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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1 -23 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. Dependent claims not listed separately are rejected due to their dependency. Claim s 1 -9 and 20 are seen as vague and indefinite due to the phrase “hopper body”. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp. , 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “ hopper body ” in the claims is used by the claim to mean “ an exterior casing of the extruder that also includes the hopper ” (this is based on the drawings and specification) while the accepted meaning would be “the body of the hopper .” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. A skilled artisan would see the phrase “hopper body” and think hopper, not the exterior casing. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp. , 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “ within…the hopper body ” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “ adjacent ” (based on the drawings and disclosure, while the accepted meaning of within would be “ inside .” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. As seen in CN 111251410 (already of record), the screw is within the hopper, what the Applicant is showing is the screw outside the hopper but surrounded by an external casing. Claims 2-8 are seen as vague and indefinite, since it is impossible (as shown and disclosed) for the “centre of gravity” to be located on the outer surface of the hopper body (shown in the drawings as alternative point of attachment 26a). The “centre of gravity” can be on the surface of the shroud as shown in Figure 13 at alternative point of attachment 26b. Using Figure 1 as the example, the point of attachment is at 26a which is claimed to be the centre of gravity. 26a is located on the surface, the only way for 26a to be the centre of gravity is if adjacent outer skin of the extruder is extremely massively (to the point of infinitely) heavier than the rest of the extruder. Which is obvious not possible. The only point of attachment that can be the center of gravity is 26b as shown in Figure 13, due to the masses of the print head side and the motor side creating the center at 26b. The only other possible manner in which 26a can be the center of gravity is if the extruder is non-vertical, but this is not claimed, and does not appear to be a use as disclosed , since the claim is referring to the point of attachment and not how the extruder is being used. Claims 3-8 are seen as vague and indefinite since the metes and bounds of claim 3 cannot be determined due to the usage of “subtend”. Subtend can mean (as defined by Merriam-Webster , other dictionaries provide similar definitions): It does not appear that the usage of “subtend” in claim 3 matches any of these definitions. For examination purposes claim 3 will be interpreted to be that the location of the motor and print head allow for the centre of gravity to be coincident with the point of attachment. The only disclosed such example is 26b in Figure 13. Claims 5-8 recites that the point of attachment cab be one of the hopper body or shroud, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 only allows for the point of attachment to be the hopper body, thus there is lack of antecedent basis for the point of attachment to be the shroud in claim 5, since it is an either or choice (not an and) in the ultimate parent claim 2. The term “ help ” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ help ” 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. To what degree are the spacers helping define an air vent? It seems as though simply saying “configured to define” would say the same thing without the vagaries of “to help”. Claim 17 is seen as vague and indefinite since it is unclear what the control unit is actually doing. Is the control unit of claim 17 the controller for the entire apparatus, since it is controlling both the auto feeder and the heaters, or is the control unit just a controller for the auto feeder and the heaters, and then there are other controllers for other structures? For examination purposes the control unit of claim 17 will be treated as the control unit for the printer, which would be able to control the needed parts thereof , since it is no longer just the auto feeder control unit if it also controls the heating elements. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 states that the centre of gravity/point of attachment is located on the surface of the hopper body. Claim 5 then states that the point of attachment is one of the hopper body or the shroud. If claim 4 has limited the location to the hopper body claim 5 cannot then say the location is the shroud, therefore claim 5 does not further limit claim 4. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: the specification has “point of attachment 26”, however 26 does not appear in the drawings, only 26a and 26b which are “alternative points attachment”. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: the specification has “ compound gear 58 ”, however 58 does not appear in the drawings . It is suggested that the Applicant review their specification and drawings for any additional referencing issues. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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. Clai ms 1 , 15, 16, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linthicum et al (US 2015/0321419; herein Linthicum, already of record), in view of UltiMaker (UltiMaker: How to replace the nozzle cover; Ulti M aker: How to replace the nozzle cover : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IX-X1yPIBg ). Regarding claim 1, Linthicum teaches: A motor having an upright drive shaft (Figure 4, stepper motor 172) A print head adjacent the motor and having a gearbox (Figures 4 and 5, where the gears are located) , a hopper body (Figures 4-6, the heat sink 166, hopper 130, chute 132 , and associated structures as seen in the Figures), and sequentially coupled in a top-down arrangement with the hopper body positioned adjacent the motor, the print head comprising (As seen in Figures 4-6) A nozzle (nozzle 126) A barrel in fluid communication with the nozzle and the hopper body (barrel 116) A screw conveyor moveably supported within the barrel and the hopper body such that the screw conveyor is disposed in rotatable engagement with the upright drive shaft of the motor via gearing arrangement of the gearbox (extrusion screw 124) , and wherein the screw conveyor is axially retractable in relation to the nozzle, upon rotation by the upright drive shaft in a first direction, for selectively defining a positive displacement pump that controls, by stopping or reversing, a flow of feedstock output by the nozzle (paragraph 0077) Linthicum is silent to a shroud In the same field of 3D printer heads, UltiMaker teaches adding a shroud to the printhead (as seen as the white structure being removed from the print head to access the nozzle within , e.g. timestamp 1:16) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a shroud to the design of Linthicum, since UltiMaker teaches that doing so shields the inner workings from the exterior environment (first paragraph of video description). Regarding claim 15 , Linthicum teaches : Wherein the barrel is configured to support at least two heating elements thereon (paragraph 0080, heater bands 164) Regarding claim 16, Linthicum teaches: Wherein a position of each heating element is adjustable along a length of the barrel (the bands 164 would have been adjusted to be placed as they are) Regarding claim 18 : W herein the screw conveyor is an elongated stepped rod having a helically threaded top portion, a trapezoidally threaded middle portion, and a helically grooved bottom portion that is slidably disposed, at least in part, within the barrel Linthicum teaches a three region screw in Figure 11C, but does not state the middle section is trapezoidally threaded . Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the needed middle shaped, since shape and design are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV B), since the screw of Linthicum provides the same function as claimed. Regarding claim 19: W herein the helically threaded top portion is characterized with one of: right handed or left handed threads, and the trapezoidally threaded middle portion and the helically grooved bottom portion are each characterized with another one of: right handed or left handed threads As seen in Figure 11C all the threads are in the same handed direction. Regarding claim 20 : W herein the helically grooved bottom portion of the screw conveyor is moveably positioned within at least one of the barrel in the shroud and an elongated conduit of the hopper body co-axial to, and in fluid communication with, the barrel As previously discussed, Linthicum teaches such use in paragraph 0077. Regarding claim 21: W herein rotation of the upright drive shaft and the screw conveyor facilitates a pressure drop through a control volume of the positive displacement pump defined between the screw conveyor, the nozzle and the barrel, such control volume being continuously variable with an amount of retraction and instantaneous movement between initial and final positions of the screw conveyor within the barrel and relative to the nozzle Claim 21 is seen as the intended use of the apparatus, and since the required structure is taught by the prior art, the prior art would then be capable of such use, since no other structure is claimed that would differentiate the claimed extruder from that of the prior art. See MPEP 2112.01 I and 2114-2115 . Regarding claims 22 and 23: Linthicum teaches such operations in paragraph 0077. Claim s 2- 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linthicum and UltiMaker as applied above, and further in view of Womer (US 2017/0291364) , Hsieh et al (US 2019/0248070; herein Hsieh), and Frank et al (US 2019/0255611; herein Frank) . Regarding claims 2-4: Linthicum is silent as to the location of the center of gravity of the extruder . In the same field of endeavor Womer teaches when the extruder has the basic arrangement of the instant application and Linthicum (i.e. upside down J) the center of gravity is in good position for the printing process (Figure 10 and paragraph 0062). I t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the center of gravity in a desired location, since it prevents unwanted movements and vibrations during the printing process. Linthicum and Womer are silent to the claimed point of attachment and that the point of attachment is collocated with the center of gravity. In the same field of endeavor Hsieh (As seen in Figure s 1 and 3 ) and Frank (As seen in Figure 2) teach that the point of attachment can be at various locations on the printhead/extruder . Hsieh showing the point of attachment can be on the side of the housing 115, and Frank showing the point of attachment can be behind the nozzle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the point of attachment be at the claimed location, since the prior art has shown that the point of attachment is variable, and Womer discloses the need to control the center of gravity . I t has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007) . Regarding claim 5: Linthicum teaches a hopper body with a sidewall and hopper as claimed (see Figures 3-6). The hopper would naturally counterbalance the motor in such an arrangement. Finally, the point of attachment is obvious as discussed above. Regarding claim 6: Linthicum teaches a fan on the printer housing ( as seen in Figures 2 and 14), but does not place them on the exterior of the extruder body. In the same field of endeavor, both UltiMaker (timestamps 2:00-2:20) and Hsieh (Figure 3, fan 114b) teach a fan on the exterior sidewall. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a fan there, since it helps dissipate heat. Regarding claim 9: Linthicum is silent to an outer case, a cover member, and a hat member as claimed. In the same field of endeavor UltiMaker (as previously discussed), Hsieh (housing 115), and Frank (As seen in Figures 1, 2, and 11) teach various structures to cover extruder printhead components. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have such exterior coverings, since i t has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007) . In this instance the prior art shows there are various means by which to cover internal parts of an extruder print head, thus the exact structure is obvious since the end result is the same. Claim s 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linthicum, UltiMaker, Womer, Hsieh, and Frank as applied above, and further in view of Bracha et al (US 2016/0279853; herein Bracha). Regarding claims 7 and 8: Linthicum, UltiMaker, Womer, Hsieh, and Frank are silent to the claimed spacers. In the same field of endeavor Bracha teaches usings spacers 420 to space apart the structure around the nozzle (i.e. a shroud) and other portions of the extruder/printhead (Figures 3A-3C and paragraph 0060), and Bracha also teaches placing a fan in the space created by the spacers (Figure 3A, fan 275) , the space acting as the vent. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have such spacing and venting, since it allows for air flow to cool the needed parts. It has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007) . In this instance the art has shown the need to cool the extruder with the fan and the means by which to connect parts to allow for space for a fan and airflow. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linthicum, UltiMaker, Womer, Hsieh, and Frank as applied above, and further in view of Sharma (US 2019/0283330). Regarding claim 10: Linthicum teaches a drive gear and a driven gear as seen in Figures 3-5B. Linthicum does not explicitly teach the bushings, but would need them since the driven gear is connected to the screw as required. Linthicum is silent to the compound gear. In the same field of endeavor Sharma teaches a multi gear structure to drive a build material. Sharma teaches such gearing can include a drive gear, a driven gear, and a compound gear (paragraphs 0035-0038 and Figures 2A/B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to the needed gearing in order to allow for proper power transmission. It has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007) . In this instance the art has shown various gears can be used for the same purpose of transmitting power where needed, the exact nature of such gearing is obvious when the end result is the same. Claim 1 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linthicum, UltiMaker, Womer, Hsieh, Frank , and Sharma as applied above, and further in view of Womer. Regarding claim 1 1 : Linthicum is silent to the weight of the gearing being at least majorly incident to the axis of the screw. As previously discussed, Womer teaches that the upside down J arrangement leads to the best possible center of gravity to prevent unwanted motions during printing. This would be seen to include properly weighting the gearing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the gearing weighted as claimed in order to prevent unwanted movement of the printhead during printing. Claim s 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linthicum, UltiMaker, Womer, Hsieh, Frank, Sharma , and Womer as applied above, and further in view of Groschopp ( Gear Reduction | Groschopp Blog : https://www.groschopp.com/gear-reduction/ ). Regarding claims 12-14: Linthicum, UltiMaker, Womer, Hsieh, Frank, Sharma , and Womer are silent to the weight, size, and reduction as claimed. In the same field of using gears Groschopp teaches that one needs to design the gears with regard to size (which can be related to weight) and reduction in order to have the needed torque and power (e.g. paragraphs 1-3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the gear s as claimed in order to arrive at a desired torque and power. It has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007) . Claim 1 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linthicum and UltiMaker as applied above, and further in view of Skubic et al (US 2008/0213419 ; herein Skubic ). Regarding claim 1 7 , Linthicum is silent to: W herein a temperature of each heating element is individually user-selectable via a control unit of an auto feeder for providing a desired temperature profile along the length of the barrel In the same field of endeavor Skubic teaches individual control of heating elements (paragraph 0045). As previously discussed with regards to the 112b of claim 17, the heater control is part of the controller for the entire printer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to individually control the heaters, as taught by Skubic, since doing so is based on the individual need of the heater based on a feedback loop (Skubic: paragraph 0045). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7068 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 8am-5pm. . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Galen Hauth can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /TIMOTHY KENNEDY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743