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
Withdrawn claims 9-11 were amended to depend on claim 1, and are now rejoined to elected Group I and examined herein.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner is interpreting the “print head” of the claims as a single structure that contains the pellet head and the filament heads. This interpretation is supported by at least paragraph 0048 and Figure 9 of the instant disclosure.
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.
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, 9-11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IT3D group: Tumaker Pro Dual (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1gUFkDCR_M ; herein Tumaker; already of record), in view of Bittner et al (U.S. PGPub 2022/0372656; herein Bittner; already of record), Toh et al (U.S. PGPub 2016/0185042; herein Toh; already of record), Nguyen et al (U.S. Patent 10,751,951; herein Nguyen, already of record), and Wolf et al (U.S. PGPub 2016/0236408; herein Wolf, already of record). Regarding claim 1:
Tumaker teaches a dual head 3D printer (timestamp 00:00-00:10) which can use different combination of print heads. Combinations 5 and 6 (timestamp 01:00-01:17) show a filament head (Bowden and Direct Drive) and a pellet extruder head (as seen in the below screen captures)
PNG
media_image1.png
816
1454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
816
1454
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tumaker does not teach that the filament and pellet heads are part of a single print head. In the same field of endeavor of 3D printing Bittner teaches that one can either combine heads into one carriage or have two separate heads (paragraph 0136 and Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the two heads of Tumaker combined into a single head, since Bittner teaches the two arrangements are equivalent structurally for the same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06 II).
Tumaker and Bittner are silent to have dual filament heads and where each filament head has its own linear actuator.
In the same field of 3D printing Toh teaches using two filament heads in a single print head (Figures 1-4). Toh also teaches altering the height of each head via the driving units 130a and 130b (paragraph 0032-0036, as seen via H1 and H2 in Figures 3A-3C). The drive mechanisms 130a/b are linear actuators since the move the nozzles in a linear direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have dual filament heads, since it allows for the printing of materials having different properties, such as color (Toh: paragraph 0030).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the linear actuators for each filament head, since it prevents one nozzle interfering with the other during printing (Toh: paragraph 0036).
Further regarding claim 1, Tumaker, Bittner, and Toh are silent as to coarse printing and fine printing.
In the same field of 3D printing Nguyen teaches that one can use two nozzle to print fine details and coarse details (column 4, lines 54-64 and e.g. Figure 5A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have nozzles to print fine and coarse features since it allows for high throughput.
Regarding which head has the fine or coarse feature requirements: 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 there are a finite number of combinations of head type and print size, thus a skilled artisan would be able to determine for the needed output which type of head prints at a fine print size or a coarse print size.
Finally regarding claim 1, Tumaker, Bittner, Toh, and Nguyen are silent to an alignment member disposed around the filament heads.
In the same field of endeavor Wolf teaches base 216 in Figures 16-19A which is disposed around two heads, thus aligning the heads.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have such a structure since when combined with the other structures of the printer allow for smooth and efficient movement of material along a straight path (Wolf: paragraph 0100).
Regarding claim 2:
As seen in the heads of Tumaker and Figure 3 of Bittner there are plates of material capable of being used as attachment points.
Regarding claim 3:
As seen in Combination 6 of Tumaker (timestamp 01:10-01:17) and the filament heads of Toh, there are drive units that source the filament for printing.
Regarding claim 4:
As seen in the pellet head of Combinations 5 and 6 of Tumaker there is a pellet reservoir.
Regarding claim 7:
The print head structure of Toh keeps the nozzles aligned due to how the position limiting portions 128a/b interact with the fixing member as seen in Figures 3A-3C.
Regarding claim 9:
The combination above would have such a computer controller otherwise the printing would be impossible. The selection of non-volatile or volatile memory is well within the abilities of a skilled artisan to decided which one to use for the needed process.
Regarding claim 10:
Tumaker teaches a rail the printheads move on as seen in Combinations 5 and 6 of Tumaker. Additionally, Bittner teaches gantry 7 in Figure 3 which is seen as a rail.
Regarding claim 11:
Tumaker (as seen in Combinations 5 and 6), Bittner (as seen in Figure 3), and Wolf (as seen in Figures 2, 3, and 7-17) all teach a protective casing enclosing a portion of the two printheads.
Regarding claim 20:
As previously discussed Wolf teaches the alignment member of claim 1, and as seen in Figures 13-19A the base 216 conforms to the shape of the heads (as seen by the matching shape of the holes in 216 and the shape sleeve 226).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/2/2026 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 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 TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights