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 .
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment filed 06/11/2026:
Claims 11-21 and 31 are pending.
Claims 22-30 and 32 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11-17, 19, 20, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US2370469), and further in view of Lehner (US3354504), Rauwendaal (US4798473), and Kim (US20160200024).
Regarding claim 11, Johnson teaches a method for additive manufacturing using a fusible material (col 2 line 36-37), the method comprising:
transferring the fusible material to a feed zone portion of a housing of an extruder system (hopper 1; Figure 1), the feed zone portion being designed as a funnel and formed of a first material having a first thermal conductivity (pg. 1 right column line 16-19);
passing the fusible material through a separating zone portion of the housing, the separating zone portion being formed of a second material having a second thermal conductivity less than the first thermal conductivity (pg. 1 right column line 44-50);
passing the fusible material through a plasticating and homogenizing zone portion of the housing (melting portion 10 and metering zone discussed in pg. 1 right column line 31-34 and 51-54), the plasticating and homogenizing zone portion being formed of a third material having a third thermal conductivity greater than the second thermal conductivity and the separating zone portion separating the feed zone portion thermally from the plasticating and homogenizing zone portion (pg. 1 right column line 44-50);
actively heating the plasticating and homogenizing zone portion while passing the fusible material through the plasticating and homogenizing zone portion (pg. 1 right column line 31-36); and
passing the fusible material through a discharge zone portion of the housing for depositing the composite material on a platform (pg. 2 left column line 9-12 and 29-32),
wherein a mechanical drive of the extruder system, for passing the composite material through the separating zone portion and the plasticating and homogenizing zone portion, includes a screw arranged in the housing and extending through the funnel of the feed zone portion, the separating zone portion, and the plasticating and homogenizing zone portion (pg. 1 left column line 17-30),
wherein a shaft diameter of the screw is greater in the plasticating and homogenizing zone portion than in the feed zone portion and than in the separating zone portion, and wherein the screw is formed conically (see conical screw increasing in diameter from feed zone portion to the plasticating and homogenizing zone portion in Figure 1).
While Johnson teaches abruptly heating and sharply melting the fusible material as it passes from the feeding zone to the plasticating and homogenizing zone (pg. 1 right column line 38-41), Johnson fails to teach the feed zone portion is actively cooled while transferring the fusible material to the feed zone portion, such that the fusible material is cooled by the feed zone portion as it passes therethrough.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to extruders, Lehner teaches the screw is
actively cooled (col 3 line 36-40) and the feed zone portion of the housing is actively cooled (col
3 line 40-43) such that the plastic material is cooled by the feed zone portion of the housing as
it passes therethrough (col 3 line 68-70). Cooling the feed zone portion of a housing reduces
frictional resistance of the plastic material on the inside wall of the feed zone portion of a
housing as it is cooled (col 3 line 68-70).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the feed zone portion of a housing of Johnson be
actively cooled such that the plastic material is cooled by the feed zone portion of the housing
as it passes therethrough, as taught by Lehner, for the benefit of reducing the frictional resistance of the plastic material on the inside wall of the feed zone portion of a housing as it is cooled, and to ensure the fusible material is maintained at relatively lower temperatures such that abrupt heating and sharp melting of the fusible material is achieved.
While Johnson teaches the screw increasing from the feed zone portion to an end of the plasticating and homogenizing zone portion, Johnson fails to explicitly teach that the increase is uniform.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to extruders, Rauwendaal teaches the screw
increases uniformly from the feed zone portion to an end of the plasticating and homogenizing
zone portion (col 2 line 5-10). Uniformly increasing the screw diameter from the feed zone to
an end of the plasticating and homogenizing zone portion reduces screw induced power
consumption and heat generation to ensure that greater plastic extrusion efficiencies are
realized (col 5 line 56- col 6 line 3).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the screw of Johnson modified with Lehner such that its diameter is uniformly increased from the feed zone portion to an end of the plasticating and homogenizing zone portion, as taught by Rauwendaal. Uniformly increasing the screw diameter from the feed zone portion to an end of the plasticating and homogenizing zone portion has a known benefit of reducing screw induced power consumption and heat generation to ensure greater plastic extrusion efficiencies.
While Johnson teaches the fusible material can be thermoplastic materials such as polymethyl methacrylate (see Example 3 on pg. 2 right column), Johnson fails to teach the fusible material is a composite material.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to a method for additive manufacturing using a fusible material, Kim teaches extrusion-based devices typically apply layers of fusible material such as thermoplastics, metal or metal-containing carriers, or polymers and composites that are doped with a variety of secondary materials such as wood and carbon fiber ([0004]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the fusible material of Johnson modified with Lehner and Rauwendaal be a composite material, as taught by Kim, to achieve the predictable result of extruding a material that forms models, prototypes, patterns, and production parts. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success for the composite material to be extruded, since Johnson teaches fusible materials such as thermoplastics can be extruded (see Example 3 on pg. 2 right column), and Kim teaches composites are an alternative to thermoplastics in extrusion-based devices that typically apply layers of fusible material.
Regarding claim 12, Johnson modified with Lehner, Rauwendaal, and Kim teaches the method of claim 11.
Further, Kim teaches wherein passing the composite material through the plasticating and homogenizing zone portion includes compressing the composite material such that air enclosed in the composite material is forced out ([0039] Accordingly, the screw 10 applies mechanical pressure to the feedstock, removing air and, in concert with the heater 42, liquefies the feedstock, as the screw is driven by the motor).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the composite material through the plasticating and homogenizing zone portion of Johnson modified with Lehner, Rauwendaal, and Kim be compressed such that air enclosed in the composite material is forced out as taught by Kim, to achieve the predictable result of liquifying the feedstock as the screw is driven. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success for the air enclosed in the composite material to be forced out, since Johnson teaches the fusible material is liquified as it is heated through the plasticating and homogenizing zone portion and driven by the screw, and Kim teaches the fusible composite material is liquified as a result of the air being forced out of the composite material as the screw applies mechanical pressure to the feedstock.
Regarding claim 13, Johnson modified with Lehner, Rauwendaal, and Kim teaches the method of claim 11.
Further, Johnson teaches wherein actively heating the plasticating and homogenizing zone portion involves heating the plasticating and homogenizing zone portion such that the plasticating and homogenizing zone portion reaches at least 200°C (see Example 3 on pg. 2 right column).
Regarding claim 14, Johnson modified with Lehner, Rauwendaal, and Kim teaches the method of claim 11.
Further, Johnson teaches wherein a shaft of the screw in the separating zone portion includes a material with a poor thermal conductivity (see pg. 1 left column line 31-48).
Regarding claim 15, Johnson modified with Lehner, Rauwendaal, and Kim teaches the method of claim 11.
However, Johnson teaches the first material of the housing in the feed zone portion and the third material forming the plasticating and homogenizing zone portion include machined steel (pg. 1 right column line 44-48), and fails to teach the first material of the housing in the feed zone portion and the third material forming the plasticating and homogenizing zone portion include aluminum.
Kim teaches wherein the first material of the housing in the feed zone portion and the third material forming the plasticating and homogenizing zone portion includes aluminum ([0029] By way of example, the bulk of the extruder, including the upper and lower housing portions 22, 24 may be constructed of 6061 aluminum alloy, which is advantageous because of its light weight and strength, but unfortunately in this context conducts heat very well).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the first material of the housing in the feed zone portion and the third material forming the plasticating and homogenizing zone portion of Johnson modified with Lehner, Rauwendaal, and Kim to include aluminum, as taught by Kim, for the benefit of constructing an extruder that is lightweight and strong.
Regarding claim 16, Johnson modified with Lehner, Rauwendaal, and Kim teaches the method of claim 11.
Johnson teaches insulating rings surround the separation zone, but fails to teach the second material forming the separating zone portion includes a heat-resistant plastic.
Kim teaches wherein the second material forming the separating zone portion includes a heat-resistant plastic ([0029] Accordingly, the thermal insulation flange 26 may be constructed, for example, of polyether ether ketone (PEEK) and may be relatively thin, e.g., about 6 millimeters thick in the direction of elongation of the screw 10).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the second material forming the separating zone portion of Johnson modified with Lehner, Rauwendaal, and Kim include a heat-resistant plastic, as taught by Kim, to provide a thermally insulating portion that reduces the amount of material that must be heated and, therefore, the amount of power required to achieve a given temperature at the die.
Regarding claim 17, Johnson modified with Lehner, Rauwendaal, and Kim teaches the method of claim 11.
Further, Kim teaches wherein the second material forming the separating zone portion includes a polyetherether ketone ([0029] Accordingly, the thermal insulation flange 26 may be constructed, for example, of polyether ether ketone (PEEK) and may be relatively thin, e.g., about 6 millimeters thick in the direction of elongation of the screw 10).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the second material forming the separating zone portion of Johnson modified with Lehner, Rauwendaal, and Kim include polyetherether ketone, as taught by Kim, to provide a thermally insulating portion that reduces the amount of material that must be heated and, therefore, the amount of power required to achieve a given temperature at the die.
Regarding claim 19, Johnson modified with Lehner, Rauwendaal, and Kim teaches the method of claim 11.
Further, Johnson teaches wherein the screw extends through at least 50 percent of the funnel (see screw extending throughout funnel in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 20, Johnson modified with Lehner, Rauwendaal, and Kim teaches the method of claim 11.
Further, Johnson teaches wherein the screw extends completely through the funnel (see screw extending throughout funnel in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 31, Johnson modified with Lehner, Rauwendaal, and Kim teaches the method of claim 11.
Further, Johnson teaches wherein the fusible material is passed through the discharge zone portion along a direction that is substantially parallel to an axis of rotation of the screw (see example in Figure 2 where spinneret is attached to base of vertical assembly as discussed on pg. 2 left column line 23-29).
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2370469), Lehner (US3354504), Rauwendaal (US4798473), and Kim (US20160200024), and further in view of Roelf et al. (US3148412).
Regarding claim 18, Johnson modified with Lehner, Rauwendaal, and Kim teaches the method of claim 11. However, Johnson fails to teach wherein the extruder system comprises a flexible tube for transporting the composite material from the mechanical drive to a heated portion of the housing.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to an extruder, Roelf teaches an extruder that
comprises a flexible tube for transporting material to a heated portion of the housing (The
flexible tube’s small, predetermined diameter permits accurate control over the volume flow
rate of the dispensing material (col 63-68). The flexible tube allows for its movements as the
extruder is operated (col 4 line 70-75)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the extruder of Johnson modified with Lehner, Rauwendaal, and Kim comprise a flexible tube for transporting the composite material, as taught by Roelf. A flexible tube has a known benefit of providing flexibility in the movement of the tube transporting the material from the mechanical drive to a heated portion of the housing.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2370469), Lehner (US3354504), Rauwendaal (US4798473), and Kim (US20160200024), and further in view of Vasquez et al. (US20150251347)
Regarding claim 21, Johnson modified with Lehner, Rauwendaal, and Kim teaches the method of claim 11.
Further, Johnson teaches wherein the discharge zone portion includes an exchangeable nozzle (see example in Figure 2 where spinneret is attached to base of vertical assembly as discussed on pg. 2 left column line 23-29). However, Johnson fails to teach the exchangeable nozzle is made of an abrasion-resistant material.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to an extruder, Vasquez teaches the nozzle is
made of an abrasion-resistant material ([0003] the extrudable materials are abrasive and wear
the die materials. It is common to use hardened steel for the die components so that the dies
have a longer life and can process more material). Constructing the nozzle with an abrasion- resistant material prolongs nozzle service life, especially when the extrudable materials are
abrasive.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the exchangeable nozzle of Johnson modified with Lehner, Rauwendaal, and Kim be made of an abrasion-resistant material, as taught by Vasquez, for the benefit of prolong the nozzle service life.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Johnson (US2370469), Lehner (US3354504), Rauwendaal (US4798473), and Kim (US20160200024).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLA MACHNESS whose telephone number is (408)918-7587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30-2:30 PT.
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.
/ARIELLA MACHNESS/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights