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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/12/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 15-17 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
The method as claimed in the originally filed claims can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus as the method does not require the positive use of one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to create instructions for a 3D printer as required by the apparatus claims. Thus, the apparatus is distinct.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 15-17 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Status of the application
This is a non-final rejection in response to Applicant's remarks and amendment filed on 01/12/2026. Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-8 is/are cancelled, claim(s) 5-6 and 9-11 is/are currently amended, claim(s) 12-14 is/are new and claim(s) 15-17 is/are withdrawn.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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 4, claim 5 “depositing by printing a base layer a top layer and a plurality of intermediate layers” should be changed to --depositing by printing a base layer, a top layer and a plurality of intermediate layers--. Appropriate correction is required.
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).
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 (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 01/12/2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim objection(s), Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s) has/have overcome the objection(s). However, applicant's amendment(s) to the claims introduced a new objection.
With respect to the rejection(s) of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s) has/have overcome the claim rejection(s). Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Hoffman (US 2021/0252776). Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments that Batchelder is willing to sacrifice part strength for its part porosity, therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Batchelder's controlled porosity and reduced strength teachings with Hexagonal Walls to result in a method for improving shear strength of a three-dimensional object are not found persuasive.
Examiner respectfully notes that the object of Batchelder’s invention is to provide a finished article having a predetermined porosity for overall part strength (see column 2 lines 65-68 and column 3, lines 1-5). Batchelder discloses that porosity should be confuted within a range to allow reliable part strength (see column 3, lines 40-44) and a porosity in the article of predetermined range, so as to form an article of a strength sufficient to maintain the integrity of the article (see claim 5). Furthermore, the claims as currently written does not preclude process for making an article having a predetermined porosity. In addition, the purpose of Batchelder is not to increase porosity to control the printing of an object. Rather, the object of Batchelder’s invention is to provide a finished article having a predetermined porosity so as to form an article of a strength sufficient to maintain the integrity of the article. Furthermore, Hexagonal Walls teaches to increase strength while providing a predetermined/suitable porosity (Fig. 1b). Thus, the modification of Batchelder in view of Hexagonal Walls is deemed proper and is maintained.
Conclusion
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