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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that the present application has at least one (1) related foreign filings or publications in other countries. Applicant is reminded of the duty under 37 CFR 1.56(a) to disclose information material to patentability, such as (a) Office Actions and prior art related to the claimed invention which have been cited during prosecution of related filings, (b) prior foreign or domestic filings by Applicant(s) which are related to the claimed or disclosed invention and which constitute prior art, (c) related brochures, dissertations, or other research publications, including that which has been authored by one or more inventors listed under this application or by other individuals under which or along which one or more inventors may have been working, and (d) any other relevant prior art Applicant may be aware of, including since the filing of any previous information disclosure statement (IDS).
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03 Mach 2026 is acknowledged.
Election/Restrictions
The election with traverse of Group II, claims 11-20 in the reply filed on 03 March 2026 is acknowledged, thereby leaving claims 1-10 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that (a) the apparatus as claimed cannot be used to practice another and materially different method as evidenced by its incorporation of the claim 1 method into the claim 11 processor configuration (Rem. 8-9), that (b) the method as claimed cannot be practice by another and materially different apparatus or in part by hand (Rem. 9), and that (c) the asserted serious search/examination burden has not been adequately demonstrated (Rem. 9).
This is not found persuasive, in succession because (a) the apparatus as claimed is arguably capable of utilizing the recited processor to perform the method according to claim 1 within a computer simulation as opposed to the claim 1 execution thereof on an actual material supply, (b) the method as claimed is not strictly limited to use of the memory or processor components recited by the apparatus as claimed, and it is in turn capable of being executed without such components, including in part via human operation and/or intervention where such components could otherwise be utilized, and (c) MPEP § 803(II) establishes that a serious burden may be prima facie shown via explanation of one or more of the criteria set forth at page 4 lines 1-10 of the Office action issued 05 January 2026.
Although the requirement is in turn still deemed proper and in turn made final at this time, it is noted that the non-elected invention will be eligible for rejoinder if amended to include allowable subject matter and to address any 35 U.S.C. 112 issues.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At line 2 of claim 11, a colon “:” should be added after “wherein”.
At line 3 of claim 13, “and” should be added after the comma.
At line 2 of claims 15-16, “and” should be added prior to “feeding”.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment 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.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In particular:
By way of its reference back to claim 1, claim 11 is considered indefinite due to the following issues:
The claim 1 line 3 use of the term “if” sets forth a hypothetical condition which leaves the scope of the claim unclear as to whether some programming in fact exists which sets forth a response (i.e. the line 4-5 identifying) for such a condition, or whether the claim may be construed more broadly such that the claim is met even when a supply replacement signal is not acquired or when no supply replacement signal exists, in which case the subsequently recited identifying could be ignored and the claim would still be met.
This same or similar indefiniteness issue exists also for the claim 12 and claim 15-18 use of the term “if”.
Further to indefiniteness issue (i), since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear at line 4 of claim 1 exactly what the replacement signal is “acquired” by and from what such acquisition takes place.
This same or similar issue exists also for corresponding use of the term “acquired” in each of claims 15-18.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear at line 4 of claim 1 whether the recited “target feeding channel” is intended as a component of the previously recited multi-supply automatic switching extrusion apparatus, 3D printer, printhead, or more than one of these components, and/or whether this may be construed as entirely distinct therefrom.
This same or similar indefiniteness issue exists also for the claim 12 line 3 “target feeding channel”.
Further to indefiniteness issue (iii), it is unclear from among what the claim 1 line 4 identifying takes place, including for example whether this intends for multiple additional feeding channels are provided in addition to the current feeding channel from which the line 4 target channel is identified.
The same or similar indefiniteness issue (iii) exists also for the claim 1 line 6 recitation of a “current feeding channel”. It is unclear exactly which, if any, of the previously recited apparatus, printer, or printhead comprise(s) this channel.
In the last line of claim 1, the recitation of “allowing the 3D printer to continue to execute a printing action” lacks antecedent basis, in particular since no such execution is recited or clearly implied as taking place previously. Further, and similarly since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear whether such previous execution, even if recited, is required in particular for the supply corresponding to the current feeding channel as recited at line 6 of the claim, or whether the previous execution may be construed as taking place distinct therefrom.
A broad limitation together with a narrow limitation that falls within the broad limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 incorporates from lines 2-3 of claim 1 a broad recitation whereby a multi-supply automatic switching extrusion apparatus is merely “configured” to cooperate with a 3D printer comprising a printhead (i.e. whereby such a configuration is provided without necessarily providing the 3D printer and its printhead as well), and then the claim goes on to incorporate a narrower recitation from the final two lines of claim 1 whereby an end portion of a supply corresponding to a target feeding channel is controlled “to move to the printhead of the 3D printer” (i.e. whereby the 3D printer and its printhead are necessarily provided). The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear at line 2 of claim 12 whether the recited “instructions” are the same as, or may be construed as distinct from those first recited in the 2nd to last line of claim 11.
This same or similar issue exists also for the claim 14 line 2 “instructions”, in addition to those recited by claims 18-20.
Further in claim 12, the recitation of a “signal” being “read in a print file” is confusing. While a signal might be transmitted based on instructions read in a print file, it is unclear how such a signal could exist in the file itself.
It is also unclear at line 3 of claim 12 exactly what performs the recited reading.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear whether the claim 12 line 3 “print file” is a component of the line 2 instructions or code, whether the instructions and/or code are components of the print file, whether the print file is a distinct component therefrom held in the claim 11 memory, etc.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear if or how the claim 12 “preset supply replacement signal” relates back to the “supply replacement signal” incorporated into claim 11 from line 4 of claim 1.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear whether the claim 12 line 4 recitation of “the supply replacement signal” refers back to the claim 12 line 3 signal or to the corresponding signal incorporated into claim 11 from line 4 of claim 1.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear how the claim 13 line 3 recitation of “a supply” relates back to that incorporated into claim 11 from line 6 of claim 1.
This same or similar issue exists also for the claim 19 line 3-4 recitations of “a supply”.
The claim 13 line 3 recitation of “the feeding channel” and “the discharging channel” each lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear how “the feeding channel” relates back to the previously recited “current” or “target” channel, and no discharging channel is previously recited.
It is unclear at line 2-3 of claim 13 how to construe the recitation of an extrusion module driving a supply or “to return”, in particular exactly what is being returned and to where.
This same or similar issue exists also for the claim 15-18 recitations of “to return”, in addition to the claim 16 recitation of “to further return”.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear if or how the claim 13 and claim 17 line 4 “feeding channels” relate back to the feeding channel recited at line 3 or to the “current” or “target” channels incorporated into claim 11 from claim 1.
Similarly, antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed for the claim 20 line 3 recitation of “the feeding channels”. It is unclear whether this refers back to the “current” and “target” channels incorporated into claim 11 from claim 1, or whether these may be construed as distinct therefrom.
The same or similar indefiniteness issue (m) exists also for the claim 13 and claim 17 line 5 “discharging channel” as compared with that recited at line 3 of these claims.
The claim 13 recitation of “the supply cutting module” in the 4th to last line thereof lacks antecedent basis. Only “a cutting module” is recited previously.
The claim 13 recitation of returning to a second set position, in the last line of the claim, lacks antecedent basis not only due to no previous recitation being made of the supply previously existing at such position, but also due to no previous recitation being made of any “first set position” such that a “second” such position could exist.
The claim 14 returning to a first set position is similarly considered indefinite. There is no previous recitation of the supply existing at a first set position to which the supply may be recited as returned in the manner claimed.
The claim 17 advancing to a second preset distance is also similarly considered indefinite. There is no previous recitation of the advancing by a first preset distance such that a second such distance could exist.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear if or how the claim 14 line 3 recitation of “a supply” and “a current feeding channel” relate back to the previous recitations of “a supply” and “a current feeding channel” incorporated into claim 11 from line 6 of claim 1.
This same or similar issue exists also for the claim 17 line 3 recitation of “a supply” and “a feeding channel” as compared to the previous recitations of “a supply” and “a current/target feeding channel” incorporated into claim 11 from claim 1.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear at lines 2-3 of claims 15-16 whether it is required for a single sensor to be provided per channel, or whether the claims may be construed such that multiple sensors may be provided per channel, or even for multiple instances in which a single sensor is provided for multiple channels.
This same or similar issue exists also for the claim 20 indicator lights corresponding to the feeding channels. It is unclear whether the claim is strictly limited to a single such light per channel, or may be construed as having multiple lights per channel or multiple instances of a single light for multiple channels.
Claim 15 includes antecedent basis issues in the line 5 recitation of “the feeding position sensor” (due to it being unclear which of the previously recited sensors (plural) is being referenced) and in the line 6 reference back to “the movement”, which movement corresponding to the current feeding channel is not previously recited.
The claim 17 line 3 recitation of “the discharging channel” lacks antecedent basis, as no discharging channel is previously recited.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear in the 5th to last line of claim 17, if or exactly how the recitation of “a target feeding channel” relates back to that incorporated into claim 11 from claim 1.
It is unclear in the 5th to last line of claim 17 with respect to what the recited switching takes place, and exactly what is being switched (i.e. the supply extrusion module, or some material, component, or article acted on thereby).
It is unclear whether, in the last line of claim 17, the recitation of “a” supply corresponding to the target feeding channel intends the supply as distinct from that recited previously, or whether this is in fact intended as “the” same supply. If the latter of these scenarios is intended, then “a” supply should be changed to “the” supply.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear if or how the claim 20 recitation of “an” indicator light in the last line thereof relates back to the lights recited previously at line 2.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment is required.
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.
Claims 11-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 10-2158571, made of record via IDS on 11 July 2024, machine translation provided herewith cited herein) in view of Shang (CN 113844030, made of record via IDS on 24 January 2025, machine translation provided herewith cited herein).
As to claim 11, Kim teaches a multi-supply switching extrusion apparatus configured to cooperate with a 3D printer comprising a printhead comprising nozzle 121 (see at least fig. 3), whereby cutter 160 is provided for cutting off an end portion of a supply for example of a first filament that corresponds to a first one of feeding channels/paths 151 of fig. 2, followed by controlling an end potion of a supply for example of a second filament that corresponds to another, target one of the feeding channels/paths 151 of fig. 2 to move to the printhead in the manner claimed (see the corresponding description of figs. 1-4, in particular figs. 2-3). Notably, although claim 11 is not presently drafted so as to actively require a supply replacement signal, in turn also not requiring that a target feeding channel be identified, these are believed to correspond to Kim’s disclosed replacement of the first filament passing through one of channels 151 with the second filament passing through another of channels 151 when the printing operation of the first filament is completed (see at least S300 and/or S500).
Kim differs from claim 11 by not specifying the above steps being performed by a processor according to instructions in a program code stored in a memory. However, in a related disclosure by Shang pertaining also to a multi-supply switching extrusion apparatus (see the abstract and figs. 1, 4a-d, etc. cutting of an initial material supply for feeding a distinct material supply), explicit disclosure is made of a computer readable storage medium stored with a program having instructions which may be executed by a processor of the disclosed apparatus to perform a respective method and/or steps therefor (see various corresponding recitations to this effect made under the Technical Field, Contents of the Invention, and Specific implementation examples (subsequent to the description of fig. 8)). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Shang into Kim, in particular as providing such a storage medium, program, instructions, and processor to the Kim apparatus, which would have been similarly useful for controlling and automating operation the Kim apparatus as well, in addition for example to improving the Kim apparatus by automation thereof with limited or reduced intervention required therefor.
Although claim 12 is not presently drafted so as to actively require a preset supply replacement signal, in turn also not requiring that a target feeding channel be identified, these are believed to correspond to Kim’s disclosed replacement of the first filament passing through one of channels 151 with the second filament passing through another of channels 151 when the printing operation of the first filament is completed (see at least S300 and/or S500), with the claimed reading corresponding to use of the program code and instructions incorporated into Kim from Shang as set forth under the rejection of claim 11 above.
Kim further teaches components corresponding to the claim 13-14 extrusion module 130/140, feeding channels 151, discharging channel 152, cutting module 160, cutting, and returning (see at least the above citations, including for example the disclosed returning/retraction subsequent to cutting).
Kim further teaches the claim 19 start of a material cleaning procedure, printing, or extrusion to a waste area (see the respectively disclosed filament cleaning operation, the disclosed normal use of nozzle 121, and the disclosed discharge at a cleaning position i.e. waste area).
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Shang as applied to at least claims 11 and 13 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN 215320701, made of record via IDS on 11 July 2024, machine translation provided herewith cited herein).
Kim teaches components corresponding to the claim 15-18 extrusion module 130/140, feeding channels 151, discharging channel 152, cutting module 160, cutting, and returning (see at least the above citations, including for example the disclosed returning/retraction subsequent to cutting), but is not believed to disclose the claimed feeding sensors or discharging sensor. However, in a related disclosure by Liu pertaining also to a multi-supply switching extrusion apparatus (see the abstract and figs. 1-2, etc.), explicit disclosure is made of sensors 4 provided for individual feeding channels and for a discharging channel for facilitating switching between material supplies (see at least the corresponding description of the above figures). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Liu into (modified) Kim, in particular as providing such sensors to the Kim apparatus, which would have been similarly useful for facilitating Kim’s disclosed switching between material supplies, in addition for example to preventing a lapse in printing via automated control with limited or reduced intervention required therefor.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Shang as applied to at least claim 11 above, and further in view of Konkle (US 9,176,016).
While Kim is not believed to disclose the claim 20 indicator lights, Konkle provides a related disclosure in which material supply is similarly utilized for 3D printing (abstract, etc.), in particular whereby an indicator light is disclosed as one of numerous mechanisms by which a user may be presented with information pertaining to the presence/quantity of a material supply (see at least 7:67). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Konkle into (modified) Kim as providing such an indicator light and associated equipment also to Kim’s apparatus, which would have been similarly useful for indicating a presence/quantity measurement of Kim’s feeding and discharging channels that could preemptively indicate a need to switch between Kim’s material supplies.
Interview Request
Applicant’s Representative is encouraged to contact the Examiner upon review of the instant Office action to discuss the claimed invention, the above prior art rejection, and/or how it is believed that the crux of the claimed and disclosed invention distinguishes over the prior art as a whole, particularly if it is believed that such a discussion will help to advance prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atul P. Khare whose telephone number is (571)270-7608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Christina A. Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/Atul P. Khare/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights