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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 14-26 are pending. The amendments to the drawings and specification do not constitute new matter and are entered in full. In view of the amendment, the objection to the drawings has been withdrawn. The prior art rejection is maintained and the double patenting rejection is maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 14, 16-18, and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hikmet (US 2020/0139634) in view of Weegen (Wo 2017/111577).
Regarding claim 14, Hikmet discloses, a filament path length measuring device for a fused filament fabrication (FFF) printing system (pressure sensor 720, [0063], Figs. 2A-C), the filament path length measuring device comprising: a housing comprising a first opening for passing through of the filament and a second opening opposite the first opening (upstream part 711, downstream part 712, [0063], Fig. 2B), a slider comprising a filament channel for passing through of the filament and an outer end adapted to connect to a first end of a flexible tube of the FFF printing system (upstream part 711 to downstream part 712, [0063], Fig. 2B), the slider slideably arranged in the housing (sliding moves force sensors 720 and changes distance d, [0063], Fig. 2B), and detect a change of position of the slider relative to the housing to obtain measurement data indicative of a path length change of the filament in the flexible tube (distance d may be used as a force-related parameter, [0063], Fig. 2B).
Hikmet teaches a device substantially as claimed. While Hikmet teaches a change of position of the slider relative to the housing to obtain measurement data indicative of a path length change of the filament in the flexible tube, Hikmet does not disclose at least one contactless sensor arranged to detect a change of position of the slider relative to the housing to obtain measurement data indicative of a path length change of the filament in the flexible tube.
However, in the solving the same problem of detecting means in a force sensor for a filament 3D printing (abstract, p. 4), Weegen teaches at least one contactless sensor arranged to detect a change of position of the slider relative to the housing (Hall sensor, p. 4, ll. 14-29).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hikmet to measure distance d with a Hall sensor because [0063] of Hikmet teaches “the distance, indicated with reference d, between the upstream part 711 and the downstream part 712 may be used as force-related parameter” and p. 4, ll. 14-29 of Weegen teaches that a Hall sensor would be predictably able to measure a distance in a force sensor in an additive manufacturing machine between the pressure sensors 720 and the downstream part 712 of the housing.
Regarding claim 16, Hikmet as modified teaches wherein the at least one contactless sensor comprises a Hall sensor (as modified, Weegen p. 4 ll. 14-29).
Regarding claim 17, Hikmet as modified teaches, wherein the at least one contactless sensor comprises two Hall sensors configured to interact with a single magnet mounted on the slider (as modified, Weegen p. 4 ll. 14-29, to the extent this differs from the presented prior art, it amounts to a duplication of parts, see MPEP 2144(VI)(B)).
Regarding claim 18, Hikmet as modified teaches an analog circuitry arranged to combine output signals of the two Hall sensors (as modified, Weegen p. 4 ll. 14-29, this is the circuitry to make a Hall sensor functional and necessary to feed it to control system C of Hikmet [0063]).
Regarding claim 21, Hikmet as modified teaches a fused filament fabrication (FFF) printing system [0005] comprising: a print head (printer head 501 ([0054], Fig. 2C); a feeder arranged to feed a filament into the print head (applicator 1575, [0063], Fig. 2C); a container for storing the filament on one or more filament spools (spool with filament, 572, Fig. 1A); a prefeeder arranged to feed the filament from the spools to the feeder (driver wheels 576 feed to applicator, [0056]); a first flexible tube for guiding the filament and comprising a first end and a second end (transport channel 710 with upstream part 711 (first end precedes upstream part) and downstream part 712, [0063], Fig. 2C); the filament path length measuring device of claim 14 (see claim 14 rejection, above); and a processing system arranged to receive measurement data and to control the prefeeder depending on the measurement data (force feedback mechanism, [0063]), wherein the second end of the flexible tube is adapted to connect to a connection point of the FFF printing system (downstream part 712 has the second end at the printer head 501, [0063]).
Regarding claim 22, Hikmet as modified teaches wherein the connection point is one of an upstream side of the feeder, a downstream side of the prefeeder, and a downstream side of a filament merger module ([0064], Fig. 2C).
Regarding claim 23, Hikmet as modified teaches a further processing system arranged to control the feeder and to communicate with the processing system (control system can control the applicator 1575, [0064]).
Regarding claim 24, Hikmet as modified teaches a direct drive print head assembly ([0016-17]), wherein the housing of the filament path length measuring device is mounted into the direct drive print head assembly (force sensor 720 downstream of print head 501 and upstream of printer nozzle 502, [0064]).
Regarding claim 25, Hikmet as modified teaches wherein the housing of the filament path length measuring device is mounted to an outer wall of the FFF printing system (as shown in Fig. 2C of Hikmet, the middle force sensor 720 is not free floating, and must inherently be mounted to a wall of the FFF printing system, at least indirectly to an outer wall).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hikmet (US 2020/0139634) in view of Weegen (Wo 2017/111577) as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Knox (US 20190375156).
Regarding claim 26, Hikmet teaches wherein the first flexible tube is curved, but does not further detail the shape and connection to other components (Fig. 2C). has an S-shape.
However, in the same field of endeavor of FFF ([0037], Knox teaches wherein the first flexible tube has an S-shape (filament tube 52, [0069], Fig. 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the device of Hikmet such that transport channel 710 with upstream part 711 and downstream part 712 has an S-shape because Hikmet is silent as to the shape beyond showing a curve in Fig. 2C and Fig. 6 of Knox shows an S-shape, with [0069] of Knox teaching that filament tube 52 is shaped and designed to force a filament through the tube with reduced force and avoiding tangles.
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 14-26 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,172,380. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each and every element of the present claims are recited in US 12,172,380.
Patentable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims along with the timely filing of a terminal disclaimer over US 12,172,380.
Claim 15 recites, “The filament path length measuring device of claim 14, further comprising a torsion spring having two arms, each arm arranged to counteract movement of the slider at a respective outer end of a stroke of the slider.”
The available prior art does not provide a teaching to suggest a torsion spring positioned to counteract movement as recited by claim 15 in a way that remedies the deficiencies of Hikmet in view of Weegen or to provide an alternative rationale.
Claim 19 recites, “The filament path length measuring device of claim 14, wherein the slider further comprises a number of fingers arranged around a central axis, wherein side walls of the fingers facing the central axis, together with structures arranged in the housing, define a channel for guiding the filament.”
Hikmet does not teach the recited fingers as claimed. The available prior art does not provide an alternative rationale for each and every element of claim 19, including the elements of parent claim 14.
Claim 20 recites patentable subject matter as it depends from claim 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed July 2, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14, 16-18, and 21-26 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Weegen (Wo 2017/111577).
Of note, some of Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Hikmet’s usage of distance d as a force-related parameter is unrelated to measuring a change in path length. This argument is belied by p. 1 of Applicant’s disclosure, “So, the slider will only experience lateral forces caused by a change of filament path length." Further details in p. 1 explain that a change in filament path length is a measure of force. This argument is accordingly unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination is flawed because Hikmet relies upon the force-sensing arrangement and that replacing the force sensing arrangement with a Hall sensor would not function. This argument is unpersuasive because that is not the modification. The force-sensing arrangement, when presented with different levels of force, changes distance d. Measuring a change in distance d, which is a filament path length change, with a Hall sensor, enables a calculation of the force changes, which matches the description in page 1 of Applicant’s disclosure.
Applicant argues that Hikmet provides no justification to measure distance d. This argument is not persuasive because [0063] of Hikmet teaches “For instance, the distance, indicated with reference d, between the upstream part 711 and the downstream part 712 may be used as force-related parameter. FIG. 2a also schematically shows an applicator 1575 configured to provide the filament 320 to the printer nozzle 502. When the force provided by the applicator is constant, the distance d will also be constant.” Accordingly, measuring changes in distance d enables the calculation of force that guides the controller.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are about Eller not teaching a Hall sensor as a linear displacement sensor. These deficiencies are remedied by replacement with Weegen (Wo 2017/111577) in the rejection above.
Regarding double patenting, Applicant does not present any contrary arguments. Accordingly, that rejection is maintained in full.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/ Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/John J DeRusso/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights