DETAILED ACTION
In Application filed on 07/02/2024, claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are considered in the current Office Action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN111674041 (“Tao et al” hereinafter Tao), machine translation provided.
Regarding Claim 1, Tao teaches a 3D printer (Figure 4), comprising: a frame (see annotated Figure 4); a carrier (Figure 4, printing platform module 2), fixed to the frame (Figure 4); a nozzle (Figure 4, FDM nozzle module 1), movably disposed on the frame (Figure 4 and page 2, lines 22-24); and a detection device (Figures 1-2 and page 2, lines 37-40), comprising: a piezoelectric ceramic sheet (Figure 2, piezoelectric ceramic sensor 2.3), in contact with the carrier (Figure 2, piezoelectric ceramic sensor 2.3 in contact with the printing platform module 2 and page 2, lines 37-40); and a position detector (Figure 1, leveling electrode sensor 1.1), disposed on the nozzle (Figure 1, leveling electrode sensor 1.1 disposed on the FDM nozzle module 1 and
PNG
media_image1.png
622
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
page 1, lines 48-50).
Regarding Claim 2, Tao teaches the 3D printer according to claim 1, wherein a detection surface of the position detector corresponds to an upward/downward movement direction of the nozzle (page 2, lines 7-9 and lines 17-20).
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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN111674041 (“Tao et al” hereinafter Tao), machine translation provided, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US2017/0282462 (“Satoshi et al” hereinafter Satoshi).
Regarding Claim 3, Tao teaches the 3D printer according to claim 1, but fails to teach the detection device further comprises a vibration transmission plate, the piezoelectric ceramic sheet is disposed on the vibration transmission plate, and the vibration transmission plate is in contact with the carrier.
However, Satoshi teaches the detection device further comprises a vibration transmission plate (Figure 4, forming table 20, the forming table are vibrated and transmitted the vibration to the base plate 21 [0060]; thus, the forming table performs the recited function and the structure of a vibration transmission plate), the piezoelectric ceramic sheet (Figure 4, ultrasonic vibrator 61 indicates a piezoelectric ceramic disposed between electrodes [0062]) is disposed on the vibration transmission plate (Figure 4), and the vibration transmission plate is in contact with the carrier (Figure 4, the forming table 20 is in contact with the base plate 21).
Tao (abstract) and Satoshi ([0039]) are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of manufacturing 3D shaped object with the use of vibrator to adjust the height level of the materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus as taught by Tao such that it discloses all of the above discussed limitations as taught by Satoshi to allows a decrease of a height of the fluidity portion and an increase of a width of the fluidity portion due to a property of the fluidity portion compared to the height of the fluidity portion and the width of the fluidity portion with no vibration of the fluidity portion ([0045]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN111674041 (“Tao et al” hereinafter Tao), machine translation provided, in view of US2017/0282462 (“Satoshi et al” hereinafter Satoshi) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of WO2017/198335 (Fruth), machine translation provided.
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Tao teaches the 3D printer according to claim 3, wherein the detection device further comprises a first spring (Satoshi, Figure 4, part 70 includes a spring [0063]), the vibration transmission plate is disposed below the carrier (Figure 4, forming table 20 is disposed below the base plate 21), one end of the first spring is connected to the vibration transmission plate (Figure 4), another end of the first spring is in contact with the carrier (Figure 4), and another end of the vibration transmission plate is in contact with the carrier via the first spring (Figure 4).
The modified Tao fails to teach a fastening block and one end of the vibration transmission plate is fixed on the fastening block.
However, Fruth teaches a fastening block (Figure 1, clamping connection 6 by means of a screw connection, page 6, lines 58-60) and one end of the vibration transmission plate is fixed on the fastening block (Figure 1, the underside 5 of the construction platform 4 is fixed on the clamping connection 6 and page 7, lines 12-18; the build platform 4 in turn transmits vibrations directly or via the supporting structures to the component 2; thus, the build platform is considered as a vibration transmission plate).
Tao (abstract) and Fruth (page 2, lines 5-12) are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of manufacturing 3D shaped object with the use of vibrator to adjust the height level of the materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus as taught by Tao such that it discloses all of the above discussed limitations as taught by Fruth to form an optimum surface pressure (page 7, lines 2-3).
Claim(s) 5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN111674041 (“Tao et al” hereinafter Tao), machine translation provided, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US2020/0198239 (Erdman) and US2013/0161439 (“Beery et al” hereinafter Beery).
PNG
media_image2.png
474
511
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Tao teaches the 3D printer according to claim 1, but fails to teach the limitations of claim 5.
However, Erdman teaches a filament buffering device (Figure 1 and abstract), wherein the filament buffering device (Figure 1) comprises: a casing (see annotated Figure 8), wherein the casing has a material inlet end (see annotated Figure 8, Figure 1, entry zone 72 [0036]) and a material outlet end (see annotated Figure 8, Figure 1, the tube 54 has an opening 58 which receives the filament 14 as it departs from the wheel 12 [0035]), the material inlet end and the material outlet end are located at a same side of the casing (see annotated Figure 8), and the material outlet end is connected to the nozzle (Figures 1 and 8, the opening 58 of the tube 54 is connected to the hot end zone 60 of the printer [0035]); a first guiding component (Figure 1, second guiding means 64), wherein one end of the first guiding component is fixed to the material inlet end (Figure 1 and Figure 8 and [0012]); and a second guiding component (Figure 1, first guiding means 48), wherein one end of the second guiding component is fixed to the material outlet end (Figure 1 and Figure 8 and [0011]), and another end of the first guiding component located farther away from the material inlet end (Figure 8) and another end of the second guiding component located farther away from the material outlet end (Figure 8) are slidably cooperated with each other ([0035]).
Tao and Erdman are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of fused deposition modeling and using filament to generate a 3D object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus as taught by Tao such that it discloses all of the above discussed limitations as taught by Erdman to increase engagement with the wheel ([0011]) and to facilitate reversal of the filament ([0036]).
The modified Tao fails to teach a storage box and the material inlet end is connected to the storage box.
However, Beery teaches a storage box (Figure 4C, wrapper bag 50) and the material inlet end is connected to the storage box (Figure 4C, guide 16).
Tao and Beery are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of fused deposition modeling and using filament to generate a 3D object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus as taught by Tao such that it discloses all of the above discussed limitations as taught by Beery to reduce light exposure to reduce the risk of degrading the spooled filament over extended periods of storage ([0050]).
Regarding Claim 11, the modified Tao teaches the 3D printer according to claim 5, wherein the filament buffering device (Erdman, Figure 1) further comprises a side cover (Figure 1, base plates 26), the side cover is disposed at one side of the first guiding component located farther away from the casing (Figures 1 and annotated Figure 8, base plates 26 is disposed at one side of the second guiding means 64 located farther away from the casting), and the side cover is fixed to the casing (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 12, the modified Tao teaches the 3D printer according to claim 5, wherein the filament buffering device further comprises a first joint, a second joint and a third joint which are fixed to the casing (Erdman, see annotated Figure 8), the first joint is located at the material inlet end, the second joint is located at the material outlet end, the third joint is fixed to one end of the first guiding component located closer to the
PNG
media_image3.png
514
550
media_image3.png
Greyscale
material inlet end (see annotated Figure 8).
Claim(s) 13-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN111674041 (“Tao et al” hereinafter Tao), machine translation provided, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US2021/0323231 (“Padgett et al” hereinafter Padgett).
Regarding Claim 13, Tao teaches the 3D printer according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the nozzle comprises a heater and a heat dissipation device, and the heat dissipation device comprises: a fan, located above the heater; and a thermally conductive assembly, disposed between the fan and the heater; wherein the thermally conductive assembly comprises a first metal component connected to the heater and a second metal component connected to the fan, a plurality of heat pipes are provided between and connected to the first metal component and the second metal component, and an extrusion device is disposed on first metal component for extruding or retrieving a filament.
PNG
media_image4.png
652
526
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
256
233
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Padgett teaches wherein the nozzle (Figure 6) comprises a heater (Figure 6, wire 44 delivers power to an electrical heating element that heats the heating block 26 [0057] ) and a heat dissipation device (see annotated Figure 6), and the heat dissipation device (see annotated Figure 6) comprises: a fan (Figure 6, fan 66), located above the heater (Figure 6); and a thermally conductive assembly (Figure 6, the combination of heating block 26 and cold block 30), disposed between the fan and the heater (Figure 6); wherein the thermally conductive assembly comprises a first metal component (Figure 6, heating block 26 and [0073], aluminum heating block 26) connected to the heater (Figure 6 and [0057]) and a second metal component (Figure 6, cold block 30 and [0073], aluminum cold block 30) connected to the fan (Figure 6 and [0060]), a plurality of heat pipes are provided between (Figure 8, tube 22) and connected to the first metal component and the second metal component (Figure 8), and an extrusion device is disposed on first metal component for extruding or retrieving a filament (Figure 8, nozzle 24).
Tao and Padgett are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of fused deposition modeling and using filament to generate a 3D object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus as taught by Tao such that it discloses all of the above discussed limitations as taught by Padgett to maintain precise control over the flow of molten material from the tip of the nozzle and thus keeping the volume of material that is in a semi-molten state to a minimum, more precise control over the extrusion is achieved ([0062]).
Regarding Claim 14, the modified Tao teaches the 3D printer according to claim 13, wherein the heater is connected to a tube (Padgett, Figure 8, tube 22), and one end of the tube located farther away from the heater is disposed through the first metal component (Figure 8) for receiving the filament extruded by the extrusion device (Figure 8 and [0054]).
Regarding Claim 15, the modified Tao teaches the 3D printer according to claim 14, wherein the heat dissipation device (Padgett, see annotated Figure 17), further comprises an installation plate (Figure 22, outer portion 108), the installation plate (Figure 22, outer portion 108) has an installation recess (Figure 22, threaded opening 118) , and the first metal component (Figure 22, central portion 110 made from a thermally conductive material, such as aluminum or copper, or other metal [0067]) is engaged into the installation recess (Figure 22 and [0068], two threaded openings 118 which are aligned when assembled and receive bolts 120 for securing the parts 108, 110 together); two engagement structures (Figure 27, dowel pins 70) are respectively provided at two opposite sides of the second metal component (Figure 27), and two fastening structures are provided at one side of the installation plate towards the thermally conductive assembly to be engaged with the two engagement structures ([0061]).
It is noted that although Figures are directed to a different embodiment of the liquefier assembly; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the different structure of the heating blocks and cold blocks as they are interchangeable and lead to the same predictable and reasonable expectation of success and result.
Regarding Claim 16, the modified Tao teaches the 3D printer according to claim 15, wherein the first metal component has a plurality of first engagement holes located at one side of the first metal component located farther away from the installation plate (Padgett, Figure 22, the heating block 26 comprises groove 112 located farther away from the outer portion 108), and the second metal component has a plurality of second engagement holes located at one side of the second metal component towards the installation plate (Figure 12D, the cold block 30 comprises semi-circular longitudinal groove 61, 63 located toward the outer portion 108); first ends of the plurality of heat pipes are respectively engaged in the plurality of first engagement holes ([0065]), and second ends of the plurality of heat pipes are respectively engaged in the plurality of second engagement holes ([0059]).
Regarding Claim 20, the modified Tao teaches the 3D printer according to claim 13, wherein the fan is fixed to the second metal component via bolts (Padgett, Figure 1 and 5), and an air outlet of the fan is aligned with the second metal component (Figures 1 and 8, the fan 66 is aligned with the cold block 30).
Claim(s) 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN111674041 (“Tao et al” hereinafter Tao), machine translation provided, in view of US2021/0323231 (“Padgett et al” hereinafter Padgett) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US2021/0053293 (“Macneish et al” hereinafter Macneish).
Regarding Claim 17, the modified Tao teaches the 3D printer according to claim 15, but fails to teach wherein the extrusion device comprises two extrusion wheels, the installation plate has two accommodation recesses located at one side of the installation plate located farther away from the thermally conductive assembly, and the extrusion wheels are rotatably disposed in the accommodation recesses, respectively.
However, Macneish teaches the extrusion device (Figure 9) comprises two extrusion wheels (see annotated Figure 9, fed hob 154 and idle hob 222), the installation plate (Figure 9, feed plate 112) has two accommodation recesses (Figures 6a and 6b showed two recesses on the feed plate 112 for holding the two wheels) located at one side of the installation plate (see annotated Figure 9) located farther away from the thermally conductive assembly (Figures 3-4 and annotated Figure 9, the barrel 30 comprises a heating element and thermal conductive [0085]. The recesses are located away from the barrel ), and the extrusion wheels are rotatably disposed in the accommodation recesses (Figures 3-4 and 9), respectively.
PNG
media_image6.png
894
693
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Tao and Macneish are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of fused deposition modeling and using filament to generate a 3D object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus as taught by Tao such that it discloses all of the above discussed limitations as taught by Macneish to apply forces to the filament and thus reduce the viscosity of the filament when exits the nozzle ([0093]).
Regarding Claim 18, the modified Tao teaches the 3D printer according to claim 17, wherein a transmission passage is provided between the extrusion wheels for extruding or retrieving the filament (Macneish, Figure 9); a through hole is provided at a bottom of the installation recess, a first end of the through hole communicates with the tube, and a second end of the through hole communicates with the transmission passage (see annotated Figure 9)
Regarding Claim 19, the modified Tao teaches the 3D printer according to claim 18, wherein the installation plate has a material channel located at one side of the installation plate located farther away from the thermally conductive assembly for delivering the filament (Macneish, see annotated Figure 9), and the material channel communicates with one end of the transmission passage located farther away from the first metal component (Figure 9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art, whether taken alone or in combination, fails to teach the cumulative limitations of claim 6. Claims 7-10 are depended upon claim 6 and are allowed for the same reason.
The closest prior art, US2020/0198239 (Erdman), discloses a device for controlling supply of filament comprises of flanges serve to compensate and act as a buffer between the printing filament (Figure 8 and [0044]-[0049]). Erdman fails to teach “a slidable component, wherein the slidable component is located at one side of the first guiding component, and the slidable component is slidably connected to the casing; and a second spring, wherein the second spring is disposed at one side of the slidable component located farther away from the first guiding component, and the second spring is connected to the slidable component and the casing”. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious or be motivated to modify the apparatus of Erdman to include these elements without changing the fundamental operating principle of Erdman.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754