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 .
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 9-10 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 9 recites, “a material storage portion that stores the material.” However, parent claim 1 recites, “a material storage portion that stores a material.” It is unclear how these material storage portions relate to each other. It is believed Applicant intended to convey that they are the same material storage portion, and will be examined accordingly. Claim 10 rejected as depending from claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 1 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruggeman (US 2021/0086446) in view of Rapp (DE 102017100170), Swier (US 2021/0107219), Rodgers (US 2013/0241102), and Kritchman ‘455 (US 2012/0081455).
Regarding claim 1, Bruggeman discloses a three-dimensional shaping apparatus (abstract), comprising: a material storage portion that stores a material (source of AM feedstock material 501 is implied and would inherently come from some sort of storage, [0071]); a heating block that has a heater and is provided with a through hole (heat exchanging means 106 surrounding feed channel 708 and receiving space 205 which in turn surrounds supply channel 710, [0067] [0071] [0073], Fig. 2A); a nozzle tip that is provided with a nozzle flow channel having a nozzle opening and that is detachably attached to the through hole of the heating block (liquefying unit 107 with nozzle 401 detachably connected to receiving space 205, [0071] [0078], Fig. 2A); a material conveying mechanism that conveys a material to the nozzle flow channel of a nozzle tip for shaping being the nozzle tip attached to the heating block (feedstock supply 103 comprising a drive, [0067] [0084-85], Fig. 2A); a stage at which the material plasticized by heat of the heating block is ejected from the nozzle opening of the nozzle tip for shaping and stacked (build plate 104, [0065], Fis. 1); and a control unit that shapes a three-dimensional shaped article by moving the nozzle tip for shaping with respect to the stage and ejecting the material to the stage from the nozzle tip for shaping (positioning system controlled by a control system, [0065-66]), wherein the nozzle tip has a first shield for suppressing transfer of heat of the heating block to the material stacked at the stage (see flange of nozzle 401 extending more broadly than the nozzle within receiving space 205, Fig. 2A; as per [0049] of Applicant’s disclosure, such a shape in a nozzle tip constitutes shield 68).
Bruggeman teaches an apparatus substantially as claimed. Bruggeman does not disclose the material conveying mechanism includes two wheels that rotate to guide the material in the material storage portion to the nozzle tip, the control unit determines a cumulative ejection amount of the material ejected from the nozzle tip for shaping based on an amount of the material ejected to the stage from the nozzle tip for shaping, the three-dimensional shaping apparatus comprises a second shield for suppressing transfer of heat of the heating block to the material conveying mechanism is provided between the heating block and the wheels in a direction along the nozzle flow channel, and the first shield is larger than the heating block in a direction that intersects the direction along the nozzle flow channel.
However, in the same field of endeavor of 3D printing by melting and depositing a filament feedstock ([0084] of Bruggeman, Abstract of Rapp), Rapp teaches wherein the material conveying mechanism includes two wheels that rotate to guide the material in the material storage portion to the nozzle tip (feed wheel 8 and pressure roller 9, [0029], Fig. 1), the control unit determines a cumulative ejection amount of the material ejected from the nozzle tip for shaping based on an amount of the material ejected to the stage from the nozzle tip for shaping (software calculates volume flow based on rotation of very precise drive motor, [0006]),
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing by delivering material through nozzles, ([0018]), Swier teaches an IC chip electrically coupled to the control unit (chip 22 included in supply container 20 and is electronically coupled to controller 130, [0011] [0020], Fig. 1A), and records the calculated [expended] amount in the IC chip of the holder (memory of chip 22 stores amount of material remaining within supply container 20, [0011]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Bruggeman to a cumulative ejection amount of the material ejected from the nozzle tip for shaping based on an amount of the material ejected to the stage from the nozzle tip for shaping because [0006] of Rapp teaches doing so to accurately calculate the delivered volume and it would have been further obvious to record this information because [0011] of Swier teaches storing this information in an integrated circuit.
However, in the same field of endeavor of nozzle maintenance for 3D printing by melting and depositing a filament feedstock ([0084] of Bruggeman, abstract of Rodgers), Rodgers teaches wherein the material conveying mechanism includes two wheels that rotate to guide the material in the material storage portion to the nozzle tip (pair of wheels 154 and 156, [0036], Fig. 2A), the three-dimensional shaping apparatus comprises a second shield for suppressing transfer of heat of the heating block to the material conveying mechanism is provided between the heating block and the wheels in a direction along the nozzle flow channel (heat shield 159, [0036] [0038], Fig. 2A),
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus of Bruggeman to include heat shield 159 of Rodgers because [0038] of Rodgers teaches that heat shield 159 and cooling air from manifold 144 reduces the temperature at the inlet end, which prevents filament from softening or melting.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of printing through nozzles past a heat shield (abstract, Fig. 1), Kritchman ‘455 teaches the first shield is larger than the heating block in a direction that intersects the direction along the nozzle flow channel (heat shield 14 is larger than printing head 12, [0014], Fig. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus of Bruggeman to enlarge the shield to be larger than the heating block because [0018] of Kritchman ‘455 teaches that doing so serves as a mask to prevent heat transfer.
Regarding claim 6, Bruggeman as modified teaches a system substantially as claimed. Bruggeman does not disclose wherein an upper surface of the first shield is exposed so that a gap is formed between a lowermost surface of the heating block and the upper surface of the first shield.
However, Kritchman ‘455 teaches wherein an upper surface of the first shield is exposed so that a gap is formed between a lowermost surface of the heating block and the upper surface of the first shield (gap between printing head 12 and shield 14, [0017]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus of Bruggeman to include a gap between a lowermost surface of the heating block and the upper surface of the first shield because [0017] of Kritchman ‘455 teaches that doing so faclitates air flow and enables accurate adjustment of the nozzle and shield.
Regarding claim 7, Bruggeman as modified teaches wherein the second shield is larger than the heating block in a direction that intersects the direction along the nozzle flow channel (heat shield 159 shown as larger than thermal block 162, Fig. 2A of Rodgers; and drawn as depicted in Fig. 18 of Applicant’s disclosure, which Applicant relies upon to support this claim).
Regarding claim 8, Bruggeman as modified teaches a system substantially as claimed. Bruggeman does not disclose a blower for blowing air to the material, wherein is provided between the second shield and the wheels in a direction along the nozzle flow channel.
However, in the same field of endeavor of nozzle maintenance for 3D printing by melting and depositing a filament feedstock ([0084] of Bruggeman, [0009] of Rodgers), Rodgers teaches a blower for blowing air to the material (blowing cooling air through manifold 144 of Rodgers to reduce risk of filament softening and buckling at the transition zone 174, Rodgers [0036] [0038], Fig. 2A), wherein is provided between the second shield and the wheels in a direction along the nozzle flow channel (Rodgers [0038], Fig. 2A).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus of Bruggeman to include blow cooling air because [0038] of Rodgers teaches that doing so reduces the risk of filament softening and buckling at the transition zone 174, which would be between the wheels and the second shield as claimed.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruggeman (US 2021/0086446) in view of Rapp (DE 102017100170), Swier (US 2021/0107219), Rodgers (US 2013/0241102), and Kritchman ‘455 (US 2012/0081455) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sachs (US 2019/0118258).
Regarding claim 2, Bruggeman as modified teaches a system substantially as claimed. Bruggeman does not disclose wherein the control unit records the nozzle tip for shaping and the determined cumulative ejection amount in association with each other.
However, in the same field of endeavor of nozzle maintenance for 3D printing by melting and depositing a feedstock (abstract), Sachs teaches wherein the control unit records the nozzle tip for shaping and the determined cumulative ejection amount in association with each other (log file for a particular nozzle entails adding the total amount of material extruded by that particular nozzle, Sachs [0146]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus of Bruggeman to record the nozzle tip for shaping and the determined cumulative ejection amount in association with each other because [0013] of Bruggeman teaches it is desirable to replace the nozzle for maintenance and [0146-47] of Sachs teaches that tracking the total amount of material extruded is a helpful metric for nozzle health and determining when replacement should occur (this includes doing so for new tips when the cumulative ejection amount is zero). Finally, [0115] of Sachs teaches that when the tip expires (as determined by [0146-47] of Sachs), stopping the process and replacing the tip before continuing, in keeping with [0013] of Bruggeman.
Regarding claim 3, Bruggeman as modified teaches wherein the control unit acquires the cumulative ejection amount associated with the nozzle tip for shaping, calculates and determines a new cumulative ejection amount by adding the ejection amount of the material ejected by the nozzle tip for shaping to the acquired cumulative ejection amount, and records the new cumulative ejection amount and the nozzle tip for shaping in association with each other (log file for a particular nozzle entails adding the total amount of material extruded by that particular nozzle, Sachs [0146]).
Regarding claim 4, Bruggeman as modified teaches wherein the nozzle tip has a nozzle information memory portion that stores nozzle information regarding information for identifying the nozzle tip (log file for a particular nozzle entails memory for that particular nozzle, Sachs [0146]).
Regarding claim 9, Bruggeman as modified teaches [the] material storage portion that stores the material (source of AM feedstock material 501 is implied and would inherently come from some sort of storage, Bruggeman [0071]), and an unwinding amount memory portion constituted by an IC chip as a memory medium (Swier [0011]),.
Bruggeman as modified teaches a system substantially as claimed. Bruggeman does not disclose wherein the control unit records, in the unwinding amount memory portion, a type of material in the material storage portion, and an amount of the material unwound to the outside from the material storage portion, and the control unit links the type of material to an ejection portion based on information of the type of material recorded in the unwinding amount memory portion.
However, in the same field of endeavor of nozzle maintenance for 3D printing by melting and depositing a feedstock (abstract), Sachs teaches an unwinding amount memory portion (log file for a particular nozzle, Sachs [0146]), wherein the control unit records, in the unwinding amount memory portion (log file for a particular nozzle entails adding the total amount of material extruded by that particular nozzle, Sachs [0146]), a type of material in the material storage portion (logging of Sachs includes the type of build material, [0146]), and an amount of the material unwound to the outside from the material storage portion ([0146]), and the control unit links the type of material to an ejection portion based on information of the type of material recorded in the unwinding amount memory portion ([0146]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus of Bruggeman to record the nozzle tip for shaping and the determined cumulative ejection amount in association with each other because [0013] of Bruggeman teaches it is desirable to replace the nozzle for maintenance and [0146-47] of Sachs teaches that tracking the total amount of material extruded is a helpful metric for nozzle health and determining when replacement should occur (this includes doing so for new tips when the cumulative ejection amount is zero). Finally, [0115] of Sachs teaches that when the tip expires (as determined by [0146-47] of Sachs), stopping the process and replacing the tip before continuing, in keeping with [0013] of Bruggeman.
Regarding claim 10, Bruggeman as modified teaches the control unit records, in the unwinding amount memory portion, the amount of the material unwound from the material storage portion as a volume calculated by multiplying a wire diameter of the material by a length of the unwound material, the length of the unwound material being calculated based on a rotational speed of a feeding roller in the material storage portion (as modified, this calculation performed in view of Rapp, [0006-07]; logged as per [0146] of Sachs).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruggeman (US 2021/0086446) in view of Rapp (DE 102017100170), Swier (US 2021/0107219), Rodgers (US 2013/0241102), Kritchman ‘455 (US 2012/0081455), and Sachs (US 2019/0118258) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kritchman (US 2013/0297063).
Regarding claim 5, Bruggeman in view of Sachs teaches wherein the nozzle information memory portion is located between the nozzle opening and the first shield in a direction along the nozzle flow channel (Sachs is silent as to location; however, the location constitutes a rearrangement of parts, see MPEP 2144(VI)(C)). Bruggeman in view of Sachs teaches an apparatus substantially as claimed.
Bruggeman does not disclose the nozzle information memory portion is electrically coupled to the control unit by attaching the nozzle tip to the heating block.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing by depositing material from a printing head/nozzle ([0131]), Kritchman teaches the nozzle tip has an IC chip constituting a memory portion (memory 39 in the printing head 52, [0102] [0131] [0133] [0185]), the memory portion being electrically coupled to the control unit by attaching the nozzle tip to the heating block (connectors 47 connect circuit board 55 with memory 49 to controller 26, [0130]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus of Bruggeman to include memory 49 in nozzles 401 to identify the nozzle being connected and the log of that nozzle’s activity/purpose.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gothait (US 2016/0243619) teaches a cooling mask 316 (Fig. 3A) which constitutes a first shield as claimed, which is larger than the printing head. Kritchman (US 9,576,079) teaches subject matter similar to Kritchman (US 2013/0297063), cited above. Kritchman (US 9,340,016) teaches subject matter similar to Kritchman ‘455 (US 2012/0081455), cited above. Rodgers (US 9,050,753) teaches subject matter similar to Rodgers (US 2013/0241102), cited above. Bruggeman (US 11,167,488) teaches subject matter similar to Bruggeman (US 2021/0086446), cited above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/ Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744