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 without traverse of Group I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 09/02/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one trigger member” “at least one stopping member” in claim 8 and 12. [0044] describes structural element for trigger member (magnet). [0050] recites stopping member (spring).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hangzhou et al. (CN 207954679U, as provided by the Applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Hangzhou et al. teach a filament guide mechanism for communicating with a main filament guide tube in a 3D printer to guide a filament from different filament spools to the main filament guide tube (see abstract; Fig. 1 annotated below; and [, the filament guide mechanism comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
789
1093
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 Hangzhou et al. (CN 207954679U) showing two feed ports, merging into a single discharge
a housing defining a filament exit (Fig. 1 showing housing with filament exit at 12), a filament discharge channel (near item 15), a plurality of filament entries (beginning at 11), and a plurality of filament feed channels (11,11), wherein each of the plurality of filament feed channels communicates with a corresponding filament entry of the plurality of filament entries, respectively, to receive a corresponding filament wound around on a corresponding filament spool (Fig 1, item 21, 22 as charging trays), an amount of the plurality of filament entries is the same as that of the plurality of filament feed channels (Fig 1), the filament discharge channel communicates with the filament exit (Fig 1, a single discharge using merging mechanism 16), the filament exit is used for attaching to the main filament guide tube, and the plurality of filament feed channels all communicate via the filament discharge channel with the filament exit (Fig. 1);
and, wherein the housing has a housing curvature so that a corresponding combined channel formed by combining each of the plurality of filament feed channels and the filament discharge channel has a curvature to accommodate the curvature that the corresponding filament has after released from the corresponding filament spool (Fig. 1 Hangzhou et al. show the housing curvature so that a corresponding combined channel formed by combining each of the plurality of filament feed channels 11 and the filament discharge channel 12 has a curvature to accommodate the curvature that the corresponding filament has after released from the corresponding filament spool 21, 22).
As for claim 2, Hangzhou et al. further show wherein the housing curvature has a value that is no less than 60% of the minimum curvature that the filament wound around on the different filament spools has after released from each of the filament spools and no greater than 140% of the maximum curvature that the filament wound around on the different filament spools has after released from each of the filament spools (Fig. 1 shows similar curvature, therefore, the values as claimed would fall in the claim range).
As for claim 3, Hangzhou et al. further show wherein the housing curvature has a value being a statistical average of the curvature that the filament wound around on the different filament spools has after released from each of the filament spools (Fig 1. as shown above).
As for claim 4, Hangzhou et al. further show wherein at least one of the pluralities of filament feed channels comprises an arcuate segment extending along an arc (Fig 1, channel 11 is arcuate segment), and the at least one of the filament feed channels communicates through the arcuate segment with the filament discharge channel (Fig 1).
As for claim 5, Hangzhou et al. further show wherein the plurality of filament feed channels and the filament discharge channel each comprise a straight segment extending along a straight line, and an included angle between an axis of the straight segment of each of the filament feed channels and the axis of the straight segment of the filament discharge channel is an obtuse angle (Fig 1. shows discharge channel as a straight segment as compared with the feed channel, thus including an obtuse angle).
As for claim 6, Hangzhou et al. further show wherein the axes of the straight segments of the plurality of filament feed channels are in the same plane or are not coplanar (Fig. 1, item 11 feed channels).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 7 and 11 are ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hangzhou et al. (CN 207954679U, as provided by the Applicant’s IDS) in further view of Ultimaker B.V (US 2022/0388245 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 11, Hangzhou et al. teach all the limitation to the claim invention as discussed above, however, failed to explicitly teach comprising at least one sensor arranged on a wall of the housing for detecting a position of the filament end of the filament in the filament guide mechanism; wherein the at least one sensor is one in the plurality of sensors, and the plurality of sensors are respectively arranged the housing at positions corresponding to the plurality of filament feed channels and the filament discharge channel.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to feeding and printing, Ultimaker B.V teaches housing (Fig. 1A, item 2) comprising a first opening (3) for passing through of a filament (4). The measuring device (1) comprises a slider (5) slidably arranged in the housing (2), where slider 5 comprises a filament channel (6). The measuring device (1) comprises at least one sensor (7) arranged to detect a change in position of the slider relative to the housing (2) to obtain measurement data that can be communicated to a processing system (see [0058]-[0059]; Figs. 1A-1B, item 7-Hall sensor). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the instant application to modify the feeding as taught by Hangzhou et al. with further using sensors, as taught by Ultimaker B.V, for the benefit of position sensing of the filament, thereby providing useful information regarding filament length. Also see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention to have modified the position of the sensor, such as to rearrange the sensor to the corresponding plurality of filament feed channels and filament discharge channel, for providing similar predictable result of locating the position of the filament.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 8, the closest prior art Hangzhou et al. (CN 207954679U, as provided by the Applicant’s IDS) in further view of Ultimaker B.V (US 2022/0388245 A1) fails to teach wherein the plurality of filament feed channels and the filament discharge channel form an internal cavity of the housing, and at least one hole in communication with the internal cavity is provided on the wall of the housing, and the filament guide mechanism further comprises: at least one trigger member, the at least one trigger member is respectively arranged in the at least one hole, each of the trigger member(s) is movably inserted into the internal cavity along an axial direction of a corresponding hole in the at least one hole, wherein one end, inserted into the internal cavity, of each of the trigger member(s) is formed to have an end surface at an angle to the feeding direction, so that when the filament in the internal cavity is guided to the position of the trigger member along the feeding direction, the filament end of the filament directly presses the end surface of the end, thereby pushing the trigger member to move to a preset position in the corresponding hole, and each of the sensor(s) is arranged to cooperate with a corresponding trigger member of the at least one trigger member so that when the corresponding trigger member moves to the preset position, the sensor is triggered to indicate that the filament in the internal cavity is guided in the feeding direction to the position of the trigger member.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive: the applicant argued that, the closest prior art Hangzhou et al. (CN 207954679U, as provided by the Applicant’s IDS) in further view of Ultimaker B.V (US 2022/0388245 A1) failed to teach “wherein the housing has a housing curvature so that a corresponding combined channel formed by combining each of the plurality of filament feed channels and the filament discharge channel has a curvature to accommodate the curvature that the corresponding filament has after released from the corresponding filament spool”. The Applicant argued that Hangzhou fails to disclose this feature.
Examiner’s response: The applicant’s argument is considered, however, are not found persuasive. Applicant noted that because “the bending direction of the material after being released from the material tray is clearly opposite the bending direction of the combined channel, the curvatures of the two are opposite”. It appears that applicant agrees that there is a curvature. Claim is still broader than bending direction as argued. Claim only requires housing having some kind of curvature to combine channels of the plurality of feed channels and the discharge channel having a curvature to accommodate the curvature of the corresponding filament. As explained in the above rejection, as the materials comes in from both channels and combines at #15 there is a curvature of the housing. Claim 1 further requiring “filament discharge channel has a curvature” appears to be the same curvature that extends from the middle from 15 and extending outward at the discharge. Therefore, claim is similarly rejected. Applicant’s claim as written having “a housing curvature” does not yet clarify specific angle to patentably distinguish over the prior art. The Examiner noted that claims 8-10 and 12 were objected as allowable subject matter, and if incorporated into the independent claim, can overcome the rejection made of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 PM).
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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights