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
Claim 4, 10, 12, 13, and 15-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 21, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I and Species 1-A and II-B (claims 1-3, 5-9, 11, and 14) in the reply filed on May 21, 2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11, and 14 are examined.
Claims 4, 10, 12, 13, and 15-20 are withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The term “superhard material” is interpreted in line with the instant specification in ¶ [0021] as “polycrystalline diamond, polycrystalline cubic boron nitride, material exhibiting a hardness that is equal to or greater than tungsten carbide, and/or a combination of any of the foregoing”.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 and 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 9, line 2 – “the diameter” should read “a diameter” as “diameter” is newly introduced and not previously recited
claim 11, line 2 – “the shape” should read “a shape” as “shape” is newly introduced and not previously recited
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Prevost (US 2020/0362956 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Prevost discloses an extruder driver gear (¶ [0041] – worm gear 303) comprising: a hub (FIG. 7 depicts a hub of 303 around gear axle 324) configured for coupling to a torque transmitting component (¶ [0041] – 303 coupled to 324); a gear body (¶ [0041] – gear body 308) connected to the hub (FIG. 7 depicts the hub connected to the body 308 of 303); and a plurality of filament gripping teeth (¶ [0041] – plurality of teeth 306) extending radially from the gear body (FIG. 7 depicts 306 extend radially), the plurality of filament gripping teeth comprising a superhard material (¶ [0041] – first gear tooth surface 314 of worm gear 303 includes polycrystalline diamond surfaces 322).
PNG
media_image1.png
600
743
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prevost FIG. 3A
The limitation “filament gripping” recites a manner of operating the device for an intended use. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP § 2114 (II).
As Prevost discloses that the worm gear has teeth, the worm gear is capable of performing the intended use of “filament gripping.” The limitation does not add further structure to the claimed apparatus and thus because the worm gear in Prevost is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the limitations as claimed.
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.
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(s) 1-2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batchelder (US 2011/0076495 A1) in view of Prevost (US 2020/0362956 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Batchelder discloses an extruder driver gear (¶ [0061] – drive wheel 58) comprising: a hub (FIG. 5 depicts a hub of 58) configured for coupling to a torque transmitting component (¶ [0061] – filament drive mechanism 56 includes 58, ¶ [0066] – rotation of 58 apply axial pressures to filament and drives filament into liquefier); a gear body (FIG. 5 depicts gear body of 58) connected to the hub (FIG. 5 depicts the hub connected to the body of 58); and a plurality of filament gripping teeth (¶ [0061] – plurality of teeth 64) extending radially from the gear body (FIG. 5 depicts 64 extend radially).
PNG
media_image2.png
773
387
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Batchelder FIG. 5
The limitation “filament gripping” recites a manner of operating the device for an intended use. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP § 2114 (II).
As Batchelder discloses that the drive wheel has teeth, the drive wheel is capable of performing the intended use of “filament gripping.” The limitation does not add further structure to the claimed apparatus and thus because the drive wheel in Batchelder is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the limitations as claimed.
Batchelder discloses teeth 64 may be coated with one or more low-surface energy coating materials, suitable coating materials include diamond-like carbon materials, and combinations thereof (¶ [0062]).
Batchelder does not disclose the plurality of filament gripping teeth comprising a superhard material.
Analogous art Prevost discloses a worm gear 303 coupled to gear axle 324 comprising plurality of teeth 306 (¶ [0041]).
Prevost further discloses the plurality of filament gripping teeth comprising a superhard material (¶ [0041] – first gear tooth surface 314 of worm gear 303 includes polycrystalline diamond surfaces 322).
Batchelder and Prevost disclose apparatuses with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to gears with teeth and diamond coating/surfaces. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the polycrystalline diamond surfaces of the teeth in Prevost to the teeth in Batchelder to exhibit a reduced occurrence of gear failures, including bending fatigue, contact fatigue, wear, cuffing, overload, and cracking (¶ [0062]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Batchelder discloses the extruder driver gear of claim 1.
Batchelder further discloses wherein the hub is configured for attachment to the torque transmitting component of an extruder of a three-dimensional (3D) printer (¶ [0035] – system 10, which is an extrusion-based manufacturing system, ¶ [0041] – layer-based additive technique).
Regarding claim 9, modified Batchelder discloses the extruder driver gear of claim 1.
Batchelder further discloses an outer diameter of the gear body is less than or equal to ten times the diameter of a filament for which the extruder driver gear is intended to grip (FIG. 5 depicts the outer diameter of 58 about three times the diameter of the filament 34; therefore, the outer diameter of 58 is less than ten times the diameter of 34).
PNG
media_image3.png
773
387
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Batchelder FIG. 5
The limitation “an outer diameter of the gear body is less than or equal to ten times the diameter of a filament for which the extruder driver gear is intended to grip” recites a manner of operating the device for an intended use. See MPEP § 2114 (II).
The limitation “a filament for which the extruder driver gear is intended to grip” recites the material or article worked upon by the apparatus. Applicant is reminded material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP § 2115.
Batchelder further discloses providing a suitable contact surface area for a drive mechanism to apply axial pressure to the surface of the filament (¶ [0057-0058]). Examples of the surface diameter of the filament are disclosed in (¶ [0055]).
Regarding the limitation “an outer diameter of the gear body is less than or equal to ten times the diameter of a filament for which the extruder driver gear is intended to grip”, Batchelder discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not explicitly disclose diameters of the drive wheel to the filament. As the drive control over the filament is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the contact surface area from the diameter of the drive wheel and filament and the pressure applied to the filament, with said increasing in contact surface area from the diameter of the drive wheel and filament and pressure increasing the frictional grip and decrease the occurrence of sliding friction, the diameters of the drive wheel and filament would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed diameters of the drive wheel and filament cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the contact area of the diameters of the drive wheel and filament in the apparatus of Batchelder to obtain the desired drive control over the filament (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Batchelder (US 2011/0076495 A1) in view of Prevost (US 2020/0362956 A1), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Koop (US 2014/0159273 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Batchelder discloses the extruder driver gear of claim 1.
Batchelder does not explicitly disclose wherein the gear body is connected to the hub by at least one of solder, braze, an adhesive, or a mechanical connection.
Analogous art Koop discloses a filament drive mechanism comprising first and second drive shafts including engagement surfaces for engaging a filament therebetween (¶ [0058]). Engagement surface may include different textures, such as diamond knurling, and the like (¶ [0062, 0065]).
Koop further discloses wherein the gear body is connected to the hub by at least one of an adhesive (¶ [0060] - drive shaft 102 includes coupling segment 108 secured within an opening 106 of capstan gear 76, such as with frictional fitting, welding, adhesives and the like).
Batchelder and Koop disclose an apparatus with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to filament extrusion using drive wheels/shafts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the securing of the capstan gear with the drive shaft with an adhesive in Koop to the drive wheel in modified Batchelder to allow rotation of capstan gear around axis to correspondingly rotate drive shaft in the same rotational direction (¶ [0060]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Batchelder discloses the extruder driver gear of claim 1.
Batchelder does not disclose wherein the hub comprises a torque transmission gear.
Koop discloses wherein the hub comprises a torque transmission gear (¶ [0061] – gear 66 of motor 58, allows drive shaft 102 and capstan gear 76 to freely rotate under the rotational power from 66).
Batchelder and Koop disclose apparatuses with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to filament extrusion using drive wheels/shafts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the gear of a motor to drive the drive shaft and capstan gear in Koop to the drive wheel in Batchelder to correspondingly engage filament drive mechanism to rely the rotational power (¶ [0051]) and allow drive shaft and capstan gear to freely rotate under the rotational power from the gear (¶ [0061]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Batchelder (US 2011/0076495 A1) in view of Prevost (US 2020/0362956 A1), as applied to claim 1, or, in the alternative, as obvious over Batchelder (US 2011/0076495 A1) in view of Prevost (US 2020/0362956 A1) in view of Chapman (US 7464973 B1)
Regarding claim 11, modified Batchelder discloses the extruder driver gear of claim 1.
Batchelder discloses wherein the plurality of filament gripping teeth each comprise a curved edge shaped to conform to the shape of a filament (FIG. 5 depict teeth 64 with curved edges).
In arguendo modified Batchelder does not disclose a curved edge, Chapman is applied.
Analogous art Chapman discloses traction control devices comprising contact surfaces fixed to a cylinder base (c. 4, L. 66 – c. 5, L. 9).
Chapman further discloses wherein the plurality of filament gripping teeth each comprise a curved edge shaped to conform to the shape of a filament (c. 5, L. 58-60 – cylindrical contact surface with a conical contact surface with a rounded tip).
Batchelder and Chapman disclose apparatuses with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to feeding wheels comprising diamond surfaces. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the conical contact surface with a rounded tip in Chapman to the drive wheel in Batchelder to induce profiles for enhanced gripping and improved wear characteristics (Abstract).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batchelder (US 2011/0076495 A1) in view of Prevost (US 2020/0362956 A1), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Palmaers (US 2022/0024131 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Batchelder discloses the extruder driver gear of claim 1.
Batchelder does not explicitly disclose wherein the hub is comprised of a metal.
Analogous art Palmaers discloses a filament feed system 900 and a first rotatable component 10 (¶ [0145-0146]; FIG. 6). A coating can be applied to increase the service life, for example a hard coating that offers good resistance to wear (¶ [0265]).
Palmaers discloses wherein the hub is comprised of a metal (¶ [0265] – rotatable components may be made of brass, steel, hardened steel, aluminum alloys, titanium, or titanium alloys).
Batchelder and Palmaers disclose apparatuses with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to a feed system using gears comprising a diamond/superhard material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the rotatable components made of brass, steel, hardened steel, aluminum alloys, titanium, or titanium alloys in Palmaers to the drive wheel in Batchelder to increase service life (¶ [0265]) and to achieve accurate throughput speed (¶ [0011]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Batchelder discloses the extruder driver gear of claim 1.
Batchelder does not explicitly disclose wherein the hub is comprised of at least one of tungsten carbide, nickel-iron alloy, steel, or brass.
Palmaers discloses wherein the hub is comprised of at least one of steel or brass (¶ [0265] – rotatable components may be made of brass, steel, hardened steel).
Batchelder and Palmaers disclose apparatuses with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to a feed system using gears comprising a diamond/superhard material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the rotatable components made of brass, steel, or hardened steel in Palmaers to the drive gear Batchelder to increase service life (¶ [0265]) and to achieve accurate throughput speed (¶ [0011]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batchelder (US 2011/0076495 A1) in view of Prevost (US 2020/0362956 A1), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Meier (US 2022/0275686 A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Batchelder discloses the extruder driver gear of claim 1.
Modified Batchelder does not disclose wherein the plurality of filament gripping teeth are formed entirely from at least one of polycrystalline diamond, polycrystalline cubic boron nitride, or silicon carbide.
Meier discloses an apparatus including a body including one or more body thread that are configured to interact with the one or more threads to threadedly attach to the body (¶ [0005]).
Meier further discloses the plurality of filament gripping teeth (¶ [0023] – one or more threads of a polycrystalline diamond body) are formed entirely from at least one of polycrystalline diamond (¶ [0023] - polycrystalline diamond body).
Batchelder and Meier disclose apparatuses with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to teeth/threads using diamond surface/surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the threads of polycrystalline diamond in Meier to the teeth of the drive wheel in Batchelder because the threads improve attaching the PCD body to the component compared to other conventional methods of attaching (¶ [0024]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batchelder (US 2011/0076495 A1) in view of Prevost (US 2020/0362956 A1), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Chen (CN 106401484 B1, an English machine translation is provided with this Office Action).
Regarding claim 5, modified Batchelder discloses the extruder driver gear of claim 1.
Batchelder does not disclose wherein the extruder driver gear, including the hub, the gear body, and the plurality of filament gripping teeth, is formed entirely from at least one of cemented carbide substrate bonded to polycrystalline cubic boron nitride or cemented carbide substrate bonded to polycrystalline diamond.
Analogous art Chen discloses roller cones that rotates and provided with teeth (¶ [0014]).
Chen further discloses wherein the extruder driver gear, including the plurality of filament gripping teeth, is formed entirely from at least one of cemented carbide substrate bonded to polycrystalline diamond (¶ [0016] – PDC teeth made by sintering diamond micro powder and cemented carbide substrate).
Batchelder and Chen disclose apparatuses with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to rollers/wheels with teeth comprising diamond. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the PDC teeth made by diamond micro powder and cemented carbide substrate in Meier to the teeth of the drive wheel in Batchelder because it combines the high hardness and wear resistance of diamond with the strength and toughness o cemented carbide, making them ideal for manufacturing wear-resistant tools (¶ [0017]).
Modified Batchelder does not explicitly disclose the extruder driver gear, including the hub, the gear body, and the plurality of filament gripping teeth is formed entirely from at least one of cemented carbide substrate bonded to polycrystalline diamond. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to apply PDC and cemented carbide substrate in Chen to the worm gear, including the body, hub, and teeth in Prevost to combines the high hardness and wear resistance of diamond with the strength and toughness of cemented carbide, making them ideal for manufacturing wear-resistant tools (¶ [0017]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP H04103275 U discloses a rotating shaft comprising of a rotor using a covering of cemented carbide
CN 201224133 Y discloses a wheel comprising of a war-resistant tooth tip made of cemented carbide or PCD
CN 204035437 U discloses a fixing filament plate has a surface comprising carbide layers, tungsten carbide with extreme hardness
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN B WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-5191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/JONATHAN B WOO/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights