Reissue
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Claim Status
Patent claims 1-8 and 10-16 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 recites that “a feed rate from the two hobs to the interior chamber comprises a 1 kHz response time with a 2 microsecond slam stop.” However, the specification does not disclose that the feed rate is related to the response time or slam stop. Instead, the specification teaches that the print head speed may be improved to 100 mm3 and responsiveness may be improved “such as to a 1 kHz system response with a 2 microsecond slam stop.” See col. 4, lines 34-46. There is no disclosure that the responsiveness and slam stop is tied to the feed rate.
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 3 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.
In claim 3, “each pair of the hob halves” lacks positive antecedent basis as the hobs have not previously been claimed as having halves.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-8, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0003656 to LaBossiere et al. (hereinafter LaBossiere).
With respect to claims 1, 7, 8, and 15, LaBossiere teaches a print head 4 used for additive manufacturing using a print filament 38, comprising: a nozzle having an interior chamber 7 extending between first and second longitudinal ends thereof and providing a melt zone therein, wherein the print filament is fed into the first longitudinal end of the nozzle, then into the interior chamber where the print filament is heated in the melt zone, and is then extruded from the second longitudinal end 8 of the nozzle (Figure 1; para [0026]); two proximate hobs 30,26 suitable to receive and feed therebetween into the first longitudinal end the print filament for the additive manufacturing, and each of the two hobs providing a grip surface 52,54 for the print filament; and a motor 12 capable of imparting a rotation to at least one of the two hobs, wherein the extrusion results from the rotation. See para
PNG
media_image1.png
636
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
598
608
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[0013]; Figure 5.
Although LaBossiere discloses the drive hob 26 has a diameter of about 0.550 inch (13.97 mm), it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to increase the diameter of the hobs to a range of 20-40 mm when using larger diameter filaments, in order to provide a sufficient gripping length therefor.
As to claim 2, LaBossiere discloses that motor 12 may be a servo motor with an output drive shaft 45 for driving the drive roller. See para [0039].
With respect to claims 6 and 16, LaBossiere teaches a motor incorporating an encoder may be used. See para [0039].
Claim(s) 3, 5, 10, 11, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaBossiere as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of US 11,433,611 to Schroeder et al. (hereinafter Schroeder).
With respect to claims 3, 10, and 11, LaBossiere is silent as to a shim to provide a predetermined grip level by the grip surface on the filament. Schroeder discloses a dual hob drive for a filament wherein a shim 170,154 acts on hob 134 to adjust the spacing between hobs 132,134, assuring sufficient force is applied to the filament. See col.4, line 40 to col.5, line 67. The shim may include a threaded element and a spring-loaded cam. See col.5, lines 35-48. It would have been obvious to one in the art to provide a shim for at least one of the hobs of LaBossiere in order to assure sufficient force is applied to the filament particularly as LaBossiere discloses the importance of maintaining pressure on the filament. See para [0040].
As to claims 5 and 13, LaBossiere does not show the distance between the hobs and the melt zone. However, Schroeder teaches an extruder wherein the melt zone 106 receives the filament directly from hobs 132,134. See Figure 2. It would have been obvious to a POSITA to optimize the distance between the hobs and the melt zone of LaBossiere, in the manner of Schroeder, in order to reduce the size of the extruder.
With respect to claim 14, LaBossiere teaches that an encoder may be associated with the motor. See para [0039]. An encoder is a sensor that senses rotation of the shaft (and therefore the hobs) attached to the motor.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaBossiere as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US 2016/0046081 to Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim).
LaBossiere does not disclose an air feed for cooling. Kim, however, teaches an additive manufacturing printer wherein a cooling fan (air feed) 332 is used to cool the filament feeder, “to prevent heat from the heating unit 320 from being transferred to the filament feeder 310 or the vicinity thereof.” See para [0087]. As a cooling unit prevents unwanted melting of the filament within the hob drive and thus, damage of the hobs, it would have been obvious to add a cooling unit fan to the print head of LaBossiere.
Conclusion
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 12,103,233 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH L MCKANE whose telephone number is (571)272-1275. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6:30a-4:30p 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, Patricia Engle can be reached at 571-272-6660. 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.
/ELIZABETH L MCKANE/Specialist, Art Unit 3991
Conferees:
/LEE E SANDERSON/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3991
/Patricia L Engle/SPRS, Art Unit 3991
Prosecution Insights