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
Claim 1, 11 are currently amended.
Claims 2-10 are original.
Claim 12 is withdrawn – currently amended.
Claims 13-21 are cancelled.
Claims 22-30 are new.
Claim Interpretation
Instant claims are directed to an additive manufacturing print head and positively recites that a first and a second syringe containing a first and a second feedstock material respectively. Applicant’s amendment is directed to the previous examiner’s position that:
“If the claim recited that the syringes contain a [first / second, respective] feedstock[s], then Examiner would need to search and find it.”
However, this is not consistent with the MPEP. MPEP 2115 makes clear that material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims. “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”. The claimed first and second feedstock materials are materials worked upon by the claimed print heat. The feedstock material is contained in the first and second syringe but proceeds to be flowed through the entire printhead and ultimately dispensed as a multilayer extrudate. Therefore, although positively recited, the first and second feedstock material are not part of the apparatus since it is worked upon by the apparatus (i.e. enters and leaves the apparatus). Therefore, claims limitations directed to the first and second feedstock do not impart patentability to the claimed print head.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 7/9/2026, are not found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that the previous Advisory Action does not provide any reasoning explaining how the filament heads illustrated in FIGS. 11(a) and 11(b) of Guillemette read on each of the claimed features (e.g. the minimizer, the multiplier) of independent claim 1. This argument is not persuasive. As shown in the annotated Fig. 12 below, the claimed features of minimizer and the multiplier are taught by Guillemette.
Applicant’s argument regarding the newly amended limitation has been addressed by the claim interpretation section above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 23 recites “further comprising the first feedstock and the second feedstock”. However, claim 1 also recites that the syringes contains the first and the second feedstock. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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, 3, 23-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillemette (US 2016/0297104), and further in view of Kuster (US 20200063289).
Regarding claim 1, Guillemette discloses an additive manufacturing print head as part of a printer (see 3D printer / additive manufacturing printing of title & abs; structures of Fig. 12) comprising:
a spinneret (see Fig. 9d, side-by-side filament joiner as detailed in [0177] – there is a single outlet channel with two inlets / filament sources) defining a first channel (see outlet) configured to receive a first feedstock (see lower filament, Id.) and a second channel (see upper channel, Id.), wherein the spinneret is configured to provide a bilayer extrudate (see two layers of extrudate associated with each filament) comprising a layer of the first feedstock in direct contact with a layer of the second feedstock (see Fig. 9d – they are in direct contact);
a minimizer configured to receive the bilayer extrudate from the spinneret and to reduce a flow area of bilayer extrudate transverse to a flow direction of the bilayer extrudate (see joining head portion where the area is decreasing along the flow path in annotated Fig. 12) and
a multiplier configured to transform the bilayer extrudate from the minimizer to a multilayer extrudate, wherein the multilayer extrudate comprises alternating layers of the first and second feedstock (see structure of annotated Fig. 12 which transforms the bilayer extrudate into a 4-layer extrudate).
PNG
media_image1.png
400
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Guillemette fails to disclose a first and second syringes located upstream of the spinneret as recited in independent claim 1.
The Guillemette reference fails to disclose a first syringe containing a first feedstock comprising a first flowable material; a second syringe containing a second feedstock comprising a second flowable material. However, as shown in Fig. 11(a) and 11(b) of Guillemette, the two feedstock materials are fed from two inlets.
Kuster discloses an additive manufacturing apparatus (see title which discloses electrospinning printing device; apparatus / printer of Fig. 5) for producing fibers (see microfibers of [0051]) including a plurality of printing heads (see printing heads 200 of [0063] & [0068]), each of which includes a syringe ([0072], syringe) to contain feedstocks comprising flowable materials (see pneumatic force of fluids, Id.) to deliver materials (the claim does not positively recite whether the first and second flowable materials are the same or different materials and, additionally, the apparatus structures of Kuster are interpreted as capable of processing / being fed the same or different materials) including a spinneret (see 210 of [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the first and second syringes of Kuster with the additive manufacturing print head containing a spinneret with two channels, minimizer and multiplier of Guillemette to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so was an exercise in combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results – KSR Rationale A. Since Guillemette and Kuster were both directed to additive manufacturing printheads, their combination had a reasonable expectation of success as it is using a known way of feeding a feedstock (Kuster) to introduce the feedstock of Guillemette into the feedstock inlets.
Regarding claim 3, Guillemette’s Fig. 12 shows that the structure recited in the claim results in a multi-layered extrudate of 4-layers.
Regarding claim 23, see rejection of claim 1 and claim interpretation section regarding materials worked upon by the apparatus.
Regarding claim 24, see rejection of claim 1 and claim interpretation section regarding materials worked upon by the apparatus.
Regarding claim 25, see rejection of claim 1 and claim interpretation section regarding materials worked upon by the apparatus.
Regarding claim 26, see rejection of claim 1 and claim interpretation section regarding materials worked upon by the apparatus.
Regarding claim 27, see rejection of claim 1 and claim interpretation section regarding materials worked upon by the apparatus.
Regarding claim 28, see rejection of claim 1 and claim interpretation section regarding materials worked upon by the apparatus.
Regarding claim 29, see rejection of claim 1 and claim interpretation section regarding materials worked upon by the apparatus.
Regarding claim 30, see rejection of claim 1 and claim interpretation section regarding materials worked upon by the apparatus.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillemette (US 2016/0297104), and further in view of Kuster (US 20200063289), and Lewis (US 2020/0061910).
Regarding claim 2, the combination Guillemette / Kuster fails to disclose a reducer configured to receive the multilayer extrudate from the multiplier and to modify the dimensions of the multilayer extrudate in a plane transverse to the flow direction of the multilayer extrudate.
Lewis discloses a reducer (see tapered nozzle 434 of [0046 & Fig. 5B) configured to receive the multilayered extrudate (see core-shell filament – Id.; see also extruded multi-layer filament of [0031]), to modify the dimensions of the multilayer extrudate (see control over the cross-sectional dimensions of the filament by varying flow rate and pressure of material flowing through the respective channels of [0046]) in a plane transverse to the flow direction (interpreted as up-down / z-axis parallel / vertical direction – see Fig. 5B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the tapered nozzle configuration of Lewis to the additive manufacturing print head of Guillemette to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so allowed for the creation of providing extrusion of one or more materials with a stable circular cross-section ([0036]) – KSR Rationale G – teaching, suggestion, motivation.
When the tapered nozzle is added from Lewis to the output of the multiplier of Guillemette such that it creates a stable circular cross-section as was desired by Lewis and generally in additive manufacturing arts, such as Guillemette and Kuster, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added it to the output of the multiplier to create a stable circular cross-section of flow from the multiplier, and therefore, the combination Guillemette / Kuster / Lewis has a reducer configured to receive the multilayer extrudate from the multiplier.
The reducer is taken as having an identical function and structure as the minimizer as recited in claim 1 above, however, the claim requires a second / additional one of such structures as downstream of the multiplier rather than upstream of it, as the minimizer is treated above.
Claims 4, 6-9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillemette (US 2016/0297104), and further in view of Kuster (US 20200063289), and Singer (US 2010/0098126).
Regarding claim 4, the combination Guillemette / Kuster discloses a four-layered extrudate from a single multiplier system operating on a bilayer extrudate and recognizes that the extrudate may comprise a coextrusion of 2-20 layers ([0044], [0152]), however, fails to disclose a structure / additional multiplier configured to receive the multilayer from the multiplier and to double a number of alternating layers of the multilayer extrudate for achieving that result. Guilemette further discloses that the filament split can be repeated and stopped after a specified number of iterations ([0191])
Singer discloses an additive manufacturing printhead (title, abs, Fig. 4) operating on a bilayer extrudate, and gives an example in which the number of multipliers is 2, where adding a second multiplier doubles the number of alternating layers of the multilayer extrudate exiting the die of the final multiplier ([0042]-[0043] & [0053]). Singer discloses that layers of an article formed can be from 2-500,000 ([0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a second multiplier to achieve an 8-layered extrudate as in Singer within the additive manufacturing printhead of Guillemette as the number of multipliers was a species disclosed in an example of Singer to create an object with 8-layer extrudate deposited in a single pass of the printhead with a bilayer extrudate input with the print head for forming multi-layered extrudates of Guillemette, especially since Guillemette teaches that the filament splitting can be repeated until a desired specific number of iterations ([0191]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination Guillemette / Kuster / Singer discloses wherein the multiplier and the additional / second multiplier are configured to transform the bilayer extrudate into an eight-layer extrudate in a specific embodiment where the number of multipliers is 2, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 7, the combination Guillemette / Kuster fails to disclose one or more (an additional) multiplier configured to receive the multilayer from the multiplier and to double a number of alternating layers of the multilayer extrudate.
Singer discloses an additive manufacturing printhead (title, abs, Fig. 4) operating on a bilayer extrudate, and gives an example in which the number of multipliers is 2, where adding a second multiplier doubles the number of alternating layers of the multilayer extrudate exiting the die of the final multiplier ([0042]-[0043] & [0053]). Singer discloses that layers of an article formed can be from 2-500,000 ([0008]). Singer teaches additive manufacturing systems (see title, abs) with multipliers ([0042]-[0043]) where the number of multipliers denoted as a variable n. n can be 2, therefore the disclosure of Singer of 2 multipliers is interpreted as
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a second multiplier as in Singer within the additive manufacturing printhead of Guillemette as the number of multipliers was a species disclosed in an example of Singer to create an object in less passes of the printhead, thereby reducing manufacturing time and costs – KSR Rationale G – teaching, suggestion, motivation.
Regarding claim 8, the combination Guillemette / Kuster / Singer discloses multiple multipliers (see [0053] as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above, the claim from which this claim depends), and goes on to disclose the claim limitation wherein the multiplier and the one or more additional multipliers are configured to transform the bilayer extrudate to a multilayer extrudate having 2(n+1) layers, where n is the total number of multipliers in the system.
Regarding claim 9, the combination Guillemette / Kuster fails to disclose further comprising (n-1) additional multipliers coupled in series, wherein each of the (n-1) multipliers is configured to double a number of alternating layers of the multilayer extrudate provided to each of the (n-1) additional multipliers.
Singer teaches additive manufacturing systems (see title, abs) with multipliers ([0042]-[0043]) of various numbers, and goes on to recognize the relationship between the number of layers formed by the exit die and the total number of multipliers in the system ([0053]).
Since there are 2 multipliers total in the Singer example as detailed above and in the cited portions, there are also necessarily (n-1)=(2-1)=1 additional multipliers in that cited example, where a multiplier is necessarily configured to double a number of alternating layers of the multilayer extrudate provided to the each of the (n-1) multipliers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a second multiplier as in Singer within the additive manufacturing printhead of Guillemette as the number of multipliers was a species disclosed in an example of Singer to create an object in less passes of the printhead, thereby reducing manufacturing time and costs – KSR Rationale G – teaching, suggestion, motivation.
Regarding claim 11, the combination Guillemette / Kuster / Singer discloses a printer comprising the print head of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above – the printhead of the combination is part of a printer).
Guillemette fails to disclose wherein the apparatus further includes a plotter.
Kuster discloses an additive manufacturing printhead (see title, abs) wherein the apparatus further includes a plotter (see xyz gantry of Kuster [0012], [0087] and Fig. 5) coupled to the additive manufacturing print head (see printing head, Id.), wherein the plotter is configured to translate the print head in three dimensions (see x, y and z dimensions as perpendicular Cartesian coordinates) relative to a printing substrate (see the structure that the object prints the layers onto of Kuster collector 300 of Fig. 5 & [0087]), thereby forming a three-dimensional printed object (manner of operation / intended uses) on the printing substrate (manner of operation / intended uses – satisfied, Id.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the xyz plotter of Kuster to the additive manufacturing printhead of Guillemette to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so was an exercise in combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results – KSR Rationale A. Since both Kuster and Guillemette were both in the same field of additive manufacturing printheads, their combination had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillemette (US 2016/0297104), and further in view of Kuster (US 20200063289), Singer (US 2010/0098126), and Lewis (US 2020/0061910).
Regarding claim 5, the combination Guillemette / Kuster / Singer fails to disclose a reducer configured to receive the multilayer extrudate from the additional multiplier and to modify the dimensions of the multilayer extrudate in a plane transverse to the flow direction of the multilayer extrudate.
Lewis discloses a reducer (see tapered nozzle 434 of [0046] & Fig. 5B) configured to receive the multilayered extrudate (see core-shell filament – Id.; see also extruded multi-layer filament of [0031]), to modify the dimensions of the multilayer extrudate (see control over the cross-sectional dimensions of the filament by varying flow rate and pressure of material flowing through the respective channels of [0046]) in a plane transverse to the flow direction (interpreted as up-down / z-axis parallel / vertical direction – see Fig. 5B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the tapered nozzle configuration of Lewis to the additive manufacturing print head of Guillemette to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so allowed for the creation of providing extrusion of one or more materials with a stable circular cross-section ([0036]) – KSR Rationale G – teaching, suggestion, motivation.
When the tapered nozzle is added from Lewis to the output of the multiplier of Guillemette such that it creates a stable circular cross-section as was desired by Lewis and generally in additive manufacturing arts, such as Guillemette and Kuster, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added it to the output of the multiplier to create a stable circular cross-section of flow from the multiplier, and therefore, the combination Guillemette / Kuster / Lewis has a reducer configured to receive the multilayer extrudate from the multiplier.
The reducer is taken as having an identical function and structure as the minimizer as recited in claim 1 above, however, the claim requires a second / additional one of such structures as downstream of the multiplier rather than upstream of it, as the minimizer is treated above.
Applicant has not demonstrated a new and unexpected result of the claimed configuration.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillemette (US 2016/0297104), and further in view of Kuster (US 20200063289), Singer (US 2010/0098126), and Lewis (US 2020/0061910).
Regarding claim 10, the combination Guillemette / Kuster / Singer discloses a result-effective variable between the number of multipliers and the number of output layers of the multi-layered extrudate from the additive manufacturing printhead, however, fails to disclose further comprising a reducer to receive the multilayer extrudate from the additional multipliers and to modify a dimension of the multilayer extrudate in a plane transverse to the flow direction of the multilayer extrudate. In a particular example detailed in Singer [0042]-[0043], n-1=2-1=1 additional multiplier creates an output multi-layer extrudate of 8 layers.
The combination modified Guillemette / Kuster / Singer fails to disclose further comprising a reducer configured to receive the multilayer extrudate from the additional multiplier and to modify the dimensions of the multilayer extrudate in a plane transverse to the flow direction of the multilayer extrudate.
Lewis discloses a reducer (see tapered nozzle 434 of [0046] & Fig. 5B) configured to receive the multilayered extrudate (see core-shell filament – Id.; see also extruded multi-layer filament of [0031]), to modify the dimensions of the multilayer extrudate (see control over the cross-sectional dimensions of the filament by varying flow rate and pressure of material flowing through the respective channels of [0046]) in a plane transverse to the flow direction (interpreted as up-down / z-axis parallel / vertical direction – see Fig. 5B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the tapered nozzle configuration of Lewis to the additive manufacturing print head of Guillemette to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so allowed for the creation of providing extrusion of one or more materials with a stable circular cross-section ([0036]) – KSR Rationale G – teaching, suggestion, motivation.
When the tapered nozzle is added from Lewis to the output of the multiplier of Guillemette such that it creates a stable circular cross-section as was desired by Lewis and generally in additive manufacturing arts, such as Guillemette and Kuster, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added it to the output of the multiplier to create a stable circular cross-section of flow from the multiplier, and therefore, the combination Guillemette / Kuster / Lewis has a reducer configured to receive the multilayer extrudate from the multiplier.
The reducer is taken as having an identical function and structure as the minimizer as recited in claim 1 above, however, the claim requires a second / additional one of such structures as downstream of the multiplier rather than upstream of it, as the minimizer is treated above.
The reducer is taken as having an identical function as the minimizer as recited in claim 1 above, however, it is downstream of the multiplier rather than upstream of it as the minimizer is.
Applicant has not demonstrated a new and unexpected result of the claimed configuration.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillemette (US 2016/0297104), and further in view of Kuster (US 20200063289), Singer (US 2010/0098126), and Lewis 2 (US 2016/0198576).
Regarding claim 22, the combination Guillemette / Kuster / Singer fails to disclose wherein the printer has a positional accuracy in a range of 5-15 microns.
Lewis discloses an additive manufacturing / three-dimensional (see title, abs) printhead ([0085]) wherein the printer has a positional accuracy of within plus or minus 10 microns in some cases (Id.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the dimensional / positional accuracy of Lewis to the additive manufacturing printhead of Guillemette to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so was an exercise in combining prior art elements according to known results – KSR Rationale A. Since both Lewis and Guillemette were both in the field of additive manufacturing / 3D printing, their combination had a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAO SI ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-5343. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/XIAO S ZHAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
