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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on August 4, 2025.
Claim 21 has been amended and is hereby entered.
Claim 34 has been cancelled. Claims 1 – 20, 22, 24, and 37 – 40 have been cancelled previously.
Claim 36 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected manufacturing system for making a multiple layer filament, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 8, 2022.
Claims 21, 23, 25 – 33, 35, and 41 – 45 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed August 4, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 21, 23, 25 - 33, 41 and 44 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuasa in view of Mapkar as set forth in the office action filed February 4, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed August 4, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 34 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuasa in view of Mapkar and further in view of Cohen as set forth in the office action filed February 4, 2025. Claim 34 has been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed August 4, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 42 and 43 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuasa in view of Mapkar and further in view of Bougher as set forth in the office action filed February 4, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed August 4, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 21, 23, 25 - 33, 41, 44 and 45 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuasa in view of Guillemette as set forth in the office action filed February 4, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 4, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Office has not set forth sufficient reason or rationale for one of the ordinary skill in the art to combine Yuasa and Mapkar to arrive at the present invention because Mapkar sets forth a laundry list of potential polymer components and nothing in either Yuasa or Mapkar motivates or guides a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the particular polyamide-imide polymer as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Mapkar teaches a list of potential polymers and that are all suitable for use as polymeric matrices containing filler material that are extruded and used in an additive manufacturing system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any of the polymers including the claimed polyamide-imide polymer for use as the thermoplastic material of Yuasa as Mapkar teaches that they are all predictably suitable for the application.
Applicant argues that the Office’s rejection with regards to Mapkar are a result of impermissible hindsight. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to incorporate the primer layer of Cohen into the multiple layer filament of Yuasa because Yuasa is trying to resolve moisture absorption, filament bending and surface quality whereas the primer layer of Cohen is directed at improving bonding and anchoring, which is not an issue that Yuasa is resolving. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yuasa teaches molded resin strands with multiple layers and Cohen teaches that in similar multiple layer filaments, a primer layer can assist with bonding and anchoring. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a primer layer in the structure of Yuasa to predictably improve bonding and anchoring between the layers as taught by Cohen.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 21, 23, 25 - 33, 35, 41 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuasa (US20180093413A1) in view of Mapkar (US20210189112A1) and Cohen (US10254499B1).
As per claims 21, 28, 35, and 41, Yuasa teaches:
A multiple layer filament comprising a core material having an outer surface and a first layer material disposed on the outer surface of the core material wherein the core material includes a thermoplastic filament wherein the first layer provides at least one functionality to the multiple layer filament (Abstract: “A molded resin strand includes a first layer containing thermoplastic resin, and a second layer covering the first layer and containing thermoplastic resin exhibiting physical properties different from those of the first layer.” The first layer is interpreted as the claimed core material. The second layer is interpreted as the claimed first layer. In the Abstract, Yuasa teaches that the resin strand is made of a thermoplastic resin and that the resin strand is continuously extruded, which is interpreted as producing a thermoplastic filament as claimed.)
Wherein the first layer includes a filler, wherein the filler includes at least one of… glass fiber… (In [0032], Yuasa teaches that the second layer can contain inorganic additives, such as glass fibers.)
Wherein the first layer react with other layers of the filament upon a stimulus in the form of at least one of: thermal… to improve Z-direction strength ([0053]: “Lamination deposition is performed by fusion between adjacent second layers. When the second layer can be made of resin having a beneficial effect on thermal fusion, a favorable fusion state can be realized, leading to formation of a highly-reliable three-dimensional object.” The highly-reliable three-dimensional object is interpreted as reading on the claimed improved Z-direction strength. Additionally, the fusion process of layer formation is described in [0020 – 0021] in the instant specification as filed as resulting in the improved z-direction strength. Since Yuasa teaches the same layer fusion process, it is reasonable to expect that the process of Yuasa would naturally result in the improved Z-direction strength.)
Yuasa teaches that as long as the thermoplastic resin is an extrudable material, any thermoplastic material can be used ([0032]). Yuasa does not teach:
Wherein the first layer is selected from at least one of the following materials: polycyclohexane dimethyl terephthalate glycol, polyarylether sulfone and polyamide-imide
Mapkar teaches a composite material for use as a deposition material in an additive manufacturing system including a polymer component and a filler component (Abstract). This material is extruded ([0011]). This is similar to the composition and process of making the fibers of Yuasa. Mapkar further teaches the polymer component may be chosen from a group consisting of polyamide-imide ([0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a polyamide-imide polymer as the resin of the fibers of Yuasa because Yuasa teaches the polymer may be any suitable extrudable material and Mapkar establishes that polyamide-imides are predictably suitable for polymeric matrices containing filler material that are extruded and used in an additive manufacturing system (Abstract & [0009 - 0011]). This polyamide-imide polymer will contain a carbonyl functional group as required by claim 41.
Yuasa does not teach:
A primer layer between the first layer and the second layer
Wherein the primer includes an active species that is one of charged, activated by electromagnetic waves, photoactive or heat active
The primer layer provides a compatibilizer between the first and second layers
Cohen teaches a multi-material additive material which contains a multilayer fiber (Column 3, Lines 19 – 24). Cohen teaches that a primer may be included and that the addition of primer can assist with bonding and anchoring (Column 53, Lines 23 – 30). In this way, a sublayer can be defined where the reactive portion of the layers are in contact with one another to read on the claimed primer layer. As the primer improves bonding and anchoring, it is interpreted as providing a compatibilizer as required by claim 35.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a primer layer between the layers of the filament of the prior art combination wherein the primer layer includes an active species as claimed, resulting in the compatibilizing between the layers motivated by the desire to predictably produce fibers with improved bonding and anchoring as taught by Cohen (Column 53, Lines 23 – 30).
As per claim 23, Yuasa teaches:
Wherein the core material includes at least one of a… glass fiber… (In [0034], Yuasa teaches that the first layer may include an inorganic additive, such as glass fibers.)
As per claim 25, Yuasa teaches:
Wherein the first layer material is a moisture vapor barrier layer ([0035]: “The second layer 22 can be made of a material containing water vapor barrier resin. In this case, the second layer 22 protects the first layer 21 to prevent moisture absorption of the first layer 21.”)
As per claim 26, Yuasa teaches:
Wherein the first layer incorporates at least one of an oxygen scavenger… (In [0032], Yuasa teaches that antioxidants can be mixed into the resins of the second layer. Antioxidants are interpreted as the claimed oxygen scavengers.)
As per claim 27, Yuasa teaches:
Wherein the first layer provides at least one of the following functionalities to the multiple layer filament…. mechanical strength…. (In [0033], Yuasa teaches that when the first layer is soft, the second layer is made of a hard material so that the second layer has the function of protecting the first layer to prevent bending of the first layer. This is interpreted as providing the claimed mechanical strength functionality to the filament.)
As per claim 28, Yuasa teaches:
Wherein the first layer includes at least one of a…..glass fiber (In [0032], Yuasa teaches that the second layer can contain inorganic additives, such as glass fibers.)
As per claims 29 – 33, in paragraph [0041] of the specification as filed, it is taught that the first and second layers can be made of the same materials. Therefore, the claimed second layer can be interpreted as a sublayer of the first layer, where the second layer is also made of the claimed polyamide-imide polymer with glass filaments and provides mechanical strength. This sublayer of the first layer will similarly act as a moisture vapor barrier layer as taught by Yuasa in [0033], and will contain antioxidants as taught by Yuasa ([0032]) to provide an oxidation barrier layer as claimed.
As per claim 44, in paragraph [0041] of the specification as filed, it is taught that the first and second layers can be made of the same materials. Therefore, the claimed second layer can be interpreted as a sublayer of the first layer, where the second layer is also made of the claimed polyamide-imide polymer will contain a carbonyl functional group that similarly reacts with other layers of the filament upon a thermal stimulus to improve Z-direction strength ([0053]).
Claims 42 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuasa (US20180093413A1) in view of Mapkar (US20210189112A1) and Cohen (US10254499B1) as applied to claims 21, 23, 25 - 33, 35, 41 and 44 above, and further in view of Bougher (US20200248014A1).
As per claim 42, the prior art combination does not teach:
Wherein the first layer further includes at least one of the following fillers: boron nitride sheets and boron nitride nanotubes
Bougher teaches thermally conductive polymer based filaments that contain a thermoplastic polymer and a thermally conductive filler (Abstract). These filaments are useful as thermally conductive 3D printing filaments (Fig. 1). Bougher teaches that the filler may be boron nitride nanotubes ([0052]). Bougher teaches that by adding boron nitride nanotube fillers to the filament, the resulting filament has a thermal conductivity of 5 W/m-K or more ([0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the claimed boron nitride nanotubes into the thermoplastic material of the prior art combination motivated by the desire to predictably produce a thermally conductive filament as taught by Bougher ([0052]).
As per claim 43, in paragraph [0041] of the specification as filed, it is taught that the first and second layers can be made of the same materials. Therefore, the claimed second layer can be interpreted as a sublayer of the first layer, where the second layer also contains the boron nitride nanotubes as claimed.
Claims 21, 23, 25 - 33, 35, 41, 44 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuasa (US20180093413A1) in view of Guillemette (US20170252967A9).
As per claims 21, 28, 35, 41, and 45 Yuasa teaches:
A multiple layer filament comprising a core material having an outer surface and a first layer material disposed on the outer surface of the core material wherein the core material includes a thermoplastic filament wherein the first layer provides at least one functionality to the multiple layer filament (Abstract: “A molded resin strand includes a first layer containing thermoplastic resin, and a second layer covering the first layer and containing thermoplastic resin exhibiting physical properties different from those of the first layer.” The first layer is interpreted as the claimed core material. The second layer is interpreted as the claimed first layer. In the Abstract, Yuasa teaches that the resin strand is made of a thermoplastic resin and that the resin strand is continuously extruded, which is interpreted as producing a thermoplastic filament as claimed.)
Wherein the first layer includes a filler, wherein the filler includes at least one of… glass fiber… (In [0032], Yuasa teaches that the second layer can contain inorganic additives, such as glass fibers.)
Wherein the first layer react with other layers of the filament upon a stimulus in the form of at least one of: thermal… to improve Z-direction strength ([0053]: “Lamination deposition is performed by fusion between adjacent second layers. When the second layer can be made of resin having a beneficial effect on thermal fusion, a favorable fusion state can be realized, leading to formation of a highly-reliable three-dimensional object.” The highly-reliable three-dimensional object is interpreted as reading on the claimed improved Z-direction strength. Additionally, the fusion process of layer formation is described in [0020 – 0021] in the instant specification as filed as resulting in the improved z-direction strength. Since Yuasa teaches the same layer fusion process, it is reasonable to expect that the process of Yuasa would naturally result in the improved Z-direction strength.)
Yuasa teaches that as long as the thermoplastic resin is an extrudable material, any thermoplastic material can be used ([0032]). Yuasa does not teach:
Wherein the first layer is selected from at least one of the following materials: polycyclohexane dimethyl terephthalate glycol
Guillemette teaches a material for 3D printer input with a core and sheath structure (Abstract). This material is extruded ([0001]). This is similar to the composition and process of making the fibers of Yuasa. Guillemette further teaches the polymer component may be chosen from a group consisting of polycyclohexane diethylene terephthalates ([0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a polyamide-imide polymer as the resin of the fibers of Yuasa because Yuasa teaches the polymer may be any suitable extrudable material and Guillemette establishes that polycyclohexane diethylene terephthalates are predictably suitable for polymeric materials that are extruded and used as a 3D printer input with a core and sheath structure (Abstract, [0001], & [0047]). This polycyclohexane dimethyl terephthalate glycol polymer will contain a carbonyl functional group as required by claim 41.
Yuasa does not teach:
A primer layer between the first layer and the second layer
Wherein the primer includes an active species that is one of charged, activated by electromagnetic waves, photoactive or heat active
The primer layer provides a compatibilizer between the first and second layers
Cohen teaches a multi-material additive material which contains a multilayer fiber (Column 3, Lines 19 – 24). Cohen teaches that a primer may be included and that the addition of primer can assist with bonding and anchoring (Column 53, Lines 23 – 30). In this way, a sublayer can be defined where the reactive portion of the layers are in contact with one another to read on the claimed primer layer. As the primer improves bonding and anchoring, it is interpreted as providing a compatibilizer as required by claim 35.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a primer layer between the layers of the filament of the prior art combination wherein the primer layer includes an active species as claimed, resulting in the compatibilizing between the layers motivated by the desire to predictably produce fibers with improved bonding and anchoring as taught by Cohen (Column 53, Lines 23 – 30).
As per claim 23, Yuasa teaches:
Wherein the core material includes at least one of a… glass fiber… (In [0034], Yuasa teaches that the first layer may include an inorganic additive, such as glass fibers.)
As per claim 25, Yuasa teaches:
Wherein the first layer material is a moisture vapor barrier layer ([0035]: “The second layer 22 can be made of a material containing water vapor barrier resin. In this case, the second layer 22 protects the first layer 21 to prevent moisture absorption of the first layer 21.”)
As per claim 26, Yuasa teaches:
Wherein the first layer incorporates at least one of an oxygen scavenger… (In [0032], Yuasa teaches that antioxidants can be mixed into the resins of the second layer. Antioxidants are interpreted as the claimed oxygen scavengers.)
As per claim 27, Yuasa teaches:
Wherein the first layer provides at least one of the following functionalities to the multiple layer filament…. mechanical strength…. (In [0033], Yuasa teaches that when the first layer is soft, the second layer is made of a hard material so that the second layer has the function of protecting the first layer to prevent bending of the first layer. This is interpreted as providing the claimed mechanical strength functionality to the filament.)
As per claim 28, Yuasa teaches:
Wherein the first layer includes at least one of a…..glass fiber (In [0032], Yuasa teaches that the second layer can contain inorganic additives, such as glass fibers.)
As per claims 29 – 33, and 44, in paragraph [0041] of the specification as filed, it is taught that the first and second layers can be made of the same materials. Therefore, the claimed second layer can be interpreted as a sublayer of the first layer, where the second layer is also made of the claimed polycyclohexane dimethyl terephthalate glycol polymer with glass filaments and provides mechanical strength. This sublayer of the first layer will similarly act as a moisture vapor barrier layer as taught by Yuasa in [0033], and will contain antioxidants as taught by Yuasa ([0032]) to provide an oxidation barrier layer as claimed. It will also contain a carbonyl functional group that similarly reacts with other layers of the filament upon a thermal stimulus to improve Z-direction strength ([0053]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on (571) 270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights