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 .
Note
Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that claim(s) 1-20 is/are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under the following conditions. The process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (See MPEP 2114 II and 2115 for further details). For apparatuses, the claim limitations will define structural limitations (See MPEP 2114-2115) or functional limitations properly recited (See MPEP 2173.05 (g)).
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:
“heating unit for melting a filament” in claims 1-2 with corresponding structure disclosed at [0037] of instant publication;
“an XY mechanism that moves the tool head” in claims 7 and 10-13 with corresponding structure disclosed at Fig. 5; [0019-0020] of instant publication;
“a lifting mechanism that that lifts and lowers the build plate” in claims 7 and 10-14 with corresponding structure disclosed at [0051] of instant publication; and
“a filament providing mechanism” in claims 7 and 10-14 with corresponding structure disclosed at Fig. 6; [0043] of instant publication.
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 Objections
Claim(s) 14 is an improper dependent claim because it depends from claim 16, and therefore, it does not refer to a preceding claim (See MPEP 608.01(n)(B)(2)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim(s) 14 and 19 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 14 recites “an XY mechanism that moves the tool head in the horizontal direction” which is indefinite. It is unclear whether “an XY mechanism” in claim 14 same or different from the XY mechanism recited in claim 16 from which claim 14 depends. For purpose of examination, the limitation is examined below as --the XY mechanism--.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 14 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page (US 2017/0072632) in view of Sydow (US 2019/0184633).
Regarding claim 1, Page teaches a tool head for a three-dimensional molding device (100) (see Fig. 1;[0027]), comprising:
an extruder (an extruder assembly) for feeding a filament (see [0027-0028]);
an extruder motor (102 and/or 162) for driving the extruder (see Fig. 1A and Fig. 1C; [0006], [0031] and [0039-0040]);
a heating unit (heating system (132)) for melting the filament fed from the extruder (see Fig. 1B; [0028] and [0032-0034]);
a nozzle (138) for discharging the filament melted by the heating unit (see Fig. 1B;[0033], [0035] and [0037]); and
a fan for cooling a hot end (see [0006], [0008], [0028], [0033], [0039] and [0047-0050]). However, Page does not explicitly teach that the fan is for cooling the extruder motor.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing devices, Sydow teaches a print head for three-dimensional printing comprising an extrusion assembly (1) for providing filament (10) coupled to a drive assembly in the form of a stepper motor (3), a nozzle assembly (2) coupled to the extrusion assembly (1) (Abstract; Fig. 1 and [0024]); and a cooling mechanism comprising cooling ducts (14) distributing a cooling medium (11) for cooling both the stepper motor (3) and the extrusion assembly (1) as a whole (see Figs. 1-2; [0025-0026]) for the benefits of avoiding the loss of motor steps, irregular/uncontrolled filament feeding, and/or deterioration of product quality (see [0011]).
Sydow further teaches that a fan is well-known cooling mechanism in the art (see [0004]). It is clear from the disclosure of Sydow that the technique of cooling of the extruder motor via a cooling medium is known and desirable in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device as taught by Page in view of Sydow by configuring the fan with cooing ducts for cooling the extruder motor as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Sydow above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would prevent an irregular and uncontrolled filament feed, which might otherwise result in deterioration of the product quality (see [0011] of Sydow).
Regarding claim 2, Page in view of Sydow further teaches the tool head, wherein the fan for cooling the extruder motor is a hot end fan that cools the heating unit and is configured such that cooling air from the hot end fan cools the extruder motor together with the heating unit (see [0028], [0039] and [0047-0050] of Page and [0025-0026] of Sydow).
Regarding claim 3, Page in view of Sydow further teaches the tool head, wherein a ventilation passage (cooling ducts (14)) for the cooling air is present therein (see Fig. 2; [0025-0026] of Sydow).
Regarding claim 6, Page in view of Sydow further teaches the tool head, further comprising a parts cooling fan capable for cooling a modeled object (i.e. the cooling fan configured for cooling nozzle (138) as shown in cross-section in the schematic of FIG. 1B and the material dispensed by the nozzle (138) which forms the modeled object) (see Fig. 1B and Fig. 3A; [0033] and [0047-0050] of Page).
Regarding claims 7 and 10-11, Page in view of Sydow teaches a three-dimensional molding device (3D printer (100)) (see Fig. 1A; [0027] of Page), comprising:
the tool head according to claim 1 (see 103 rejection of claim 1 above);
an XY mechanism (carriage 106 is moveable in a first direction (x) along a fixed arm of the 3D printer (100)) that moves the tool head in the horizontal direction (see Fig. 1A;[0027] of Page) ;
a build plate (build platform (108 and/or 168)) on which a modeled object discharged from the tool head is placed (see Fig. 1A and Fig. 1C;[0027] of Page);
a lifting mechanism (i.e. motion system structure that configured to lift the build platform (108) in y and Z directions) that lifts and lowers the build plate (see Fig. 1A;[0027] of Page);
a filament providing mechanism (a cold end that pulls/feeds the filament (e.g., thermoplastic from a spool)) that provides filament to the tool head (see [0028] of Page); and
a control device that controls these operations (i.e. 3D printer motion system (120) includes at least one controller and an input/output (I/O) subsystem) (see Fig. 1B;[0029-0030] and [0040] of Page).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page (US 2017/0072632) in view of Sydow (US 2019/0184633) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LaBossiere (US 2007/0003656).
Regarding claim 4, Page in view of Sydow teaches the tool head as discussed in claim 1 above.
Page further teaches a 3D printer motion system (120) includes the extrusion motor and filament drive mechanism (see [0031] of Page). However, the combination of Page in view of Sydow does not teach the extruder has a first rotating member and a second rotating member; the first rotating member is provided with: a first driven gear receiving driving force from a first driving gear of the extruder motor, a second driving gear that transmits driving force to the second rotating member, and a first support shaft that supports the first driven gear and the second driving gear; the second rotating member is provided with: a second driven gear receiving driving force from the second driving gear, and a second support shaft that supports the second driven gear; and the filament is fed while sandwiched between the first rotating member and the second rotating member.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing devices, LaBossiere teaches deposition modeling system incorporates a drive mechanism (10) to feed a strand of filament (Abstract, Fig. 2A), the drive mechanism comprises a first rotating member (30, 44, 46, and 32) and a second rotating member (26 and 28); the first rotating member is provided with: a first driven gear (a driven gear (46)) receiving driving force from a first driving gear (a drive gear (44)) of an extruder motor (12), a second driving gear (idler roller (30)) that transmits driving force to the second rotating member (see Figs. 2A-2B; [0032], [0034] and [0039]), and a first support shaft (28) that supports the first driven gear (46) and the second driving gear (30); the second rotating member is provided with: a second driven gear (drive roller (26)) receiving driving force from the second driving gear (idler roller (30), and a second support shaft (a drive axle (28)) that supports the second driven gear (26) (see Fig. 2B;[0034-0035]); and the filament (38) is fed while sandwiched between the first rotating member and the second rotating member (see Fig. 2A;[0037] and [0040]). LaBossiere teaches that the feed drive mechanism accommodates filament having various diameters, more effectively controls movement of the filament and is easier to service and repair (see [0002] and [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the apparatus as taught by Page in view of LaBossiere with a feed drive mechanism as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of LaBossiere above; and doing so is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would provide a drive mechanism that accommodates filament having various diameters, more effectively controls movement of the filament and is easier to service and repair (see [0002] and [0047] of LaBossiere).
Regarding claim 5, Page in view of Sydow and LaBossiere further teaches the tool head, wherein the first driven gear (46) has more teeth than the first driving gear (44) and the second driving gear (30) has fewer teeth than the first driven gear (46) (see Figs. 2A-2B of LaBossiere).
Regarding claims 12-13, Page in view of Sydow and LaBossiere teaches a three-dimensional molding device (3D printer (100)) (see Fig. 1A; [0027] of Page), comprising:
the tool head according to claims 4 and 5 (see 103 rejection of claims 4-5 above);
an XY mechanism (carriage 106 is moveable in a first direction (x) along a fixed arm of the 3D printer (100)) that moves the tool head in the horizontal direction (see Fig. 1A; [0027] of Page);
a build plate (build platform (108 and/or 168)) on which a modeled object discharged from the tool head is placed (see Fig. 1A and Fig. 1C; [0027] of Page);
a lifting mechanism (i.e. motion system structure that is configured to lift the build platform (108) in y and Z directions) that lifts and lowers the build plate (see Fig. 1A; [0027] of Page);
a filament providing mechanism (a cold end that pulls/feeds the filament (e.g., thermoplastic from a spool)) that provides filament to the tool head (see [0028] of Page); and
a control device that controls these operations (i.e. 3D printer motion system (120) includes at least one controller and an input/output (I/O) subsystem) (see Fig. 1B;[0029-0030] and [0040] of Page).
Claim(s) 8-9,14-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page (US 2017/0072632) in view of Sydow (US 2019/0184633) as applied to claims 7 and 10-11 above, and further in view of Zeng (CN 20452617 with English Machine Translation Attached).
Regarding claim 8,15-16 and 19-20, Page in view of Sydow further teaches the three-dimensional molding device as discussed in claims 7 and 10-11 above.
Page in view of Sydow does not teach wherein the XY mechanism is provided with:
two belts that horizontally move the tool head, two motors driving each of the belts, and
an X bar connected to the tool head, and two Y bars on both sides of the X bar; and the two Y bars are composed of a linear guide having a rail and a block, and pulleys for the two belts are present on the block.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing devices, Zeng teaches XY axis motion mechanism for a 3D printer (see Fig. 2;[0007] and [0023] of English Machine Translation Attached), includes two belts (10) that horizontally move a printhead (1), two stepping motors (9) driving each of the belts (see annotated Fig. 2 below;[0012] and [0024] of English Machine Translation Attached), and an X bar (2) connected to the printhead (1), and two Y bars (3) on both sides of the X bar; and the two Y bars are composed of a linear guide (6,7) having a rail and a block, and pulleys (11) for the two belts are present on the block (see annotated Fig. 2 below; [0010-0011], [0020] and [0024-0025] of English Machine Translation Attached). Zeng teaches that the XY axis motion mechanism of this structure can achieve a fairly high precision, and the guide rail can effectively reduce the resistance of the printing head during printing (see [0007] of English Machine Translation Attached).
PNG
media_image1.png
383
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device as taught by Page in view of Zeng with the XY mechanism as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing devices given the discussion of Zeng above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would provide XY axis motion mechanism that can achieve a fairly high precision, and the guide rail can effectively reduce the resistance of the printing head during printing (see [0007] of English Machine Translation Attached of Zeng).
Regarding claim 9, Page in view of Sydow and Zeng further teaches the three-dimensional molding device, wherein the two motors (9,9) of the XY mechanism are located outside a chamber in which three-dimensional molding is performed (i.e. a space accommodate the molding material deposited by the print head (1) for forming the 3D object) (see annotated Fig. 2 below; [0024], [0023] of English Machine Translation Attached of Zeng).
PNG
media_image2.png
383
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Page in view of Sydow and Zeng teaches a three-dimensional molding device (3D printer (100)) (see Fig. 1A; [0027] of Page), comprising:
the tool head according to claim 16 (see 103 rejection of claim 16 above);
an XY mechanism (carriage 106 is moveable in a first direction (x) along a fixed arm of the 3D printer (100)) that moves the tool head in the horizontal direction (see Fig. 1A; [0027] of Page) ;
a build plate (build platform (108 and/or 168)) on which a modeled object discharged from the tool head is placed (see Fig. 1A and Fig. 1C; [0027] of Page);
a lifting mechanism (i.e. motion system structure that configured to lift the build platform (108) in y and Z directions) that lifts and lowers the build plate (see Fig. 1A; [0027] of Page);
a filament providing mechanism (a cold end that pulls/feeds the filament (e.g., thermoplastic from a spool)) that provides filament to the tool head (see [0028] of Page); and
a control device that controls these operations (i.e. 3D printer motion system (120) includes at least one controller and an input/output (I/O) subsystem) (see Fig. 1B;[0029-0030] and [0040] of Page).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page (US 2017/0072632) in view of Sydow (US 2019/0184633) and LaBossiere (US 2007/0003656) as applied to claims 12-13 above, and further in view of Zeng (CN 20452617 with English Machine Translation Attached).
Regarding claims 17-18, Page in view of Sydow and LaBossiere teaches a three-dimensional molding device (3D printer (160)) (see Fig. 1C), comprising the tool head as discussed in claims 12-13 above.
Page in view of Sydow does not teach wherein the XY mechanism is provided with:
two belts that horizontally move the tool head, two motors driving each of the belts, and
an X bar connected to the tool head, and two Y bars on both sides of the X bar; and the two Y bars are composed of a linear guide having a rail and a block, and pulleys for the two belts are present on the block.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing devices, Zeng teaches XY axis motion mechanism for a 3D printer (see Fig. 1 and annotated Fig. 2 above;[0007] and [0023] of English Machine Translation Attached), includes two belts (10) that horizontally move a printhead (1), two stepping motors (9) driving each of the belts (see annotated Fig. 2 above;[0012] and [0024] of English Machine Translation Attached), and an X bar (2) connected to the printhead (1), and two Y bars (3) on both sides of the X bar; and the two Y bars are composed of a linear guide (6,7) having a rail and a block, and pulleys (11) for the two belts are present on the block (see annotated Fig. 2 above; [0010-0011], [0020] and [0024-0025] of English Machine Translation Attached). Zeng teaches that the XY axis motion mechanism of this structure can achieve a fairly high precision, and the guide rail can effectively reduce the resistance of the printing head during printing (see [0007] of English Machine Translation Attached).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device as taught by Page in view of Zeng with the XY mechanism as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing devices given the discussion of Zeng above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would provide XY axis motion mechanism that can achieve a fairly high precision, and the guide rail can effectively reduce the resistance of the printing head during printing (see [0007] of English Machine Translation Attached of Zeng).
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhou (US 2023/0256676 A1) teaches a three-dimensional (3D) printing apparatus (see Fig. 1;[0050]), comprising:
an extruder (310) for feeding a filament (see Fig. 3;[0020]); an extruder motor for driving the extruder (see [0019])); a heating unit (340) for melting the filament fed from the extruder (see Fig. 1;[0020]); a nozzle (360) for discharging the filament melted by the heating unit; and a fan for cooling a hot end (see Fig. 3; [0020]).
TANG (US 2025/0144876 A1) teaches a three-dimensional molding device (100) (see Fig. 1;[0018]), comprising:
an extruder (200) for feeding a filament (see Fig. 3;[0020]); an extruder motor for driving the extruder (see [0050])); a heating unit (610) for melting the filament fed from the extruder (see Fig. 3;[0109]); a nozzle (660) for discharging the filament melted by the heating unit; and cooling member (810) is configured to generate cold air for cooling the nozzle, so as to dissipate heat from the consumable sprayed out from the nozzle, thereby speeding up cooling of the printing model and improving printing efficiency. (see Figs. 1-2; [0110]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AHMED ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-0347. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM-7:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMED K AHMED ALI/Examiner, Art Unit 1743