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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the remarks and amendments filed on 6/1/26. Claims 1, 34, and 80 have been amended. Claims 5-8, 10-33, and 37-76 have been canceled. Claims 1-4, 9, 34-36, and 77-84 are pending rejection.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9, 34-36, and 77-84 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmer USPA_20130337256_A1 in view of Mikulak USPA_20120231225_A1 and Ahn “Anisotropic material properties of fused deposition modeling ABS”.
1. Regarding Claims 1-3, 9, 34-36, 77, 78, and 80-83 Farmer discloses a filament for use in extrusion-based additive manufacturing having a reinforcement portion with a higher melting point and higher crystallinity than the matrix portion. [0006, 0007]. The filament has a maximum diameter which less than 2 mm. [0021]. This range of filament size overlaps with the range of filament size recited in claim 1. Farmer also states that the output extrudate (element 4B in Fig. 5) can be thinner than the input and have a thickness as low as 0.1 mm [0056]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05 I). In one embodiment of Farmer, the filament comprises a reinforcement portion (1) comprising a collection of fibers with inter-fiber gaps [0065]. As the matrix portion (2) melts in the extrusion head, the melted material impregnates these inter-fiber gaps [0065]. This embodiment is formed by spinning and drawing a polymer under tension to form one or more reinforcement polymers with crystallites aligned with the length of the fibers [0045]. A core comprising a plurality of such fibers is then pulled through a heated ring along with a number of amorphous fibers or tows of fibers [0045, 0046]. As they are pulled through the heated ring, the amorphous fibers/tows melt and coalesce to form an annular sheath around the core and then cool and solidify to become bonded to the core [0046]. This clearly indicates that the input must conform to the nozzle in order for such pulling and towing to occur. The idea of basing the input size on the nozzle size is intuitive. It defies logic and common sense to select an input that is larger or smaller than the nozzle size as it wouldn’t fit in the nozzle properly. Finally, Farmer discloses using an electrically conducting wire surrounding the channel in the extrusion head that can selectively apply an electromagnetic field to the material within the channel (paragraph 0067); thereby meeting the claimed limitations of the independent claims of having differing conductive properties in the output extrudate than the solid extruded 3D printer input. Moreover, Farmer discloses laying its fibers in parallel with its filament (paragraphs 0023, 0024, 0048, 0065, 0066) such that it would seemingly impart enhanced mechanical properties in the output extrudate than the solid extruded 3D printer input, as is being claimed in the independent claims; similar to how Applicants have mentioned in paragraph 0264 of its pre-publication.
2. However, Farmer is silent regarding the filament comprising 12-1000 microlayers. Farmer also does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the layers being based on the 3D printer nozzle.
3. Mikulak discloses use of fused deposition modeling method (paragraphs 0038, 0126, 0131) comprising having a filaments for use in extrusion-based additive manufacturing systems that uses a multiple core/shell filament which uses different thermoplastic materials for said core and shell; thereby teaching the limitation of having a multitude of adjacent layers having different material properties (paragraphs 0032, 0033, 0071, 0104, 0105, 0108). Mikulak also discloses that the relative dimensions for shell diameter to core diameter are desirably selected such that the amount of the shell material that is extruded falls within a balanced range for use (paragraph 0061). This disclosure indicates how the input thickness can affect the extrudate thickness. This point is further fleshed out in greater detail (paragraphs 0062-0070). Also, Ahn discloses how in fused deposition modeling methods, that bead width, the thickness of the road that the FDM nozzle deposits and that the nozzle diameter affects the geometry of the bead/road which is controlled by the flow rate of material through the nozzle (i.e. the input/inlet) (Page 250; 1st column).
4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the FDM method of extrusion of Mikulak and Ahn to form a filament and to use the nozzle diameter to further calculate the desired geometry. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to obtain the ability to form desirable extrudate outputs.
5. The production of the filament of Farmer using the coextrusion method of Mikulak and Ahn would result in a filament having a diameter of less than 2 mm and comprising up to multiple layers in designed microlayer combinations. The filament would be capable of being used in a printer having a nozzle size that results in a deposited extrudate in which the thickness of the microlayers is reduced. As such, Farmer in view of Mikulak and Ahn render obvious the limitations of claim 1.
6. Regarding claim 4, the modification of Farmer with Mikulak and Ahn results in a filament made by microlayer coextrusion.
7. Regarding claims 79 and 84, multiple core/shell layers would overlap with the range of microlayers recited in claim 79.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/1/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants state: “Furthermore, both Farmer and Mikulak are silent on the properties changing due to the intended thickness and mechanical, optical, thermal, conductive and/or chemical properties of each of said microlayers or cross section microlayers of the output extrudate deposited on a substrate compared to the microlayers or cross section microlayers in the solid extruded 3D printer input base material.”
The Examiner respectfully submits that Farmer discloses using an electrically conducting wire surrounding the channel in the extrusion head that can selectively apply an electromagnetic field to the material within the channel (paragraph 0067); thereby meeting the claimed limitations of the independent claims of having differing conductive properties in the output extrudate than the solid extruded 3D printer input. Moreover, Farmer discloses laying its fibers in parallel with its filament (paragraphs 0023, 0024, 0048, 0065, 0066) such that it would seemingly impart enhanced mechanical properties in the output extrudate than the solid extruded 3D printer input, as is being claimed in the independent claims; similar to how Applicants have mentioned in paragraph 0264 of its pre-publication.
Conclusion
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 TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 June 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights