose the upper heating block and the lower heating block, it is persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shibin Liang whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on (571)270 7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights