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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “312” has been used to designate both the pivotal attachment and lever portion in FIGs. 23-25 (discussed in paragraphs [0056]-[0059] of the specification as filed). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
paragraph [0037] recites “print head 108”; and should be corrected such that the recitation reads “print head 102”; and
paragraph [0042] recites “head carriage 100” and should be corrected such that the recitation reads “head carriage 110”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “the second, clamped position” should be amended to recite “the second, unclamped position” as introduced in claim 7, the claim which claim 8 depends from. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably deduce “the second, clamped position” was intended to reference “the second, unclamped position” and therefore does not result in ambiguous claim language; however, the examiner recommends using consistent language throughout. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “the first, unclamped position to the second, clamped position” should be amended to recite “the first, clamped position to the second, unclamped position” as introduced in claim 12, the claim which claim 18 depends from. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably deduce “the first, unclamped position to the second, clamped position” was intended to reference “the first, clamped position to the second, unclamped position” and therefore does not result in ambiguous claim language; however, the examiner recommends using consistent language throughout. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “mechanism configured to be moved by the user” in line 14 of claim 1 and line 17 of claim 12 (see paragraphs [0049], [0051]-[0052], claim 3 and claim 14 for the corresponding structure for performing the claimed function).
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
[AltContent: rect]
Claims 7-10 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.
Regarding claim 7: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation "the plurality of print heads" in line 8. Claim 7 depends from claim 1, which does not include a plurality of print heads; therefore, the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a plurality of print heads making it unclear as to what element the limitation is making reference. See MPEP § 2173.05(e). Claims 8-10 are rejected due to their dependency, either directly or indirectly, on claim 7.
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:
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.
[AltContent: rect]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 1-6 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn et al. (US 2018/0056608; herein referred to as Dunn) in view of Hoffman (US 2018/00566006; herein referred to as Hoffman).
As to claim 1: Dunn discloses the claimed extrusion-based 3D printer configured to print 3D parts in a layer-by-layer manner (Dunn at [0037], FIG. 1), the 3D printer comprising:
a platen configured to accept and support extruded material (Dunn at [0037], [0043], [0045], FIG. 1);
at least one print head configured to extrude material to print a 3D part (Dunn at [0037], [0039], [0040], FIG. 1);
a gantry configured to move the at least one print head as the material is extruded (Dunn at [0043], [0047], FIG. 1); and
at least one head carriage configured to engage the at least one print head (Dunn at [0043], [0046], FIG. 1, FIG. 3), the at least one carriage comprising:
a print head receptacle configured to engage and retain the at least one print head thereto (i.e., print head 18 is configured to be retained to the head carriage 34 via left support member 50 and left retaining mechanism 52) (Dunn at [0046], [0056], [0057], [0071], FIG. 2A, FIG. 3).
Dunn discloses additional equipment 19 being retained to the head carriage 34 via right support member 53 and right retaining mechanism 54, where the additional equipment 19 can include cutting instrument 210 to remove excess extrudate (Dunn at [0056], [0057], FIG. 2H, FIG. 3). Thus, Dunn discloses a filament cutter comprising a blade; though Dunn fails to explicitly disclose the claimed filament cutter positioned above the at least one print head and configured for actuation by a user while the printer is in a paused or off state, wherein the filament cutter comprises: a mechanism configured to be moved by the user such that the blade is positionable between a first, non-cutting position where filament can be fed to the at least one print head and a second, cutting position wherein the filament is cut above the print head.
However, Hoffman teaches an extruder assembly 100 of a 3D printer (Hoffman at [0023], FIG. 3). Hoffman further teaches the extruder assembly 100 of the 3D printer including a supply motor 108, filament 102, cutting device 110, filament intake region 112, filament supply path 123, and extruder head 122 (Hoffman at [0025], [0026], [0027], FIGs. 3-4). The cutting device 110 taught by Hoffman is positioned above supply motor 108 and extruder head 122 so that the cutting device 110 is as close to the filament intake region 112 as possible (i.e., filament cutter positioned above the at least one print head) such that a cutting force 120 can be generated by a user of the 3D printer at the end of a job or at a point in the print job that required the changing of filaments (i.e., filament cutter configured for actuation by a user while the printer is in a paused or off state) (Hoffman at [0025], [0026], [0027], FIGs. 3-4).
Additionally, the cutting device 110 includes a fixed portion 116 and a movable portion 103 which together form cutting region 115; cutting region 115 includes a fixed edge 117 and a movable edge 118, where fixed edge 117 is a part of fixed portion 116 and movable edge 118 is a part of movable portion 103; and movable portion 103 being connected to fixed portion 116 via joint 119, about which movable portion 103 is rotatable for a rotational relative movement of movable portion 103 relative to fixed position 116 – hence, if cutting force 120 is applied to movable portion 103, movable portion 103 rotated about movable joint 119 and causes movable edge 118 to move towards fixed edge 117 in direction 121, and with force in sufficient magnitude generated by a user of the 3D printer causes the fixed edge 117 and movable edge 118 of cutting portion 115 to cut filament 102 immediately above at filament intake 112 (i.e., a mechanism configured to be moved by the user such that the blade is positionable between a first, non-cutting position where filament can be fed to the at least one print head and a second, cutting position wherein the filament is cut above the print head) (Hoffman at [0025], [0026], [0027], FIGs. 3-4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the filament cutter positioned above the at least one print head and configured for actuation by a user, the filament cutter comprising a mechanism configured to be moved by the user such that the blade is positionable between a first, non-cutting position where filament can be fed to the print head and a second, cutting position wherein the filament is cut above the print head as such is known in the art of extrusion-based 3D printing given the discussion of Hoffman above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is the use of a known technique to improve similar device in the same way, with the added benefit of doing so enabling filament to be cut in such a way that the amount of wasted filament is minimized (as recognized by Hoffman at [0027]).
As to claim 12: Dunn discloses the claimed extrusion-based 3D printer configured to print 3D parts in a layer-by-layer manner (Dunn at [0037], FIG. 1), the 3D printer comprising:
a platen configured to accept and support extruded material (Dunn at [0037], [0043], [0045], FIG. 1);
at least one print head configured to extrude material to print a 3D part (Dunn at [0037], [0039], [0040], FIG. 1);
a gantry configured to move the at least one print head as the material is extruded (Dunn at [0043], [0047], FIG. 1); and
at least one head carriage configured to engage the at least one print head (Dunn at [0043], [0046], FIG. 1, FIG. 3), the at least one carriage comprising:
a head carriage receptacle configured to accept the at least one print head (i.e., print head 18 is configured to be retained to the head carriage 34 via left support member 50 and left retaining mechanism 52) (Dunn at [0046], [0056], [0057], [0071], FIG. 2A, FIG. 3); and
an actuating lever (i.e., camming member 74) positionable between a first, clamped position wherein the print head is substantially fixedly retained to the head carriage receptacle and a second, unclamped position wherein the actuating lever disengages the print head from the print head receptacle (i.e., camming member 74 is positionable into a first, non-engaging position, and then into a second, engaging position through rotation about the axis of rotation 76 such that print head 18 is secured to the head carriage 34 through frictional engagement) (Dunn at [0071], [0074], [0075], [0076], FIG. 2A, FIG. 3).
Dunn discloses additional equipment 19 being retained to the head carriage 34 via right support member 53 and right retaining mechanism 54, where the additional equipment 19 can include cutting instrument 210 to remove excess extrudate (Dunn at [0056], [0057], FIG. 2H, FIG. 3). Thus, Dunn discloses a filament cutter comprising a blade; though Dunn fails to explicitly disclose the claimed filament cutter positioned above the at least one print head and configured for actuation by a user while the printer is in a paused or off state, wherein the filament cutter comprises: a mechanism configured to be moved by the user such that the blade is positionable between a first, non-cutting position where filament can be fed to the at least one print head and a second, cutting position wherein the filament is cut above the print head.
However, Hoffman teaches an extruder assembly 100 of a 3D printer (Hoffman at [0023], FIG. 3). Hoffman further teaches the extruder assembly 100 of the 3D printer including a supply motor 108, filament 102, cutting device 110, filament intake region 112, filament supply path 123, and extruder head 122 (Hoffman at [0025], [0026], [0027], FIGs. 3-4). The cutting device 110 taught by Hoffman is positioned above supply motor 108 and extruder head 122 so that the cutting device 110 is as close to the filament intake region 112 as possible (i.e., filament cutter positioned above the at least one print head) such that a cutting force 120 can be generated by a user of the 3D printer at the end of a job or at a point in the print job that required the changing of filaments (i.e., filament cutter configured for actuation by a user while the printer is in a paused or off state) (Hoffman at [0025], [0026], [0027], FIGs. 3-4).
Additionally, the cutting device 110 includes a fixed portion 116 and a movable portion 103 which together form cutting region 115; cutting region 115 includes a fixed edge 117 and a movable edge 118, where fixed edge 117 is a part of fixed portion 116 and movable edge 118 is a part of movable portion 103; and movable portion 103 being connected to fixed portion 116 via joint 119, about which movable portion 103 is rotatable for a rotational relative movement of movable portion 103 relative to fixed position 116 – hence, if cutting force 120 is applied to movable portion 103, movable portion 103 rotated about movable joint 119 and causes movable edge 118 to move towards fixed edge 117 in direction 121, and with force in sufficient magnitude generated by a user of the 3D printer causing the fixed edge 117 and movable edge 118 of cutting portion 115 to cut filament 102 immediately above at filament intake 112 (i.e., a mechanism configured to be moved by the user such that the blade is positionable between a first, non-cutting position where filament can be fed to the at least one print head and a second, cutting position wherein the filament is cut above the print head) (Hoffman at [0025], [0026], [0027], FIGs. 3-4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the filament cutter positioned above the at least one print head and configured for actuation by a user, the filament cutter comprising a mechanism configured to be moved by the user such that the blade is positionable between a first, non-cutting position where filament can be fed to the print head and a second, cutting position wherein the filament is cut above the print head as such is known in the art of extrusion-based 3D printing given the discussion of Hoffman above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is the use of a known technique to improve similar device in the same way, with the added benefit of doing so enabling filament to be cut in such a way that the amount of wasted filament is minimized (as recognized by Hoffman at [0027]).
As to claim 2 and claim 13: Dunn and Hoffman disclose the extrusion-based 3D printer of claim 1 and claim 12 above. Hoffman further reads on the claimed wherein the filament cutter is biased into the first, non-cutting position (i.e., if cutting force 120 is applied to movable portion 103, movable portion 103 rotated about movable joint 119 and causes movable edge 118 to move towards fixed edge 117 in direction 121, and with force in sufficient magnitude generated by a user of the 3D printer causing the fixed edge 117 and movable edge 118 of cutting portion 115 to cut filament 102 immediately above at filament intake 112) (Hoffman at [0025], [0026], [0027], FIGs. 3-4), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1 and claim 12.
As to claim 3 and claim 14: Dunn and Hoffman disclose the extrusion-based 3D printer of claim 1 and claim 12 above. Hoffman further reads on the claimed wherein the mechanism configured to be moved by the user comprises: a handle (i.e., movable portion 103 of cutting device 10) that is configured to be gripped and moved with manual force from the first position to the second position wherein as the handle is moved from the first position to the second position the blade is moved from the first, no-cutting position to the second, cutting position utilizing a mechanical advantage (i.e., if cutting force 120 is applied to movable portion 103, movable portion 103 rotated about movable joint 119 and causes movable edge 118 to move towards fixed edge 117 in direction 121, and with force in sufficient magnitude generated by a user of the 3D printer causing the fixed edge 117 and movable edge 118 of cutting portion 115 to cut filament 102 immediately above at filament intake 112) (Hoffman at [0025], [0026], [0027], FIGs. 3-4), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1 and claim 12.
As to claim 4 and claim 15: Dunn and Hoffman disclose the extrusion-based 3D printer of claim 3 and claim 14 above. Dunn, modified by Hoffman, fail to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein the mechanical advantage ranges from about 2:1 to about 10:1.
One of ordinary skill in the art, upon viewing Dunn and Hoffman together, is reasonably acquainted with the fact that the lever (i.e., movable portion 103 of cutting device 103) in Hoffman involves mechanical advantage, and that mechanical advantage of a lever is dependent on the ratio of lengths of an effort arm and a load arm (e.g., a lever with a longer arm provides greater mechanical advantage). This understanding is consistent with paragraph [0057] of the specification as filed, which states “ … a length L of the lever portion 312 and the shorter distance D between the pivot axis 313 and the attachment location of the blade 302 to the actuating mechanism create a mechanical advantage that aids in severing or cutting the filament … [t] he mechanical advantage is proportional to the ration of the L to D.”
Consequently, while Hoffman fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein the mechanical advantage ranges from about 2:1 to about 10:1, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a mechanical advantage ranging from about 2:1 to about 10:1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to utilize a mechanical advantage ranging from about 2:1 to about 10:1 for the purpose of increasing the output force relative to the input force applied by the user.
As to claim 5 and claim 16: Dunn and Hoffman disclose the extrusion-based 3D printer of claim 3 and claim 14 above. Dunn, modified by Hoffman, fail to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein the mechanical advantage ranges from about 3:1 to about 5:1.
One of ordinary skill in the art, upon viewing Dunn and Hoffman together, is reasonably apprised of the fact that the lever (i.e., movable portion 103 of cutting device 103) in Hoffman involves mechanical advantage, and that mechanical advantage of a lever is dependent on the ratio of lengths of an effort arm and a load arm (e.g., a lever with a longer arm provides greater mechanical advantage). This understanding is consistent with paragraph [0057] of the specification as filed, which states “ … a length L of the lever portion 312 and the shorter distance D between the pivot axis 313 and the attachment location of the blade 302 to the actuating mechanism create a mechanical advantage that aids in severing or cutting the filament … [t] he mechanical advantage is proportional to the ration of the L to D.”
Consequently, while Hoffman fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein the mechanical advantage ranges from about 3:1 to about 5:1, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a mechanical advantage ranging from about 3:1 to about 5:1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to utilize a mechanical advantage ranging from about 3:1 to about 5:1 for the purpose of increasing the output force relative to the input force applied by the user.
As to claim 6 and claim 17: Dunn and Hoffman disclose the extrusion-based 3D printer of claim 1 and claim 12 above. Hoffman further reads on the claimed wherein the blade comprises a through bore having an exit surface that moves relative to a fixed surface, wherein as the exit surface is moved to the second cutting position, a scissors cutting action between the exit surface and the fixed surface cuts the filament above the print head (Hoffman at [0025], [0026], [0027], [0030], FIGs. 3-4), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1 and claim 12.
[AltContent: rect]
Claims 7-10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn and Hoffman as applied to claim 1 and claim 12 above, and further in view of Gibson (US 2023/0264419; herein referred to as Gibson).
As to claim 7: Dunn and Hoffman disclose the extrusion-based 3D printer of claim 1 and claim 12 above. Dunn further discloses the claimed wherein the print head receptacle of the at least one head carriage comprises: a bottom wall configured to support a print head (i.e., left support member 50) (Dunn at [0046], [0056], [0057], [0071], FIG. 2A, FIG. 3); a back wall extending from the bottom wall (Dunn at FIG. 3); and an actuating lever positionable between a first, clamped position wherein the print head is substantially fixedly retained to the head carriage and a second, unclamped position wherein the actuating lever disengages the print head (i.e., camming member 74 is positionable into a first, non-engaging position, and then into a second, engaging position through rotation about the axis of rotation 76 such that print head 18 is secured to the head carriage 34 through frictional engagement) (Dunn at [0071], [0074], [0075], [0076], FIG. 2A, FIG. 3).
Though, Dunn modified by Hoffman, fails to disclose the claimed print head can be removed while another print head of the plurality of print heads is printing the 3D part or the associated support structure.
However, Gibson teaches three-dimensional (3D) printer comprising: a core exchanger mechanism to swap a plurality of hotend cores, the plurality of hotend cores containing a filament to print a 3D object; a hotend comprised of a first hotend core, the hotend connected to an extruder to heat and extrude the filament (Gibson at Claim 1, Figure 1). Gibson further teaches the hotend and the extruder operatively engaged with the core exchanger mechanism; an actuation arm connected to the core exchange mechanism, the actuation arm configured to engage and selectively swap the plurality of hotend cores (i.e., print head can be removed while another print head of the plurality of print heads is printing the 3D part or the associated support structure) (Gibson at Claim 1, Claim 2, Claim 5, Claim 9, Figure 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the plurality of print heads to be interchanged during 3D printing as such is known in the art of extrusion-based 3D printers given the discussion of Gibson above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As to claim 8 and claim 18: Dunn, Hoffman and Gibson disclose the extrusion-based 3D printer of claim 7 above. Gibson further reads on the claimed wherein the blade is moved from the first, non-cutting position to the second cutting position through engagement with the actuating lever as the actuating lever moves from the first, clamped position to the second, unclamped position (i.e., ) (Gibson at Claim 1, Claim 2, Claim 5, Claim 7, Claim 9, Figure 1), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 7.
As to claim 9: Dunn, Hoffman and Gibson disclose the extrusion-based 3D printer of claim 7 above. Dunn further discloses the claimed wherein the back wall of the print head receptacle comprises an electrical receptacle (Dunn at [0050], [0051], FIG. 1, FIG. 3).
As to claim 10: Dunn, Hoffman and Gibson disclose the extrusion-based 3D printer of claim 7 above. Dunn further discloses the claimed wherein the at least one print head comprises a mating electrical connector configured to couple to the electrical receptacle, wherein when in the first, clamped position the electrical receptacle and the mating connector are in electrical communication and when in the second, unclamped position the electrical receptacle and the mating connector are disconnected (Dunn at [0050], [0051], FIG. 1, FIG. 3).
[AltContent: rect]
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn and Hoffman as applied to claim 1 and claim 12 above, and further in view of Chapman et al. (US 2022/0001613; herein referred to as Chapman).
As to claim 11 and claim 19: Dunn and Hoffman disclose the extrusion-based 3D printer of claim 1 and claim 12 above. Dunn further discloses the claimed extrusion-based 3d printer further comprising, a heated print chamber containing the platen (Dunn at [0044], [0050], FIG. 1).
Dunn is silent regarding the claimed tool chamber separated from the heated print chamber with a thermal barrier; a tool rack within the tool chamber, wherein the tool rack is configured to retain a plurality of print heads secured to a plurality of head carriages.
However, Chapman teaches an extrusion-based 3D printer 10, the 3D printer 10 includes system cabinet or frame 26, chamber 28, platen 30, platen gantry 32, head carriage 34, and head gantry 36; and the chamber 28 being enclosed and heated (Chapman at [0039], [0042], [0043], FIG. 1, FIG. 2A). Chapman further teaches a typical chamber includes a thermal insulator that allows the print heads 18p and 18s to be located outside the heated space, while moving in a heated build envelope, and printing in a plane, whether x-y, x-z or y-z depending upon the configuration of the printer; where a central portion 31 of a thermal insulator includes flaps 33 and 35 which provide a thermal barrier to isolate the print heads from the thermal chamber (i.e., tool chamber separated from the heated print chamber with a thermal barrier; a tool rack within the tool chamber, wherein the tool rack is configured to retain a plurality of print heads secured to a plurality of head carriages) (Chapman at [0043], [0044], [0066] FIG. 1, FIG. 2A).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the tool chamber separated from the heated print chamber with a thermal barrier; a tool rack within the tool chamber, wherein the tool rack is configured to retain a plurality of print heads secured to a plurality of head carriages as such is known in the art of extrusion-based 3D printing given the discussion of Chapman above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILEIGH K. DARNELL whose telephone number is (469)295-9287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, MST.
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 H. 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.
/BAILEIGH KATE DARNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1743