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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 11/14/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 18 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/14/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 7, “the formation of at least one 3D object;” should read --the formation of at least one 3D object; and--.
In claim 15, lines 3-4, “one of said at least one of said printing nozzle” should read --one of said at least one printing nozzle--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one axis” in line 5. Claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter. A claim is indefinite if the scope of the claim is not clear to a hypothetical person possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. One cannot ascertain whether “at least one axis” recited in line 5 is the same as or different than “at least one axis” previously recited in line 4. Claims 2-17 which depend from claim 1 are similarly rejected.
Claims 2-3 recite the limitation “said at least two curable polymers.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no earlier recitation of the limitation. MPEP 2173.05(e). For compact prosecution, the limitation has been examined as if it read --at least two curable polymers--.
Claims 7-10 recite the limitation “said curable polymer.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no earlier recitation of the limitation. MPEP 2173.05(e). For compact prosecution, the limitation has been examined as if it read --said at least one curable polymer--. Claim 12 which depend from claim 10 is similarly rejected.
Claims 8-9 recite the limitation “said valve.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no earlier recitation of the limitation. MPEP 2173.05(e). For compact prosecution, the limitation has been examined as if it read --said at least one valve--.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the extruded curable polymer.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no earlier recitation of the limitation. MPEP 2173.05(e). For compact prosecution, the limitation has been examined as if it read --the extruded at least one curable polymer--.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “said printing head.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no earlier recitation of the limitation. MPEP 2173.05(e). For compact prosecution, the limitation has been examined as if it read --said at least one printing head--.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “said opening.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no earlier recitation of the limitation. MPEP 2173.05(e). For compact prosecution, the limitation has been examined as if it read --said at least one opening--.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “any long term implants.” The claim indefinite because of the use of relative terminology in claim language and the scope of the term is not understood when read in light of the specification. MPEP 2173.05(b)(I). For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as -- any implant --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raynes (US 2021/0162664 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Raynes teaches a 3D printer 1 (vacuum sealed 3D printer) (Fig 1A-1F and ¶0122-0135).
Raynes teaches a 3d printer 1 wherein the use of a vacuum chamber and a hot bed that blows air into the printing chamber allows for the chamber to be heated whilst printing FDM and the provision of a vacuum environment while using liquid resins; wherein the liquid is a UV curable resin; wherein by drawing air from the object (either by disposing the aperture(s) within, at or proximate an opening into the object, or by disposing the aperture(s) elsewhere within the 3D printer and relying on a global vacuum within the printing chamber to draw air from the object), the filling of an object with printed liquid can be achieved more effectively than relying on gravity alone, and a reduction in the number of air bubbles in the printed liquid can be achieved; and wherein the printing chamber may be a sealed chamber, and a vacuum pump may be operable to draw air out of the printing chamber via the one or more apertures (at least one vacuum chamber defining at least one operational area; at least one vacuum pump, in fluid tight communication with said at least one vacuum chamber, such that when said vacuum pump is activated vacuum is applied within said vacuum chamber to remove air bubbles created during depositing said at least one curable polymer) (Fig 1A-1F and ¶0009,0011,0124,0126,0135).
Raynes teaches the claimed at least one vacuum chamber. However, the limitation “to enclose: (i) at least one build plate, movable along at least one axis, and (ii) at least one printing head, movable along at least one axis, comprising at least one printing nozzle for depositing at least one curable polymer on said at least one build plate for the formation of at least one 3D object” recite the inclusion of a material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed and do not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP 2115. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. MPEP 2115. Here, the claimed (i) at least one build plate, movable along at least one axis, and (ii) at least one printing head, movable along at least one axis, comprising at least one printing nozzle for depositing at least one curable polymer on said at least one build plate for the formation of at least one 3D object are not positively recited. Raynes teaches a fully enclosed printing chamber between pillars 3, side panels 4, print bed 3/base 6, the print head platform 7, and the roof; wherein the printing chamber is both fully enclosed, and sealed (or sealable), such as to permit a vacuum to be formed within the printing chamber (¶0126-0127). Accordingly, Raynes discloses a 3D printer wherein said at least one vacuum chamber sealingly sized and shaped to enclose at least one build plate and at least one printing head.
For compact prosecution, Examiner notes that Raynes teaches a 3D printer 1 further comprising (i) a print bed 3; wherein print bed carriages 41 are provided which are able to move vertically on the vertical columns 2 to reposition and/or tilt the print bed 3 (at least one build plate, movable along at least one axis) (Fig 1F and ¶0133) and (ii) an FDM print head 14 which melts filament material at a diamond hot end to be deposited in the printing process and also a liquid print head 13b which dispenses liquid from one or more hoppers; wherein the liquid is a UV curable resin; wherein the two print heads deposits material directed downwardly towards the print bed 3 to print an object; and wherein a print head platform 7, bearing one or more print heads/nozzles is suspended from three printhead carriages 8, which allows for movement of the print head platform 7, and thus 3D printing, in an x, y and z direction (at least one printing head, movable along at least one axis, comprising at least one printing nozzle for depositing at least one curable polymer on said at least one build plate for the formation of at least one 3D object) (Fig 1F and ¶0123-0125,0127-0130,0191,0194).
Regarding claims 2-3, as applied to claim 1, Raynes teaches a 3D printer wherein at least two curable polymers are extruded out of said at least one printing nozzle and wherein at least two curable polymers are extruded at either a substantially constant ratio of amounts one relative to the other or at a varying ratio of amounts one relative to the other (¶0097-0107).
Regarding claims 4-5, as applied to claim 1, the limitations “when said at least one vacuum pump is inactive, no vacuum is applied within said at least one vacuum chamber; and, said at least one curable polymer is prevented from being extruded from said at least one printing nozzle to form said at least one 3D object” and “wherein, when said at least one vacuum pump is active, vacuum is applied within said at least one vacuum chamber; and, said at least one curable polymer is being extruded from said at least one printing nozzle” are a recitation of intended use of the claimed at least one vacuum pump, at least one vacuum chamber, and at least one printing nozzle. 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. MPEP 2114(II). Here, Raynes teaches an apparatus which includes all the structural limitations of the claim.
Regarding claims 6-7, as applied to claim 1, Raynes teaches a 3D printer wherein hopper 12 a is a sealed container, which can be evacuated (a vacuum formed therein) or pressurized via a pump/vacuum which is in fluid communication with the interior of the hopper 12 a via an inlet/outlet and the hopper, may be provided with a valve to shut when not printing to stop fluid dribbling (wherein said at least one curable polymer is contained within at least one container; wherein said at least one container comprises at least one valve adapted, when open, to facilitate extraction of said curable polymer therefrom; and when closed, to prevent extraction of said curable polymer therefrom) (¶0132,0146).
Regarding claims 8-9, as applied to claim 6, Raynes teaches a 3D printer wherein the air compressor pump may use adjustable valves to set the flow rate depending on the type of fluid being used, and may run at a set level by PWM (pulse width modulation) to control the pressure (wherein when said at least one vacuum pump is active, vacuum is applied within said at least one vacuum chamber, said valve is open to facilitate entrance of air into said at least one container and extraction of said curable polymer therefrom is facilitated; wherein when said at least one vacuum pump is inactive, said valve is closed to prevent entrance of air into said at least one container and extraction of said curable polymer therefrom) (¶0146).
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 1, the limitation “wherein said applied vacuum causes removal of any trapped air bubbles in the extruded curable polymer” is a recitation of intended use of the claimed at least one vacuum pump and at least one vacuum chamber. 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. MPEP 2114(II). Here, Raynes teaches an apparatus which includes all the structural limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 1, a claim is only limited by positively recited elements. MPEP 2115. Regarding the limitation “wherein said at least one curable polymer is polymer is selected from a group consisting of medical grade silicone, any long term implants and any combination thereof,” the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raynes (US 2021/0162664 A1), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Karafin (US 2020/0174277 A1).
Regarding claims 11-12, as applied to claim 1, Raynes does not disclose a 3D printer additionally comprising at least one vibration actuator arranged for providing a vibrating motion to said at least one build plate, said at least one printing head and/or said at least one printing nozzle nor wherein said vibration causes removal of any trapped air bubbles in the extruded curable polymer.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (vibration actuator arranged for providing a vibrating motion; see MPEP 2141.01(a)), ART discloses a vibration stage (at least one vibration actuator, inherently) or the like to eliminate air bubbles during the melt process (¶0208).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Raynes by applying the known technique of a vibration stage (at least one vibration actuator, inherently) or the like to eliminate air bubbles during the melt process disclosed in Karafin to the at least one build plate disclosed in Raynes with predictable results and resulting in an improved apparatus. MPEP 2143(D).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raynes (US 2021/0162664 A1).
Regarding claim 13, as applied to claim 1, although Raynes does not specify wherein said at least one printing head is shaped as a revolving plate, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the 3D printer disclosed in Raynes such that said at least one printing head is shaped as a revolving plate, since it has been held that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)-(B).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raynes (US 2021/0162664 A1), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Mark (US 2015/0314531 A1).
Regarding claim 14, as applied to claim 1, Raynes does not disclose a 3D printer wherein said printing head comprises at least one opening, such that once said at least one printing nozzle is aligned with said at least one opening, only said at least one curable polymer is extruded from said at least one printing nozzle.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (printing heads; see MPEP 2141.01(a)), Mark discloses positioning cutter 8a (e.g., blade) at the outlet of the conduit nozzle 10 allows actuation of the cutter 8a to completely cut the deposited strip or bonded rank by severing the internal fiber strands, and/or may prevent further advance and/or dripping by physically blocking the conduit nozzle eyelet or outlet; wherein cutter 8a or 8b enables the deposition of filament (fiber reinforced or unreinforced) with precisely controlled lengths as controlled by the controller 20 (¶0212).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the 3D printer disclosed in Raynes by applying the known technique of positioning a cutter at the outlet of the conduit nozzle that allows actuation of the cutter to completely cut the deposited strip and to prevent further dripping by physically blocking the conduit nozzle eyelet or outlet as disclosed in Mark to the said at least one printing head disclosed in Raynes with predictable results and resulting in an improved apparatus. MPEP 2143(D).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raynes (US 2021/0162664 A1) in view of Mark (US 2015/0314531 A1), as applied to claim 14, and in further view of Zhou (US 2022/0055298 A1).
Regarding claim 15, as applied to claim 1, Raynes in view of Mark does not disclose a 3D printer wherein said at least one printing head is in electrical communication with at least one stepper motor or servo motor, adapted to rotate said at least one printing head such that upon each move, one of said at least one of said printing nozzle is aligned with said opening to facilitate extruding of said at least one curable polymer.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (stepper motor or servo motor; see MPEP 2141.01(a)), Zhou disclose that carbon fiber extruder 148 has three main functionalities, including extruding in the XY plane, which is necessary to print predetermined, complex structures; wherein extruder 200 is rotated by servo motor 210 and gears 217; and wherein a connecting rod 222 is used to convert the rotation of the servo motor into linear motion of the cutting blade 224 (¶0018-0019).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the 3D printer disclosed in Raynes in view of Mark by applying the known technique of servo motor and cutting blade to cur an extruded material as disclosed in Zhou to the said at least one printing head disclosed in Raynes in view of Mark with predictable results and resulting in an improved apparatus. MPEP 2143(D).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raynes (US 2021/0162664 A1), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Qian (US 2024/0296301 A1).
Regarding claim 16, as applied to claim 1, Raynes does not disclose a 3D printer wherein said at least one printing head comprising at least one cleaning element adapted to wipe clean said at least one printing nozzle.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (cleaning element adapted to wipe clean; see MPEP 2141.01(a)), Qian discloses service station assembly may include a rubber blade or wiper which is periodically passed over the printhead assembly to wipe and clean nozzles of excess printing fluid (¶0026).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Raynes by applying the known technique of a rubber blade or wiper which is periodically passed over the printhead assembly to wipe and clean nozzles of excess printing fluid disclosed in Qian to the at least one printing head disclosed in Raynes with predictable results and resulting in an improved method. MPEP 2143(D).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cain (US 2023/0115195 A1) discloses that partially cured or uncured medical-grade elastomeric material, such as silicone, is sequentially deposited onto a substrate by a nozzle or similar device from a material source in a controlled manner according to computer control to define a definitive shape, such as an elongate or continuous filament (¶0067).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JaMel M Nelson whose telephone number is (571)272-8174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Galen Hauth can be reached on (571) 270-5516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMEL M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743