DETAILED ACTION
The papers submitted on 13 July 2026, amending claims 6-12, are acknowledged.
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 I, claims 6-12, in the reply filed on 13 July 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 13 July 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “comprised of plurality lights…” which is grammatically incorrected and could be rewritten as “comprised of a plurality of lights…” or “comprised of plural[[ity]] lights…”
Claim 6 recites “and barrier disposed…” which is grammatically incorrected and could be rewritten as “and a barrier disposed…”
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
The term “spaced a sufficient distance” in the claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficient distance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore it is unclear what spacing is required by the claim.
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aw et al. (US 2017/0210064 A1) in view of Blessing (US 8,840,235 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Aw discloses an extrusion-based 3D printer (FIG. 1-2; title/abstract) comprising:
peristaltic pumps 5a, 5b connected to a nozzle 17 and a resin reservoir 2/3 (FIG. 1-2; ¶¶ 113+);
said nozzle 17 connected to a dispensing head(s) 4 configured for controlled movement, equated with the claimed printing arm (¶¶ 113+; FIG. 1-2);
said pump is capable of drawing s resin from said resin reservoir and delivers resin to said nozzle (¶¶ 113+);
radiation source(s) 9, equated with the claimed curing source, said curing source comprised of plurality lights surrounding said nozzle; said lights spaced a sufficient distance from said nozzle to prevent light from reaching said nozzle (¶¶ 153, 156).
Aw does not appear to expressly disclose a barrier disposed between said lights and said nozzle, said barrier blocks light from reach said nozzle.
However, Blessing discloses a print head (title/abstract) which includes:
a nozzle 10 (FIG. 1; 8:8+);
a curing source 5, said curing source comprised of a plurality of lights surrounding said nozzle, such as two UV-LED's 5' or ring-like UV-LED 5' (FIG. 2-4A, 7; 8:30-9:67, 11:1-12) said lights spaced a sufficient distance from said nozzle to prevent light from reaching said nozzle (FIG. 2, 4; 8:30-9:67);
and a barrier 8 disposed between said lights and said nozzle, said barrier blocks light from reaching said nozzle (FIG. 2, 4; 8:30-9:67).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Aw to include the barrier of Blessing, in order to prevent curing of the print material in or on the nozzle tip and clogging it.
Regarding claim 7, Blessing discloses the barrier is a circular trench (FIG. 4; 9:40-67).
Claim 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aw et al. (US 2017/0210064 A1) in view of Blessing (US 8,840,235 B2) as applied to claim 7 above, further in view of Ando et al. (US 10,112,406 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Aw discloses peristaltic pumps.
Aw does not appear to expressly disclose gear pumps.
However, Ando discloses a similar printer (title/abstract) which includes a gear pump for moving liquid printing materials (3:4+).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the peristaltic pumps of Aw with gear pump of Ando, because such pumps are known in similar arts and could be substitute with expected results.
Regarding claim 9, Aw discloses a stepper motor for controlling the pump (¶¶ 42, 72, 94).
Claim 10-11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aw et al. (US 2017/0210064 A1) in view of Blessing (US 8,840,235 B2) and Ando et al. (US 10,112,406 B2) as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of Gillespie (US 3,621,892 A).
Regarding claim 10, Aw does not appear to expressly disclose a vacuum for removing bubbles from the print material.
However, Gillespie discloses a device for resin dispensing (title/abstract) which includes a vacuum degassing device (abstract; 2:12+, 2:40+).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Aw to include the vacuum degasser of Gillespie, in order to reduce bubbles and improve print performance.
Regarding claim 11, Aw discloses the tubing is opaque to shield from UV light (¶ 156).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aw et al. (US 2017/0210064 A1) in view of Blessing (US 8,840,235 B2), Ando et al. (US 10,112,406 B2), and Gillespie (US 3,621,892 A) as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Imai (JP 2015-100945 A, citations based on FIT translation submitted herewith)
Aw does not appear to expressly disclose reflective surfaces in the trench.
However, Imai discloses a similar nozzle for discharging and curing UV print materials (title/abstract) which includes a light shielding member 13 with a reflecting member 14 (FIG. 3, p. 3).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Aw to include the reflective surfaces of Imai, in order to better guide the curing light away from the nozzle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
IKEDA; Masashi et al.
US 20160193848 A1
Derian; Gary A. et al.
US 5509954 A
Wouters; Paul et al.
US 8157365 B2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin A Schiffman whose telephone number is (571)270-7626. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-530p EST.
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.
/BENJAMIN A SCHIFFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights