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 .
Status of Claims
The Amendment filed 12/18/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-10 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1, 4, and 10 have been amended. No new claims have been added.
Response to Amendment
Claim Objections. The amendments to claims 10 have overcome the claim objection set forth in the Office Action mailed 09/18/2025. The objection is withdrawn.
35 USC 112(b). The amendments to claims 4 and 10 have overcome the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) as being indefinite set forth in the Office Action mailed 09/18/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 102(a)(1). Applicant's remarks regarding the rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, and 10 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rzadkowski (US 2021/0394441 A1) are moot as they rely upon amended claim limitations not previously considered. The rejection of amended claims 1, 3, 7, and 10 is provided below.
Applicant’s arguments that prior art cited in the rejection of dependent claims 2, 4-6, and 8-9 do not make up for the deficiencies of the prior art cited in the rejection of independent claim 1 is not persuasive. However, the rejection of claim 1 is not considered to be deficient as argued above. The rejection of amended claims 2, 4-6, and 8-9 is provided below.
Claim Interpretation
Functional language is often associated with a "controller" in the claims (see instant claims 1 and 7-8). The specific language associated with the "controller" will determine what subject matter must be given patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rzadkowski (US 2021/0394441 A1) in view of Ballard (US 2022/0009162 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 10, Rzadkowski teaches a device (heated extruder for 3D printing of a cementitious material) comprising a extruder sleeve 103, return channel 107, and outlet nozzle 106 (mixing and deposition nozzle configured to extrude cementitious material); a motor/servomotor 102 having an adjustable rotational speed (a motor configured to provide the cementitious material to the mixing and deposition nozzle); a heater 105 (heating element in communication with the mixing and deposition nozzle, the heating element configured to transfer heat to the cementitious material within an interior portion of the mixing and deposition nozzle); wherein the extruder sleeve (103), the return channel (107), and the outlet nozzle (106) can be equipped with thermocouples for measuring the temperature located at multiple places so as to collect information about the condition of the plastic or blowing agent, which is particularly useful in the area of the outlet from the extruder sleeve (103) or the outlet nozzle (106), and wherein the heater (105) or other additional heating means may be combined with the means for measuring the temperature so that the heater (105) or the additional heating means can operate in a feedback loop, e.g. using PID regulators (at least one sensor configured to generate temperature readings for the cementitious material; wherein the at least one sensor comprises a thermocouple); and wherein the extruder sleeve103 may be connected to a storage container/means for the supplying of material and a means for its delivery using tanks with pumps/valves (a material conveying function and a heating function are split between multiple modules consisting in a remote pumping device placed upstream, and a passive or active mixing device fitted with heating elements connected with the nozzle) (Fig 2 and ¶0043-0060,0068).
While Rzadkowski teaches a heated extruder wherein the heater 105 or other additional heating means may be combined with the means for measuring the temperature so that the heater 105 or the additional heating means can operate in a feedback loop, e.g. using PID regulators (¶0060), Rzadkowski does not explicitly disclose a heated extruder further comprising a controller configured to receive the temperature readings, and control the heating element based on the received temperature reading to control hardening of the cementitious material by controlling the heating element to transfer heat to the cementitious material within the interior portion.
However, in the same field of endeavor, controlling heating elements, Ballard teaches the known technique of wherein heating elements 176 may be in thermal communication with a graphite extruder barrel 152 to increase the temperature of barrel 152 and melt the print media or feedstock material as it travels down the feed auger and is extruded through the opening 154 of nozzle 156; heating controller will activate the heating elements 176 until a desired temperature is detected by the thermocouple at barrel 152; when the desired temperature is achieved, the controller may deactivate the heater 176 until a minimum temperature is detected by the thermocouple at barrel 152; a heating controller may then reactivate the heater element 176 until a desired temperature is detected; and by toggling on and off the heating elements 176, the heating controller may maintain a set temperature along the heated zone 174 of barrel 152 (a controller configured to receive the temperature readings, and control the heating element based on the received temperature reading … by controlling the heating element to transfer heat to the material within the interior portion) (¶0103).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus disclosed in Rzadkowski by applying the known technique of a heated extruder comprising a controller configured to receive temperature readings and control a heating element based on the received temperature reading by controlling the heating element to transfer heat to the material within the interior portion of the extruder as disclosed in Ballard to the heated extruder disclosed in Rzadkowski with predictable results and resulting in an improved apparatus. MPEP 2143(D).
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 1, Rzadkowski in view of Ballard does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller comprises a proportional, integral, derivative (PID) controller.
However, Rzadkowski in view of Ballard discloses the known technique of providing a proportional, integral, derivative (PID) controller (Rzadkowski, ¶0060).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus disclosed in Rzadkowski in view of Ballard by applying the known technique of controller disclosed in Rzadkowski to the controller disclosed in Rzadkowski in view of Ballard with predictable results and resulting in an improved apparatus. MPEP 2143(D).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rzadkowski (US 2021/0394441 A1) in view of Ballard (US 2022/0009162 A1), as applied to claim 1, and in view of Kandasamy (US 2022/0281005 A1).
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1, while Rzadkowski in view of Ballard discloses thermocouples (at least one sensor), Rzadkowski in view of Ballard does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one sensor comprises an external sensor configured to measure a temperature of the cementitious material during or after deposition.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (external sensor configured to measure a temperature of material during or after deposition; see MPEP 2141.01(a)), Kandasamy discloses an apparatus wherein the temperature of extruded material 1800 can be measured using various methods such as one or more thermocouples, infra-red thermal cameras (at least one sensor comprises an external sensor configured to measure a temperature of the material during or after deposition), etc. (¶0127).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the extruder taught by Rzadkowski in view of Ballard by substituting the thermocouples (at least one sensor) disclosed in Rzadkowski in view of Ballard for the infra-red thermal cameras (at least one sensor comprises an external sensor configured to measure a temperature of the material during or after deposition) disclosed in Kandasamy, since the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. MPEP 2143(B).
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rzadkowski (US 2021/0394441 A1) in view of Ballard (US 2022/0009162 A1).
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 1, while Rzadkowski in view of Ballard discloses thermocouples (at least one sensor), Rzadkowski in view of Ballard does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one sensor comprises a sensor located along a length of the mixing and deposition nozzle.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the extruder disclosed in Rzadkowski in view of Ballard such that the thermocouples are located along a length of a extruder sleeve, return channel, and outlet nozzle (mixing and deposition nozzle), since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention is an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 1, Rzadkowski in view of Ballard does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to control the heating element to heat the cementitious material to a temperature from 50° F. to 150° F.
However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05(II). It would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success since Rzadkowski in view of Ballard teaches the heating controller may maintain a set temperature along the heated zone 174 of barrel 152 (Ballard, ¶0103).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the extruder disclosed in Rzadkowski in view of Ballard through routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success such that the PID regulator (controller) is configured to control the heater (heating element) to heat the material to a temperature from 50° F. to 150° F in order to maintain a set temperature along the heating zone (Ballard, ¶0103).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rzadkowski (US 2021/0394441 A1) in view of Ballard (US 2022/0009162 A1), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Zhou (US 2023/0302530 A1).
Regarding claims 5-6, as applied to claim 1, while Rzadkowski in view of Ballard teaches heater 105 (heating element) (see claim 1 above) (base device), Rzadkowski in view of Ballard does not explicitly teach wherein the heating element is disposed around an entirety of the outside surface of a mixing tube included in the mixing and deposition nozzle nor wherein the heating element includes a plurality of external band heaters.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (heating elements disposed around an outside surface; heating elements including an external band heater; see MPEP 2141.01(a)), Zhou discloses an apparatus wherein nozzle 160 is connected to a band heater 162 in this section to maintain a constant heating temperature (¶0051) (known technique applicable to the base device).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the extruder disclosed in Rzadkowski in view of Ballard by applying the known technique of a nozzle connected to a band heater to maintain a constant heating temperature disclosed in Zhou to the extruder disclosed in Rzadkowski in view of Ballard with predictable results and resulting in an improved apparatus. MPEP 2143(D).
Rzadkowski in view of Ballard and Zhou does not explicitly disclose wherein the heating element is disposed around an entirety of the outside surface of a mixing tube included in the mixing and deposition nozzle.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the extruder disclosed in Rzadkowski in view of Ballard and Zhou such that the band heater (heating element) of Zhou is disposed around an entirety of the outside surface of the extruder sleeve, return channel, and outlet nozzle (mixing tube included in the mixing and deposition nozzle) of Rzadkowski in view of Ballard and Zhou, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention is an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Although Rzadkowski in view of Ballard and Zhou does not specify a plurality of external band heaters, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the extruder disclosed in Rzadkowski in view of Ballard and Zhou such that heating band (heating element) of Zhou includes a plurality of external band heaters , since it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rzadkowski (US 2021/0394441 A1) in view of Ballard (US 2022/0009162 A1), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Chastek (US 2023/0091065 A1).
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 1, while Rzadkowski in view of Ballard teaches an extruder screw 104 disposed within the extruder sleeve 103 (auger including a flight, the auger disposed within a mixing tube of the mixing and deposition nozzle, the auger configured to promote mixing and pumping of the cementitious material through the mixing tube, and providing a homogeneous distribution of heat throughout the cementitious material when the heating element transfers heat to the cementitious material) (Fig 2 and ¶0043-0060) (base device), Rzadkowski in view of Ballard does not explicitly teach an auger including a flight having a perforation.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (an auger including a flight having a perforation; see MPEP 2141.01(a)), Chastek discloses an apparatus comprising a plurality of apertures 140, or radial through-holes, present on flight 132 of screw 122 (Fig 3 and ¶0057) (known technique applicable to base device).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the extruder disclosed in Rzadkowski in view of Ballard by applying the known technique of a plurality of apertures, or radial through-holes, present on a flight of a screw disclosed in Chastek to the extruder screw disclosed in Rzadkowski in view of Ballard with predictable results and resulting in an improved apparatus. MPEP 2143(D).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JaMel M Nelson whose telephone number is (571)272-8174. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM ET - 5:00 PM ET.
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 on (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.
/JAMEL M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743