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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: please update the status of US patent application No. 17/417,043 in paragraph [0001].
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 1-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sachs et al. (2019/0118252).
Regarding claims 1, 3, Sachs et al. discloses a 3D x-y-z printing apparatus 100, comprising a nozzle 302, a nozzle bore 304, a heating system 306, and a build material drive system 308, a build material 310 from a source 312 along a feed path (indicated by an arrow 314) toward an opening 316 of the nozzle 302 for deposition on a build plate 114, 318, a heating system 106 to heat the build material 102, a heating system 306 on the nozzle 302 to liquefy the build material 310 as it being extruded through the nozzle opening 316, where the material is extruded and flattened by the tip of the nozzle – see Fig. 3, 316, 372, in order to mitigate nozzle clogging and also to identify incipient and developed clogs, and thus to facilitate extrusion of metallic build materials to a highly continuous degree and to clear existing clogs or otherwise address evolving clogs [0105].
Regarding claim 2, wherein the nozzle 302 is flexed/pivotable about point 311 by a load cell 328 and about point 314 by a second load cell 329, [0080].
Regarding claims 4-5, wherein the apparatus further comprises a roller drive system 308 to mechanically engage the build material 310 in solid form and advance the build material 310 from the source 312 into the nozzle bore 304 with sufficient force to extrude the build material 310.
Regarding claims 6-15 and 17-18, Sach et al. further comprises a control computer [0184] and a control system 118 to control different operations including the drive system 308 and the nozzle 302, [0069], [0075]; regarding to the increase or decrease of the flexure, which can be a load cell (current specification 0037), Sach et al. further discloses that the drive system 308 is mounted between the controllable print head and the liquefier that allows a distance between the controllable print head and the liquefier to vary, which would inherently change the stiffness – as disclosed in the current specification “by adjusting the distance (B), the stiffness of the flexure is adjusted” [0045] – when a resistance is encountered at a print nozzle tip, Sachs et al. further discloses in Figure 3 and in paragraph [0080] that:
A sensor, such as a load cell 328, or a torque sensor 309, may be coupled to the drive system 308, to sense the load on the drive system. This can be useful, for instance, to determine whether any blockages or other impediments to driving the build material may be occurring. In one embodiment, the drive assembly 306 is allowed to pivot about point 311 and the load cell 328 provides the reaction force. Additionally, a sensor 329 can be provided that measures the force exerted by build material 310 within and exiting the nozzle outlet 316 upon the nozzle 302. For instance, a load cell 329 can measure the force of the build material pushing on the entire nozzle 302. In one embodiment, the nozzle assembly is allowed to pivot about point 313 and the load cell 329 provides the reaction force.
Thus, the load cell 329 is the same with the claimed liquefier nozzle flexure that is mounted between the print head 302 and the liquifier 308 [0084] that is capable to vary or flex when a resistance is encountered at a print nozzle tip 316 – the load cell 328, 329 provides the reaction force [0080].
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachs et al. (2019/0118252) in view of Katon et al. (2019/0217538).
Sachs et al. fails to disclose a piezoelectric actuator for moving the nozzle.
Katon et al. discloses a 3D printing apparatus [0031] with a piezoelectric actuator for providing an agitator/vibratory atomization characteristic 312 to a deposition nozzle system to provide both an atomization characteristic as well as flow control by allowing the mechanical element of actuation to constrict material flow [0047] and to provide a smooth surface finish [0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to Sachs et al. by providing a piezoelectric actuator for providing an agitator/vibratory atomization characteristic to a deposition nozzle system as taught by Katon et al. in order to provide a smooth surface finish on the forming product.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,076,921. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are essentially overlapping.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thu-Khanh T. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30.
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.
/Thu Khanh T. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743