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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/11/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objection previously set forth in the non-final rejection mailed 09/11/2025.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 11, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (US-20230191651) in view of Korshikov (U.S. Patent No. 11904528).
Regarding claim 1, Garcia teaches:
An additive manufacturing (AM) system for making a part ([0005] – [0006]), the system comprising:
a build plate ([0035]; Fig. 2, #148) on which to form the part ([0035]; Fig. 2, #146);
a print nozzle component configured to be supported above the build plate ([0030] – [0040]; Fig. 2, #144, and #222; [0062] – [0065]; Fig. 8, #406 and #408), the print nozzle component having:
a first axially extending passageway for extruding a first resin-infused feedstock material ([0030] – [0040]; Fig. 2, #144, and #126; [0062] – [0065]; Fig. 8, #406 and #126) supplied from a first source of resin-infused feedstock material onto the build plate ([0030]; Fig. 1, #124);
a second axially extending passageway for extruding a second resin- infused feedstock material ([0030] – [0040]; Fig. 2, #236, and #222; [0062] – [0065]; Fig. 8, #126 and #408) supplied from a second source of resin-infused feedstock material onto the build plate concurrently with, or alternately with, extrusion of the first resin-infused feedstock material ([0030]; Fig. 1, #124), to form the part ([0029] – [0030]; Fig. 4B, #146); and
the first and second resin-infused print feedstock materials differing in composition from one another ([0030] and [0074] – [0078]).
Garcia does not teach:
a cutting implement configured to be moved to cut the first resin-infused feedstock material as the first resin-infused feedstock material leaves the print nozzle component.
However, Korshikov, in a similar field of endeavor, an additive manufacturing system for making a part comprising of multiple different feedstock materials, teaches:
a cutting implement configured to be moved to cut the first resin-infused feedstock material as the first resin-infused feedstock material leaves the print nozzle component (Col. 12, lines 46-60; Fig. 4, #2001).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Garcia to incorporate the teachings of Korshikov and include a cutting implement configured to cut the first material as it leaves the print nozzle component. The purpose, as stated by Korshikov, being that this may be desirable in complex arrangements where the use of the fiber strand can limit flexibility in complex creations and/or can be more expensive, such that occasional regions of non-reinforced layers may be acceptable in non-load bearing regions that are not critical for having enhanced material characteristics (Col. 12, lines 54-60).
Regarding claim 2, Garcia in view of Korshikov teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 2 depends on. Garcia further teaches:
wherein the first resin-infused feedstock material comprises a resin-infused continuous fiber ([0030] and [0074] – [0078]).
Regarding claim 3, Garcia in view of Korshikov teaches the limitations of claim 2, which claim 3 depends on. Garcia further teaches:
wherein the second resin-infused feedstock material comprises at least one of resin-infused chopped fibers or resin-infused milled fibers ([0030] and [0074] – [0078]).
Regarding claim 4, Garcia in view of Korshikov teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 4 depends on. Garcia further teaches:
wherein the first resin-infused feedstock material comprises a resin-infused continuous fiber ([0030] and [0074] – [0078]); and
the second resin-infused feedstock material comprises at least one of resin- infused chopped fibers or resin-infused milled fibers ([0030] and [0074] – [0078]).
Regarding claim 5, Garcia in view of Korshikov teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 5 depends on. Garcia further teaches:
wherein the first and second axially extending passageways are laterally spaced from one another within the print nozzle component ([0062] – [0065]; Fig. 8, #406 and #408).
Regarding claim 6, Garcia in view of Korshikov teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 6 depends on. Garcia further teaches:
wherein the first and second axially extending passageways are coaxially arranged relative to one another within the print nozzle component ([0062] – [0065]; Fig. 8, #406 and #408).the first and second passageways are coaxially arranged relative to one another within the print nozzle component ([0062] – [0065]; Fig. 8, #406 and #408).
Regarding claim 7, Garcia in view of Korshikov teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 7 depends on. Garcia further teaches:
wherein the print nozzle component comprises a first print nozzle and a laterally spaced apart second print nozzle, wherein the first and second print nozzles are coupled to one another and configured to enable synchronized movement ([0062] – [0065]; Fig. 8, #406 and #408); and
wherein the first print nozzle includes the first axially extending passageway and the second print nozzle includes the second axially extending passageway ([0062] – [0065]; Fig. 8, #406 and #408).
Regarding claim 11, Garcia in view of Korshikov teaches the limitations of claim 2, which claim 11 depends on. Korshikov further teaches:
wherein the cutting implement comprises a blade configured to be moved to cut the first resin-infused continuous fiber as the first resin-infused continuous fiber leaves the print nozzle component (Col. 12, lines 46-60; Fig. 4, #2001).
Regarding claim 13, Garcia in view of Korshikov teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 13 depends on. Garcia further teaches:
further comprising an ultraviolet (UV) light configured to at least partially cure at least one of the first resin-infused feedstock material or the second resin-infused feedstock material, in situ, while forming a layer of the part on the build plate ([0056] – [0061], [0073], and [0088]; Fig. 7B, #304).
Regarding claim 20, Garcia teaches:
A method for additively manufacturing (AM) a part in a layer-by-layer process ([0005] – [0006]), the method comprising:
providing a build plate ([0035]; Fig. 2, #148) on which to form the part ([0035]; Fig. 2, #146);
supporting a print nozzle component above the build plate ([0030] – [0040]; Fig. 2, #144, and #222; [0062] – [0065]; Fig. 8, #406 and #408);
using a first axially extending passageway within the print nozzle to extrude a first resin-infused feedstock material ([0030] – [0040]; Fig. 2, #144, and #126; [0062] – [0065] and [0074] – [0078]; Fig. 8, #406 and #126) supplied from a first source of resin-infused feedstock material ([0030]; Fig. 1, #124) onto the build plate, wherein the first resin-infused feedstock material includes a continuous fiber ([0030]), to help form a layer of the part;
concurrently or alternately, using a second axially extending passageway within the print nozzle to extrude a second resin-infused feedstock material ([0030] – [0040]; Fig. 2, #236, and #222; [0062] – [0065]; Fig. 8, #126 and #408) supplied from a second source of resin-infused feedstock material ([0030]; Fig. 1, #124) onto the build plate to also help form the layer of the part ([0029] – [0030]; Fig. 4B, #146), wherein the second resin-infused feedstock material includes at least one of chopped fibers or milled fibers ([0030] and [0074] – [0078]); and
and wherein the continuous fiber and the at least one of the chopped fibers or milled fibers cooperate to produce a desired property for the layer of the part ([0030] – [0040] and [0074] – [0078]).
Garcia does not teach:
using a cutting implement configured to be moved to cut the first resin-infused feedstock material as the first resin-infused feedstock material leaves the print nozzle component.
However, Korshikov, in a similar field of endeavor, a method for additively manufacturing a part comprising of multiple different feedstock materials, teaches:
using a cutting implement configured to be moved to cut the first resin-infused feedstock material as the first resin-infused feedstock material leaves the print nozzle component (Col. 12, lines 46-60; Fig. 4, #2001).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Garcia to incorporate the teachings of Korshikov and include a cutting implement configured to cut the first material as it leaves the print nozzle component. The purpose, as stated by Korshikov, being that this may be desirable in complex arrangements where the use of the fiber strand can limit flexibility in complex creations and/or can be more expensive, such that occasional regions of non-reinforced layers may be acceptable in non-load bearing regions that are not critical for having enhanced material characteristics (Col. 12, lines 54-60).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (US-20230191651) in view of Korshikov (U.S. Patent No. 11904528), as applied to claims 11 and 1 above, respectively.
Regarding claim 12, Garcia in view of Korshikov teaches the limitations of claim 11, which claim 12 depends on. Garcia further teaches:
further comprising a movement component configured to cause movement of the blade. While Korshikov is silent as to the movement component of the blade, Korshikov does describe automating the cutting part (Korshikov; Col. 12, lines 46-60; Fig. 4, #2001), and furthermore Garcia does describe a cutting device (Garcia; [0048]; Fig. 3, #240) operating at a different position of the machine, and goes on to describe that it is operated and moved by a cutter actuator ([0048]; Fig. 3, #242), therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the cutter which is located after the print nozzle component and incorporated from Korshikov in the rejection of claim 1 above could be similarly operated by a movement component, or “cutter actuator,” in the absence of a showing of unexpected results or criticality.
Regarding claim 14, Garcia in view of Korshikov teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 14 depends on. Garcia further teaches:
further comprising a first ultraviolet (UV) light configured to at least partially cure the first resin- infused feedstock material, in situ, while printing a layer of the part ([0056] – [0061], [0073], and [0088]; Fig. 7B, #304); and
a second UV light configured to at least partially cure the second resin- infused feedstock material, in situ, while printing the layer of the part. Garcia is silent as to whether the first UV light cures both the first and second material or if there is another one to cure the second material, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using a duplication or parts to include a second UV light configured to at least partially cure the second resin-infused material, in the absence of a showing of unexpected results or criticality.
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)
The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (US-20230191651) in view of Korshikov (U.S. Patent No. 11904528), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mordechay (US-20230173753).
Regarding claim 8, Garcia in view of Korshikov teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 8 depends on. Garcia further teaches:
further comprising motion control subsystem responsive to the at least one of a computer or electronic controller, described below, and configured to produce relative movement between the print nozzle component and the build plate within an X/Y plane ([0067]).
Garcia in view of Korshikov does not explicitly teach:
the system comprising at least one of a computer or electronic controller.
However, Mordechay, in a similar field of endeavor, an additive manufacturing system for making a part, teaches:
the system comprising at least one of a computer or electronic controller ([0083]; Fig. 1B, #16 and #20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Garcia in view of Korshikov to incorporate the teachings of Mordechay and include a controller and computer. The purpose, as stated by Mordechay, being the operation of inkjet printing heads and optionally and preferably also of one or more other components of system, e.g., the motion of tray, are controlled by a computerized controller ([0083]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (US-20230191651) in view of Korshikov (U.S. Patent No. 11904528), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Tang (CN115091750A), using the attached original document and translation.
Regarding claim 9, Garcia in view of Korshikov teaches the limitations of claim 7, which claim 9 depends on, but does not teach motion subsystems for providing relative elevational movement between the two print nozzles, however, Tang, in a similar field of endeavor, an additive manufacturing system for making a part, teaches:
further comprising a first motion control subsystem operably associated with the first print nozzle for providing elevational movement of the first print nozzle relative to the build plate (Page 4); and
a second motion control subsystem operably associated with the second print nozzle for providing elevation movement of the second print nozzle relative to the build plate, independent of elevational movement of the first print nozzle (Page 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Garcia in view of Korshikov to incorporate the teachings of Tang and include motion subsystems for providing relative elevational movement between the two print nozzles. The purpose, as stated by Tang, being the second nozzle module can be prevented from rubbing against the model, thereby improving the printing accuracy (Page 4).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (US-20230191651) in view of Korshikov (U.S. Patent No. 11904528), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Dutta (US-20200198059).
Regarding claim 10, Garcia in view of Korshikov teaches the limitations of claim 7, which claim 10 depends on, but does not teach the linear movement component moving the first and second print nozzles towards or away from each other, however, Dutta, in a similar field of endeavor, an additive manufacturing system for making a part, teaches:
further including a linear movement component for moving the first and second print nozzles towards or away from one another to vary a spacing between the first and second axially extending passageways ([0020] – [0021]; Fig. 1, #20, #24, #26, #28, #30, and #32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Garcia in view of Korshikov to incorporate the teachings of Dutta and have the linear movement component move the first and second print nozzles towards or away from each other. The purpose, as stated by Dutta, being to provide linear motion to each nozzle so as to adjust their locations as demanded by varying object dimensions ([0021]).
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (US-20230191651) in view of Mordechay (US-20230173753) and Korshikov (U.S. Patent No. 11904528).
Regarding claim 15, Garcia teaches:
An additive manufacturing (AM) system for making a part ([0005] – [0006]), the system comprising:
a build plate ([0035]; Fig. 2, #148) on which to form the part in a layer-by-layer fashion ([0035]; Fig. 2, #146);
a print nozzle component configured to be supported above the build plate ([0030] – [0040]; Fig. 2, #144, and #222; [0062] – [0065]; Fig. 8, #406 and #408), the print nozzle component having:
a first axially extending passageway for extruding a first resin-infused feedstock material having a continuous fiber ([0030] – [0040]; Fig. 2, #144, and #126; [0062] – [0065] and [0074] – [0078]); Fig. 8, #406 and #126), supplied from a first source of resin- infused feedstock material, onto the build plate ([0030]; Fig. 1, #124); and
a second axially extending passageway for extruding a second resin- infused feedstock material ([0030] – [0040]; Fig. 2, #236, and #222; [0062] – [0065]; Fig. 8, #126 and #408) having at least one of chopped fibers or milled fibers ([0030] and [0074] – [0078]), and supplied from a second source of resin-infused feedstock material onto the build plate concurrently with, or alternately with, extrusion of the first resin-infused feedstock material ([0030]; Fig. 1, #124), to form the part([0029] – [0030]; Fig. 4B, #146); and
a motion control subsystem in communication with the at least one of a computer or electronic controller, described below and configured to produce relative movement, in response to signals from the at least one of a computer or electronic controller, within an X/Y plane between the build plate and the print nozzle ([0067]).
Garcia does not explicitly teach:
the system comprising at least one of a computer or electronic controller; and
a cutting implement configured to be moved to cut the first resin-infused feedstock material as the first resin-infused feedstock material leaves the print nozzle component.
However, Mordechay, in a similar field of endeavor, an additive manufacturing system for making a part, teaches:
the system comprising at least one of a computer or electronic controller ([0083]; Fig. 1B, #16 and #20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Garcia to incorporate the teachings of Mordechay and include a controller and computer. The purpose, as stated by Mordechay, being the operation of inkjet printing heads and optionally and preferably also of one or more other components of system, e.g., the motion of tray, are controlled by a computerized controller ([0083]).
Garcia in view of Mordechay does not teach:
a cutting implement configured to be moved to cut the first resin-infused feedstock material as the first resin-infused feedstock material leaves the print nozzle component.
However, Korshikov, in a similar field of endeavor, an additive manufacturing system for making a part comprising of multiple different feedstock materials, teaches:
a cutting implement configured to be moved to cut the first resin-infused feedstock material as the first resin-infused feedstock material leaves the print nozzle component (Col. 12, lines 46-60; Fig. 4, #2001).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Garcia in view of Mordechay to incorporate the teachings of Korshikov and include a cutting implement configured to cut the first material as it leaves the print nozzle component. The purpose, as stated by Korshikov, being that this may be desirable in complex arrangements where the use of the fiber strand can limit flexibility in complex creations and/or can be more expensive, such that occasional regions of non-reinforced layers may be acceptable in non-load bearing regions that are not critical for having enhanced material characteristics (Col. 12, lines 54-60).
Regarding claim 16, Garcia in view of Korshikov and Mordechay teaches the limitations of claim 15, which claim 16 depends on. Garcia further teaches:
further comprising at least one ultraviolet (UV) light for at least partially curing one or the other of the first and second resin-infused feedstock materials, in situ, while printing a given layer of the part ([0056] – [0061], [0073], and [0088]; Fig. 7B, #304).
Regarding claim 17, Garcia in view of Korshikov and Mordechay teaches the limitations of claim 15, which claim 17 depends on. Korshikov further teaches:
wherein the cutting implement further comprises a blade configured for movement to cut a continuous fiber of the first feedstock material as the first feedstock material is being laid down from the print nozzle component (Col. 12, lines 46-60; Fig. 4, #2001).
Regarding claim 18, Garcia in view of Korshikov and Mordechay teaches the limitations of claim 15, which claim 18 depends on. Garcia further teaches:
further comprising an additional motion control subsystem configured to cause relative elevational movement along a Z axis plane between the print nozzle component and the build plate while extruding at least one of the first or second resin-infused feedstock materials ([0067]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (US-20230191651) in view of Mordechay (US-20230173753) and Korshikov (U.S. Patent No. 11904528), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Dutta (US-20200198059).
Regarding claim 19, Garcia in view of Mordechay and Korshikov teaches the limitations of claim 15, which claim 19 depends on. Garcia further teaches:
a first print nozzle which includes the first axially extending passageway ([0062] – [0065]; Fig. 8, #406); and
a second print nozzle positioned laterally adjacent the first print nozzle ([0062] – [0065]; Fig. 8, #406 and #408).
Garcia in view of Mordechay and Korshikov does not teach a movement producing component configured to change a lateral spacing between the first and second print nozzles, however, Dutta, in a similar field of endeavor, an additive manufacturing system for making a part, teaches:
a movement producing component configured to change a lateral spacing between the first and second print nozzles while a layer is being printed using the first and second resin-infused materials extruded from the first and second print nozzles ([0020] – [0021]; Fig. 1, #20, #24, #26, #28, #30, and #32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Garcia in view of Mordechay and Korshikov to incorporate the teachings of Dutta and have a movement producing component configured to change a lateral spacing between the first and second print nozzles. The purpose, as stated by Dutta, being to provide linear motion to each nozzle so as to adjust their locations as demanded by varying object dimensions ([0021]).
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 Adrien J Bernard whose telephone number is (571)272-1384. The examiner can normally be reached M-R, from 7:30a.m.-4:30p.m..
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571 270-7001. 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.
/A.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1741 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748