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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-17, drawn to an additive manufacturing machine, classified in B29C64/20.
II. Claims 18-20, drawn to an additive manufacturing method, classified in B29C64/10.
Inventions ll and l are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the process as claimed can be practiced by another materially different apparatus or by hand, i.e., the step of controlling can be practiced by an operator.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification.
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter.
the invention require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
During a telephone conversation with Christopher L. Curfman (Reg. No. 52,787) on 02/06/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of l, claims 1-17. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant has been advised to replace “the first and the second actuation assembly” in line 20 to -- the first and the second actuation assemblies --. Appropriate correction 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.
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 1-17 are 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 1 recites the limitation “preferably” in lines 2, 12 and 22. Similar to "for example", the phrase " preferably " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 4 and 5 recite the limitation “each nozzle” in line 1 of claim 4 and line 2 of claim 5. It renders the claims indefinite since it is unclear whether it is meant to be each nozzle of the plurality of nozzles or another/new nozzle. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner has interpreted it as each nozzle of the plurality of nozzles.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “preferably” in line 3. Similar to "for example", the phrase " preferably " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 7-9 recite the limitation “each nozzle” in line 3 of claim 7, line 2 of claim 8 and line 2 of claim 9. It renders the claims indefinite since it is unclear whether it is meant to be each nozzle of the plurality of nozzles or another/new nozzle. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner has interpreted it as each nozzle of the plurality of nozzles.
Claim 10 recites the limitations “a first nozzle” in line 1 and “a second nozzle” in line 4. They render the claim indefinite since it is unclear whether it is meant to be a fist nozzle and a second nozzle of the plurality of nozzles or another/new nozzles. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner has interpreted that the plurality of nozzles comprises a first nozzle and a second nozzle.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a third nozzle” in lines 1-2. It renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear whether it is meant to be a third nozzle of the plurality of nozzles or another/new nozzle. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner has interpreted that the plurality of nozzles comprises a third nozzle.
Claim 12 recites the limitations “a fourth nozzle” in lines 1-2 and “a fifth nozzle” in lines 5-6. They render the claim indefinite since it is unclear whether it is meant to be a fourth nozzle and a fifth nozzle of the plurality of nozzles or another/new nozzles. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner has interpreted that the plurality of nozzles comprises a fourth nozzle and a fifth nozzle.
The remaining dependent claim 13 is also rejected under 112 (b) because it depends from, and thus includes all the limitations of rejected claim 12.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “each nozzle” in line 1. It renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear whether it is meant to be each nozzle of the plurality of nozzles or another/new nozzle. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner has interpreted it as each nozzle of the plurality of nozzles.
The remaining dependent claims 2, 3 and 15-17 are also rejected under 112 (b) because they depend from, and thus include all the limitations of rejected claim 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.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kaiba et al. (US 2020/0023580) in view of Furuya (US 2022/0097301).
With respect to claim 1, Kaiba teaches an additive manufacturing machine for producing objects (“a three dimensional modeling apparatus”, Pa [0025]), the machine comprising:
an upper supporting frame (“An upper surface portion 10A”, Pa [0029]);
a workpiece table (“a platform 5”), which is configured to support the object being manufactured (“The platform 5 is used to mount a solid object”, Pa [0027]), and is configured to rotate around the central axis (“The platform 5 is used to mount a solid object, and is rotatable by using a motor”, Pa [0027]);
a plurality of nozzles (“a first recording head 2, a second recording head 3, a third recording head 4”, Pa [0025]), which are coupled to the upper supporting frame (“An upper surface portion 10A, on which the first drive mechanism 55, the second drive mechanism 56, and the third drive mechanism 57 are mounted”, Pa [0029]), face the workpiece table and are configured to deliver fused material (“discharge a modeling material”, Pa [0026] and [0027]);
a first actuation assembly (“a motor”) configured to actuate rotation of the workpiece table around the central axis (“The platform 5 is used to mount a solid object, and is rotatable by using a motor”, Pa [0027]); and
a control unit (“a control unit 200”) configured to control in a coordinated manner the first actuation assembly so that the fused material delivered is arranged along a respective profile (“The first drive mechanism 55, the second drive mechanism 56, and the third drive mechanism 57 are controlled by a control unit 200 illustrated in FIG. 2C, and rotation of the platform 5 is also controlled by the control unit 200. The control unit 200 includes a computer operated by a program for conducting procedures depicted in FIG. 2C.”, Pa [0050]).
Kaiba is silent to a workpiece table is arranged at a variable distance from the upper supporting frame along a central axis, and a second actuation assembly configured to adjust the distance between the workpiece table and the upper supporting frame along the central axis.
In the same field of endeavor, a three-dimensional shaping apparatus, Furuya teaches that the three-dimensional shaping apparatus 5 includes a first ejection portion 100 a, a second ejection portion 100 b, a moving mechanism portion 210, a stage 220, and a control unit 300 (Pa [0026]), the moving mechanism portion 210 changes the relative position of the ejection portion 100 and the stage 220, and the moving mechanism portion 210 in this embodiment is constituted by a three-axis positioner for moving the stage 220 in three axis directions of the X, Y, and Z directions by the driving forces of three motors, each motor drives under the control of the control unit 300, and in other embodiments, the moving mechanism portion 210 may, for example, be configured to move the ejection portion 100 without moving the stage 220 instead of being configured to move the stage 220, and in addition, the moving mechanism portion 210 may be configured to move both the stage 220 and the ejection portion 100 (Pa [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kaiba with the teachings of Furuya and additionally provide the moving mechanism portion with the platform for moving the platform in three axis directions of the X, Y, and Z directions by the driving forces of three motors in order to change the relative position of the recording heads and the platform.
With respect to claim 2, Kaiba as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the central axis extends in a substantially vertical direction (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 3, Furuya as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above further teaches that the workpiece table (“a platform 5”) is movable along the central axis with respect to the upper supporting frame (“an upper surface portion 10A”); the second actuation assembly being configured to actuate sliding of the workpiece table along the central axis (“the moving mechanism portion 210 in this embodiment is constituted by a three-axis positioner for moving the stage 220 in three axis directions of the X, Y, and Z directions by the driving forces of three motors”, Pa [0027]).
With respect to claim 4, Kaiba as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that each nozzle is coupled to the upper supporting frame at a distance from the central axis (“An upper surface portion 10A, on which the first drive mechanism 55, the second drive mechanism 56, and the third drive mechanism 57 are mounted”, Pa [0029] and Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 5, Kaiba as applied to claim 4 above further teaches that the distance between each nozzle and the central axis is adjustable (“The first recording head 2 mounts a plurality of valve-type inkjet nozzles and is movable in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction …The second recording head 3 mounts a plurality of valve type inkjet nozzles, is movable in the horizontal direction and the vertical direction”, Pa [0026]; “The third recording head 4 mounts a plurality of valve-type inkjet nozzles, is movable in the horizontal direction and the vertical direction”, Pa [0027]).
With respect to claim 6, Kaiba as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that at least one nozzle of the plurality of nozzles is movable in a direction substantially perpendicular to the central axis so as to vary the distance of said nozzle from the central axis during rotation of the workpiece table around the central axis (“The first recording head 2 mounts a plurality of valve-type inkjet nozzles and is movable in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction …The second recording head 3 mounts a plurality of valve type inkjet nozzles, is movable in the horizontal direction and the vertical direction”, Pa [0026]; “The third recording head 4 mounts a plurality of valve-type inkjet nozzles, is movable in the horizontal direction and the vertical direction”, Pa [0027]; “in a configuration in which the second recording head 3 and the third recording head 4 move relatively to each other at an periphery of the solid object shaped on the platform 5, the platform 5 is rotated.”, Pa [0050]).
With respect to claim 7, Kaiba as applied to claim 6 above further teaches a third actuation assembly configured to actuate the sliding of each nozzle in a direction substantially perpendicular to the central axis (“The first drive mechanism 55 moves the first recording head 2 horizontally and vertically relative to the platform 5. The second drive mechanism 56 moves the second recording head 3 horizontally and vertically relative to the platform 5. The third drive mechanism 57 moves the third recording head 4 horizontally and vertically relative to the platform 5.”, Pa [0028]).
With respect to claim 8, Kaiba as applied to claim 7 above further teaches that the third actuation assembly (“55”, “56”, “57”) comprises for each nozzle a linear guide (“a rail 11A”, “a rail 12A”, “a rail 13A”), which is coupled to the upper supporting frame (“An upper surface portion 10A, on which the first drive mechanism 55, the second drive mechanism 56, and the third drive mechanism 57 are mounted”, Pa [0029]) and extends in a direction substantially perpendicular to the central axis to guide sliding of the respective nozzle; and an actuator (“a drive source 14”, “a drive source 15”, “a drive source 16”) for each nozzle configured to actuate the sliding of each nozzle along the respective linear guide (“The first recording head 2 is disposed so that a discharge direction of the modeling material is downward on one end side of a rail 11A being horizontally disposed.”, Pa [0046]; “moving the rail 11A and the rail 11B horizontally relative to each other by power from a drive source 14”, Pa [0047]; “the second recording head 3 is arranged so that the discharge direction of the modeling material becomes the horizontal direction (lateral direction) on one end side of a rail 12A being horizontally disposed… The rail 12A is then linearly moved horizontally by a drive source 15.”, Pa [0048]; “The rail 13A is then linearly moved in the horizontal direction by the drive source 16.”, Pa [0049])
With respect to claim 10, Kaiba as applied to claim 1 above further teaches a first nozzle (“a first recording head 2”) coupled to the upper supporting frame (“An upper surface portion 10A”) at a first distance from the central axis; and a second nozzle (“a second recording head 3”) coupled to the upper supporting frame (“An upper surface portion 10A”) at a second distance from the central axis.
Kaiba further teaches that the first recording head 2 mounts a plurality of valve-type inkjet nozzles and is movable in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction, and the second recording head 3 mounts a plurality of valve type inkjet nozzles, is movable in the horizontal direction and the vertical direction (Pa [0026]). Thus, it is noted that the limitations “so as to create an inner profile of the object” and “greater than the first distance so as to create an outer profile of the object” are intended uses since the apparatus of Kaiba is capable of performing the claimed operation. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
With respect to claim 11, Kaiba as applied to claim 10 above further teaches a third nozzle (“a third recording head 4”) coupled to the upper supporting frame (“An upper surface portion 10A”) in a movable manner in a direction substantially perpendicular to the central axis (“The third recording head 4 mounts a plurality of valve-type inkjet nozzles, is movable in the horizontal direction and the vertical direction”, Pa [0027]).
It is noted that the limitation “between the first distance and the second distance so as to create a first stiffening mesh between the inner profile and the outer profile of the object” is an intended uses since the apparatus of Kaiba is capable of performing the claimed operation. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
With respect to claim 12, Kaiba as applied to claim 11 does not explicitly teach a fourth nozzle coupled to the upper supporting frame at a third distance from the central axis greater than the first distance and smaller than the second distance so as to create an intermediate profile of the object; and a fifth nozzle coupled to the upper supporting frame in a movable manner in a direction substantially perpendicular to the central axis between the third distance and the second distance so as to create a second stiffening mesh between the intermediate profile and the outer profile of the object. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide additional recording heads with the apparatus for the purpose of a three dimensional modeling, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to claim 13, Kaiba as applied to claim 12 above further teaches that the third nozzle (“a third recording head 4”) is movable (“The third recording head 4 mounts a plurality of valve-type inkjet nozzles, is movable in the horizontal direction and the vertical direction”, Pa [0027]).
It is noted that the limitation “between the first distance and the third distance so as to create the first stiffening mesh between the inner profile and the intermediate profile of the object” is an intended uses since the apparatus of Kaiba is capable of performing the claimed operation. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kaiba et al. (US 2020/0023580) in view of Furuya (US 2022/0097301) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0070418).
With respect to claim 9, Kaiba as applied to claim 8 above further teaches that the third actuation assembly comprises for each nozzle a slide (“a support member 27”, “a support member 29”) that can slide along the respective linear guide (“the third recording head 4 is … mounted to the rail 30 through a support member 29”, Pa [0089]; “the second recording head 3 is mounted to the support member 27”, Pa [0090]), but does not explicitly teach a support arm which is fixed to the respective slide, extends between the upper supporting frame and the workpiece table and supports the respective nozzle.
In the same field of endeavor, 3d printing system, Wang teaches that the system comprises a nozzle 12 is slidably connected to a cylindrical guide track a 11 via the sliding block, and a ball screw seat a 13 disposed within a sliding block (Pa [0029]) so that so that the ball screw seat 13 moves along the linear guide track a 11 on the cross beam 5 (Pa [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kaiba with the teachings of Wang and substitute a cylindrical guide track, a sliding block (the claimed support arm) and a ball screw seat (the claimed slide) for each rail/ support member for the purpose of moving nozzles on the cylindrical guide track, since it has been held that where the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 (I)(B)).
Claims 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kaiba et al. (US 2020/0023580) in view of Furuya (US 2022/0097301) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fry et al. (US 2016/0096327).
With respect to claim 14, Kaiba as applied to claim 1 above does not explicitly teach that each nozzle is of the fused filament type.
In the same field of endeavor, an apparatus for the production of a three-dimensional object, Fry teaches that the method and apparatus can be used for the fabrication of parts or articles in both the Fused Deposition Modeling process and the Fused Filament Fabrication process (Pa [0026]) and the apparatus 10 builds three-dimensional objects in build chamber 26 by depositing material from print head 32 onto the build plate 34 (Pa [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kaiba with the teachings of Fry and substitute a print head for each nozzle for the purpose of Fused Filament Fabrication process.
With respect to claim 16, Kaiba as applied to claim 1 above does not explicitly teach a heating system configured to heat the object being manufactured.
In the same field of endeavor, an apparatus for the production of a three-dimensional object, Fry teaches that the method and apparatus can be used for the fabrication of parts or articles in both the Fused Deposition Modeling process and the Fused Filament Fabrication process (Pa [0026]) and the apparatus 10 builds three-dimensional objects in build chamber 26 by depositing material from print head 32 onto the build plate 34 (Pa [0032]), and heating devices or elements 30 are provided proximate a print head 32 and proximate the top wall 22, the heating elements may be heating coils or other known heating devices which can heat the ambient temperature in the chamber 26 to the desired temperature (Pa [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kaiba with the teachings of Fry and substitute a print head for each nozzle and provide the heating devices or elements in order to heat the ambient temperature to the desired temperature for the purpose of Fused Filament Fabrication process.
With respect to claim 17, Fry as applied in the combination regarding claim 16 above further teaches that the heating system comprises an air supply duct, a fan configured to generate an air flow inside the duct, and a heating element configured to transmit heat to the air flow inside the duct; the duct being provided with an outlet opening, which is arranged in the vicinity of the object being manufactured and is shaped to direct said heated air flow towards the object being manufactured (“heated air may be provided into the chamber 26 by heating ducts or the like which have openings in the one or more respective walls of the chamber 26. In such an embodiment, blowers may be located in the ducts to provide the air flow required. Return openings may also be provided in the walls to allow for the proper circulation of the heated air within the chamber 26. In this type of oven, the ducts are connected to heaters which heat the air which is circulated through the duct and returned to the chamber.”, Pa [0029]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kaiba et al. (US 2020/0023580) in view of Furuya (US 2022/0097301) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ur (US 2017/0066189).
With respect to claim 15, Kaiba as applied to claim 1 above does not explicitly teach a plurality of lateral support elements, each of which is configured to be positioned in contact with the object being manufactured so as to maintain said object aligned with the central axis on the workpiece table.
In the same field of endeavor, an Additive Manufacturing Apparatus, Ur teaches that Additive Manufacturing Apparatus 300 may have a Print-Head Unit 320, Print-Head Unit 320 may comprise a Nozzle 330, Nozzle 330 may be configured to extrude the printing material, and Print-Head Unit 320 may be utilized to move in a four degrees of freedom movement (Pa [0060], and as can be appreciated the geometric shape of Print-Head Unit in which Nozzle 330 is located at a lateral portion thereof, allows Nozzle 330 to be placed in locations that are adjoining existing objects, such as Object 340 (Pa [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kaiba with the teachings of Ur and provide the geometric shapes with the recording heads in order to allow the recording heads to be placed in locations that are adjoining existing objects.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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 Johnson can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742