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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 18-25, in the reply filed on September 15, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 18-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,709,060. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, claim 8 of the ‘060 patent claims a method comprising: heating a build chamber and a print bed of a 3D printer comprising a frame, at least one panel removably coupled to the frame and defining a printing enclosure, the heated build chamber within the printing enclosure, the heated print bed defining a bottom of the heated build chamber, an extruder assembly, and at least one pellet feeder, wherein: the heated build chamber is defined by a movable portal coupled to the frame and at least one corrugated insulation sheet coupled to the portal and configured to expand and contract with vertical movement of the portal, and the at least one corrugated insulation sheet comprises a composite fabric material containing aluminum and a rubberized plastic, and/or a top of the heated build chamber comprises a glass insulation with aluminum and rubberized plastic additives; and performing a print operation using the 3D printer, the print operation comprising moving the extruder assembly within the heated build chamber and feeding, by the at least one pellet feeder, pellets of work material to the extruder assembly. As such, claim 8 of the ‘060 patent claims a method that anticipates the claimed method.
As to claims 20-25, claims 8-15 of the ‘060 patent claim a method that feeds pellets to an extruder assembly. The recitations set forth in the claims are suggested by the extrusion of material in a 3D printing process or rendered prima facie obvious as conventional and routine expedients in the extrusion art.
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 22-25 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.
As to claim 22, the claim recites “the pellet reservoir”. The recitation lacks antecedent basis in the claims. It is not clear whether this is a reference to the pellet feeder or another component. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
As to claim 23, the claim recites “feeding…to the nozzle”. However, the claim also appears to suggest that “a nozzle and a screw” are utilized for feeding to the nozzle. It is not clear what is necessarily intended. It is not clear whether “a nozzle” and “the nozzle” are referring to the same nozzle, whether “a nozzle” was not intended to be part of the structure utilized for feeding to the nozzle, or whether “the nozzle” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected as dependent claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 18, 19 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yuwaki et al. (US 2020/0406548).
Regarding claim 18, Yuwaki et al. teach a method that comprising heating a build chamber and a print bed of a 3D printer comprising a frame, at least one panel removably coupled to the frame and defining a print enclosure, the heated build chamber within the print enclosure (Figures 1 and 2; paragraphs [0017]-[0022]; (10), (12) & (15) are understood to be removable to the extent required; (20) provides heat and (30) is a heated print bed/stage defining a bottom of the chamber), a plurality of sides of the heated build chamber being defined by a plurality of corrugated insulated sheets/bellows, and the heated print bed defining a bottom of the build chamber (Figures 1, 2 and 4; paragraphs [0027] (30) (70) (72) (73), also (14) and (16); (70), (72) and (73) form sides of the chamber under a reasonable interpretation) and performing a print operation using the 3D printer (Abstract; paragraphs [0002] and [0005]).
As to claim 19, Yuwaki et al. utilize an extruder assembly within the heated chamber and feed pellets from a pellet feeder/hopper to the assembly (Figure 3 (200) (220) (240) (258) (260) (MR); paragraphs [0024], [0043]-[0051], [0060] and [0062]).
As to claims 23-25, Yuwaki et al. feed the material to nozzle (260) with extruder screw/flat screw (240) and control the temperature of the parts of the extruder, including a cylindrical part, with heater (258) (paragraph [0043]-[0051], [0060] and [0062]). By controlling the temperature to melt the pellets and maintain a desired temperature, the heater of Yuwaki et al. is understood to be both a heating unit and a cooling unit as claimed.
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.
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joudrey et al. (US 2025/0170653) in view of Myerberg et al. (US 2017/0297106).
Regarding claim 18, Joudrey et al. teach a method that includes performing a print operation using a 3D printer (Abstract; Figures 1 and 6A-6F; paragraphs [0003], [0019]-[0023], [0025] and [0043]-[0051]) in a 3D printer comprising a frame, at least one panel removably coupled to the frame and defining a print enclosure with a build chamber in the print enclosure, a plurality of sides of the build chamber being defined by a plurality of corrugated insulated sheets (e.g. they are insulated to the extent required and also insulate/isolate powder within the printer) and a print bed defining a bottom of the build chamber (paragraphs [0052]-[0057]; Figures 7B-7D). Joudrey et al. do not teach heating the build chamber and print bed.
However, Myerberg et al. teach an analogous binder jet 3D printing method, wherein heat is provided such that the build chamber and the print bed are necessarily heated to the required extent (Figure 4 (418); paragraphs [0128]-[0130]).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Joudrey et al. and Myerberg et al. and to have heated the build chamber and the print bed of Joudrey et al., as suggested by Myerberg et al., for the purpose, as suggested by Myerberg et al. of facilitating the sintering of the object and improving its strength. In combination, each and every limitation of claim 18 is taught and suggested by the applied references.
Claims 19-25 are not rejected over the combination since the combination is directed to binder jetting applications.
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuwaki et al. (US 2020/0406548), as applied to claims 18, 19 and 23-25 above, and further in view of either one of Luo (US 2019/0047225) or Smiddy et al. (US 11,472,108).
As to claims 20-22, Yuwaki et al. teach the method as set forth above. Yuwaki et al. do not explicitly disclose a sensor as claimed or supplying and clearing materials as claimed. However, each of Luo (paragraphs [0023]-[0026]; Figure 1-4 (14) (38) (20) (52) (22); Figure 4 (82)-(90)) and Smiddy et al. (col. 6, line 26-col. 7, line 34) teach analogous methods wherein
a sensor as claimed and supplying and clearing materials as claimed are performed (also see section 112b rejection of claim 22).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Yuwaki et al. and either one of the secondary references and to have utilized a sensor as claimed and with supplying and clearing as claimed in the method of Yuwaki et al., as suggested by either one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of effectively controlling, feeding and maintaining a supply of pellets to the 3D printer in an art recognized suitable manner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references disclose analogous 3D printing methods that utilize corrugated sheets that should be considered prior to replying to this Office Action: US 2019/0240904 (Figures 1-5), US 2019/0210284 (Figures 2A, 2B, 5C), US 2019/0913203 (Figure 3), US 2018/0290210 (Figure 5), US 2018/0194063 (Figures 1-5), US 2017/0014905 (Figures 2 and 6 (12)), US 2016/0361873 (Figure 2), US 2015/0217514 (Figures 2 and 9), US 2009/0236778 (Figure 1), US 10,632,732 (Figures 6A, 6B, 8 and 15A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 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 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
