DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 12/22/2025.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/22/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 7-13 are 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 7 recites the limitation “the movement of the 3d printer output end” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the movement of the 3d printer output end” and insert therein - - a movement of the 3D printer output end - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thomas et al. (WO 2014/153535).
Regarding claim 7, Thomas discloses a 3D printer nozzle, comprising a rotating 3D printer output end (end of nozzle 10/1310) wherein the nozzle accepts an input (as a material or article worked upon such as filament 2 for example a layered filament see Figure 3A) and the nozzle is capable of being rotated to control the orientation of a output (as a material or article worked upon such as the filament 14/1320) relative to the direction of a movement of the 3D printer output end (Figures 1, 3A, 28A, and 29 and Paragraphs 00227 and 00230 and also described at least in 61/815,531 for an effective filing date of 4/24/2013).
As to the limitations in claim 7 of “a layered input” and “a layered output” and claim 9, the claims are directed to an apparatus. These limitations are directed to the material or article worked upon by the nozzle (i.e. an apparatus) and/or functional limitations. Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on (see MPEP 2114). The 3D printer nozzle taught by Thomas teaches all of the structural limitations of the claims as set forth above and is capable of accepting “a layered input” and the nozzle is capable of being rotated to control the orientation of “a layered output” relative to the direction of a movement of the 3d printer output end wherein as the material or article worked upon accepted is a layered input/filament (2), i.e. the layered input includes a filament and the nozzle, during use, is rotated to control the orientation of the filament in the layered output.
Regarding claim 10-13, the 3D printer nozzle taught by Thomas accepts as the material or article worked upon a round (circle) filament at an input opening for the filament as depicted in Figure 1 (additionally Thomas teaches a round (circle) input filament, square (polygonal) shaped input filament etc., Paragraph 00135). As to the limitations of “a round input filament”, “a square shaped input filament”, “a rectangular shaped input filament”, and “a polygonal shaped input filament”, Thomas teaches all of the structural limitations of the claims as set forth above and is capable of accepting “a round input filament”, “a square shaped input filament”, “a rectangular shaped input filament”, and “a polygonal shaped input filament” wherein as the material or article worked upon (2) input is a round input filament, a square shaped input filament, a rectangular shaped input filament, and/or a polygonal shaped input filament each having overall dimensions equal to or less than the circle (round) nozzle input opening.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 7 and 9-13 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 Brown et al. (U.S. Patent 5,633,021) or Thomas.
Regarding claim 7, Batchelder ‘495 discloses a 3D printer nozzle, comprising a 3D printer output end (68) wherein the nozzle accepts an input (as a material or article worked upon such as a layered input as a multi-layer ribbon filament 34 of different material layers see paragraph 0113) and produces a output (as a material or article worked upon such as a layered output of a bead of the multi-layer ribbon filament of different material layers) in the direction of a movement of the 3D printer output end (Figures 1 and 5 and Paragraphs 0065 and 0113).
As to the limitation in claim 7 of a “rotating” 3D printer output end, Batchelder ‘495 does not expressly teach the output end rotates. Batchelder ‘495 does not teach away from the output end rotates wherein it is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art the 3D printer output end rotates (by including a motor 7 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 3D printer nozzle along a predetermined path and including for creation of concave or convex surfaces by the nozzle is rotated to control the orientation of an output of the output end relative to the direction of a movement of the 3D printer 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 3D printer output end taught by Batchelder ‘495 is a rotating 3D printer output end to allow a full six degrees of freedom and means for indexing the nozzle along a predetermined path and including for creation of concave or convex surfaces as taught by Austin.
Alternatively, as to the limitation in claim 7 of a “rotating” 3D printer output end, Batchelder ‘495 does not expressly teach the output end rotates. Batchelder ‘495 does not teach away from the output end rotates wherein it is well understood in the art the 3D printer output end rotates (by including a motor 52) to provide other contours such as concave shape or convex shape by the nozzle is rotated to control the orientation of an output of the output end relative to the direction of a movement of the 3D printer 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 3D printer output end taught by Batchelder ‘495 is a rotating 3D printer output end to provide other contours such as concave shape or convex shape as taught by Khoshevis.
Alternatively, as to the limitation in claim 7 of a “rotating” 3D printer output end, Batchelder ‘495 does not expressly teach the output end rotates. Batchelder ‘495 does not teach away from the output end rotates wherein it is well understood in the art the 3D printer output end rotates (by including a motor 82) to allow five degrees of freedom of movement of the nozzle by the nozzle is rotated to control the orientation of an output of the output end relative to the direction of a movement of the 3D printer output end along a path as taught by Brown (Figure 7 and Column 3, line 62 to Column 4, line 17 and Column 12, lines 21-36). 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 output end taught by Batchelder ‘495 is a rotating 3D printer output end to allow five degrees of freedom of movement of the nozzle as taught by Brown.
Alternatively, as to the limitation in claim 7 of a “rotating” 3D printer output end, Batchelder ‘495 does not expressly teach the output end rotates. Batchelder ‘495 does not teach away from the output end rotates wherein it is well understood in the art the 3D printer output end rotates (in any of the X, Y, and Z direction) to create shells and other out of plane layers as well as two dimensional layers by the nozzle is rotated to control the orientation of an output of the output end relative to the direction of a movement of the 3D printer output end 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 3D printer output end taught by Batchelder ‘495 is a rotating 3D printer output end to create shells and other out of plane layers as well as two dimensional layers as taught by Thomas.
As to the limitations in claim 7 of “a layered input” and “a layered output” and claim 9, as noted above these limitations are directed to the material or article worked upon by the nozzle (i.e. an apparatus) and/or functional limitations. The 3D printer nozzle taught by Batchelder ‘495 as modified by Austin or Khoshevis or Brown or Thomas teaches all of the structural limitations of the claims as set forth above and is capable of accepting “a layered input” and the nozzle is capable of being rotated to control the orientation of “a layered output” relative to the direction of a movement of the 3d printer output end wherein as the material or article worked upon accepted is a layered input/filament (34), i.e. the layered input includes a filament and the nozzle, during use, is rotated to control the orientation of the filament in the layered output.
Regarding claims 10-13, the 3D printer nozzle taught by Batchelder ‘495 as modified by Austin or Khoshevis or Brown or Thomas accepts a input filament (34) such as a cylindrical filament or non-cylindrical filament such as rectangular cross-section profile (Paragraph 0042) as the material or article worked upon by the nozzle. The 3D printer nozzle taught by Batchelder ‘495 as modified by Austin or Khoshevis or Brown or Thomas teaches all of the structural limitations of the claims as set forth above and is capable of accepting “a round input filament”, “a square shaped input filament”, “a rectangular shaped input filament”, and “a polygonal shaped input filament” wherein as the material or article worked upon (34) input is a round input filament or a square shaped input filament or a rectangular shaped input filament or a polygonal shaped input filament each having overall dimensions equal to or less than the cylindrical or non-cylindrical accepted input filament.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Austin or Khoshevis or Brown and further Chiera (U.S. Patent 6,659,374).
Thomas is described above in full detail.
Regarding claim 8, Thomas teaches the rotating output end 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 wherein a motor is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to provide rotation of a 3D printer nozzle including output end as evidenced by Austin or Khoshevis or Brown (each 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 motor for the conventional and predictable structure capable of for rotating the output end as would have been well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Austin or Khoshevis or Brown. It is further well understood in rotating for example a nozzle using a motor to include a rotating electrical connector of a slip ring (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 Thomas as modified by Austin or Khoshevis or Brown further comprise a rotating electrical connector (e.g. as the electrical connector between the controller and the motor for rotating the output end, the nozzle, etc.) 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 Brown as applied to claims 7 and 9-13 above, and further in view of Chiera. Additionally, claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batchelder ‘495 and Thomas as applied to claims 7 and 9-13 above, and further in view of Austin or Khoshevis or Brown and further Chiera.
Regarding claim 8, the rotating output end taught by Batchelder ‘495 as modified by Austin or Khoshevis or Brown above is comprised of a nozzle (68 of Batchelder ‘495), an extruder assembly (18 and including 66 of Batchelder ‘495), an electrical connector (electrical connector between extrusion head and controller 28 of Batchelder ‘495 as shown in Figure 1 and Paragraph 0037), and a motor for rotating the output end (as taught by Austin or Khoshevis or Brown). Batchelder ‘495 as modified by Thomas does not expressly teach the structure to rotate the output end wherein a motor is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to provide rotation of a 3D printer nozzle including output end as evidenced by Austin or Khoshevis or Brown (each 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 Thomas further comprise a motor for the conventional and predictable structure for rotating the output end as would have been well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Austin or Khoshevis or Brown. Batchelder ‘495 as modified by Austin or Khoshevis or Brown and Batchelder ‘495 as modified by Thomas and further Austin or Khoshevis or Brown do not expressly teach a rotating electrical connector. It would have been further 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 Brown and Batchelder ‘495 as modified by Thomas and further Austin or Khoshevis or Brown comprise a rotating electrical connector (e.g. as the electrical connector between the controller and the motor for rotating the output end, the nozzle, etc.) for 360 degree rotation as evidenced by Chiera (described above in full detail).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas optionally in view of Batchelder ‘074 et al. (U.S. Patent 7,897,074).
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 1) as the material or article worked upon by the nozzle. As noted above, the limitations “a square shaped input filament”, “a rectangular shaped input filament”, and “a polygonal shaped input filament” are directed to the material or article worked upon by the nozzle (i.e. an apparatus) and/or functional limitations. The 3D printer nozzle taught by Thomas teaches all of the structural limitations of the claims as set forth above and is capable of accepting “a square shaped input filament”, “a rectangular shaped input filament”, and “a polygonal shaped input filament” wherein as the material or article worked upon (2) input is a square shaped input filament, a rectangular shaped input filament, and/or a polygonal shaped input filament having overall dimensions equal to or less than the circle (round) nozzle input opening. In the event it is somehow considered the 3D printer nozzle taught by Thomas is not necessarily capable of accepting “a square shaped input filament”, “a rectangular shaped input filament”, and “a polygonal shaped input filament” the following rejection is made wherein 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 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 Brown or Thomas as applied to claims 7 and 9-13 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 Brown 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) as the material or article worked upon by the nozzle. As noted above, the limitation “a square shaped input filament” is directed to the material or article worked upon by the nozzle (i.e. an apparatus) and/or functional limitations. The 3D printer nozzle taught by Batchelder ‘495 as modified by Austin or Khoshevis or Brown or Thomas teaches all of the structural limitations of the claims as set forth above and is capable of accepting “a square shaped input filament” wherein as the material or article worked upon (34) input is a square shaped input filament having overall dimensions equal to or less than that of the cylindrical or non-cylindrical accepted input filament. In the event it is somehow considered the 3D printer nozzle taught by Batchelder ‘495 as modified by Austin or Khoshevis or Brown or Thomas is not necessarily capable of accepting “a square shaped input filament” the following rejection is made wherein 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 Brown 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered.
In view of the amendments filed on 12/22/2025 the previous objections and rejections set forth in the Office action mailed on 7/21/2025 are withdrawn. The claims as amended are fully addressed above. In as much as applicants argument that “Neither Austin, Khoshevis or Brown teach a nozzle that accepts a layered input and produces a layered output. Each of the cited references only relate to single layer inputs and single layer outputs where multiple layers are only produced by depositing one layer on top of another.” may apply to Austin, Khoshevis, and Brown as applied above it is noted each reference is applied as evidence of that well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the 3D printer output end is rotating to control the orientation of a output of the output end relative to the direction of a movement of the 3D printer output end along a path which rotating is not limited by or a function of the material or article worked upon input is a layer or layered.
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 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