DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/11/2026 has been entered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crump (U.S. Patent 5,121,329).
Regarding claim 7, Crump discloses a method of using a 3D printer nozzle, including an input end of a dispensing outlet (126) and a rotating output end of the dispensing outlet wherein a layered input (comprising materials 110a and 110b for example of different layers of different colors) enters the input end and a layered output exits the rotating output end; and rotating the rotating output end (continuous canting at an angle from the vertical “Z” axis to perpendicular thereto) to control the orientation of the layered output relative to the direction of a movement of the rotating output end to form an arcuate shape (Figures 6 and 12 and Column 6, lines 11-36 and Column 15, lines 21-44).
Regarding claim 9, the layered input taught by Crump includes a filament (flexible strand supplied from a reel) and rotating the rotating output end controls the orientation of the filament in the layered output to form the arcuate shape.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claims 7, 9-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Thomas et al. (WO 2014/153535).
Regarding claim 7, Thomas discloses a method of using a 3D printer nozzle, including an input end and a rotating output end (end of nozzle 10/1310 pivoting in the XT, YT, and ZT directions) wherein a layered input (reinforced filament 2 comprising a core material layer 6a or 6b surrounded by a polymer layer 4) enters the input end and a layered output exits the rotating output end; and rotating the rotating output end (e.g. in Figure 28A rotating by pivoting about the XT and/or YT axis or in Figure 29 pivoting in the XT, YT, and ZT directions) to control the orientation of the layered output relative to the direction of a movement of the rotating output end (Figures 1, 3A, 3C, 28A, and 29 and Paragraphs 00227 and 00230 and the subject matter relied upon herein described at least in 61/815,531, see Figures 1, 2, 10A and 10B, for an effective filing date of 4/24/2013 or in 61/847,113, see Figures 1, 3A, 3C, 12A, 12B, and 13, for an effective filing date of 7/17/2013). Alternatively, in the event it is somehow considered Thomas does not necessarily anticipate one or more of the limitations of claim 7 as set forth above the following rejection is made. Thomas teaches the nozzle may be moved and rotated including articulating in the XYZ directions as well as pivoting in the XT, YT, and ZT directions to create shells and other contiguous core reinforced out of plane layers as well as two dimensional layers (Paragraphs 0227 and 0230). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the method of using the 3D printer nozzle, including an input end and a rotating output end (end of nozzle 10/1310 pivoting in the XT, YT, and ZT directions) wherein a layered input (reinforced filament 2 comprising a core material layer 6a or 6b surrounded by a polymer layer 4) enters the input end and a layered output exits the rotating output end as taught by Thomas includes rotating the rotating output end (pivoting in the XT, YT, and ZT directions) to control the orientation of the layered output relative to the direction of a movement of the rotating output end (articulating the nozzle in the XYZ directions) as Thomas teaches articulating the nozzle in the XYZ directions as well as pivoting in the XT, YT, and ZT directions to create shells and other contiguous core reinforced out of plane layers as well as two dimensional layers.
Regarding claim 9, the layered input taught by Thomas includes a filament (2) and rotating the rotating output end controls the orientation of the filament in the layered output.
Regarding claim 10, 11, and 13, the filaments taught by Thomas are a round (circle) input filament (Figure 3A) or square (polygonal) shaped input filament (Paragraph 00135) so that the 3D printer nozzle taught by Thomas is considered to accept a round (circle) input filament or square (polygonal) shaped input filament.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batchelder et al. ‘495 (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0076495) in view of Austin et al. (WO 2013/064826) or Khoshevis (U.S. Patent 5,529,471) or Crump or Thomas.
Regarding claim 7, Batchelder ‘495 discloses a method comprising using a 3D printer nozzle, including an input end and a output end (68) wherein a layered input (a multi-layer ribbon filament 34 of different material layers see paragraph 0113) enters the input end and a layered output exits the output end (Figures 1 and 5 and Paragraphs 0065 and 0113).
As to the limitations in claim 7 of a “rotating” output end and “rotating the rotating output end to control the orientation of the layered output relative to the direction of a movement of the rotating output end”, Batchelder ‘495 does not expressly teach the output end rotates. Batchelder ‘495 does not teach away from the output end rotates. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art the output end of the 3D printer nozzle rotates (by including a motor 7 for rotating the rotating output end and a rotating robotic arm assembly 1) about all three orthogonal axes to allow a full six degrees of freedom and means for indexing the output end along a predetermined path and including for creation of concave or convex surfaces by rotating the rotating output end to control the orientation of an output of the rotating output end relative to the direction of a movement of the rotating output end along the path (e.g. to remain oriented normal to the surface being built) as taught by Austin (Figures 1, 2a, and 2b and Page 7, lines 1-13 and Page 8, lines 1-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the output end taught by Batchelder ‘495 is a rotating output end to allow a full six degrees of freedom and means for indexing the output end along a predetermined path and including for creation of concave or convex surfaces on the built three-dimensional structure (by continued rotating the rotating output end to control the orientation of the layered output relative to the direction of a movement of the rotating output end by remaining oriented normal to the surface being built) as taught by Austin.
Alternatively, as to the limitation in claim 7 of a “rotating” output end and “rotating the rotating output end to control the orientation of the layered output relative to the direction of a movement of the rotating output end”, Batchelder ‘495 does not expressly teach the output end rotates. Batchelder ‘495 does not teach away from the output end rotates. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art the output end of the 3D printer nozzle rotates (by including a motor 52 for rotating the rotating output end) to provide other contours such as concave shape or convex shape by rotating (such as continual rotating for 180o) the rotating output end to control the orientation of an output of the output end relative to the direction of a movement of the rotating output end along a path as taught by Khoshevis (Figures 1, 9A, 9B, 10A, 10B, 11A, and 11B and Column 7 lines 51-59). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the output end taught by Batchelder ‘495 is a rotating output end to provide other contours such as concave shape or convex shape on the built three-dimensional structure (by rotating the rotating output end to control the orientation of the layered output relative to the direction of a movement of the rotating output end) as taught by Khoshevis.
Alternatively, as to the limitation in claim 7 of a “rotating” output end and “rotating the rotating output end to control the orientation of the layered output relative to the direction of a movement of the rotating output end”, Batchelder ‘495 does not expressly teach the output end rotates. Batchelder ‘495 does not teach away from the output end rotates. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art the output end of the 3D printer nozzle rotates (continuous canting at an angle from the vertical “Z” axis to perpendicular thereto) to create arcuate shapes as taught by Crump (described above in full detail). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the output end taught by Batchelder ‘495 is a rotating output end to create arcuate shapes on the built three-dimensional structure (by rotating the rotating output end to control the orientation of the layered output relative to the direction of a movement of the rotating output end) as taught by Crump.
Alternatively, as to the limitation in claim 7 of a “rotating” output end and “rotating the rotating output end to control the orientation of the layered output relative to the direction of a movement of the rotating output end”, Batchelder ‘495 does not expressly teach the output end rotates. Batchelder ‘495 does not teach away from the output end rotates. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art the output end of the 3D printer nozzle rotates (pivoting in the XT, YT, and ZT directions) to create shells and other out of plane layers as well as two dimensional layers by rotating the rotating output end to control the orientation of an output of the output end relative to the direction of a movement of the rotating output end (articulating in the XYZ directions) along a path as taught by Thomas (described above in full detail). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the output end taught by Batchelder ‘495 is a rotating output end to create shells and other out of plane layers as well as two dimensional layers on the built three-dimensional structure (by rotating the rotating output end to control the orientation of the layered output relative to the direction of a movement of the rotating output end) as taught by Thomas.
Regarding claim 9, the layered input taught by Batchelder ‘495 includes a filament (a multi-layer ribbon filament 34) and rotating the rotating output end as taught by Batchelder ‘495 as modified by Austin or Khoshevis or Crump or Thomas controls the orientation of the filament in the layered output.
Regarding claim 10, 12, and 13, the 3D printer nozzle taught by Batchelder ‘495 accepts a round (cylindrical) input filament or rectangular (polygonal) shaped input filament (Paragraph 0042).
Claims 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saba (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0035198) in view of Thomas or Batchelder ‘495.
Regarding claim 7, Saba discloses a method of using a 3D printer nozzle, including an input end and a rotating output end (636) wherein a input (filament 610) enters the input end and a output exits the rotating output end; and rotating the rotating output end (nozzle 736 moved with respect to constant radius arcs 740 wherein extrusion angle α is adjusted to maintain a constant line-to-line spacing of extruded material by rotationally articulating along an R axis) to control the orientation of the output relative to the direction of a movement of the rotating output end (Figures 7A-7E and Paragraphs 0109-0110 and the subject matter relied upon described in 61/860,884 see at least pages 21-26 and including “As the printhead is changing direction of the movement with respect to the object being printed, the piezo or other rotational method rotates such as to maintain the individual print lines from creating a gap between them or from overlapping each other” for an effective filing date of 7/31/2013).
As to the limitations in claim 7 of a “layered” input and “layered” output, Saba does not expressly teach the filament input and output is a layered filament. Saba does not teach away from a layered filament. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art the filament input and output is a layered filament as a reinforced filament as evidenced by Thomas (described above in full detail) or as not only an alternative to a non-layered filament (Paragraph 0013) but as may be beneficial (as including a coating layer of low-surface energy materials) for reducing frictional resistance (Paragraph 0116) as evidenced by Batchelder ‘495. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the filament input and output as taught by Saba is a layered input filament and layered output filament for reinforcement as evidenced by Thomas or not only as an alternative to a non-layered filament but as may be beneficial for reducing frictional resistance as evidenced by Batchelder ‘495.
Regarding claim 9, the layered input taught by Saba as modified by Thomas or Batchelder ‘495 includes a filament and rotating the rotating output end controls the orientation of the filament in the layered output.
Regarding claim 10, the 3D printer nozzle taught by Saba accepts a round input filament (Figure 7E).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crump in view of Chiera (U.S. Patent 6,659,374).
Crump is described above in full detail.
Regarding claim 8, the rotating output end taught by Crump is comprised of a nozzle (112), an extruder assembly (118 including drive rollers 134), an electrical connector (electrical connector between the nozzle and controller 44 as shown in Figure 2), and a motor suggested for rotating the rotating output end (drive motors are provided for the movement see Column 3, lines 30-50). Crump does not expressly teach a rotating electrical connector. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to rotate a nozzle (1) using a motor (10 or 21 or 32) and a rotating electrical connector of a slip ring (33, 34) (a slip ring extremely well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to electrically connect a stationary system to a rotating system) for 360 degree rotation as evidenced by Chiera (Column 3, lines 57-66). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the rotating output end taught by Crump further comprise a rotating electrical connector and a motor for rotating the rotating output end for 360 degree rotation as evidenced by Chiera.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Chiera.
Thomas is described above in full detail.
Regarding claim 8, the rotating output end taught by Thomas is comprised of a nozzle, an extruder assembly (at least the heater and opening through the nozzle), and an electrical connector (considered the electrical connector between the nozzle and the controller 20 see Figure 1). Thomas does not expressly teach the structure to rotate the output end. Chiera is described above in full detail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the rotating output end taught by Thomas further comprise a rotating electrical connector and a motor for rotating the rotating output end for 360 degree rotation as evidenced by Chiera.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batchelder ‘495 and Austin or Khoshevis or Crump or Thomas as applied to claims 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 above, and further in view of Chiera.
Regarding claim 8, the rotating output end taught by Batchelder ‘495 is comprised of a nozzle (68 of Batchelder ‘495), an extruder assembly (18 and including 66 of Batchelder ‘495), and an electrical connector (electrical connector between extrusion head and controller 28 of Batchelder ‘495 as shown in Figure 1 and Paragraph 0037), and further a motor for rotating the output end (as taught by Austin or Khoshevis and as suggested by Crump). Batchelder ‘495 as modified by Austin or Khoshevis or Crump or Thomas does not expressly teach a rotating electrical connector. Chiera is described above in full detail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the rotating output end taught by Batchelder ‘495 as modified by Austin or Khoshevis or Crump or Thomas comprise a rotating electrical connector and a motor for rotating the rotating output end for 360 degree rotation as evidenced by Chiera.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saba and Thomas or Batchelder ‘495 as applied to claims 7, 9, and 10 above, and further in view of Chiera.
Regarding claim 8, the rotating output end taught by Saba as modified by Thomas or Batchelder ‘495 is comprised of a nozzle (636 of Saba), an extruder assembly (630 of Saba), and a motor suggested for actuating/rotating (Paragraphs 0030 and 0053 of Saba). Saba as modified by Thomas or Batchelder ‘495 does not expressly teach a rotating electrical connector. Chiera is described above in full detail. It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the rotating output end taught by Saba as modified by Thomas or Batchelder ‘495 comprise a rotating electrical connector and a motor for rotating the rotating output end for 360 degree rotation as evidenced by Chiera.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crump optionally in view of Batchelder ‘074 et al. (U.S. Patent 7,897,074).
Crump is described above in full detail.
Regarding claims 10-13, Crump does not expressly teach the shape of the input filament. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the 3D printer nozzle taught by Crump accepts a round input filament, a square shaped input filament, a rectangular shaped input filament, and/or a polygonal shaped input filament wherein the shape of the claimed input filament was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant (See MPEP 2144.04 and B. Changes in Shape) and/or wherein the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (See MPEP 2144.04 and A. Changes in Size/Proportion) and/or optionally further in view of Batchelder ‘074 (Column 3, lines 52-62) wherein conventional and predicable geometries of the nozzle for accepting the input filament include cylindrical (round), polygonal (e.g. rectangular and square geometries), etc.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas optionally in view of Batchelder ‘074.
Thomas is described above in full detail.
Regarding claims 11-13, the 3D printer nozzle taught by Thomas accepts a input filament (2) such as at least a round (circle) filament (Figure 3A) and further suggests square (polygonal) shaped input filament or any other desired shape filament (Paragraph 00135). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the 3D printer nozzle taught by Thomas accepts a square shaped input filament, a rectangular shaped input filament, and/or a polygonal shaped input filament wherein the shape of the claimed input filament was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant (See MPEP 2144.04 and B. Changes in Shape) and/or wherein the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (See MPEP 2144.04 and A. Changes in Size/Proportion) and/or optionally further in view of Batchelder ‘074 (Column 3, lines 52-62) wherein conventional and predicable geometries of the nozzle for accepting the input filament include cylindrical (round), polygonal (e.g. rectangular and square geometries), etc.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batchelder ‘495 and Austin or Khoshevis or Crump or Thomas as applied to claims 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 above, and optionally further in view of Batchelder ‘074.
Regarding claim 11, the 3D printer nozzle taught by Batchelder ‘495 as modified by Austin or Khoshevis or Crump or Thomas above accepts a input filament (34) such as a cylindrical filament or non-cylindrical filament such as rectangular cross-section profile (Paragraph 0042). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the 3D printer nozzle taught by Batchelder ‘495 as modified by Austin or Khoshevis or Crump or Thomas accepts a square shaped input filament wherein the shape of the claimed input filament was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant (See MPEP 2144.04 and B. Changes in Shape) and/or wherein the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (See MPEP 2144.04 and A. Changes in Size/Proportion) and/or optionally further in view of Batchelder ‘074 (Column 3, lines 52-62) wherein conventional and predicable geometries of the nozzle for accepting the input filament include cylindrical (round), polygonal (e.g. rectangular and square geometries), etc.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saba and Thomas or Batchelder ‘495 as applied to claims 7, 9, and 10 above, and optionally further in view of Batchelder ‘074.
Regarding claims 11-13, the 3D printer nozzle taught by Saba as modified by Thomas or Batchelder ‘495 accepts a round input filament (Figure 7E). Saba does not teach away from other shapes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the 3D printer nozzle taught by Saba as modified by Thomas or Batchelder ‘495 accepts a square shaped input filament, a rectangular shaped input filament, and/or a polygonal shaped input filament wherein the shape of the claimed input filament was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant (See MPEP 2144.04 and B. Changes in Shape) and/or wherein the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (See MPEP 2144.04 and A. Changes in Size/Proportion) and/or optionally further in view of Batchelder ‘074 (Column 3, lines 52-62) wherein conventional and predicable geometries of the nozzle for accepting the input filament include cylindrical (round), polygonal (e.g. rectangular and square geometries), etc.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/11/2026 have been fully considered.
In view of the amendments filed on 8/11/2026 the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections set forth in the Office action mailed on 2/12/2026 are withdrawn. The claims as amended are fully addressed above.
Applicants argue, “Thomas has an international publication date of 25 September 2014. The present Application claims priority from two U.S. provisional patent applications. U.S. Provisional Application No. 61906218 has a filing date of 19 November 2013 and U.S. Provisional Application No. 61971452 has a filing date of 27 March 2014. In view of the above, Thomas is disqualified as a proper reference against the present Application under §102.”.
This argument is not persuasive wherein Thomas is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) including was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the subject matter relied upon in the rejection was also described at least in 61/815,531 for an effective filing date of 4/24/2013 and/or 61/847,113 for an effective filing date of 7/17/2013.
Applicants further argue, “Before addressing the specifics of the rejection, Applicants believes that it would be helpful to briefly review the key features of the claimed subject matter as well as their attendant advantages. Claim 7 includes, inter alia, a method comprising using a 3D printer nozzle including an input end and a rotating output end wherein a layered input enters the input end and a layered output exits the rotating output end; and rotating the rotating output end to control the orientation of the layered output relative to the direction of a movement of the rotating output end. The rotary motion of the printer nozzle could be used to account for a degree of freedom.” And “The claimed subject matter includes rotating the rotating output end to control the orientation of the layered output relative to the direction of a movement of the rotating output end. With this method, it is possible to print filament segments in the shape of an arc at a limited number of degrees of rotation before advancing to a next arc segment while peeling up the previously printed segment with a scraper, take up or other removal mechanism.”.
This argument is not persuasive wherein each of Crump and Thomas and Batchelder ‘495 as modified by Austin or Khoshevis or Crump or Thomas and Saba as modified by Thomas or Batchelder ‘495 teach the amended limitations and including wherein the rotary motion of the printer nozzle is used to account for a degree of freedom. None of the claims are commensurate in scope with the argument “to print filament segments in the shape of an arc at a limited number of degrees of rotation before advancing to a next arc segment while peeling up the previously printed segment with a scraper, take up or other removal mechanism” wherein none of the claims require to print filament segments in the shape of an arc at a limited number of degrees of rotation before advancing to a next arc segment while peeling up the previously printed segment with a scraper, take up or other removal mechanism.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN L GOFF II whose telephone number is (571)272-1216. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST Monday - Friday.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/JOHN L GOFF II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights