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
Amended patent claims 1-8 and 10-16 and new claims 18-19 are pending.
Improper Amendment
The amendment filed 15 July 2026 proposes amendments to the claims that do not comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b), which sets forth the manner of making amendments in reissue applications.
The claims do not show the deletions and additions added by the prior amendment. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.173(g), all amendments in the reissue application must be made relative to (i.e. vis-à-vis) the patent specification in effect as of the date of the filing of the reissue application. The patent specification includes the claims and drawings. See, for example, claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 15. See also MPEP 1453.V.E.
In reissue, the matter to be omitted by reissue must be enclosed in single brackets, not double-brackets and not strikethrough. See MPEP 1453.
New claims in reissue must be underlined in their entirety. MPEP 1453.II.
Further, in reissue each claim amendment must be accompanied by an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the amendment (i.e., support for all changes made in the claim(s), whether insertions or deletions). See 37 CFR 1.173(c).
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, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0003656 to LaBossiere et al. (hereinafter LaBossiere) in view of US 2016/0046081 to Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim ‘081).
PNG
media_image1.png
598
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
636
632
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 1, 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 [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. LaBossiere does not teach that the rate of rotation of at least one of the hobs is associated with a melting capacity of the melt zone.
Kim ‘081 teaches an additive manufacturing printer wherein a processor may control the filament movement speed in accordance with the temperature of the extruder. For example, Kim ‘081 discloses that the filament movement speed “may be increased at a higher temperature of the extruder.” See para [0074]. Further, the filament is fed by hobs 314a,314b and these hobs are controlled by drive motor 312, which is in turn controlled by processor 170. See paras [0089, 0106-0108]. Thus, the rate of rotation of the hobs is associated with a melting capacity (i.e. temperature) of the melt zone.
It would have been obvious to modify the printer motor of LaBossiere in the same manner, in order to maintain a consistent supply of extruded filament to the base 5 of LaBossiere, regardless of extruder temperature.
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 claim 6, LaBossiere teaches a motor incorporating an encoder may be used. See para [0039].
As to claim 18, the recitations therein are related to the use of the device and do not further limit the structure of the apparatus.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaBossiere and Kim ‘081 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 11,433,611 to Schroeder et al. (hereinafter Schroeder).
With respect to claim 3, 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 as modified by Kim ‘081 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 claim 5, 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.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaBossiere in view of US 2014/0265040 to Batchelder (hereinafter Batchelder).
LaBossiere is relied upon as set forth above. LaBossiere does not teach that the encoder is configured to detect slippage of the filament, wherein the speed of the motor is adjusted based on the detected slippage.
Batchelder, like LaBossiere, teaches an additive manufacturing system. Batchelder uses an encoder sensor that is used in combination with a velocimetry assembly for “providing one or more feed-forward and feedback control loops to compensate for filament feed variations” (para [0046]). The velocimetry assembly 68 may detect potential filament feed issues, such as filament slippage at the drive mechanism. See para [0100]. Thus, Batchelder uses sensors, including those from encoders, to determine filament slippage and compensate the feed accordingly. It would have been obvious to modify the additive manufacturing system of LaBossiere in the same manner in order to maintain a consistent supply of extruded filament to the base 5 of LaBossiere, regardless of filament feed variations.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaBossiere and Batchelder as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Schroeder.
With respect to claims 10 and 11, LaBossiere is silent as to a force adjustable threaded element on at least one hob 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 as modified by Batchelder 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 claim 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 and Batchelder as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kim ‘081.
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.
Claim(s) 15, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaBossiere in view of US 2016/0200024 to Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim ‘024).
With respect to claims 15 and 16, LaBossiere is relied upon as set forth above. LaBossiere does not teach that the motor is configured to dither the rotation of at least one of the hobs to mechanically oscillate the filament. Kim ‘024 discloses an extruder for a 3D printer wherein the motor is configured to vibrate the extruder in order to promote mobility of the feedstock into the extruder. See para [0053]. One or ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the motor of LaBossiere to induce vibration/oscillation of the feedstock in order to promote feed thereof.
As to claim 19, the recitations therein are related to the use of the device and do not further limit the structure of the apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest a print head speed response time of 1 kHz with a 2 microsecond slam stop.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Patent Owner argues with respect to the rejection of claim 1, that “Kim discloses temperature-based control of a filament feeder and cooling unit, but does not disclose associating a rate of hob rotation with a melting capacity of the melt zone.” The Examiner has determined the BRI of “melting capacity” is the temperature of the extruder because the higher the temperature of the extruder, the greater the capacity thereof to melt the filament. This is taught by Kim ‘081 along with controlling hob rotation/feed rate of the filament based upon the “melting capacity.”
As to the arguments concerning the rejection of claims 7 and 15, the amendments to these claims have necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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:
/Patricia L Engle/SPRS, Art Unit 3991
Prosecution Insights