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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4,10-13, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Swanson et al. (2012/0070523).
Regarding claim 1, Swanson et al. discloses a heating element for a 3D printer nozzle 66, comprising:
At least one sheath comprising a first inner diameter and a first outer diameter, the at least one sheath sized to engage around an outer circumference of the 3D printer nozzle (para 49 and fig. 3); and
At least one wire coil 77 contacting the first inner diameter of the at least one sheath and communicative with an energy source (inherent) capable of heating the at least one wire coil (para 49 and fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Swanson et al. discloses wherein the at least one sheath slides at least substantially over the at least one wire coil (fig. 3 and para 49).
Regarding claim 4, Swanson et al. discloses wherein the at least one wire coil is at least one nichrome wire coil (para 49).
Regarding claim 10, Swanson et al. discloses wherein the at least one wire coil comprises at least two wire coils (para 49).
Regarding claim 11, Swanson et al. discloses wherein the at least two wire coils correspond directly to multiple heating zones (para 49).
Regarding claim 12, Swanson et al. discloses wherein the at least two wire coils are at least partially staggered along a longitudinal axis of the 3D printer nozzle (para 49).
Regarding claim 13, Swanson et al. discloses a resistance temperature detector within the sheath and in contact with the 3D printer nozzle (par 95-96).
Regarding claim 15, Swanson et al. discloses the at least one sheath comprises one of a press fit, a plasma, vapor deposit, a plating, and a rolled foil (para 49).
Regarding claim 16, Swanson et al. discloses at least one resistance sensor embedded in the at least one sheath which is capable of sensing a resistance change in the at least one wire coil as indicative of a level of heating delivered to the 3D printer nozzle (para 95-96).
Regarding claim 17, Swanson et al. discloses a heating element for a 3D printer nozzle 66, comprising:
At least one sheath comprising a first inner diameter and a first outer diameter, the at least one sheath sized to engage around an outer circumference of the 3D printer nozzle (para 49 and fig. 3); and
At least one nichrome wire coil 77at least partially contacting the first inner diameter of the at least one sheath and communicative with an energy source (inherent) capable of heating the at least one wire coil (para 49 and fig. 3).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mills (2019/0372449).
Regarding claim 2, Swanson et al. does not teach wherein eh energy source is a servo motor. However, Mills teaches an inductively coupled heater comprises a single retractable coil. The coil may be moved along the vertical axis by an actuator such as one of a servomotor-driven actuator (para 740). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Swanson et al. with the servomotor coupled to the heating wire coil as taught by Mills since Mills teaches that the sue of servomotor to generate power in a heater coil is known in the art.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Parsche (2013/0180980).
Regarding claim 5, Swanson et al. does not teach wherein the at least one sheath comprises a wet winding. However, Parsche teaches a spirally wound electrical conductor is secured by an adhesive (para 75). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use wet winding in the process of Swanson et al. since Parsche taches that wet winding is a routine technique in the art for securing a coil.
Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a ceramic wet winding since Swanson et al. teaches that ceramic alloys is a material that is capable of withstanding the thermal environment of build chamber 12 (para 57).
Claim(s) 7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mark et al. (2014/0328963).
Regarding claim 7, Swanson et al. does not teach the energy source is radiative. However, Mark et al. teaches a 3D printer nozzle 10 which is heated by a band heater or coil heater (para 91). Mark et al. further teaches the heater may be a radiant heater (para 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a radiative heating element in the nozzle of Swanson et al. since Mark et al. teaches that radiant heater is known in the art of liquefiers.
Regarding claim 20, Mark et al. teaches wherein the energy source comprises at least one of a radiative energy source (para 91 and 10).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Swanson et al. (2012/0018924).
Regarding claim 8, Swanson et al. does not teach a dielectric insulator between the at least one wire coil and the outer circumference of the 3D printer nozzle. However, Swanson ‘924 teaches a dielectric simulator 184 between the at least one wire coil 140a, 140b and an outer diameter of the 3D printer nozzle 138 (fig. 4, para 40, and claim 7, 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Swanson et al. with a dielectric simulator in order to electrically insulate the wire coil and the 3D printer nozzle.
Regarding claim 9, Swanson et al. teaches wherein the dielectric insulator provides at least one of enhanced thermal coupling, redistribution of heat, and insulation from overheating (inherent).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson et al. (2012/0070523).
Regarding claim 14, Swanson et al. does not teach wherein the energy source comprises at least one thermocouple. However, Swanson et al. teaches the use of thermocouples for monitoring the temperature of the liquefier assembly for a 3D printer nozzle (para 96). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use thermocouple as the energy source since Swanson et al. teaches that electrical connection 609 interconnects sensor 608 with an external electronic unit (para 95).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bruggeman et al. (WO2016/102669).
Regarding claim 18, Swanson et al. does not teach wherein the energy source is alternating current. However, Bruggeman et al. teaches using an alternating voltage or currently supply as the energy source for the wire coil (see page 7, line 1-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Swanson et al. with alternating current since Bruggeman et al. teaches that alternating current is routinely used for heating up wire coil in the art of 3D printer nozzle.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stirling et al. (US 9,596,720).
Regarding claim 19, Swanson e al. does not teach wherein the energy source is direct current. However, Stirling et al. teaches that resistance heaters are supplied with direct current or alternating current (col. 1, line 55-col. 2, line 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill int eh art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use direct current as the energy source since Stirling et al. teaches that direct current is an alternative way of providing energy to resistance heating elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUE H LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5522. The examiner can normally be reached 1PM - 10PM.
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 5702721176. 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.
/X.H.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
