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 .
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) 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mire et al. (US 2017/0190118), hereinafter Mire, in view of Schlachter (US 2016/0318247).
Regarding claim 1, Mire discloses a 3D printing apparatus comprising: (a) a material extrusion unit (e.g., Fig. 4) designed to move a piston (105) in a primary direction, pressurize a printing material stored within a material capsule (104) (Figs. 1-4; par. 0040-0044), and extrude the printing material (par. 0030); and
(b) a capsule fixing unit (including at least first end piece 402) positioned beneath the material extrusion unit and coupled to the capsule, ensuring that the inner storage space of the capsule is aligned with the piston (105) (as shown, Fig. 4),
wherein the material capsule comprises:
a body designed in a columnar shape (as shown, a syringe, which has a shape of a column) with an open top surface with an inner storage space formed therein (as shown, Fig. 4); and
a nozzle (116) is attached to the bottom surface of the body (not labeled in Fig. 4, shown in Fig. 1), through which the printing material is discharged; and
The “printing material” is considered to be the article or material worked upon by the claimed structure, and as such, is not directly limiting to the claim. See MPEP 2115. However, this element is not explicitly disclosed.
Additionally or alternatively regarding the biopolymer, Schlachter discloses a 3D printing device which includes a biopolymer (Schlachter, par. 0055, 0095) which demonstrates that such a material was known in the art for use with a similar type of extrusion 3D printing head. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have specified that the material within the capsule is a biopolymer as is claimed.
Furthermore, regarding “a thermal module disposed in the body and configured to heat the printing material stored in the inner storage space of the body,” as now amended in claim 1, Schlachter describes in par. 0057 that the material can be heated or cooled within the reservoir of the printing unit as to allow for the desired flowability of the material. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have specified that the material is heated within the reservoir body of Mire above, before deposition as to have caused the material to flow from the extruder.
Regarding claims 2-4, Mire/Schlachter discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and the extrusion unit comprises: a motor (“extruder motor” – Mire, par. 0008); a piston rod (107) (par. 0031) disposed under the motor and configured to rotate (par. 0043) by receiving power from the motor (implied); and a pressurizing unit configured to pressurize the printing material by moving the piston in the first direction by rotation of the piston rod (par. 0008, 0042, 0051), and a movable member (“movable plunger gripper” 403) (par. 0041, Fig. 4) connected to the rotation shaft (“extruder motor threaded screw” 408) and configured to move in a first or second direction as a result of the rotation of the shaft (par. 0043)
Regarding claim 5, Mire/Schlachter discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the material capsule comprises a coupling plate (as shown in Fig. 4, coupling at first end piece 402), and wherein the capsule fixing unit comprises: (i) an upper fixing unit to which the coupling plate is coupled (“first end piece” 402); (ii) a lower fixing unit (frame 102) that is spaced apart from the upper fixing unit (Fig. 1) and is where the capsule (104) (Figs. 1-2) is disposed and the nozzle (116) is inserted; and a connecting unit coupled to each of one side of the upper and lower fixing unit (part of frame 102).
Regarding claim 6, Mire/Schlachter discloses the subject matter of claim 5, and further discloses that the upper fixing unit (“first end piece” 402) comprises a first plate and a second plate spaced apart from the first plate (Fig. 4) with an insertion hole (as shown) for the material capsule to be inserted, and a connecting plate (as shown in Fig. 1) connecting the first and second plates.
Regarding claims 7-8, Mire/Schlachter discloses the subject matter of claim 6, and further discloses that the lower fixing unit is in a hexahedral shape (see Mire, Fig. 1) with an open top surface and side surface with a hole into which the capsule/nozzle are placed (see Figs. 1-2 and 4).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 12, Mire/Schlachter discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses the use of a material curing unit (laser 60) (Schlachter, par. 0060) which can be microwave or UV (par. 0060). With respect to the thermal module, Schlachter, par. 0057 describes a hot end (heated printed surface 12) and a heater within the body or reservoir as outlined in claim 1 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument focuses upon the thermal module element in claim 1, which Applicant argues is not taught in the prior art.
In response, Examiner points at par. 0057 of Schlachter, which appears to suggest this feature with respect to the reservoir of an extruder, explaining that it helps the material to be heated as to properly flow from the device. Examiner reasons that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found this obvious in view of the teachings of Mire and Schlachter as outlined above. It is noted that limitations from the specification are not read directly into the claims (see p. 10, Remarks).
Accordingly, the rejections are maintained as updated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See also Courval et al. (US Patent No. 5,204,045), hereinafter Courval, which also shows the heaters on the outside of the body of the die (Fig. 3) in multiple locations.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW D GRAHAM whose telephone number is (469)295-9232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM (CST).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/ANDREW D GRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights