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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01 December 2022 was filed prior to the mailing date of this office correspondence. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 10 November 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10 November 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4 and 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 8: “wire deposition components 122” should read:
-- wire deposition components --
In claim 1, line 9: “positioning components 124 that includes” should read:
-- positioning components that include --
In claim 4, line 1, “wherein the wire metal core is approximately between 1 µm to 500 µm.” should read:
-- wherein the wire metal core diameter is between 1 µm to 500 µm. --
In claims 8-9, the limitation: “ferromagnet” should read:
-- ferromagnetic material --
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 1, line 11, “a mechanism that activates the adhesive coating”
In claim 5, “a control module configured to control the wire plotting platform”
In claim 6, “the control module is configured to integrate the actuation of the applicator head with actuation of a base platform”
The claim limitation(s) has/have been presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it/they meet(s) the following 3-prong analysis:
(A) The claim limitation(s) use the phrase “means for” or “step for” or a generic replacement. Prong A is met because: the claim element “mechanism in claim 1 and “control module” in claims 5-6, which are generic place holder for “means”.
(B) The “means for” or “step for” is modified by functional language: Prong B is met because: the generic place holder “mechanism that activates”, and “control module” are modified by functional language “configured to control”.
(C) The phrase “means for” or “step for” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for achieving the specified function. Prong C is met because: the claim element “mechanism” and “control module” are not further modified by sufficient structure of material for performing the claimed function “activates the adhesive coating” in claim 1, “control the wire plotting platform” in claim 5 and “configured to integrate the actuation of the applicator head” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the limitation in lines 11-12, “a bonding module, comprising a mechanism that activates the adhesive coating, such that the wire anneals to itself or to other components” renders claim indefinite because it is unclear what does “activates the adhesive coating such that the wire anneals to itself” mean. One of ordinary skill in the art would have known from the recited limitations in lines 3-5 “a wire comprising an interior metal core and an adhesive coating” that, the wire comprises an adhesive coating. If so, it is unclear what does “activates adhesive coating” mean. Further, the recited limitation “a wire plotting platform, that shapes and deposits the wire in a moving region of wire deposition”, reads that the wire comprising an adhesive coating is deposited in the moving region of a plotting platform. Therefore, it is unclear how “a mechanism that activates the adhesive coating” anneals wire to itself. What does “the wire anneals to itself or to other components” mean. If the wire comprising an interior metal core and an adhesive coatings, what does the “other components” mean. Furthermore, the recited preamble “a system for an additive platform for a wire-wound power transmission construct” is confusing because a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the “additive platform” as, a stage or a flat horizontal surface that is usually higher than the adjoining area: such as a raised flooring. See, merriam-webster.com.
As best understood, it appears that the limitation “a bonding module, comprising a mechanism that activates the adhesive coating, such that the wire anneals to itself or to other components” actually intends that a bonding module, comprising a heating mechanism that thermally activates the adhesive coating of the wire such that the disposed wire bonds to a previously disposed wire segment, or the like.
In claim 2, the limitation “the wire anneals to itself or to other components” renders claim indefinite because of the above reasons.
In claim 6, the limitation “the control module is configured to integrate the actuation of the applicator head with actuation of a base platform” is confusing. What does “integrate the actuation of the applicator head” mean. Would it be a control module moves the applicator head in a third direction or the like?
Claims 2-11 depend on claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-11 are rejected.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mark (US 20140291886).
Regarding claim 1, Mark teaches, a system for an additive platform (three dimensional printer, see annotated Fig. 1 below) for a wire-wound power transmission construct (three dimensional printing processes may be used to…construct a part with inductors, capacitors, antennae, transformers, para. [0253]) comprising:
[AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (wire disposition components)][AltContent: textbox (wire plotting platform)]
PNG
media_image1.png
527
707
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1, Mark.
a wire (filament 2, Fig. 1) comprising:
an interior metal core (core 6, Fig. 1, appropriate core filaments include those materials which impart a desired property, such as structural, conductive (electrically and/or thermally), para. [0136], the core is made from copper or another appropriate electrically or optically conductive material, para. [0148]) and
an adhesive coating (polymer 4, a polymer 4 that coats or impregnates an internal continuous core 6, para. [0141]);
a wire plotting platform (build platen 16), that shapes and deposits the wire in a moving region of wire deposition (after being heated in the heated extrusion nozzle 10, the continuous core reinforced filament 2 is extruded onto a build platen 16 to build successive layers 14 to form a final three dimensional structure, para. [0143]), comprising:
wire deposition components
positioning components
a bonding module (heated extrusion nozzle 10 and the heating mechanism, Fig. 1, para. [0142]), comprising a mechanism (suitable heater may be employed to heat the nozzle, para. [0142]) that activates the adhesive coating, such that the wire anneals to itself or to other components, in the region of wire deposition concurrent to deposition of the wire (extrusion temperature is greater than the melting temperature of the polymer 4, but is less than the decomposition temperature of the resin and the melting or decomposition temperature of the core 6…After being heated in the heated extrusion nozzle 10, the continuous core reinforced filament 2 is extruded onto a build platen 16 to build successive layers 14 to form a final three dimensional structure, para. [0142-0143]).
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.
Claim(s) 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiao (US 20170145586).
[AltContent: textbox (laser module)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
376
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2, Xiao.
Regarding clam 2, though, Mark teaches selective laser sintering, Mark does not explicitly teach a laser module directed at the region of wire deposition, enabled to heat the wire. However, Xiao teaches an additive manufacturing system in Figs. 1 and 2, including a coated wire 20, a wire plotting platform 12 and bonding module, in which, the system of claim 1, wherein the bonding module comprises a laser module (laser system 54 and 56, see annotated Fig. 2), directed at the region of wire deposition, enabled to heat the wire (material 20, material 20 may include powders, solid wires, cored wires, tubular wires, coated wires, para. [0014]) such that the wire anneals to itself or to other components in the region of deposition (controller 32 may also control a power source 34...provided to the additive manufacturing tool 16 to melt the one or more materials 20 into the droplets 18…, the power source 34 may include, but is not limited to,…laser, para. [0018]). Therefore, in view of the teachings of Xiao, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the additive manufacturing system of Mark and to replace the heating system in Fig. 1 with a laser module as Xiao taught in Fig. 2 so that it enables to selectively heating and/or melting the wire coating and the wire metal core at a desired temperature.
Regarding clam 3, Mark in view of Xiao teaches the recited limitations with respect to claim 2. Mark further teaches, the system of claim 2, wherein the wire plotting platform includes a feeding mechanism (see annotated Fig. 10 below, feed material, which in this example is a continuous core reinforced filament 2a,…is removed from a spool 38 and passed through a feeding mechanism, Figs. 8 and 10, para. [0161]) that draws the wire and feeds it to a plotting head (printer head 70, see Fig. 10 below) of the wire plotting platform.
[AltContent: textbox (base platform)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (feed mechanism)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (plotting head)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (applicator head)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
526
726
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 10, Mark.
Regarding clam 4, Mark in view of Xiao teaches the recited limitations with respect to claim 2. Mark further teaches, the system of claim 2, wherein the wire metal core is
Regarding clam 5, Mark in view of Xiao teaches the recited limitations with respect to claim 2. Mark further teaches, the system of claim 2, further comprising a control module (controller 20, Fig. 1) configured to control the wire plotting platform wherein an applicator head (extrusion nozzle 10, see annotated Fig. 10) of the wire plotting platform deposits the wire in a 2D winding pattern (extrusion nozzle 10 may be controlled by a controller 20 to deposit the continuous core reinforced filament 2 in the desired location and direction… controller 20 may use the sensed X, Y, and/or Z positions and movement information to control subsequent movements of the heated extrusion head or platen, para. [0143]).
Regarding clam 6, Mark in view of Xiao teaches the recited limitations with respect to claim 5. Mark further teaches, the system of claim 5, wherein the system further comprises a third degree of freedom (X, Y, and/or Z positions and movement information, para. [0143]), wherein the control module is configured to integrate the actuation of the applicator head with actuation of a base platform (see platen 16, annotated Fig. 10), enabling construction of a 3D winding pattern (controller 20 may use the sensed X, Y, and/or Z positions and movement information to control subsequent movements of the heated extrusion head or platen…a laser range finder 15, or other appropriate sensor, is used to scan the section ahead of the heated extrusion nozzle in order to correct the Z height of the nozzle, para. [0143]).
Regarding clam 7, Mark in view of Xiao teaches the recited limitations with respect to claim 2. Mark further teaches, the system of claim 2, wherein the wire further comprises an insulating layer (the multi-element printer head would lift, while commensurately extruding the conductive core and insulating jacket, para. [0243]) situated on the exterior of the metal core (Note: Mark teaches insulating jacket, which is exterior to the metal core).
Regarding clams 8-9, modified Mark does not teach a ferromagnet. However, Xiao further teaches, the system of claim 2, wherein
Claim 8. The metal core comprises a ferromagnet (material 20 supplied by the feeder 22 may be one of a variety of metallic materials that include,…nickel, para. [0014], Note: nickel is a ferromagnetic material).
Claim 9. The system of claim 9, wherein the ferromagnet comprises mu-metal (see nickel para. [0014] Note: nickel is a mu-metal).
Therefore, in view of the teachings of Xiao, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the additive manufacturing system of Mark and to replace the filament 2 in Fig. 1 with a coated nickel wire as Xiao taught in Fig. 2 that it enables in manufacturing a high magnetic permeability transformer core.
Regarding clam 10, Mark in view of Xiao teaches the recited limitations with respect to claim 2. Mark further teaches, the system of claim 2, further comprising a multifilar interleaving transformer construct (electrically conductive continuous cores may be used to construct a part with inductors, capacitors, antennae, transformers, para. [0253]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark in view of Xiao as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Hidaka (WO 2019107236).
Regarding claim 11, modified Mark does not teach a wireless power transformer. However, Hidaka teaches a method of 3d printing a transformer including a wireless power transformer (inductor and a transformer in electronic devices such as portable information terminals and wireless communication devices, para. [0135]). Therefore, in view of the teachings of Hidaka, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the additive manufacturing system of Mark and a wireless power transformer as Hidaka taught para. [0135] so that it enables in manufacturing a high efficiency transformer by reducing the loss as Hidaka disclosed in para. [0009].
Conclusion
Prior art Lu (US 20220266341) teaches an additive manufacturing platform including a wire a wire plotting platform and a bonding module including a mechanism that activates the wire.
Prior art Narayanan (US 11084275) teaches an additive manufacturing system having wire feeding unit, a wire plotting platform and a bonding module.
Prior art Jones (US 10322470) teaches an additive manufacturing platform including wire disposition platform, and bonding module.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE K. ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-4:30 EST.
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, SUNIL K. SINGH can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/JOSE K ABRAHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3729