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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 7/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 6-10 and 14-15 have been amended; and claims 17-20 have been added. Applicant’s amendment to the Claims have overcome each and every objection set forth in the non-Final Office action previously mailed on 7/02/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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) 1-5, 7, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hilbers (DE202019002699U1, translation as provided).
Regarding claim 1, Hilbers teaches a system having a vertical axis, a first horizontal axis that is perpendicular to the vertical axis, and a second horizontal axis that is perpendicular to the vertical axis and the first horizontal axis (Figure 1, x-axis, y-axis and z-axis as depicted), the system comprising:
a printing platform (build platform 1);
a first filament-extrusion print head that is configured to deposit material, by filament extrusion, along a first deposition axis (printhead 13 deposits material in z direction; paragraphs 0001, 0007, machine for the layer-by-layer production of three-dimensional objects using the Fused Filament Fabrication process);
a second filament-extrusion print head that is configured to deposit material, by filament extrusion, along a second deposition axis that is not parallel to the first deposition axis (printhead 8 deposits material in x direction); and
at least one actuator that is configured to cause relative movement between the printing platform and the first and second filament-extrusion print heads along the vertical axis and the first and second horizontal axes (paragraph 0010, the five print heads for the production of one layer each including the linear guides and drives of the print heads as well as the build platform incl. linear guides and drives).
Regarding claim 2, Hilbers further discloses the first deposition axis is parallel to the vertical axis (printhead 13 deposits material in z direction (i.e., vertical axis)).
Regarding claim 3, Hilbers further discloses the second deposition axis is perpendicular to the first deposition axis (x direction is perpendicular to z direction).
Regarding claim 4, Hilbers further discloses a third filament-extrusion print head that is configured to deposit material along a third deposition axis that is not parallel to the first or second deposition axes (printhead 9 deposits material in y direction);
wherein the at least one actuator is configured to move the second filament-extrusion print head along the vertical axis and the first and second horizontal axes (paragraph 0011, the guides 2 can be seen, which allow movement of the vertical printheads 8 in the Y direction. The guides 4 allow movement of the vertical printheads 8 in the Z direction. The guides 6 allow the vertical printheads 8 to be moved in the X direction).
Regarding claim 5, Hilbers teaches all the elements of claim 4 and further discloses the third deposition axis is perpendicular to the first and second deposition axes. (y direction is perpendicular to both z and x directions).
Regarding claim 7, Hilbers further discloses the at least one actuator comprises:
a first linear actuator that is configured to move a respective one of the first or second filament-extrusion print heads along the vertical axis;
a second linear actuator that is configured to move the respective print head along the first horizontal axis; and
a third linear actuator that is configured to move the respective print head along the second horizontal axis (paragraph 0011, guide 10 moved printhead 13 along z direction; guide 12 moved printhead 13 along direction; guide 11 moved printhead 13 along y direction).
Regarding claim 13, Hilbers teaches a method comprising: using the system as in claim 1 (reference claim 1 rejection) to deposit material along at least one of the first deposition axis or the second deposition axis (paragraph 0009).
Regarding claim 17, Hilbers, further discloses the first deposition axis is in a fixed orientation relative to the printing platform, and wherein the second deposition axis is in a fixed orientation relative to the printing platform (Figures 1; z-axis and x-axis are in a fixed orientation relative build platform 1).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilbers, in view of Waatti (US 2017/0129172 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Hilbers teaches further discloses the at least one actuator comprises: a first linear actuator that is configured to move the printing platform relative to each of the first and second filament-extrusion print heads along the vertical axis (paragraph 0011, build platform 1 is shown, which moves in the positive and negative Z direction with the help of the guides 10), but does not disclose
a second linear actuator that is configured to move the printing platform relative to each of the first and second filament-extrusion print heads along the first horizontal axis; and
a third linear actuator that is configured to move the printing platform relative to each of the first and second filament-extrusion print heads along the second horizontal axis.
Waatti teaches a system (100 in Figure 1) and corresponding method for 3D printing an object having a curved surface (paragraph 0023), comprising: an actuating system (190) configured to move a printing platform (base 112) relative a printhead (nozzle assembly 116) (paragraph 0052). Further, the actuating system may move an object in at least three perpendicular directions (i.e., in linear directions) (160-165 in Figures 3-4; paragraph 0052, actuating system capable of moving an article through three independent x-y-z or Cartesian directions). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified Hilbers and provided the at least one actuator with a first, second and third linear actuator, as disclosed by Waatti to enable printing of a curved surface or provide greater freedom of movement, as disclosed by Waatti.
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilbers.
Regarding claim 8-9, Hilbers teaches all the elements of claim 1 and further discloses a computing device (paragraph 0009, computer unit), the computing device comprising at least one processor and a memory in communication with the at least one processor, wherein the memory comprises instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, configured to cause the system to: move, by the at least one actuator, the first filament-extrusion print head; deposit, by the first filament-extrusion print head, material to form a first portion of a printed object; move, by the at least one actuator, the second filament-extrusion print head relative to the first portion of the printed object; and deposit, by the second filament-extrusion print head, material to or on the first portion of the printed object to form a second portion of the printed object. Further, to move the second filament-extrusion print head relative to the first portion of the printed object based on known positions of material deposited by the first filament-extrusion print head (paragraph 0009, movement of the print heads, the extrusion speed of the print heads and the movement of the build platform are fully automatically controlled by a computer unit).
Hilbers does not disclose the computer device comprises at least one processor and a memory in communication with the at least one processor, wherein the memory comprises instructions. However, it is submitted said components are conventional withing a computer device. Further, Hilbers discloses movement of the print heads, the extrusion speed of the print heads and the movement of the build platform are fully automatically controlled by a computer unit. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the computer device with a processor and memory to control operation of the system.
Claim(s) 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke (US 2021/0053275 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Hilbers teaches all the elements of claim 8, but does not disclose at least one sensor that is configured to detect spatial geometry of the first portion of the printed object, wherein the memory comprises instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: detect, by the at least one sensor, spatial geometry of the first portion of the printed object; and move the second filament-extrusion print head relative to the first portion of the printed object based on the spatial geometry detected by the at least one sensor.
Burke teaches a system (Figure 1) and corresponding method for printing a #D object (paragraph 0007), comprising: using a sensor to measuring one or more properties of the 3D object (paragraph 0127); said one or more properties being a geometry of at least a portion of the 3D object (paragraph 0128). Further, Burke discloses memory (150; paragraph 0093-0094) comprises instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: detect, by the at least one sensor, geometry of the portion of the printed object; and move a print feedstock (120) relative to the portion of the printed object based on the geometry detected by the at least one sensor (Figures, 2A-2G, Abstr., using a print head to initiate printing in accordance with the deposition parameter…may be adjusted upon determining that the properties measured do not meet the predetermined properties. The print head and the adjusted deposition parameter may be used to continue to print the 3D object).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified Hilbers with at least one sensor that is configured to detect spatial geometry of a portion of a printed object, wherein the memory comprises instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: detect, by the at least one sensor, spatial geometry of the first portion of the printed object; and move the second print head relative to the first portion of the printed object based on the spatial geometry detected by the at least one sensor to facilitate adjustment of printing parameters according to measurements, as disclosed by Burke.
Regarding claim 11, Hilbers, as modified by Burke, teaches all the elements of claim 10 and further discloses at least one of the at least one sensor is an optical sensor (paragraph 0127 of Burke, one or more sensors may be selected from the group consisting of camera, infrared sensors, photo detector, optical pyrometer, optical emission spectrometer).
Regarding claim 12, Hilbers, as modified by Burke, teaches all the elements of claim 10 and further discloses at least one of the at least one sensor is a contact sensor (paragraph 0127 of Burke, one or more sensors may be selected…contact force sensor).
Claim(s) 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilbers, in view of Deaville (US 2020/0130257 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Hilbers teaches all the elements of claim 13, but does not disclose depositing material to form a support section on the printing platform of the system; and depositing material to or on the support section to form a printed object. However, Hilbers discloses said system provides the benefit of increased productivity and minimizes the use of support structures (paragraph 0007).
Deaville teaches a method of forming a three-dimensional object (claim 11) via a filament-extrusion printhead (104 in Figure 2; paragraph 0031, the 3D printing head 104 is a FDM head including a spool 300 of material filament), comprising: forming a support section (1400 in Figure 14) on a printing platform (208); and depositing material on the support section (paragraph 0057). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to utilize the system of Hilbers to fabricate the object of Deaville for the benefits disclosed by Hilbers (i.e., increased productivity).
Regarding claim 15, Hilbers, in view of Deaville, teaches all the elements of claim 14 and further discloses the second deposition axis is horizontal (Figure 1 of Hilbers, x-axis is horizontal), wherein the support section has a sufficient vertical dimension to permit the second filament-extrusion print head to deposit material to or on the printed object or the support section without contact between the second filament-extrusion print head and the printing platform (Figure 14 of Deaville, showing support 1400 having sufficient vertical dimension).
Regarding claim 16, Hilbers, in view of Deaville, teaches all the elements of claim 14, but does not disclose separating the support section from the printed object. However, Hilbers discloses support structures are typically removed once a three dimensional object is completed (paragraph 0006 of Hilbers). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to remove the support section as is conventional done in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 7/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hilbers (DE202019002699U1), which is being relied on to disclose the newly amended limitation(s) to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art, alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest:
“…using the system of claim 1 to form a printed object having a controlled inter-segment interface, the method comprising:
extruding, with the first filament-extrusion print head, a first filament along the first deposition axis to form a first segment of the printed object; and
extruding, with the second filament-extrusion print head, a second filament along the second deposition axis to form a second segment of the printed object, the second segment bonded to the first segment along an inter-segment interface,
wherein the first and second deposition axes are not parallel, and
wherein a property of the inter-segment interface is determined by a relative orientation between the first and second deposition axes”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Virak Nguon whose telephone number is (571)272-4196. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (and alternate Fridays) 7:30-5:00.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/VIRAK NGUON/Examiner, Art Unit 1741 9/03/2026
Prosecution Insights