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 .
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-12 and 19-20 are the subject of this FINAL Office Action. Claims 13-18 are withdrawn.
This is a CON of applicant's earlier Application No. 17/393,915. All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the invention claimed in the earlier application (that is, restriction (including lack of unity) would not be proper) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of the species of claim 1 without traverse in the Reply filed 06/01/2026 is acknowledged. Thus, claims 13-18 are withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions and nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Thus, the requirement for election of species is hereby made FINAL.
Duplicate Claims Warning
Applicant is advised that should claims 11-12 be found allowable, claims 19-20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 706.03(k).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112- Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 1-12 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The metes and bounds of the claims are so unclear and confusing that the Office cannot determine if the instant claims are patentable because it would require the Office to speculate as to the metes and bounds of the instant claims. See MPEP § 2173.06 (“Second, where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.”). Specifically, a skilled artisan, in light of the specification, and the confusing claim language, cannot determine the metes and bounds of the claimed “nozzle” without speculation.
First, claim 1 states “[a]n additive manufacturing nozzle” then proceeds to provide the following structures:
a metallic chamber through which passes print material for heating and extrusion;
a first ceramic coating about the metallic chamber, through which passes a sensor connected to and communicative with a sidewall of the metallic chamber;
an elongated heating element at least substantially insulated from the metallic chamber by the first ceramic coating and which provides the heating for the extrusion of the print
material; and
an insulative coating about the elongated heating element and enclosing the sensor.
The specification only discloses fused deposition of material, or “FFF.” Yet a nozzle is commonly understood in the AM art as including inkjet nozzles, for example. In other words, it is unclear in light of the specification and the prior art what is meant by “nozzle.”
Second, the metes and bounds of “about” are unclear. Claim 1 recites “a first ceramic coating about the metallic chamber”; and “an insulative coating about the elongated heating element.” This is not a recognized transitional phrase. Further, the specification never defines or explains “about.” One is left with the common various meanings of “reasonably close to”; “almost”; “on the verge of”; “on all sides”; “in rotation”; “around the outside”; “in many different directions”; “in the vicinity”; “in the opposite direction”; “in a circle around”; “in the immediate neighborhood of”; or any number of possible other meanings. As is self-evident from these various different meanings, “about” is indefinite.
Third, the “elongated heating element” is unclear. This phrase is never recited in the specification. One is left to guess in what direction the heating element is elongated.
Fourth, “insulative coating” is never recited in the specification; thus it is unclear what material, location, etc., this comprises.
As a summary example, the specification discloses a nozzle 100 comprising the following (Figs. 1-2, annotated):
PNG
media_image1.png
565
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
417
845
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is unclear whether or which of the claimed components correlate to which elements in these Figures.
In sum, claim 1 is so confusing that the Office cannot apply art without conjecture as to the metes and bounds of the “nozzle.”
In claim 2, “the pass through” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 2, “nonconductive substrate aspect” is unknown and undefined; it is completely unclear what is this structure. The specification is silent as to this feature, or this phrase.
In claims 12 and 20, the term “hob” is unknown and undefined; it is completely unclear what is this structure. The specification is silent as to this feature, or this term.
Response To Arguments (From Final Office Action, U.S. 17/393,915, 02/14/2023)
The Office is not persuaded of error by Applicants’ arguments in the Reply 01/04/2023 because Applicants choose to use vague, broad claim language without clear, correlative definitions in the specification. Applicants are reminded that the claims must “particularly point[] out and distinctly claim[] the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.” See 35 USC § 112(b). Here, a number of terms and phrases fail to accomplish this requirement. Applicants argue that “the word ‘nozzle’ appears over 250 times in the application”; thus it is clear. Applicants misunderstand the argument. The claims broadly recite “[a]n additive manufacturing nozzle”; additive manufacturing is commonly understood to use many different types of nozzles (e.g. inkjet nozzle, binder jet nozzle, FFF or filament nozzle, ceramic slurry or colloidal nozzle, etc.); yet the specification only discloses FFF or filament nozzles. In light of a single disclosure of a FFF nozzle, but a broad claim to any “additive manufacturing nozzle,” its is unclear whether other nozzle types are encompassed by this broad language that does not match the single disclosed embodiment.
As to “about,” this word remains in claim 1: “a first ceramic coating about the metallic chamber.
As to “elongated heating element,” this phrase remains unclear because it is never described or explained in the specification. Further, this is not a common way to describe a heating element. In fact, the specification uses only common descriptions: “resistive wire 860” (para. 0047, describing Fig. 10); or “heating elements 106 may be provided, such as a conductive trace or traces . . . . resistive heating elements, an induction heating element (such as around the nozzle proximate to the orifice of the nozzle), an IR/radiative element, a RF coupled element, and so on” (para. 0020, describing Fig. 1). However, Figure 10 is irrelevant to the claimed invention because Figure 10 is not a nozzle with ceramic coating, second energy source, etc. Rather, Figure 10 is directed to
a low-emissivity, i.e., "space blanket", material 862 may be provided partially, substantially, or completely about the outside of sheath 850, such as to reflect IR energy back inward toward the nozzle 812. Yet further, and in order to optimize heat transfer from the nozzle to the print material 124 at the delivery point, the embodiment of Figure 10 may include nozzle material and/or a nozzle tip material 880 having good IR transmittance, such as in the 3-5um) range
(para. 0048).
Applicants also argue that “elongated heating element” is any heating element (another very broad phrase, as “element” can be anything associated with heating) that is longer in one dimension than it is wide. The claim only states that it is “substantially insulated from the metallic chamber by the first ceramic coating.” To this end, does this include an “element” associated with heating that sticks out from the nozzle (e.g. tangential to the nozzle orifice direction)? Or, must the “elongated heating element” be embedded in a certain direction in the nozzle structure (which is the only embodiment shown with an ceramic coating in Figure 1). Thus, in light of the specific examples in the specification and common understanding and description of heating elements, the metes and bounds of the broad phrase “elongated heating element” are unclear.
As to “insulative coating,” this phrase remains unclear because it is never described or explained in the specification in relation to the claimed nozzle. The specification fails to use this phrase, much less describe any material, location of the material and purpose. Applicants argue that “insulative coating” “would be readily understood to the skilled artisan to be a covering over a surface that does not allow heat to conduct from that surface.” However, this fails to address how this broad understanding relates to the claimed invention. The specification fails to describe or explain how a generic “insulative coating,” much less its material, location, etc. relates to the claimed nozzle. For example, under Applicants broad definition, does this include plastic? Metal? Glass? Wool? Wood? All of these materials provide various levels of insulation. By their very broad argued definition, do Applicants intend to include all of these materials? Thus, the metes and bounds of the broad phrase “insulative coating” are unclear in light of the lack of any description or definition in the context of the claimed nozzle.
Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 112 – Written Description
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 1-12 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the full scope of the claimed invention.
The specification fails to demonstrate possession of “insulative coating.” Neither The phrase “insulative coating” is never used in the specification.
The specification fails to demonstrate possession of “elongated heating element.” The phrase is never used in the specification.
In claims 12 and 20, the term “hob” is never described. The specification is silent as to this feature, or this term.
In claim 2, “nonconductive substrate aspect” is never described. The specification is silent as to this feature, or this phrase.
Response To Arguments (From Final Office Action, U.S. 17/393,915, 02/14/2023)
The Office is not persuaded of error by Applicants’ arguments in the Reply 01/04/2023 because Applicants fail to address the fact that the specification never uses either phrase “insulative coating” or “elongated heating element”; these phrases or their equivalents are never clearly described; and no specific structure are ever clearly described as such. Applicants are reminded that “[t]he specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.” See 35 USC § 112(a). As explained above, neither of these phrases is used in the specification. Further, neither of these phrases is common in the 3D printer art. In fact, these phrases are very broad and commonly encompass vastly different material possibilities as explained above. As to “elongated heating element,” this is not a common way to describe a heating element. In fact, the specification uses only common descriptions: “resistive wire 860” (para. 0047, describing Fig. 10); or “heating elements 106 may be provided, such as a conductive trace or traces . . . . resistive heating elements, an induction heating element (such as around the nozzle proximate to the orifice of the nozzle), an IR/radiative element, a RF coupled element, and so on” (para. 0020, describing Fig. 1). However, Figure 10 is irrelevant to the claimed invention because Figure 10 is not a nozzle with ceramic coating, second energy source, etc. Rather, Figure 10 is directed to
a low-emissivity, i.e., "space blanket", material 862 may be provided partially, substantially, or completely about the outside of sheath 850, such as to reflect IR energy back inward toward the nozzle 812. Yet further, and in order to optimize heat transfer from the nozzle to the print material 124 at the delivery point, the embodiment of Figure 10 may include nozzle material and/or a nozzle tip material 880 having good IR transmittance, such as in the 3-5um) range
(para. 0048).
Applicants also argue that “elongated heating element” is any heating element (another very broad phrase, as “element” can be anything associated with heating) that is longer in one dimension than it is wide. In light of the examples in the specification (conductive trace or traces, resistive heating elements or wire, an induction heating element (such as around the nozzle proximate to the orifice of the nozzle), an IR/radiative element, a RF coupled element), a skilled artisan would not recognize the specification as fully, clearly, concisely, and in exact terms disclosing the broad genus of “elongated heating element.”
As to “insulative coating,” the specification fails to use this phrase, much less describe any material, location of the material and purpose. Applicants argue that “insulative coating” “would be readily understood to the skilled artisan to be a covering over a surface that does not allow heat to conduct from that surface.” However, this fails to address how this broad understanding relates to the claimed invention. The specification fails to describe or explain how a generic “insulative coating,” much less its material, location, etc. relates to the claimed nozzle. For example, under Applicants broad definition, does this include plastic? Metal? Glass? Wool? Wood? All of these materials provide various levels of insulation. By their very broad argued definition, do Applicants intend to include all of these materials? Thus, the genus of “insulative coating” for the claimed nozzle invention is not fully, clearly, concisely, and in exact terms disclosed in the specification.
Applicants also argue that “in relation to the insulative coating, a low emissivity covering over the heating elements is discussed at least with respect to Figures 2C and 10, and at paras. [0054] and [0069], of the specification as-filed.” Yet, Applicants fail to define or describe “low emissivity covering.” This is another broad, vague phrase with no referent. Thus, the specification fails to fully, precisely and exactly describe “insulative coating” and “elongated heating element.”
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 –
(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;
(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.
Claim 1, 4-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BRUGGEMAN (WO 2016/102669).
This rejection is presented in the interest of compact prosecution to the extent the claims include embodiments in Figures 1-2.
As to claim 1, BRUGGEMAN teaches a nozzle, comprising: metallic chamber (104 and 103; Figs. 1-5, 7); an outer shaft/ceramic coating about the inner chamber and including a sensor connected to metallic chamber (102; Figs. 1-5, 7); “elongated” heat element (105; Figs. 1, 3-5, 7); and an “insulative coating” near the heating element and enclosing the sensor (704 made from same material as 102 and 108; Fig. 7).
As to claim 4, “sensor . . . capable of sensing at least one characteristic of the liquid” only points out a capability, and for any possible “characteristic” (e.g. temperature, flow rate, density, viscosity, chemical composition, amount, presence/absence, etc.). This is any sensor.
Claims 5-6 only describe how the ceramic coating is intended to be deposited, not the ceramic coating composition itself; thus, the ceramic coating above meets these claims.
As to claims 7-8, BRUGGEMAN teaches a RTD sensor (“The temperature sensor 702 can be a resistive temperature device (RTD) such as for example a PT100 element.”).
Claims 9-10 only describe how the sensor is intended to be used; thus, the sensor above meets these claims.
Claims 11 and 19 describe the material intended to be used with the nozzle; thus, it fails to distinguish the nozzle of claim 1.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by VAN DER ZALM (US 2017/0361501, effective filing 06/21/2016).
This rejection is presented in the interest of compact prosecution to the extent the claims include embodiments in Figures 1-2.
As to claim 1, VAN DER ZALM teaches a nozzle, comprising: metallic chamber (2; Fig. 1, para. 0014); an outer shaft/ceramic coating 10/12 about the inner chamber and including a sensor 16 connected to metallic chamber (Fig. 1, paras. 0013 & 0015); “elongated” heat element (14; Fig. 1); and an “insulative coating” 10/12 near the heating element and enclosing the sensor (Fig. 1). Alternatively, the sensor includes elements 23/24 surrounded by glass 18 (paras. 0034-35 and Fig. 1).
As to claim 4, “sensor . . . capable of sensing at least one characteristic of the liquid” only points out a capability, and for any possible “characteristic” (e.g. temperature, flow rate, density, viscosity, chemical composition, amount, presence/absence, etc.). This is any sensor.
Claims 5-6 only describe how the ceramic coating is intended to be deposited, not the ceramic coating composition itself; thus, the ceramic coating above meets these claims.
As to claim 7, VAN DER ZALM teaches a thermal sensor 16 (paras. 0033-34, 0039).
Claims 9-10 only describe how the sensor is intended to be used; thus, the sensor above meets these claims.
Claims 11 and 19 describe the material intended to be used with the nozzle; thus, it fails to distinguish the nozzle of claim 1.
Obvious-Type Double Patenting Note
Due to the confusing claim scope, the Office cannot apply conflicting claims without conjecture. However, the following US patents claim seemingly similar subject matter to the instant claims: 11,865,779; 12,122,650; 12,186,983; 12,280,544; and 12,337,537.
Prior Art
The following prior art is also pertinent to ceramic extrusion or printing nozzles: US 20180200955; US 20170151704; US 20180027615; US 20200238621; US 20170100888; US 20160257068; US 20200324469; US 20140044822; US 20040217186; CN 103395973 A; US 20170252827.
The following prior art is also pertinent to ceramic extrusion nozzles with insulation around the heater and sensor: WO 2016/102669; US 2017/0361501; US 20120070523 (e.g. para. 0049); FR 3021581 A1 (Abstract); WO 2016187106 A1 (Abstract); US 10562226; US5893404.
The following prior art teaches use of radio frequencies, microwaves, ultrasound,
infrared, and plasma heaters with nozzles: US 20130089642; WO 2017152142
US 20190030602.
This is a CON of applicant's earlier Application No. 17/393,915. All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the invention claimed in the earlier application (that is, restriction (including lack of unity) would not be proper) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 MELODY TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-1846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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, Heather Calamita can be reached at 571-272-2876. 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.
/YUNG-SHENG M TSUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1684
Prosecution Insights