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 Claims
Claims 1-3, 7, 11, 15-17, 20, 24-26, 28, 30, 33, 37, 38, 40, 42, and 43 are pending of which 24-26, 37, 38, 40, 42 and 43 are withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1-3, 7, 11, 15-17, 20, 28, 30 and 33 are examined below.
Response to Arguments
The remarks of 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art doesn't explicitly teach or disclose all of the elements of amended claim 1, in particular applicant argues the following claim language:
“Controlling the depositing to vary provide a controlled variation of a material property of the material within the layer, wherein the material property is a polymer chain alignment;
wherein the controlling includes varying a strain rate and/or an extensional force applied to the material, and wherein the varying of the strain rate and/or an extensional force applied to the material varies the polymer chain alignment.
Regarding the first bullet point – On Page 2 in the paragraph labeled “3D printing” Ghodbane discloses varying printing parameters, extrusion pressure, polymer temperature, nozzle inner diameter, and printing speed in order to optimize the orientation of the polymer chain of the extruded polymer. This discloses the claim language of the first bullet point as mapped in detail below.
Regarding the second bullet point – Page 9, Lines 26-30 clarify that the strain rate and extensional force are influenced by several factors including “the speed at which the print head moves, the rate at which polymer is extruded from the nozzle, and the distance between the print head and the surface on which deposition is taking place”. Page 2 of Ghodbane describes modifying the print head speed and the extrusion rate under the paragraph labeled 3D printing. Additionally, Fig. 1 shows that the offset was modified in optimizing the orientation of the extruded polymer. Therefore, this claim language is disclosing in Ghodbane as mapped in detail below.
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.
Claim 3, 7, and 15 is/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.
Regarding claims 3. 7, and 15, the claim recites wherein the material property is at least one of a polymer chain alignment, a refractive index, a retardation, a birefringence, and a degree of crystallinity. However, claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 which clarifies that the material property is a polymer chain alignment. This inconsistency renders the scope of claim unclear and therefore it is indefinite. Claims 7 and 15 are also rendered indefinite due to their dependence on claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by non-patent literature titled “Achieving Molecular Orientation in Thermally Extruded 3D Printed Objects” (Ghodbane)”
Regarding claim 1, Ghodbane discloses a method of additive layer manufacturing comprising:
depositing a layer of a material on a surface (Fig. 1); and
controlling the depositing to provide a controlled variation of a material property of the material within the layer (Page 2, wherein “the printing parameters, extrusion pressure, polymer temperature, nozzle inner diameter, and printing speed were varied” corresponds to controlling the depositing to provide a controlled variation of a material property of the material within the layer), wherein the material property is a polymer chain alignment (Page 3, wherien “polymer chain orientation” corresponds to polymer chain alignment)
wherein the controlling includes varying a strain rate and/or an extensional force applied to the material (Page 2, Paragraph labeled “3D printing”, wherein varying extrusion pressure and printing speed corresponds to varying a strain rate and/or an extensional force applied to the material), and
wherein the varying of the strain rate and/or an extensional force applied to the material varies the polymer chain alignment (Page 2, Paragraph labeled “3D printing”, “The printing parameters, extrusion pressure, polymer temperature, nozzle inner diameter, and printing speed were varied to achieve the best possible orientation)
Regarding claim 3, Ghodbane discloses wherein the material property is at least one of a refractive index, a retardation, a birefringence, and a degree of crystallinity (wherein the graph in Fig. 2 shows refractive index of the samples under)
Regarding claim 7, Ghodbane discloses wherein the controlling includes varying at least one of:
a relative speed of a print head and the surface on which the layer of material is deposited (Page 2, Paragraph 2, wherein “print speed” corresponds to varying a relative speed of a print head and the surface)
a rate at which the material is fed to the print head (Page 2, ¶2, wherein “extrusion pressure” corresponds to a rate at which the material is fed to the print head)
an extrusion factor, the extrusion factor being a ratio of a length of a filament extruded by the print head to a distance travelled by the print head (Page 2, ¶2, wherein both “print speed” and “extrusion pressure” are controllable parameters corresponding to extrusion factor)
an extrusion temperature (Page 2, ¶2, “temperature”); and
a distance between the print head and the surface on which the layer of material is deposited (Fig. 1, wherien the “large offset” corresponds to the distance between the print head and the surface)
Regarding claim 15, Ghodbane discloses controlling comprises controlling an orientation of crystallization (Fig. 12, wherien the orientation of crystallization is controlled) by controlling the polymer chain alignment within the layer (Page 2, Paragraph labeled “3D printing”, “The printing parameters, extrusion pressure, polymer temperature, nozzle inner diameter, and printing speed were varied to achieve the best possible orientation)
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over non-patent literature titled ““Achieving Molecular Orientation in Thermally Extruded 3D Printed Objects” (Ghodbane)” in view of non-patent literature titled “Polymer chains can be aligned during 3D printing to produce stronger parts such as scaffolds for repairing meniscus” (Kohn)
Regarding claim 2, Ghodbane discloses wherein the depositing is carried out by moving a print head in a first direction relative to the surface (Fig. 1, wherein the print head moves to the right), and a variation of the material property is along the layer in the first direction (see Fig. 1 below, wherein polymer chains are oriented along the direction)
Ghodbane doesn't explicitly teach or disclose that the variation of the material property is along the layer in the first direction.
Kohn disclose the variation of the material property is along the layer in the first direction (see Fig. 1 provided below, wherein the polymer chains are aligned in the same direction as the movement of the print head)
PNG
media_image1.png
439
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Ghodbane to vary the material property along the layer in the first direction, as taught by Kohn, in order to increase the strength of the additively manufactured part.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over non-patent literature titled “Achieving Molecular Orientation in Thermally Extruded 3D Printed Objects” (Ghodbane) in view of US 2016/0096326 (Naware)
Regarding claim 11, Ghodbane discloses printing onto a platform at room temperature but doesn't explicitly teach or disclose spatially and/or temporally varying a temperature of the surface on which the material is deposited. Naware discloses a build plate for use in an additive manufacturing process wherein the controlling comprises:
spatially and/or temporally varying a temperature of the surface on which the material is deposited (¶0014, wherein “selective temperature control of the upper surface” corresponds to varying a temperature of the surface on which the material is deposited), wherein the spatially and/or temporally varying the temperature of the surface on which the material is deposited varies a property of the material (¶0026, wherein shrinkage and expansion corresponds to varying a property of the material)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ghodbane with a step to spatially and/or temporally vary the temperature of the surface on which the material is deposited, as taught by Naware, to prevent shrinkage and expansion of the printed material (¶0026)
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over non-patent literature titled “Achieving Molecular Orientation in Thermally Extruded 3D Printed Objects” (Ghodbane) in view of US 2015/0266244 (Page)
Regarding claim 16, Ghodbane discloses wherein the method comprises sequentially depositing the layer of the material on the surface (See Fig. 1, wherein the bottom layer is deposited on a surface) and then depositing a second layer of material (Fig. 1, wherein middle layer 140 corresponds to the second layer of material) on the surface to form two layers of material (Fig. 1). Knappen doesn't explicitly teach or disclose wherein deposition is controlled to vary a thickness of the two layers.
Page discloses a method for fabricating an object wherein deposition is controlled to vary a thickness of the two layers (Fig. 15E, ¶0133)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Knappen to vary the thickness of the two layers, as taught by Page, in order to provide desirable material properties for the 3D printed object.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over non-patent literature titled “Achieving Molecular Orientation in Thermally Extruded 3D Printed Objects” (Ghodbane) in view of US 2015/0266244 (Page), as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2016/0075089 (Duro Royo)
Regarding claim 17, Ghodbane doesn't explicitly teach or disclose wherein the thickness of the two layers varies such that a total combined thickness of the two layers is constant along the two layers (Fig. 15E, ¶0133)
Page discloses wherein the wherein the thickness of the two layers varies such that a total combined thickness of the two layers is constant along the two layers (Fig. 15E, ¶0133, wherein the thickness between two layers is held constant)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ghodbane so that the combined thickness is constant along the two layers, as taught by Page, in order to produce desirable mechanical properties of the object
Ghodbane doesn't explicitly teach or disclose wherein the two layers are formed of different materials. Page doesn't explicitly teach or disclose wherein the two layers are formed of different materials.
Duro Royo discloses wherein the two layers are formed of different materials (¶0044, wherein “different materials are extruded through different nozzles” corresponds to two layers are formed of different materials)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ghodbane in view of Page to form the two layers with different materials, as taught by Duro Royo, in order to achieve desirable mechanical properties of the printed object.
Claim(s) 20, 28, 30 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over non-patent literature titled “Achieving Molecular Orientation in Thermally Extruded 3D Printed Objects” (Ghodbane) in view of US 2018/0229426 (Douroumis)
Regarding claim 20, Ghodbane discloses depositing a layer of material (see rejection of claim 1) but doesn't explicitly teach or disclose a sacrificial layer or a layer of material that has a thickness of 200 microns or less.
Douroumis discloses wherein the layer of material (¶0016, “ink”) is deposited on a sacrificial layer (¶0022, wherein ink is deposited on support material), the layer of material has a thickness of 200 microns or less (¶0015, wherein 12 µm corresponds to 200 microns or less), and the sacrificial layer (¶0022, “support material”) is located on the surface (¶0022, wherein the support material is deposited on a stage)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ghodbane with a sacrificial layer, as taught by Douroumis, in order to easily remove the printed object from the surface.
Regarding claim 28, Ghodbane discloses a layer of material (see rejection of claim 1) but doesn’t explicitly teach or disclose removing a sacrificial layer.
Douroumis discloses removing the sacrificial layer and the layer of material from the base surface (¶0024, wherein “removed by being dissolved in a solvent corresponds to removing the sacrificial layer and the layer of material); and removing the sacrificial layer from the layer of material (¶0024, wherein “removed by being dissolved in a solvent corresponds to removing the sacrificial layer from the layer of material)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ghodbane with steps to remove the sacrificial layer from the surface and the layer of material, as taught by Douroumis, in order to easily remove the printed object from the surface while simultaneously maintaining the surface finish on the printed object.
Regarding claim 30, Ghodbane discloses depositing a layer of material (see rejection of claim 1) but doesn't explicitly teach or disclose depositing a sacrificial layer.
Douroumis discloses a method of manufacturing a stent comprising at least one of: depositing the sacrificial layer on the surface before depositing the layer of material (¶0022, wherein the support material is deposited on the stage before the ink);
depositing the sacrificial layer on the surface to provide a level surface for the deposition of subsequent layers (¶0022, wherein support material is capable of this intended use); and using a single apparatus (¶0022, “3D printer”) to deposit each of the sacrificial layer and the layer of material (¶0022, wherein the support material and ink are both produced from the 3D printer)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ghodbane with steps to deposit a sacrificial layer on a surface and using a single apparatus to deposit each of the sacrificial layer, as taught by Douroumis, in order to easily remove the printed object from the surface.
Regarding claim 33, Ghodbane discloses a method of additive layer manufacturing (see rejection of claim 1) but doesn't explicitly teach or disclose at least one of: applying a pattern to a surface of the sacrificial layer before depositing the layer of material on the sacrificial layer; and controlling deposition of the sacrificial layer to vary its thickness.
Douroumis discloses depositing a sacrificial layer before depositing the layer of material on the sacrificial layer (see rejection of claim 30).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Knappen with the sacrificial layer, as taught by Douroumis, in order to create a level surface with the sacrificial layer before printing the object.
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 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 MAXIMILIAN TOBIAS SPENCER whose telephone number is (571)272-8382. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Jerrah Edwards can be reached on 408.918.7557. 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.
/MAXIMILIAN TOBIAS SPENCER/Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/YASHITA SHARMA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights