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
Claims 17, 18, and 20 were previously withdrawn, but due to the amendment will be rejoined and examined herein.
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, 6, 7, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toh et al (US 2016/0185042; herein Toh, already of record), in view of Kuijpers (WO 2022260512; already of record) and Gibson (US 2017/0326773; already of record). Regarding claim 1:
Toh teaches a filament deposition head having a nozzle and where the nozzle has a spout (e.g. Figure 1), and Toh teaches using a linear actuator to raise and lower a nozzle during a print job (paragraph 0036).
Toh is silent to the need for ooze prevention.
In the same field of extrusion through a nozzle in 3D printing, Kuijpers teaches that ooze from the nozzle after printing is a known issue and prevention is needed (page 1, lines 14-28).
However, Toh and Kuijpers are silent to a protective member and the claimed motor.
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, since it prevents any additional flowing of melt from the nozzle.
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.
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 claims 6 and 17:
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.
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.
Regarding claim 18:
Since the ooze flap 310 slides across the spout of the nozzle it would remove material as claimed due to the viscosity of the melted material.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toh, Kuijpers, and Gibson as applied above, and further in view of Chang (US 2015/0158254; already of record). Regarding claim 20:
As previously discussed Gibson teaches the ooze prevention protective member, but is silent to the shape as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor Chang teaches a v-shape cleans nozzles well (paragraph 0033).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a v-shaped notch as taught by Chang in the ooze flap of Gibson, since such a shape helps remove material. Additionally, it has been held that the shape of a known structure is obvious absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/8/2026 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