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 amendment filed 07/29/2025 is entered. Claims 153-154 are been amended. Claims 1-129 remain canceled. Accordingly, claims 130-155 remain pending and are the claims addressed and examined below.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 153-154 overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Office action mailed 04/29/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/2025 (“Remarks”) have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons explained below.
Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejections
First, Applicant argues element 206 in BOYER is not a “heated extrusion nozzle.” Remarks at 4. In support of this position, Applicant argues:
Nozzle 206 in Boyer (though Boyer calls it a "nozzle") is not a "heated extrusion nozzle" as claimed, but merely the outlet aperture in the extrusion head 202. To the extent there is an element analogous to the claimed heated extrusion nozzle in Boyer, it is extrusion head 202. Extrusion head 202 is where material is received, heated and extruded through the opening 206. (Compare the "heated extrusion nozzle 10" in present Fig. 8, referred to throughout).
Element 206 is not a "heated extrusion nozzle" because it is not the element being heated but only the outlet. Rather, the entire extrusion head is heated (see Boyer [0016], [0017] and [0025] describing heating the extrusion head). Therefore, in making this rejection, the Examiner is picking and choosing aspects of the Boyer, identifying the most downstream element of the heated extrusion nozzle in Boyer as the "nozzle" itself, rather than appreciating the scope of the Boyer reference as it would be interpreted by a person skilled in the art.
Remarks at 4. (emphasis in original) These arguments are not found persuasive. Respectfully, even if BOYER’s nozzle is merely an outlet aperture in the extrusion head, this structure still reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “nozzle” is “a short tube with a taper or constriction used (as on a hose) to speed up or direct a flow of fluid” (“Nozzle.” Merriam-Webster.com, Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. November 2025). This understanding is consistent with the disclosure of BOYER, which explains reference character 206 as nozzle 206 (BOYER at [0025] “extruder 200 of a three-dimensional printer may include an extrusion head 202 with a feed 204 and a nozzle 206, along with any suitable heating elements or the like as described above”, Fig. 2). Hence, Applicant’s characterization is inconsistent not only with the understanding of a person having ordinary skill in the art but also with the disclosure of BOYER.
Additionally, annotated Fig. 2 from BOYER, relied upon in the rejections set forth in the 04/29/2025 Office action, is provided below to further illustrate the definition of a nozzle provided in BOYER as well as Merriam-Webster dictionary, so as to dispute Applicant’s allegation that “the Examiner is picking and choosing aspects of the Boyer, identifying the most downstream element of the heated extrusion nozzle in Boyer as the "nozzle" itself, rather than appreciating the scope of the Boyer reference as it would be interpreted by a person skilled in the art.”
PNG
media_image1.png
468
629
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
444
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., element 206 is not a “heated extrusion nozzle” because it is not the element being heated but only the outlet) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim recitation “a heated extrusion nozzle” does not necessarily require the extrusion nozzle to include a heater; rather, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a heated extrusion nozzle” includes an extrusion nozzle that is directly or indirectly heated so as to create heat sufficient to melt the build material for extrusion (i.e., if there was no indirect heating to nozzle 206 in BOYER, as asserted by Applicant, then there would not be sufficient heat to melt the build material for extrusion).
Regarding Applicant’s characterization that extrusion head 202 of BOYER is analogous and comparable to “heated extrusion nozzle 10” in present Fig. 8, this is narrower than the scope of the claims as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.01 (II) (explaining “[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitation that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.") (annotation and emphasis added)
Next Applicant argues BOYER does not teach a guide tube “upstream” of the nozzle.
Because the "nozzle" is not identified correctly, the Office Action makes a similar mistake
identifying a tube "upstream" of the nozzle. The Office Action identifies a "tube" that is inside the extrusion head. The extrusion head 202 in Boyer has a feed 204 and an outlet 206 (Boyer, paragraph [0025]). The extrusion head 202 in Boyer is simply the nozzle structure to which material is provided to be melted and extruded and there is no tube "upstream" of it, only a cutter 208, directly adjacent the heated extrusion nozzle. Importantly, Boyer must have the cutting occur at the feed of the extrusion head so that there is no interruption in providing the different feed materials to the extruder.
Remarks at 4. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Given the discussion above, nothing in the claim language precludes the “tube” that is inside the extrusion head 202 in BOYER from reading on the claimed “at least one of a tube or a channel positioned upstream of the heated extrusion nozzle.” This is further evident in annotated Fig. 2 of BOYER, provided in the 04/29/2025 Office action and below, as it depicts the heated extrusion nozzle 206 located downstream of the at least one of a tube or a channel.
PNG
media_image1.png
468
629
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant makes similar arguments surrounding claim 155. Remarks at 4–5. Specifically, Applicant alleges:
Similar arguments are made with respect to independent Claim 155, which similarly recites a heated extrusion nozzle and a feeding mechanism constructed and arranged to feed a core reinforced filament. In claim 155 the cutting mechanism is recited as being constructed and arranged "to cut the core reinforced filament at a location upstream from the heated extrusion nozzle, wherein the cutting mechanism is not positioned directly adjacent to the heated extrusion nozzle." On inspection, filament changer 208 in Boyer is a cutting mechanism and it is adjacent the extrusion head, and it functions to provide the different build materials to the extrusion head "without interruption". For at least these reasons, claim 155 is not anticipated by Boyer.
Remarks at 4–5. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. BOYER’s nozzle 206 is located downstream of extrusion head 202 such that extrusion head 202 is located between the heated extrusion nozzle 206 and the filament changer 208 (i.e., cutting mechanism), indicative that the heated extrusion nozzle 206 is not positioned directly adjacent to the heated extrusion nozzle.
Lastly, Applicant argues BOYER does not teach a feed mechanism constructed and arranged to feed a core reinforced filament into the … tube … and the heated extrusion nozzle.
Claim 130 recites a feeding mechanism constructed and arranged to feed a core
reinforced filament into the at least one of the tube or the channel and the heated extrusion nozzle. Claim 133 further recites wherein the core reinforced filament includes a core including at least one axial fiber strand extending within a matrix material surrounding the core.
The core reinforced filament is an important aspect of Applicant's claimed apparatus, and
business. Applicant Markforged is a pioneer in the development of 3D printing systems employing such media. Under ordinary canons of claim construction, a feeding mechanism "constructed and arranged to feed a core reinforced filament into the at least one of the tube or the channel and the heated extrusion nozzle", is interpreted as a feed mechanism capable of performing the function. Indeed, the Office Action offers: "Boyer is interpreted to be capable of working on the particular material recited in the claim." (OA page 5). However, Applicant disagrees that Boyer teaches any feed mechanism. And reference to "any suitable plastic, thermoplastic or other material that can usefully be extruded:" hardly suggests a continuous filament reinforced material. Applicant submits that the addition of a feed mechanism adapted for continuous filament prepreg would should be considered under obviousness rather than anticipation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument that BOYER fails to teach any feed mechanism, it is noted that BOYER discloses a first feed 210 and a second feed 212 that receive a first build material 214 and a second build material 216, where each of the feeds 210 and 212 has an independent feed drive motor so that the filament can be fed into a drive motor of the extruder in a controlled manner (BOYER at [0026]). Thus, BOYER does in fact disclose a feeding mechanism constructed and arranged to feed a filament into the at least one of the tube or channel upstream of the heated extrusion nozzle.
As discussed in MPEP § 2114, "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Moreover, it is the Examiner's assessment, absent evidence to the contrary, that the prior art applied would be capable of meeting the recited material worked upon at the time of the invention. See MPEP § 2115 " A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." (quotes and citation omitted).
The structural elements positively recited in claim 130 with regards to the feeding mechanism are few, and applicant has included functional limitations by reciting the feeding mechanism is “constructed and arranged to feed a core reinforced filament into the at least one of the tube or channel and the heated extrusion nozzle.” The examiner does not interpret the functional language provided by applicant to impart any particular structure to the device of a feeding mechanism and Applicant’s argument does not set forth any particular structure that would distinguish the claimed feeding mechanism from that of BOYER. As BOYER teaches all of the structural limitations positively recited by the claim, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
For at least the reasons set forth above, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive and the rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 102(a)(2) are maintained.
Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections
Regarding claim 138, Applicant disagrees that Boyer teaches cutting upstream of the heated extrusion nozzle. Filament changer 208 in Boyer is positioned at the feed of the extrusion head/nozzle 202 and is specifically placed there so that filament is provided to the extrusion head "without interruption" when materials are changed. Jang does not contemplate changing feed materials in a like manner, nor is it suggested to perform a "filament change" with core-reinforced prepreg, if this could even be done. Moreover, Jang teaches its own location for cutting between build material sections, and the PTAB, in its decision of February 27, 2025 reversing the prior final office action suggested that a combination of Jang with (albeit a different) secondary reference should consider "how the proposed relocation of the position at which Jang's prepreg is tow is cut 'would ultimately impact the function of Jang' [s] [apparatus]'. In sum, the claimed invention would not have been obvious in view of the combined disclosures of Boyer and Jang, if those references are understood in their entirety, for all that they teach a person having ordinary skill in the art. Remarks at 7.
In response to applicant's argument that JANG does not contemplate changing feed materials as in BOYER nor is it suggested to perform a “filament change” with core-reinforced prepreg, and a combination with JANG should consider “how the proposed relocation of the position at which Jang’s prepreg tow is cut would ultimately impact the function of Jang’ [s] [apparatus]”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). JANG is merely being relied upon to remedy the material being a core reinforced filament being fed into an extruder. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
For at least the reasons set forth above, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive and the rejections under 35 USC 103 are maintained.
Moreover, regarding claims 152-154, Applicant submits that the concept of the dragging force and its use, in combination with the filament handling mechanisms, to prevent buckling of the prepreg tow and otherwise improve the build process (see paragraphs [0168]-[0169]) is unique to the Markforged methods and apparatus. The "reasonable expectation of success" alleged in the Office Action is based on nothing, because the "dragging force" is inferred from a document which does not even relate to additive manufacture, much less to 3D printing using a core-reinforced filament. Remarks at 8.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Specifically, in the 04/29/2025 Office action, the Examiner stated that the obviousness of utilizing press down rollers as discussed in LEWIS in the process of modified BOYER is based on the fact that both LEWIS and modified BOYER are related to a head dispensing composite filaments to build a structure on a substrate/mandrel surface layer-by-layer, and by utilizing the known technique in LEWIS each composite filament/strip is accurately and precisely positioned in the formation of a composite part. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that depositing material from a head in a layer-by-layer manner is in fact related to additive manufacturing and 3D printing.
For at least the reasons set forth above, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive and the rejections under 35 USC 103 are maintained.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 130-133 and 155 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by BOYER et al. (US 2014/0034214; of record in the IDS filed 09/23/2019).
As to claim 130: BOYER discloses the claimed three-dimensional printer (i.e., printer 100) (BOYER at [0013], [0025], Fig. 1, Fig. 2) comprising:
a heated extrusion nozzle (i.e., extrusion nozzle 206; where the extruder includes heating elements such as coils of resistive wire wrapped about the extruder, one or more heating blocks with resistive elements to heat the extruder with applied current, an inductive heater, or any other arrangement of heating elements suitable for creating heat within the chamber sufficient to melt the build material for extrusion) (BOYER at [0013], [0016], [0025], Fig. 1, Fig. 2 – see the annotated version provided below);
at least one of a tube or channel (i.e., tube/channel 202) positioned upstream of the heated extrusion nozzle (i.e., extrusion nozzle 206) (BOYER at Fig. 2 – see the annotated version provided below);
a feeding mechanism constructed and arranged to feed a core reinforced filament into the at least one of the tube or the channel and the heated extrusion nozzle (i.e., independent feed drive motors for respective feeds 210 and 212) (BOYER at [0025], [0026], Fig. 2 – see the annotated version provided below); and
a cutting mechanism constructed and arranged to cut the core reinforced filament at a location between the feeding mechanism and the at least one of the tube or the channel upstream of the heated extrusion nozzle (i.e., filament changer 208 slides horizontally over a blade or other cutting edge to cut one of the build materials 214 or 216; Fig. 2 illustrates the filament changer 208 being located upstream of the heated extrusion and not positioned directly adjacent to the heated extrusion nozzle 206) (BOYER at [0025], [0026], Fig. 2 – see the annotated version provided below).
PNG
media_image3.png
454
600
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 131: BOYER discloses the three-dimensional printer of claim 1 above. BOYER further discloses the claimed wherein the location is between the heated extrusion nozzle and the feeding mechanism (BOYER at Fig. 2 – see the annotated version provided above).
As to claim 132: BOYER discloses the three-dimensional printer of claim 1 above. BOYER further discloses the claimed wherein the core reinforced filament includes a core including at least one axial fiber strand extending within a matrix material surrounding the core, given BOYER discloses that the device is capable of working upon any suitable plastic, thermoplastic or other material that can usefully be extruded to form a three-dimensional object (BOYER at [0015]). As the claim is directed towards the apparatus of a 3D printer, the device of BOYER is interpreted to be capable of working upon the particular material recited in the claim. See MPEP 2115.
As to claim 133: BOYER discloses the three-dimensional printer of claim 1 above. BOYER further discloses the claimed three-dimensional printer further comprising a print head including the heated extrusion nozzle and a shaping nozzle, as BOYER discloses that the device is in an overall print head (BOYER at Fig. 1), and includes an extruder tip 124 that includes an exit port with a cross-sectional profile that extrudes build material in a desired cross-sectional shape (BOYER at [0015], Fig. 1).
As to claim 155: BOYER discloses the claimed three-dimensional printer (i.e., printer 100) (BOYER at [0013], [0025], Fig. 1, Fig. 2) comprising:
a heated extrusion nozzle (i.e., extrusion nozzle 206; where the extruder includes heating elements such as coils of resistive wire wrapped about the extruder, one or more heating blocks with resistive elements to heat the extruder with applied current, an inductive heater, or any other arrangement of heating elements suitable for creating heat within the chamber sufficient to melt the build material for extrusion) (BOYER at [0013], [0016], [0025], Fig. 1, Fig. 2 – see the annotated version provided below);
a feeding mechanism constructed and arranged to feed a core reinforced filament into the heated extrusion nozzle (i.e., independent feed drive motors for respective feeds 210 and 212) (BOYER at [0025], [0026], Fig. 2 – see the annotated version provided below); and
a cutting mechanism constructed and arranged to cut the core reinforced filament at a location upstream from the heated extrusion nozzle, wherein the cutting mechanism is not positioned directly adjacent to the heated extrusion nozzle (i.e., filament changer 208 slides horizontally over a blade or other cutting edge to cut one of the build materials 214 or 216; Fig. 2 illustrates the filament changer 208 being located upstream of the heated extrusion and not positioned directly adjacent to the heated extrusion nozzle 206) (BOYER at [0025], [0026], Fig. 2 – see the annotated version provided below).
PNG
media_image4.png
454
600
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 134-137 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOYER as applied to claim 133 above, and further in view of JANG et al. (US 5,936,861; of record).
As to claim 134: BOYER discloses the three-dimensional printer of claim 133 above. BOYER fails to disclose the claimed wherein the print head further includes a cold-feed zone located between the feeding mechanism and the heated extrusion nozzle and the location is between the cold-feed zone and the feeding mechanism.
However, in a similar field of endeavor of filament based additive manufacturing, JANG teaches that a suitable filament for forming an object through extrusion-based filament 3D printing includes a core reinforced filament comprised of an axial multifilament strand core and a matrix material surrounding the multifilament strand (JANG at column 4, lines 28-47). JANG teaches that such reinforced material can be advantageous for example in printing a portion with a reinforced matrix and printing a portion with a different dispensing head to produce a portion of only the matrix material (JANG at column 4, lines 28-47). JANG teaches optional cooling means 236 being attached to the flow passage to rapidly cool down and tentatively solidify the resin before the resin-impregnated tow enters the area that houses the rollers 226 (JANG at column 11, line 62 – column 12, line 6; FIG. 5).
The location of JANG’s optional cooling means 236 would necessarily result in the claimed wherein cutting the core reinforced filament at the location includes cutting the core reinforced filament between a cold-feed zone of a print head a feeding mechanism feeding the core reinforced filament given JANG states that tentatively thermally-solidified resin-impregnated tow can be more effectively pulled by the rollers 226 as compared to a tow of fibers coated with a resin in a substantially liquid state (JANG at column 12, lines 3-6; FIG. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized a core reinforced filament being cooled by cooling means attached to the flow passage to rapidly cool down and tentatively solidify the resin before the resin-impregnated tow enters the area that houses the feed rollers as discussed in JANG in the process of BOYER as both relate to filament based additive manufacturing in which BOYER teaches using any suitable filament material presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and the inclusion of core reinforcements allows for varying the properties of the resulting part (JANG at column 3, lines 35-63) advantageously and following the motivation of BOYER to use different materials; and the use of cooling means enables the tentatively thermally-solidified resin-impregnated tow to be more effectively pulled by the rollers as compared to a tow of fibers coated with a resin in a substantially liquid state (JANG at column 12, lines 3-6; FIG. 5).
As to claim 135: BOYER and JANG teach the three-dimensional printer of claim 134 above. BOYER further discloses the claimed wherein the print head is configured to extrude a first compatible consumable material (i.e., first build material 214 and second build material 216; wherein, the filament changer 208 may be configured to receive and select among any number of additional build materials (in filaments or other form) for feeding to the extruder 200, and to controllably select one of the build materials for extrusion under control of a processor or other control signal source) (BOYER at [0026], [0027]).
As to claim 136: BOYER and JANG teach the three-dimensional printer of claim 135 above. BOYER further discloses three-dimensional printer further comprising a second print head configured to extrude a second compatible consumable material (i.e., first build material 214 and second build material 216; wherein, the filament changer 208 may be configured to receive and select among any number of additional build materials (in filaments or other form) for feeding to the extruder 200, and to controllably select one of the build materials for extrusion under control of a processor or other control signal source; and two separate extruders may be alternately positioned along the tool path with similar affect) (BOYER at [0026], [0027]).
As to claim 137: BOYER discloses the three-dimensional printer of claim 130 above. BOYER fails to disclose the claimed three-dimensional printer further comprising a coextrusion die configured to impregnate a core element with matrix material.
However, JANG remains as introduced and applied in claim 134 above; therefore, JANG teaches the claimed three-dimensional printer further comprising a coextrusion die configured to impregnate a core element with matrix material (JANG at FIG. 1 – die element 10A, 10B), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 134, with the added benefit of die element 10A, 10B promoting resin impregnation.
Claims 138-146 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOYER et al. (US 2014/0034214; of record in the IDS filed 09/23/2019) in view of JANG et al. (US 5,936,861; of record).
As to claims 138-140: BOYER discloses the claimed method for manufacturing a part (i.e., method for three-dimension fabrication) (BOYER at Claim 1, Fig. 1), the method comprising:
feeding, with a feeding mechanism (i.e., independent feed drive motors for respective feeds 210 and 212) (BOYER at [0025], [0026], Fig. 2 – see the annotated version provided below), a first material 214 or second material 216 into a heated extrusion nozzle (i.e., nozzle 206) and at least one of a tube or a channel upstream of the heated extrusion nozzle (i.e., tube/channel 202) (BOYER at Fig. 2 – see the annotated version provided below); and
cutting the core reinforced filament at a location between the feeding mechanism and the at least one of a tube or a channel upstream of the heated extrusion nozzle (i.e., filament changer 208 slides horizontally over a blade or other cutting edge to cut one of the build materials 214 or 216; Fig. 2 illustrates the filament changer 208 being located upstream of the heated extrusion nozzle) (BOYER at [0025], [0026], Fig. 2 – see the annotated version provided below).
PNG
media_image4.png
454
600
media_image4.png
Greyscale
BOYER teaches that the material of either filament may be selected from any number of additional build materials (BOYER at [0027]) and any suitable plastic, thermoplastic or other material that can usefully be extruded to form a three-dimensional object (BOYER at [0015]). BOYER also teaches that the materials can be different to impart different properties in a fabricated object (BOYER at [0029]). Though, BOYER does not explicitly teach the use of a core reinforced filament.
In a similar field of endeavor of filament based additive manufacturing, JANG teaches that a suitable filament for forming an object through extrusion-based filament 3D printing includes a core reinforced filament comprised of an axial multifilament strand core and a matrix material surrounding the multifilament strand (JANG at column 4, lines 28-47). JANG teaches that such reinforced material can be advantageous for example in printing a portion with a reinforced matrix and printing a portion with a different dispensing head to produce a portion of only the matrix material (JANG at column 4, lines 28-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized a core reinforced filament as discussed in JANG in the process of BOYER as both relate to filament based additive manufacturing in which BOYER teaches using any suitable filament material presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and the inclusion of core reinforcements allows for varying the properties of the resulting part (JANG at column 3, lines 35-63) advantageously and following the motivation of BOYER to use different materials.
As to claim 141: BOYER and JANG teach the method of claim 140 above. JANG further teaches the claimed method further comprising heating the core reinforced filament, with the heated extrusion nozzle, to a temperature sufficient to flow the matrix within the core reinforced filament (i.e., in the use of thermoplastic matrix the nozzle is heated to a temperature above the solidification temperature; any nozzle with heating means to melt down the matrix filaments and wet up the fiber surface can be utilized) (JANG at column 5, lines 38-51; column 11, lines 20-23; FIG. 8B).
As to claim 142: BOYER and JANG teach the method of claim 141 above. JANG further teaches the claimed method further comprising shaping the matrix material and the at least one axial fiber strand of the core reinforced filament with the heated extrusion nozzle in a location between the heated extrusion nozzle in a location between the heated extrusion nozzle and a build surface opposing that of the print head (i.e., dispensing a mixture of reinforcement fibers and a matrix material at a controlled rate from a dispensing head onto a substrate or base member is carried out via a dispensing motion which is a predetermined pattern that is dictated by the shape of an object to be formed) (JANG at column 4, lines 15-21).
As to claim 143: BOYER and JANG teach the method of claim 141 above. BOYER further teaches the claimed method further comprising depositing a first compatible consumable material with the print head (i.e., first build material 214 and second build material 216; wherein, the filament changer 208 may be configured to receive and select among any number of additional build materials (in filaments or other form) for feeding to the extruder 200, and to controllably select one of the build materials for extrusion under control of a processor or other control signal source) (BOYER at [0026], [0027]).
As to claim 144: BOYER and JANG teach the method of claim 143 above. BOYER further teaches the claimed method further comprising depositing a second compatible consumable material with a second print head (i.e., first build material 214 and second build material 216; wherein, the filament changer 208 may be configured to receive and select among any number of additional build materials (in filaments or other form) for feeding to the extruder 200, and to controllably select one of the build materials for extrusion under control of a processor or other control signal source; and two separate extruders may be alternately positioned along the tool path with similar affect) (BOYER at [0026], [0027]).
As to claim 145: BOYER and JANG teach the method of claim 138 above. JANG further teaches the claimed method further comprising impregnating, with a coextrusion die, a core element with matrix material (JANG at FIG. 1 – die element 10A, 10B promotes resin impregnation).
As to claim 146: BOYER and JANG teach the method of claim 138 above. BOYER, modified by JANG, further teaches the claimed wherein cutting the core reinforced filament at the location includes cutting the core reinforced filament between a cold-feed zone of a print head a feeding mechanism feeding the core reinforced filament, as JANG teaches optional cooling means 236 being attached to the flow passage to rapidly cool down and tentatively solidify the resin before the resin-impregnated tow enters the area that houses the rollers 226 (JANG at column 11, line 62 – column 12, line 6; FIG. 5).
The location of JANG’s optional cooling means 236 would necessarily result in the claimed wherein cutting the core reinforced filament at the location includes cutting the core reinforced filament between a cold-feed zone of a print head a feeding mechanism feeding the core reinforced filament given JANG states that tentatively thermally-solidified resin-impregnated tow can be more effectively pulled by the rollers 226 as compared to a tow of fibers coated with a resin in a substantially liquid state (JANG at column 12, lines 3-6; FIG. 5).
Claims 147-154 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOYER and JANG as applied to claim 138 above, and further in view of LEWIS et al. (US 4,696,707; of record).
As to claim 147-151: BOYER and JANG teach the method of claim 138 above. BOYER, modified by JANG, fails to disclose the claimed method further comprising applying a compaction pressure to the core reinforced filament at the heated extrusion nozzle.
However, in a similar field of endeavor of composite tape placement using a tape laying head, LEWIS teaches a multi-axis tape laying machine having a tape laying head for depositing multiple courses of composite tape side by side upon a mandrel having a complex receiving surface, with multiple adjacent courses of tape defining a ply or layer upon the lay surface, and a laminated structure of complex contour is built up from a succession of each plies, each laid upon the previous one (LEWIS at column 2, lines 13-20; FIG. 1). LEWIS defines a composite to be materials comprising a multiplicity of filaments embedded in a matrix of thermosetting resin (LEWIS at column 1, lines 10-19).
Moreover, LEWIS teaches composite tape strips in a semitacky condition are adhered in adjacent courses to the surface of the mandrel by the tape laying head; where the tape laying head carries a supply of the composite tape on a supply reel from which it travels around a direction change idler roller and then in a straight line diagonally downwardly to a set or press-down rollers which apply the tacky composite tape to the mandrel lay surface as one course of the first ply, and a multiplicity of courses and plies are built upon the mandrel to form the laminated article such that each ply takes the shape of the underlying surface (LEWIS at column 4, lines 36-46; FIGs.1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized press down rollers as discussed in LEWIS in the process of modified BOYER as both relate to a head dispensing composite filaments to build a structure on a substrate/mandrel surface layer-by-layer presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and doing so is the use of a known technique to improve similar devices and methods in the same way in order to ensure each composite filament/strip is accurately and precisely positioned in the formation of a composite part.
As to claims 152-154: BOYER, JANG and LEWIS teach the method of claim 149 above. LEWIS further teaches the claimed wherein the step of adhering the compacted core reinforced filament further comprises a step of applying a dragging force using the printhead to the core reinforced filament (i.e., once a predetermined amount of a tape course is laid, the drag or adhesion of the tape course to the surface will cause the tape to be drawn out as the tape head is moved) (LEWIS at column 5, lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the application of a dragging force to draw out the tape as the head is moved as such is known in the art of dispensing composite filaments to build a structure on a substrate/mandrel surface layer-by-layer given the discussion of LEWIS above, presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is the use of a known technique to improve similar devices and methods in the same way, with the added benefit of doing so allowing for the tape to follow its natural path without stretching or puckering while being laid (as recognized by LEWIS at column 2, lines 21-31).
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 BAILEIGH K. DARNELL whose telephone number is (469)295-9287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, MST.
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, Galen H. Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/BAILEIGH KATE DARNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743