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 claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 9/2/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that there is no search burden. This is not found persuasive because Group I is directed to pellet extruder heads, while Groups II and III are directed to filament extruder heads. These are two entirely different types of 3D printers which require different search strategies, keywords, and knowledge.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1 is 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.
Claim 1 is seen as vague and indefinite due to the phrase “particle deposition head”. It is unclear what type of deposition head this refers to; is it a pellet extruder, is it any head that uses a material with particles, is it a deposition head that deposits a series of dots (as a form a particle)? The phrase is only used three times in the disclosure with nothing to support a further understanding of what type of deposition head is being claimed. Based on the disclosure the Examiner is interpretating “particle deposition head” as the disclosed pellet extruder head, since pellets as disclosed are the closest thing to a particle.
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 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuijpers (WO 2022260512), in view of Gibson (US 2017/0326773; already of record). Regarding claim 1:
Kuijpers teaches a particle deposition head having a nozzle and where the nozzle has a spout (e.g. Figure 2)
Kuijpers is silent to a protective member and the claimed motor, but does state ooze from the nozzle after printing is a known issue and prevention is needed (page 1, lines 14-28)
In the same field of endeavor Gibson teaches a protective member that is rotated by a motor to cover the end of a nozzle to prevent oozing (Figure 8, paragraph 0039, ooze flap 310 and servo motor 315) .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the ooze flap and servo motor of Gibson on the deposition head of Kuijpers, since it prevents any additional flowing of melt from the nozzle.
Regarding claim 2:
Gibson additionally teaches, for the previous reasoning, a biasing member as seen in the annotated Figure 8 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
387
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3:
As previously discussed, Gibson teaches a servo motor to rotate the ooze flap, and as seen in the annotated Figure 8, the ooze flap 310 is attached to the biasing member for rotation by the servo motor 315.
Regarding claim 7:
The ooze flap 310 of Gibson rotates flush against the nozzle (paragraph 0039), thus it has a geometry capable of removing material from the spout as claimed.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuijpers and Gibson as applied above, and in further view of Toh et al (US 2016/0185042; herein Toh). Regarding claim 4:
Kuijpers teaches a z axis gantry (as seen in Figure 1), but does not teach that this is used to lower the nozzle into a deployed position or raise the nozzle into a retracted position.
In the same field of endeavor Toh teaches using a linear actuator to raise and lower a nozzle during a print job (paragraph 0036).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the actuator of Toh, since it prevents the nozzle from being in the way during other processes that occur during the print job (Toh paragraph 0036).
Regarding claims 5 and 6:
Since the combination above teaches that the actuator lowers the nozzle when ready to print, then it would be easily seen that the ooze flap would be moved out of the way in order for the nozzle to print, and vice versa, when the nozzle is done printing and raised, the ooze flap would move to cover the spout of the nozzle.
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 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