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 .
Status of the application
This is a final rejection in response to Applicant's remarks and amendment filed on 07/27/2026. Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-8 is/are cancelled, claim(s) 5-6 and 10 is/are currently amended, claim(s) 9,11-14 is/are previously presented and 1Claim(s) 5-17 is/are withdrawn. Accordingly claims 5-6 and 9-14 are examined herein.
Note
The term “substantially” in the claims has been interpreted below as a broad but definite term/approximation broadly describing the beads oval shape and beads width. See MPEP §273.05(b)(III) (D).
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.
Claim(s) 5-6, 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batchelder (US 5,653,925 – of record) in view of Alternating perimeter layers (hexagonal walls) #1823 (Published 02-14-2019 – of record), Iriguchi (US 2022/0043430 – of record) and Hoffman (US 2021/0252776 – of record).
Regarding claim 5, Batchelder teaches a method of additive manufacturing .. (Abstract), the method comprising:
depositing by printing a base layer, a top layer of a material to printed and a plurality of intermediate layers of substantially oval beads (14) of a material (see annotated Fig. 1 below. Column 5, lines 1-5); and
depositing between the base layer and the top layer, the plurality of intermediate layers, wherein the base layer comprises a plurality of first layer beads (14), the beads being of substantially equal width (b) (see annotated Fig. 1 below, Figs. 2-3; column 5, lines 1-5, lines 55-57; column 9, lines 21-25 and claim 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
411
751
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Batchelder does not explicitly teach that the method for improving a shear strength along a vertical axis of an internal structure of a three-dimensional object and alternating first height and second height of the plurality of first layer beads, the second height being about one half the height of the first height and to thereby create a zigzag configuration along a horizontal axis of the plurality of intermediate layers.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing methods, Alternating perimeter layers (hexagonal walls) teaches a three dimensional printing method, includes depositing beads layers in hexagon pattern by alternating bead heights of the adjacent shells (beads) between a first height and a second height, wherein the height of beads in an even column are shifted half of layer in Z dimension to thereby create a zigzag configuration along a horizontal axis of intermediate layer; and wherein alternating bead heights of the adjacent beads will provide higher strength of the printed piece (see Fig. 1a-Fig.1b below and Page 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
658
816
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the additive manufacturing method as taught by Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers (hexagonal walls) using a method for improving a shear strength along a vertical axis of an internal structure of a three-dimensional object by alternating first height and second height of the plurality of first layer beads, the second height being about one half the height of the first height and to thereby create a zigzag configuration along a horizontal axis of the plurality of intermediate layers, as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Alternating perimeter layers (hexagonal walls) above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would provide higher strength of the printed piece (see Page 1 of Alternating perimeter layers (hexagonal walls)).
Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers (hexagonal walls) does not explicitly teach that the alternating bead heights being created by lowering, by one-half a material flow rate for the second height beads to that of a material flow rate for the first height beads.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing, lriguchi teaches an additive manufacturing method comprises providing an additive manufacturing apparatus (21) configured to adjust a height of the bead by adjusting the amount of the processing material using a control information (see [0097-0099] and [0108]). lriguchi acknowledges that adjusting the bead height is necessarily since the unevenness of the processing material can be reduced and that the manufacturing quality can be improved (see Fig.1;[0108]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the additive manufacturing method as taught by Batchelder in view of Iriguchi with lowering by one-half a material flow rate for the second height beads to that of a material flow rate for the first height beads as a relative material flow rate is a result effective variable as taught by Iriguchi in order to reduce the unevenness of the processing material and that the manufacturing quality can be improved (see [0108] of lriguchi).
Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers (hexagonal walls) and Iriguchi does not explicitly that internal beads of the plurality of intermediate layers overlap with at least four adjacent beads to form reduced the gaps of irregular cross-section therebetween.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing process, Hoffman teaches a method of additively manufacturing objects (Abstract), comprises depositing a top layer (640), a base layer (610) and a plurality of intermediate bead layers (620,630) between the top and bottom layers (see annotated Fig. 6 below), wherein internal beads of the plurality of intermediate layers overlap with at least four adjacent beads to form reduced the gaps of irregular cross-section therebetween (see annotated Fig. 6 below; [0054]). Hoffman further teaches alternating double height bead for shells of a layer can effectively seal shell gaps (see [0054]).
PNG
media_image3.png
439
527
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the additive manufacturing method as taught by Batchelder in view of Hoffman by configuring the internal beads of the plurality of intermediate layers to overlap with at least four adjacent beads to form reduced the gaps of irregular cross-section therebetween, as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Hoffman above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would effectively seal shell/ beads gaps (see [0054] of Hoffman).
Regarding claim 6, Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers (hexagonal walls), lriguchi and Hoffman further teaches the method of additive manufacturing further comprising:
creating a valley between spaced apart first height beads in the base layer (see annotated Fig. 2 below; column 5, lines 25-57 of Batchelder), and depositing material for the second height beads being deposited in the valley wherein the second height beads are deposited in the valley and overlaps with the two spaced apart first height beads (see annotated Fig. 6 below of Hoffman).
PNG
media_image4.png
466
718
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
431
443
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers (hexagonal walls), lriguchi and Hoffman further teaches the method further comprising:
printing a top layer of oval beads (18) overlying the plurality of intermediate layers in a pattern similar io the printing of the base layer (see annotated Fig. 1 above and Figs. 2-3; column 5, lines 55-57; column 9, lines 21-25 and claim 4 of Batchelder).
Regarding claim 14, Hoffman further teaches the method, wherein the internal beads (18) of the plurality of intermediate layers contact six adjacent beads and overlap with four of the six adjacent beads to form the reduce gaps of irregular cross-section between the internal beads and the six adjacent beads (see annotated Fig. 6 above; [0054] of Hoffman).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batchelder (US 5,653,925 – of record) in view of Alternating perimeter layers (hexagonal walls) #1823 (Published 02-14-2019 – of record) and Iriguchi (US 2022/0043430 – of record).
Regarding claim 10, Batchelder teaches a method of additive manufacturing an internal structure of a part to be printed (Abstract), comprising:
Providing by printing a base layer and a top layer of oval beads (14) of a (see annotated Fig. 1 below; column 5, lines 1-5); and
Printing between the base layer and the top layer, at least a first intermediate layer of oval beads, wherein the base layer comprises a plurality of first layer beads (14), the beads being of substantially equal width (b) (see annotated Fig. 1 below, Figs. 2-3; column 5, lines 1-5, lines 55-57; column 9, lines 21-25 and claim 4).
However, Batchelder does not explicitly teach that the plurality of first layer beads of alternating lesser and greater heights, by reducing a material flow rate of the lesser height beads by one-half of the material flow rate of adjacent greater height beads to thereby minimize gaps between the base layer beads and the first intermediate layer beads and to thereby improve a shear strength of the part to be printed, the minimized gaps being of irregular cross-section.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing methods, Alternating perimeter layers (hexagonal walls) teaches a three dimensional printing method, includes depositing beads layers in hexagon pattern, alternating bead heights of the adjacent shells (beads) between lesser and greater heights (see Fig. 1a-Fig.1b below), wherein the height of beads in an even column are shifted half of layer in Z dimension to thereby minimize gaps between the beads layers and to thereby improve a shear strength of the part to be printed, the minimized gaps being of irregular cross-section (see Fig. 1a-Fig.1b below and Page 1).
PNG
media_image6.png
653
805
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the additive manufacturing method as taught by Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers (hexagonal walls) by alternating lesser and greater heights, by reducing a the height of adjacent beads by one-half in the Z-dimension of adjacent greater height beads to thereby minimize gaps between the base layer beads and the first intermediate layer beads and to thereby improve a shear strength of the part to be printed, the minimized gaps being of irregular cross-section, as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Alternating perimeter layers (hexagonal walls) above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would provide higher strength of the printed piece (see Page 1 of Alternating perimeter layers (hexagonal walls)).
Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers (hexagonal walls) does not explicitly that the alternating lesser and greater heights is by reducing a material flow rate of the lesser height beads by one-half of the material flow rate of adjacent greater height beads.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing, lriguchi teaches an additive manufacturing method comprises providing an additive manufacturing apparatus (21) configured to adjust a height of the bead by adjusting the amount of the processing material using a control information (see [0097-0099] and [0108]). lriguchi acknowledges that adjusting the bead height is necessarily since the unevenness of the processing material can be reduced and that the manufacturing quality can be improved (see Fig.1;[0108]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the additive manufacturing method as taught by Batchelder in view of Iriguchi with reducing a material flow rate of the lesser height beads by one-half of the material flow rate of adjacent greater height beads as a relative material flow rate is a result effective variable as taught by Iriguchi in order to reduce the unevenness of the processing material and that the manufacturing quality can be improved (see [0108] of lriguchi).
Regarding claim 11, Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers (hexagonal walls) and lriguchi further teaches the method further comprising printing a plurality intermediate lavers of oval beads of substantially equal width (b) and height (a) atop the first intermediate layer (see annotated Fig. 1 above; column 5, lines 55-57; column 9, lines 21-25 and claim 4 of Batchelder), wherein each of the plurality of intermediate layers having a zigzag configuration along a horizontal axis (see Figs.1a-1b above of Alternating perimeter layers (hexagonal walls)).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batchelder (US 5,653,925 – of record) in view of Alternating perimeter layers (hexagonal walls) #1823 (Published 02-14-2019 – of record) and Iriguchi (US 2022/0043430 – of record) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Hoffman (US 2021/0252776).
Regarding claim 12, Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers (hexagonal walls) and Iriguchi teaches the method as discussed in claim 11 above.
Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers (hexagonal walls) and Iriguchi does teach wherein internal beads of the plurality of intermediate layers contact six adjacent beads.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing process, Hoffman teaches a method of additively manufacturing objects (Abstract), comprises depositing a top layer (640), a base layer (610) and a plurality of intermediate bead layers (620,630) between the top and bottom layers (see Fig. 6), wherein internal beads of the plurality of intermediate layers contact six adjacent beads (see annotated Fig. 6 below; [0054]). Hoffman further teaches alternating double height bead for shells of a layer such that the internal beads of the plurality of intermediate layers contact six adjacent beads can effectively seal shell gaps (see [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the additive manufacturing method as taught by Batchelder in view of Hoffman by configuring the internal beads of the plurality of intermediate layers contact six adjacent beads, as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Hoffman above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would effectively seal shell/ beads gaps (see [0054] of Hoffman).
PNG
media_image7.png
439
527
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Hoffman further teaches the method, wherein the internal beads of the plurality of intermediate layers overlap with four of the six adjacent beads to form the minimized gaps of irregular cross-section therebetween (see annotated Fig. 6 above; [0054] of Hoffman).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments that Batchelder and Hoffman teach in opposite directions regarding gaps.
Batchler teaches that gaps (porosity) are beneficial and desirable an "optimal porosity range of 2-10%, with 5% being optimal), while Hoffman teaches that gaps are defects that must be sealed and a POSITA would not combine these contradictory teachings, as doing so would render both references unsatisfactory for their intended purpose, are not found persuasive.
Examiner respectfully submits that Applicant’s argument that Batchelder and Hoffman in “opposite directions” mischaracterizes the basis for proposed combination. The rejection does not rely on Hoffman to eliminate all porosity contemplated by Batchelder; rather, Hoffman is relied upon for its teaching that overlapping/alternating beads heights reduces gaps at bead junctions ([0096]), a technique applicable to the shell or junction regions of a printed structure without disturbing Batchelder’s separate teaching regarding controlled infill porosity for interior fill density. Indeed, the claim itself recites “reduced gap”, not the complete absent of gaps, which is fully consistent with the combination that retains some porosity while reducing irregular gaps through bead overlap. Applicant has not shown that Batchdler criticizes, discredits, or discourages gap reduction via bead overlap, nor that applying Hoffman’s overlap technique would render Batchdler’s device unsuitable for its intended purpose of controlling material usage and part weight. Accordingly, the combination remains proper under MPEP § 2143.01(V), and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s argument that Batchelder and Hexagonal Walls have contradictory design objectives regarding strength and without the benefit of hindsight using the claims as a guide, a POSITA, objectively reading Batchelder and Hexagonal Walls would not apply Hexagonal Walls description of raising strength, while ignoring Batchelder's opposite description of reducing strength, are not found persuasive.
Examiner respectfully submits that applicant’s argument that Batchelder and Hexagonal Walls have contradictory design objectives mischaracterizes Batchelder’s statement at 3:21-22 as prohibition against strength improvement, when it is merely an acknowledgment of a known trade off inherent in Batchdler’s chosen porosity strategy. This tradeoff- reduced strength relative to a non-porous part is exactly the sort of art-recognized problem that would motivate POSITA to look to hexagonal wall’s teaching of alternating bead heights in a zigzag configuration, which is directed to improve structural interlocking and strength at bead junctions, without requiring elimination of Batchelder’s porosity. Notably, the claim itself does not require a fully dense, maximally strong structure, but merely an improved shear strength, consistent with a combination that mitigates-rather than eliminates the tradeoff Batchdler discloses. Batchdler’s acknowledgement of this tradeoff does not criticize, discredit, or discourage strength-improving modifications and therefore does not constitute a teaching way. Applying Hexagonal Walls’ known bead-geometry technique to address an art-recognized strength limitation of porous structures reflect nothing more than the combination of familiar elements according to known method that yield predictable results, which the Supreme Court in KSR confirmed is properly held obvious. Accordingly, the references are properly combinable, and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s argument that Batchelder and Hexagonal Walls contradict regarding bead contact points and Batchelder describes that "[t]he highest porosity condition of approximately 21% exists when the beads are cylindrical in shape, arranged in a square array, and touch at most their four nearest neighbors." Batchelder, 5:24-27. In contrast, Hexagonal Walls describes a different arrangement: "Each string is touching others in 6 spots (hexagon) instead of 4 in the standard one." Hexagonal Walls, page 1. The combination of Batchelder with Hexagonal Walls would change both references principles of operation and is therefore improper. This argument is not found persuasive
Applicant’s argument mischaracterizes Batchelder’s disclosure at 5:24-27, which describes only the highest porosity condition for one illustrative bead arrangement (cylindrical beads in a square array), not a required or exclusive contact-point geometry. Batchelder’s principle of operation is controlling porosity through deposition parameters such as material flow rate, not any fixed number of bead contact points; Batchelder’s own disclosure that porosity varies with bead shape and arrangement confirms that a POSTIA would understand different contact-point configurations, including a hexagonal six-contact arrangements as taught by Hexagonal Walls, to fall within the same underlying porosity-control concept. Adopting six-contact arrangements therefore does not defeat or contradict Batchelder’s principle of operation, but merely selects different point along the same porosity/contact relationship Batchelder itself discloses. This confirmed by the claim language itself, which recites bead overlap with “at least four adjacent beads” a limitation that expressly encompass six contact arrangements such as that of hexagonal Walls. Applicant has identified no evidence that that a six-contact bead arrangement would be physically or functionally incompatible with Batchdler’s deposition process. Accordingly, the combination does not change either reference’s principle of operation, and the rejection is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Iriguchi teaches away from the claims regarding bead overlap and a POSITA, objectively reading Iriguchi would not select the alleged isolated teachings regarding flow, without understanding that Iriguchi "as a whole" teaches away from the claims, this argument found not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully submits that the rejection does not rely on Iriguchi for the overlap limitation of claim 5; that limitation is supplied by Hoffman/Hexagonal Wall. Iriguchi is relied upon for its teaching of correcting bead width via flow-rate adjustment, a technique that equally applicable regardless of whether the resulting bead overlap or adjacent without overlapping. Iriguchi’s description of a correction technique for achieving non-overlapping beads in one context does not discourage overlapping beads generally , and therefore does not constitute teaching away. To the contrary, Iriguchi’s disclosure that bead width/overlap relationships can be turned via flow-rate correction support the understanding that overlap amount is controllable parameter, consistent with the combination applied in the rejection. Because the rejection relies on Iriguchi only for its several bead width-correction teaching and not for its non-overlapping embodiment, applicant’s reference as a whole’ argument does not establish that Iriguchi teaches away from the claimed invention. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 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 MOHAMED K AHMED ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-0347. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM-7:30 PM.
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 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.
/MOHAMED K AHMED ALI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1743 /GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights