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 .
This action is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 7/1/2026
Claims 1-20 are pending
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 7/1/2026, with respect to 101 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejections of claims 8 and 15 have been withdrawn because applicant’s amendment to the claims overcome the rejections.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 7/1/2026, with respect to 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections of claims 5, 12, and 19 have been withdrawn because Applicant’s amendment to the claims overcome the rejections.
Applicant's arguments, filed 7/1/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments on page 11, applicant argues that “Woytowitz combined with Malkani does not disclose, teach, or suggest, ‘determining a reinforcement material for the 3D object based on the simulating of the stresses on the 3D object, wherein the reinforcement material increases a rigidity of the 3D object”. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Woytowitz teaches (Par. [0106], “the matrix material may be mixed with, contain, or otherwise coat one or more reinforcements (e.g., continuous or chopped fibers, such as carbon fibers, glass fibers, metallic fibers, etc.)”; Par. [0109], “the continuous fibers F, because of the way in which they are fed through head 20 (referring to FIG. 2) and deposited within elongated tracks T, are generally aligned with the tool path of head 20. This general alignment may function to increase a stiffness of tracks T in an axial direction.”; Par. [0178], “Fiber reinforcement may be included along maximum non-uniform stress profiles of the first region. Fiber reinforcement may be included along maximum non-uniform stress profiles of the second region.”; Par. [0181], “regions with high stress can be identified and additional fiber may be added to the material for strength”). Thus, Woytowitz teaches reinforcement material that increases stiffness, which corresponds to increasing rigidity of the 3D object.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-12, Applicant further argues that “Woytowitz combined with Malkani does not disclose, teach, or suggest, … inserting, using an inject jet of the 3D printer, a metal wire strip through a portion of the 3D object, wherein the inserting includes pushing the metal wire strip through a first area of the portion of the 3D object towards a second area of the portion of the 3D object, and wherein the metal wire strip is the reinforcement material”. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Espalin is relied upon for the additional metal-wire insertion limitation. Espalin teaches (Par. [0039], “The wire 18 is driven by the rotating pinch rollers and the direction of the rotation determines whether the wire 18 is being pushed (or advanced) out of the tip 38 or being pulled back in (or retracted).”; Par. [0044], “During the dwelling time, the wire 18 is advanced beyond the tip's orifice 41 as depicted in FIG. 3(c)”; Par. [0046], “After the starting point is established, the hot orifice 41 is brought back to the plastic surface 39 and immediately traversed as shown in FIG. 3(e) by an automation motion system while advancing the wire 18 forward to create the wire pattern”; Par. [0033], “The wire pattern within the object can function as interconnections between electronic components, an electromagnetic device, a heating element, a heat dissipating element, and/or a mechanical reinforcement for a 3D printed plastic part.”; Par. [0035], “The wire can be composed of, for example, copper, stainless steel, nickel chromium, monel, nickel titanium, Kevlar, co-axial wire, optical fiber, or another similar material.”). Thus, Espalin teaches pushing and advancing the wire from one area of the 3D printed material toward another area while creating the embedded wire pattern, wherein the metal wire is the reinforcement material.
Applicant’s arguments on page 12, Applicant further argues, “though Espalin discloses ‘a direct wire embedding head’ capable of pushing a metal wire into a portion of a 3D object, Applicant respectfully submits that ‘embedding’ is not the same as ‘inserting … a metal wire strip through a portion of the 3D object’, as required by Applicant’s amended claim 1”. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Espalin teaches (Par. [0039] “The wire 18 is driven by the rotating pinch rollers and the direction of the rotation determines whether the wire 18 is being pushed (or advanced) out of the tip 38 or being pulled back in (or retracted).”; Par. [0044], “During the dwelling time, the wire 18 is advanced beyond the tip's orifice 41 as depicted in FIG. 3(c) so that the wire 18 is submerged into melted or softened plastic”; Par. [0046], “After the starting point is established, the hot orifice 41 is brought back to the plastic surface 39 and immediately traversed as shown in FIG. 3(e) by an automation motion system while advancing the wire 18 forward to create the wire pattern. The tooling head is traversed in three-dimensional space to create the desired wire pattern”). Thus, Espalin teaches pushing and advancing a metal wire into and within a portion of the 3D object from one area toward another area.
Applicant’s arguments on page 12, Applicant further argues, “Independent claims 8 and 15 present different statutory classes of the subject matter presented in claim 1 and similarly distinguish over Woytowitz combined with Malkani for at least the reasons stated above with respect to claim 1. Applicant submits that independent claims 8 and 15 require similar elements as claim 1 and are also believed to overcome the rejection for the same or similar reasons. Dependent claims 2-7 ultimately depend from independent claim 1, dependent claims 9-14 ultimately depend from independent claim 8, and dependent claims 16-20 ultimately depend from independent claim 15. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are allowable at least by virtue of their dependency on allowable independent claims”. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed above. Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are not allowable merely by virtue of their dependency because the respective independent claims remain rejected. Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woytowitz et al. USPGPUB 2020/0307174 A1 (hereinafter Woytowitz) in view of Malkani et al. WO 2019/055538 A1 (hereinafter Malkani), and further in view of Espalin USPGPUB 2017/0064840 A1 (hereinafter Espalin).
Regarding claim 1, Woytowitz teaches a method (Par. [0011] “The present disclosure provides methods for converting a three-dimensional (3D) part or model of the part into machine code. The 3D model may be pixelated into a collection of virtual volumetric shapes (e.g., cubes, spheres, pyramids, etc.), which may be referred to as voxels”; Par. [0194] “The system can comprise one or more processors”) comprising:
analyzing a digital model of a 3D object (Par. [0052] “method for structurally analyzing and printing a part, the method comprising: (a) receiving, in computer memory, a model of the part for three-dimensional printing from a material comprising a matrix and fiber material; (b) receiving, in computer memory, one or more properties for the material; (c) using the model, determining a print head tool path for use during the three-dimensional printing of the part; (d) generating a virtual mesh of analytic elements within the model of the part and determining a trajectory of at least one stiffness contributing portion of the material based at least in part on the print head tool path, wherein the trajectory of the at least one stiffness-contributing portion is determined through each of the analytic elements in the virtual mesh”);
identifying stresses expected to be applied to the 3D object (Par. [0048] “The processor may further execute the stored instructions to predict at least one of a stress field and a displacement field of the part based on aggregation of the three-dimensional stiffnesses of the analytic elements and the intended use information, and to show on the display a graphical representation of the predicted at least one of the stress field and the displacement field of the part overlapped with the model of the part and the print head tool path”);
performing simulation of the 3D object (Par. [0185] “virtual build simulator can create a "virtual build" model of the part.”; Par. [0011] “The 3D model may be pixelated into a collection of virtual volumetric shapes (e.g., cubes, spheres, pyramids, etc.), which may be referred to as voxels”);
simulating the stresses on the 3D object (Par. [0186] “virtual build simulator can introduce important physical parameters into the build process. The physical parameters may comprise, but not be limited to, thermal modeling, stress modeling and rheology (flow) modeling, and applied pressure and stresses during deposition, or any combination thereof”);
determining a reinforcement material for the 3D object based on the simulating of the stresses on the 3D object (Par. [0106] “the matrix material may be mixed with, contain, or otherwise coat one or more reinforcements (e.g., continuous or chopped fibers, such as carbon fibers, glass fibers, metallic fibers, etc.).”; Fig, 6, 12, Par. [0129] “determine (e.g., predict) the global performance of part 12 based on an aggregated stiffness of each individual analytics element 42 (Operation 260); Par. [0131] “Control may then loop through operations 240-280 until acceptable part performance is determined.” – The simulation loops through different combinations of reinforcement materials to determine which reinforcement materials are able to meet performance standards for the 3D printed object.), wherein the reinforcement material increases a rigidity of the 3D object (Par. [0109], “the continuous fibers F, because of the way in which they are fed through head 20 (referring to FIG. 2) and deposited within elongated tracks T, are generally aligned with the tool path of head 20. This general alignment may function to increase a stiffness of tracks T in an axial direction.”; Par. [0178], “Fiber reinforcement may be included along maximum non-uniform stress profiles of the first region. Fiber reinforcement may be included along maximum non-uniform stress profiles of the second region.”; Par. [0181], “regions with high stress can be identified and additional fiber may be added to the material for strength”);
modifying the digital model of the 3D object to include the reinforcement material (Fig. 6, 12, Par. [0160] “Control may then loop through operations 1240-1280 until acceptable part performance is determined”; Par. [0178] “Fiber reinforcement may be included along maximum non-uniform stress profiles of the first region. Fiber reinforcement may be included along maximum non-uniform stress profiles of the second region”; Par. [0151] “voxel layout may be manually selected by the user (e.g., from a listing of available layouts that have been automatically generated) and/or selectively modified after automatic selection.” – the user can select which finalized modified layout to use from a list of available layouts); and
printing, via a 3D printer, the reinforcement material in the 3D object (Fig. 6, 12, Par. [0160] “printer 1014 to fabricate part 1012 using the corresponding voxel layout (operation 1290)”).
Woytowitz teaches performing a simulation of the 3d object, but does not explicitly teach performing a digital twin simulation of the 3d object; and
wherein the printing includes:
inserting, using an inject jet of the 3D printer, a metal wire strip through a portion of the 3D object, wherein the inserting includes pushing the metal wire strip through a first area of the portion of the 3D object towards a second area of the portion of the 3D object, and wherein the metal wire strip is the reinforcement material.
However, Malkani teaches performing a digital twin simulation of the 3d object (Par. [0004] “repeating the optimization of the digital twin to obtain one or more updated optimization targets, one or more updated optimization constraints, or both; wherein the repeating of the optimization of the digital twin is based on a second set of simulation results generated by applying at least one second fidelity model to the design data of the at least one AM part; (G) updating, by the processor, based on the one or more acceptable materials, the digital twin to obtain an updated digital twin; (H) verifying, by the processor, that the updated digital twin meets a geometry prescribed by the design data of the at least one AM part; (I) transmitting, by the processor, based on the updated digital twin, at least one AM part build instruction to at least one AM machine to build the at least one AM part;”).
Woytowitz and Malkani are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They both relate to using simulation to optimize a 3d printing process.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above simulation framework, as taught by Woytowitz, and incorporate digital twin simulation techniques, as taught by Malkani.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve modeling fidelity and validation capability as suggested by Malkani (Par. [004]).
Woytowitz and Malkani do not explicitly teach wherein the printing includes:
Inserting, using an inject jet of the 3D printer, a metal wire strip through a portion of the 3D object, wherein the inserting includes pushing the metal wire strip through a first area of the portion of the 3D object towards a second area of the portion of the 3D object, and wherein the metal wire strip is the reinforcement material.
However, Espalin teaches wherein the printing includes:
inserting, using an inject jet of the 3D printer, a metal wire strip through a portion of the 3D object, wherein the inserting includes pushing the metal wire strip through a first area of the portion of the 3D object towards a second area of the portion of the 3D object, and wherein the metal wire strip is the reinforcement material (Par. [0035] “The wire can be composed of, for example, copper, stainless steel, nickel chromium, monel, nickel titanium, Kevlar, co-axial wire, optical fiber, or another similar material.”; Par. [0039] “The wire 18 is driven by the rotating pinch rollers and the direction of the rotation determines whether the wire 18 is being pushed (or advanced) out of the tip 38 or being pulled back in (or retracted).”; Par. [0044], “During the dwelling time, the wire 18 is advanced beyond the tip's orifice 41 as depicted in FIG. 3(c) so that the wire 18 is submerged into melted or softened plastic”; Par. [0046], “After the starting point is established, the hot orifice 41 is brought back to the plastic surface 39 and immediately traversed as shown in FIG. 3(e) by an automation motion system while advancing the wire 18 forward to create the wire pattern. The tooling head is traversed in three-dimensional space to create the desired wire pattern”.
Woytowitz, Malkani, and Espalin are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above digital twin simulation framework, as taught by Woytowitz and Malkani, and incorporate a direct wire embedding head to insert a metal wire reinforcement into a portion of the 3D printed object, as taught by Espalin.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve “functionality of the final part” as suggested by Espalin (Par. [0004]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Woytowitz, Malkani, and Espalin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Woytowitz further teaches wherein the simulating of the stresses on the 3D object comprises using one or more reinforcement templates during the digital twin simulation of the 3D object (Fig. 3-5, Par. [0108] – [0109] “Example tracks T are illustrated in FIGS. 3-5.”; Par. [0106] “the matrix material may be mixed with, contain, or otherwise coat one or more reinforcements (e.g., continuous or chopped fibers, such as carbon fibers, glass fibers, metallic fibers, etc.)” – Woytowitz teaches that reinforcement within the 3D object is defined using predetermined trajectories and patterns, such as the tracks illustrated in Fig. 3-5 and infill patterns illustrated in Fig. 16-17. These patterns are generated and applied during simulation and toolpath generation. Such predefined reinforcement trajectories and patterns correspond to “reinforcement templates” as they define predetermined structural layouts used during simulation and printing to achieve desired performance characteristics.).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Woytowitz, Malkani, and Espalin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Woytowitz further teaches performing programmatic reinforcement of the 3D object (Par. [0117] “Programs 32 may include one or more software or firmware modules causing processor 26 to perform one or more functions disclosed herein”; Fig. 6, 12, Par. [0131] “Control may then loop through operations 240-280 until acceptable part performance is determined, at which point processor 26 may cause printer 14 to fabricate part 12 using the corresponding tool path (Operation 290)” – Waytowitz teaches that reinforcement of the 3D object is determined and implemented via processor-executed instructions. Such processor-driven determination and execution of reinforcement correspond to “programmatic reinforcement” as the reinforcement is defined and applied through software control rather than manual intervention.).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Woytowitz, Malkani, and Espalin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Woytowitz further teaches evaluating costs of the reinforcement material for the 3D object (Par. [0152] “method may be based on optimization (e.g., constrained optimization) to fully optimize the performance of the part subject to certain constraints, or, use combined performance indices which may weigh the cost of fully optimizing the part based on performance with other considerations, such as, for example time to manufacture and/or cost of final product” – weighing a cost of optimizing a part based on performance and cost of final product is interpreted as evaluating);
using a trial and error method to determine the costs of using one or more alternate
reinforcement materials (Par. [0131] “Control may then loop through operations 240-280 until acceptable part performance is determined, at which point processor 26 may cause printer 14 to fabricate part 12 using the corresponding tool path (Operation 290).” – looping through operations until acceptable performance is achieved corresponds to a trial and error optimization method; Par. [0152] “method may be based on optimization (e.g., constrained optimization) to fully optimize the performance of the part subject to certain constraints, or, use combined performance indices which may weigh the cost of fully optimizing the part based on performance with other considerations, such as, for example time to manufacture and/or cost of final product; Par. [0151] “Part 1012 may be created in an infinite number of different ways via any combination of different voxels 1026 having different materials, shapes, sizes, locations, orientations, and/or properties” – after a trial and error method to determine acceptable performance, user can select from a listing of available layouts); and
determining an alternate selection of reinforcement materials for the 3D object based on the using of the trial and error method to determine the costs of using the one or more alternate reinforcement materials (Par. [0151] “voxel layout may be manually selected by the user (e.g., from a listing of available layouts that have been automatically generated) and/or selectively modified after automatic selection.”.; Par. [0131] “Control may then loop through operations 240-280 until acceptable part performance is determined, at which point processor 26 may cause printer 14 to fabricate part 12 using the corresponding tool path (Operation 290); Par. [0152] “method may be based on optimization (e.g., constrained optimization) to fully optimize the performance of the part subject to certain constraints, or, use combined performance indices which may weigh the cost of fully optimizing the part based on performance with other considerations, such as, for example time to manufacture and/or cost of final product” – after looping through all possible voxel layouts that meet a performance criteria, the user can select from a list of available layouts that would include alternate reinforcement material combinations capable of meeting the performance criteria.).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Woytowitz, Malkani, and Espalin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Woytowitz further teaches wherein the reinforcement material for the 3D object comprises a combination of two or more reinforcement materials (Par. [0106] “the matrix material may be mixed with, contain, or otherwise coat one or more reinforcements (e.g., continuous or chopped fibers, such as carbon fibers, glass fibers, metallic fibers, etc.)”).
Regarding claim 8, Woytowitz teaches a processor set (Par. [0047] “at least one processor”);
One or more computer readable storage media (Par. [0049] “non transitory computer-readable storage media”); and
Program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media to cause the processor set to perform operations comprising (Par. [0049] “non transitory computer-readable storage media can store program instructions, which may be executed by a computer processor to perform any of the methods described herein”):
analyzing a digital model of a 3D object (Par. [0052] “method for structurally analyzing and printing a part, the method comprising: (a) receiving, in computer memory, a model of the part for three-dimensional printing from a material comprising a matrix and fiber material; (b) receiving, in computer memory, one or more properties for the material; (c) using the model, determining a print head tool path for use during the three-dimensional printing of the part; (d) generating a virtual mesh of analytic elements within the model of the part and determining a trajectory of at least one stiffness contributing portion of the material based at least in part on the print head tool path, wherein the trajectory of the at least one stiffness-contributing portion is determined through each of the analytic elements in the virtual mesh”);
identifying stresses expected to be applied to the 3D object (Par. [0048] “The processor may further execute the stored instructions to predict at least one of a stress field and a displacement field of the part based on aggregation of the three-dimensional stiffnesses of the analytic elements and the intended use information, and to show on the display a graphical representation of the predicted at least one of the stress field and the displacement field of the part overlapped with the model of the part and the print head tool path”);
performing simulation of the 3D object (Par. [0185] “virtual build simulator can create a "virtual build" model of the part.”; Par. [0011] “The 3D model may be pixelated into a collection of virtual volumetric shapes (e.g., cubes, spheres, pyramids, etc.), which may be referred to as voxels”);
simulating the stresses on the 3D object (Par. [0186] “virtual build simulator can introduce important physical parameters into the build process. The physical parameters may comprise, but not be limited to, thermal modeling, stress modeling and rheology (flow) modeling, and applied pressure and stresses during deposition, or any combination thereof”);
determining a reinforcement material for the 3D object based on the simulating of the stresses on the 3D object (Par. [0106] “the matrix material may be mixed with, contain, or otherwise coat one or more reinforcements (e.g., continuous or chopped fibers, such as carbon fibers, glass fibers, metallic fibers, etc.).”; Fig, 6, 12, Par. [0129] “determine (e.g., predict) the global performance of part 12 based on an aggregated stiffness of each individual analytics element 42 (Operation 260); Par. [0131] “Control may then loop through operations 240-280 until acceptable part performance is determined.” – The simulation loops through different combinations of reinforcement materials to determine which reinforcement materials are able to meet performance standards for the 3D printed object.), wherein the reinforcement material increases a rigidity of the 3D object (Par. [0109], “the continuous fibers F, because of the way in which they are fed through head 20 (referring to FIG. 2) and deposited within elongated tracks T, are generally aligned with the tool path of head 20. This general alignment may function to increase a stiffness of tracks T in an axial direction.”; Par. [0178], “Fiber reinforcement may be included along maximum non-uniform stress profiles of the first region. Fiber reinforcement may be included along maximum non-uniform stress profiles of the second region.”; Par. [0181], “regions with high stress can be identified and additional fiber may be added to the material for strength”);
modifying the digital model of the 3D object to include the reinforcement material (Fig. 6, 12, Par. [0160] “Control may then loop through operations 1240-1280 until acceptable part performance is determined”; Par. [0178] “Fiber reinforcement may be included along maximum non-uniform stress profiles of the first region. Fiber reinforcement may be included along maximum non-uniform stress profiles of the second region”; Par. [0151] “voxel layout may be manually selected by the user (e.g., from a listing of available layouts that have been automatically generated) and/or selectively modified after automatic selection.” – the user can select which finalized modified layout to use from a list of available layouts); and
printing, via a 3D printer, the reinforcement material in the 3D object (Fig. 6, 12, Par. [0160] “printer 1014 to fabricate part 1012 using the corresponding voxel layout (operation 1290).”).
Woytowitz teaches performing a simulation of the 3d object, but does not explicitly teach performing a digital twin simulation of the 3d object; and
wherein the printing includes:
inserting, using an inject jet of the 3D printer, a metal wire strip through a portion of the 3D object, wherein the inserting includes pushing the metal wire strip through a first area of the portion of the 3D object towards a second area of the portion of the 3D object, and wherein the metal wire strip is the reinforcement material.
However, Malkani teaches performing a digital twin simulation of the 3d object (Par. [0004] “repeating the optimization of the digital twin to obtain one or more updated optimization targets, one or more updated optimization constraints, or both; wherein the repeating of the optimization of the digital twin is based on a second set of simulation results generated by applying at least one second fidelity model to the design data of the at least one AM part; (G) updating, by the processor, based on the one or more acceptable materials, the digital twin to obtain an updated digital twin; (H) verifying, by the processor, that the updated digital twin meets a geometry prescribed by the design data of the at least one AM part; (I) transmitting, by the processor, based on the updated digital twin, at least one AM part build instruction to at least one AM machine to build the at least one AM part;”).
Woytowitz and Malkani are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They both relate to using simulation to optimize a 3d printing process.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above simulation framework, as taught by Woytowitz, and incorporate digital twin simulation techniques, as taught by Malkani.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve modeling fidelity and validation capability as suggested by Malkani (Par. [004]).
Woytowitz and Malkani do not explicitly teach wherein the printing includes:
inserting, using an inject jet of the 3D printer, a metal wire strip through a portion of the 3D object, wherein the inserting includes pushing the metal wire strip through a first area of the portion of the 3D object towards a second area of the portion of the 3D object, and wherein the metal wire strip is the reinforcement material.
However, Espalin teaches wherein the printing includes:
inserting, using an inject jet of the 3D printer, a metal wire strip through a portion of the 3D object, wherein the inserting includes pushing the metal wire strip through a first area of the portion of the 3D object towards a second area of the portion of the 3D object, and wherein the metal wire strip is the reinforcement material (Par. [0035] “The wire can be composed of, for example, copper, stainless steel, nickel chromium, monel, nickel titanium, Kevlar, co-axial wire, optical fiber, or another similar material.”; Par. [0039] “The wire 18 is driven by the rotating pinch rollers and the direction of the rotation determines whether the wire 18 is being pushed (or advanced) out of the tip 38 or being pulled back in (or retracted).”; Par. [0044], “During the dwelling time, the wire 18 is advanced beyond the tip's orifice 41 as depicted in FIG. 3(c) so that the wire 18 is submerged into melted or softened plastic”; Par. [0046], “After the starting point is established, the hot orifice 41 is brought back to the plastic surface 39 and immediately traversed as shown in FIG. 3(e) by an automation motion system while advancing the wire 18 forward to create the wire pattern. The tooling head is traversed in three-dimensional space to create the desired wire pattern”.
Woytowitz, Malkani, and Espalin are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above digital twin simulation framework, as taught by Woytowitz and Malkani, and incorporate a direct wire embedding head to insert a metal wire reinforcement into a portion of the 3D printed object, as taught by Espalin.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve “functionality of the final part” as suggested by Espalin (Par. [0004]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Woytowitz, Malkani, and Espalin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Woytowitz further teaches wherein the simulating of the stresses on the 3D object comprises using one or more reinforcement templates during the digital twin simulation of the 3D object (Fig. 3-5, Par. [0108] – [0109] “Example tracks T are illustrated in FIGS. 3-5.”; Par. [0106] “the matrix material may be mixed with, contain, or otherwise coat one or more reinforcements (e.g., continuous or chopped fibers, such as carbon fibers, glass fibers, metallic fibers, etc.).” – Woytowitz teaches that reinforcement within the 3D object is defined using predetermined trajectories and patterns, such as the tracks illustrated in Fig. 3-5 and infill patterns illustrated in Fig. 16-17. These patterns are generated and applied during simulation and toolpath generation. Such predefined reinforcement trajectories and patterns correspond to “reinforcement templates” as they define predetermined structural layouts used during simulation and printing to achieve desired performance characteristics.).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Woytowitz, Malkani, and Espalin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Woytowitz further teaches performing programmatic reinforcement of the 3D object (Par. [0117] “Programs 32 may include one or more software or firmware modules causing processor 26 to perform one or more functions disclosed herein”; Fig. 6, 12, Par. [0131] “Control may then loop through operations 240-280 until acceptable part performance is determined, at which point processor 26 may cause printer 14 to fabricate part 12 using the corresponding tool path (Operation 290)” – Waytowitz teaches that reinforcement of the 3D object is determined and implemented via processor-executed instructions. Such processor-driven determination and execution of reinforcement correspond to “programmatic reinforcement” as the reinforcement is defined and applied through software control rather than manual intervention.).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Woytowitz, Malkani, and Espalin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Woytowitz further teaches evaluating costs of the reinforcement material for the 3D object (Par. [0152] “method may be based on optimization (e.g., constrained optimization) to fully optimize the performance of the part subject to certain constraints, or, use combined performance indices which may weigh the cost of fully optimizing the part based on performance with other considerations, such as, for example time to manufacture and/or cost of final product” – weighing a cost of optimizing a part based on performance and cost of final product is interpreted as evaluating);
using a trial and error method to determine the costs of using one or more alternate reinforcement materials (Par. [0131] “Control may then loop through operations 240-280 until acceptable part performance is determined, at which point processor 26 may cause printer 14 to fabricate part 12 using the corresponding tool path (Operation 290).” – looping through operations until acceptable performance is achieved corresponds to a trial and error optimization method; Par. [0152] “method may be based on optimization (e.g., constrained optimization) to fully optimize the performance of the part subject to certain constraints, or, use combined performance indices which may weigh the cost of fully optimizing the part based on performance with other considerations, such as, for example time to manufacture and/or cost of final product; Par. [0151] “Part 1012 may be created in an infinite number of different ways via any combination of different voxels 1026 having different materials, shapes, sizes, locations, orientations, and/or properties” – after a trial and error method to determine acceptable performance, user can select from a listing of available layouts); and
determining an alternate selection of reinforcement materials for the 3D object based on the using of the trial and error method to determine the costs of using the one or more alternate reinforcement materials (Par. [0151] “voxel layout may be manually selected by the user (e.g., from a listing of available layouts that have been automatically generated) and/or selectively modified after automatic selection.”; Par. [0131] “Control may then loop through operations 240-280 until acceptable part performance is determined, at which point processor 26 may cause printer 14 to fabricate part 12 using the corresponding tool path (Operation 290); Par. [0152] “method may be based on optimization (e.g., constrained optimization) to fully optimize the performance of the part subject to certain constraints, or, use combined performance indices which may weigh the cost of fully optimizing the part based on performance with other considerations, such as, for example time to manufacture and/or cost of final product” – after looping through all possible voxel layouts that meet a performance criteria, the user can select from a list of available layouts that would include alternate reinforcement material combinations capable of meeting the performance criteria.).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Woytowitz, Malkani, and Espalin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Woytowitz further teaches wherein the reinforcement material for the 3D object comprises a combination of two or more reinforcement materials (Par. [0106] “the matrix material may be mixed with, contain, or otherwise coat one or more reinforcements (e.g., continuous or chopped fibers, such as carbon fibers, glass fibers, metallic fibers, etc.)”).
Regarding claim 15, Woytowitz teaches one or more computer readable storage media (Par. [0049] “non transitory computer-readable storage media can store program instructions”); and
program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media to perform operations comprising (Par. [0049] “non transitory computer-readable storage media can store program instructions, which may be executed by a computer processor to perform any of the methods described herein”):
analyzing a digital model of a 3D object (Par. [0052] “method for structurally analyzing and printing a part, the method comprising: (a) receiving, in computer memory, a model of the part for three-dimensional printing from a material comprising a matrix and fiber material; (b) receiving, in computer memory, one or more properties for the material; (c) using the model, determining a print head tool path for use during the three-dimensional printing of the part; (d) generating a virtual mesh of analytic elements within the model of the part and determining a trajectory of at least one stiffness contributing portion of the material based at least in part on the print head tool path, wherein the trajectory of the at least one stiffness-contributing portion is determined through each of the analytic elements in the virtual mesh”);
identifying stresses expected to be applied to the 3D object (Par. [0048] “The processor may further execute the stored instructions to predict at least one of a stress field and a displacement field of the part based on aggregation of the three-dimensional stiffnesses of the analytic elements and the intended use information, and to show on the display a graphical representation of the predicted at least one of the stress field and the displacement field of the part overlapped with the model of the part and the print head tool path”);
performing simulation of the 3D object (Par. [0185] “virtual build simulator can create a "virtual build" model of the part.”; Par. [0011] “The 3D model may be pixelated into a collection of virtual volumetric shapes (e.g., cubes, spheres, pyramids, etc.), which may be referred to as voxels”);
simulating the stresses on the 3D object (Par. [0186] “virtual build simulator can introduce important physical parameters into the build process. The physical parameters may comprise, but not be limited to, thermal modeling, stress modeling and rheology (flow) modeling, and applied pressure and stresses during deposition, or any combination thereof”);
determining a reinforcement material for the 3D object based on the simulating of the stresses on the 3D object (Par. [0106] “the matrix material may be mixed with, contain, or otherwise coat one or more reinforcements (e.g., continuous or chopped fibers, such as carbon fibers, glass fibers, metallic fibers, etc.).”; Fig, 6, 12, Par. [0160] “The alternative voxel layout may be based on analysis predictions combined with manufacturing capabilities, and may be determined manually or based on optimization techniques provided by programs 1032”), wherein the reinforcement material increases a rigidity of the 3D object (Par. [0109], “the continuous fibers F, because of the way in which they are fed through head 20 (referring to FIG. 2) and deposited within elongated tracks T, are generally aligned with the tool path of head 20. This general alignment may function to increase a stiffness of tracks T in an axial direction.”; Par. [0178], “Fiber reinforcement may be included along maximum non-uniform stress profiles of the first region. Fiber reinforcement may be included along maximum non-uniform stress profiles of the second region.”; Par. [0181], “regions with high stress can be identified and additional fiber may be added to the material for strength”);
modifying the digital model of the 3D object to include the reinforcement material (Fig. 6, 12, Par. [0160] “Control may then loop through operations 1240-1280 until acceptable part performance is determined”); and
printing, via a 3D printer, the reinforcement material in the 3D object (Fig. 6, 12, Par. [0160] “printer 1014 to fabricate part 1012 using the corresponding voxel layout (operation 1290).”).
Woytowitz teaches performing a simulation of the 3d object, but does not explicitly teach performing a digital twin simulation of the 3d object.
However, Malkani teaches performing a digital twin simulation of the 3d object (Par. [0004] “repeating the optimization of the digital twin to obtain one or more updated optimization targets, one or more updated optimization constraints, or both; wherein the repeating of the optimization of the digital twin is based on a second set of simulation results generated by applying at least one second fidelity model to the design data of the at least one AM part; (G) updating, by the processor, based on the one or more acceptable materials, the digital twin to obtain an updated digital twin; (H) verifying, by the processor, that the updated digital twin meets a geometry prescribed by the design data of the at least one AM part; (I) transmitting, by the processor, based on the updated digital twin, at least one AM part build instruction to at least one AM machine to build the at least one AM part;”).
Woytowitz and Malkani are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They both relate to using simulation to optimize a 3d printing process.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above simulation framework, as taught by Woytowitz, and incorporate digital twin simulation techniques, as taught by Malkani.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve modeling fidelity and validation capability as suggested by Malkani (Par. [004]).
Woytowitz and Malkani do not explicitly teach wherein the printing includes:
Inserting, using an inject jet of the 3D printer, a metal wire strip through a portion of the 3D object, wherein the inserting includes pushing the metal wire strip through a first area of the portion of the 3D object towards a second area of the portion of the 3D object, and wherein the metal wire strip is the reinforcement material.
However, Espalin teaches wherein the printing includes:
inserting, using an inject jet of the 3D printer, a metal wire strip through a portion of the 3D object, wherein the inserting includes pushing the metal wire strip through a first area of the portion of the 3D object towards a second area of the portion of the 3D object, and wherein the metal wire strip is the reinforcement material (Par. [0035] “The wire can be composed of, for example, copper, stainless steel, nickel chromium, monel, nickel titanium, Kevlar, co-axial wire, optical fiber, or another similar material.”; Par. [0039] “The wire 18 is driven by the rotating pinch rollers and the direction of the rotation determines whether the wire 18 is being pushed (or advanced) out of the tip 38 or being pulled back in (or retracted).”; Par. [0044], “During the dwelling time, the wire 18 is advanced beyond the tip's orifice 41 as depicted in FIG. 3(c) so that the wire 18 is submerged into melted or softened plastic”; Par. [0046], “After the starting point is established, the hot orifice 41 is brought back to the plastic surface 39 and immediately traversed as shown in FIG. 3(e) by an automation motion system while advancing the wire 18 forward to create the wire pattern. The tooling head is traversed in three-dimensional space to create the desired wire pattern”.
Woytowitz, Malkani, and Espalin are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above digital twin simulation framework, as taught by Woytowitz and Malkani, and incorporate a direct wire embedding head to insert a metal wire reinforcement into a portion of the 3D printed object, as taught by Espalin.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve “functionality of the final part” as suggested by Espalin (Par. [0004]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Woytowitz, Malkani, and Espalin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Woytowitz further teaches wherein the simulating of the stresses on the 3D object comprises using one or more reinforcement templates during the digital twin simulation of the 3D object (Fig. 3-5, Par. [0108] – [0109] “Example tracks T are illustrated in FIGS. 3-5.”; Par. [0106] “the matrix material may be mixed with, contain, or otherwise coat one or more reinforcements (e.g., continuous or chopped fibers, such as carbon fibers, glass fibers, metallic fibers, etc.)” – Woytowitz teaches that reinforcement within the 3D object is defined using predetermined trajectories and patterns, such as the tracks illustrated in Fig. 3-5 and infill patterns illustrated in Fig. 16-17. These patterns are generated and applied during simulation and toolpath generation. Such predefined reinforcement trajectories and patterns correspond to “reinforcement templates” as they define predetermined structural layouts used during simulation and printing to achieve desired performance characteristics.).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Woytowitz, Malkani, and Espalin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Woytowitz further teaches performing programmatic reinforcement of the 3D object (Par. [0117] “Programs 32 may include one or more software or firmware modules causing processor 26 to perform one or more functions disclosed herein”; Fig. 6, 12, Par. [0131] “Control may then loop through operations 240-280 until acceptable part performance is determined, at which point processor 26 may cause printer 14 to fabricate part 12 using the corresponding tool path (Operation 290)” – Waytowitz teaches that reinforcement of the 3D object is determined and implemented via processor-executed instructions. Such processor-driven determination and execution of reinforcement correspond to “programmatic reinforcement” as the reinforcement is defined and applied through software control rather than manual intervention.).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Woytowitz, Malkani, and Espalin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Woytowitz further teaches evaluating costs of the reinforcement material for the 3D object (Par. [0152] “method may be based on optimization (e.g., constrained optimization) to fully optimize the performance of the part subject to certain constraints, or, use combined performance indices which may weigh the cost of fully optimizing the part based on performance with other considerations, such as, for example time to manufacture and/or cost of final product”);
using a trial and error method to determine the costs of using one or more alternate reinforcement materials (Par. [0131] “Control may then loop through operations 240-280 until acceptable part performance is determined, at which point processor 26 may cause printer 14 to fabricate part 12 using the corresponding tool path (Operation 290).” – looping through operations until acceptable performance is achieved corresponds to a trial and error optimization method; Par. [0152] “method may be based on optimization (e.g., constrained optimization) to fully optimize the performance of the part subject to certain constraints, or, use combined performance indices which may weigh the cost of fully optimizing the part based on performance with other considerations, such as, for example time to manufacture and/or cost of final product; Par. [0151] “Part 1012 may be created in an infinite number of different ways via any combination of different voxels 1026 having different materials, shapes, sizes, locations, orientations, and/or properties” – after a trial and error method to determine acceptable performance, user can select from a listing of available layouts); and
determining an alternate selection of reinforcement materials for the 3D object based on the using of the trial and error method to determine the costs of using the one or more alternate reinforcement materials (Par. [0151] “voxel layout may be manually selected by the user (e.g., from a listing of available layouts that have been automatically generated) and/or selectively modified after automatic selection.”; Par. [0131] “Control may then loop through operations 240-280 until acceptable part performance is determined, at which point processor 26 may cause printer 14 to fabricate part 12 using the corresponding tool path (Operation 290); Par. [0152] “method may be based on optimization (e.g., constrained optimization) to fully optimize the performance of the part subject to certain constraints, or, use combined performance indices which may weigh the cost of fully optimizing the part based on performance with other considerations, such as, for example time to manufacture and/or cost of final product” – after looping through all possible voxel layouts that meet a performance criteria, the user can select from a list of available layouts that would include alternate reinforcement material combinations capable of meeting the performance criteria.).
Claim(s) 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woytowitz et al. USPGPUB 2020/0307174 A1 (hereinafter Woytowitz) in view of Malkani et al. WO 2019/055538 A1 (hereinafter Malkani) and Espalin USPGPUB 2017/0064840 A1 (hereinafter Espalin), and further in view of Busbee US 11,701,813 B2 (hereinafter Busbee).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Woytowitz, Malkani, and Espalin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Woytowitz, Malkani, and Espalin do not explicitly teach using a multi-nozzle system of the 3D printer to print the 3D object.
However, Busbee teaches using a multi-nozzle system of the 3D printer to print the 3D object (Col. 8-9 “using 3-dimensional printing and other printing techniques, including the use of one or more mixing nozzles”).
Woytowitz, Malkani, Espalin, and Busbee are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3d printing.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above digital twin simulation framework, as taught by Woytowitz, Malkani, and Espalin, and using a multi-nozzle system to print the 3D object, as taught by Busbee.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to enable simultaneous or selection deposition of different materials when printing a 3d object as suggested by Busbee (Col. 2).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Woytowitz, Malkani, Espalin, and Busbee teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Busbee further teaches wherein the multi-nozzle system comprises one or more 3D printing nozzles (Col. 1, “using 3-dimensional printing and other printing techniques, including the use of one or more mixing nozzles”), a mixing container (Col 1. “mixing chamber”), and a spray nozzle (Col. 47, “spray nozzle”).
Espalin further teaches the inject jet (Par. [0008] “direct wire embedding head utilized in 3D printing”; Par. [0035] “The wire can be composed of, for example, copper, stainless steel, nickel chromium, monel, nickel titanium, Kevlar, co-axial wire, optical fiber, or another similar material.”; Par. [0039], “The wire 18 is driven by the rotating pinch rollers and the direction of the rotation determines whether the wire 18 is being pushed (or advanced) out of the tip 38 or being pulled back in (or retracted).”; Par. [0044], “During the dwelling time, the wire 18 is advanced beyond the tip's orifice 41 as depicted in FIG. 3(c)”; Par. [0046], “After the starting point is established, the hot orifice 41 is brought back to the plastic surface 39 and immediately traversed as shown in FIG. 3(e) by an automation motion system while advancing the wire 18 forward to create the wire pattern”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Woytowitz, Malkani, and Espalin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Woytowitz, Malkani, and Espalin do not explicitly teach wherein the performing of the programmatic reinforcement of the 3D object comprises using a multi-nozzle system to print the 3D object.
However, Busbee teaches using a multi-nozzle system to print the 3D object (Col. 8-9 “using 3-dimensional printing and other printing techniques, including the use of one or more mixing nozzles”).
Woytowitz, Malkani, Espalin, and Busbee are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3d printing.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above digital twin simulation framework, as taught by Woytowitz, Malkani, and Espalin, and using a multi-nozzle system to print the 3D object, as taught by Busbee.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to enable simultaneous or selection deposition of different materials when printing a 3d object as suggested by Busbee (Col. 2).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Woytowitz, Malkani, Espalin, and Busbee teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Busbee further teaches wherein the multi-nozzle system comprises one or more 3D printing nozzles (Col. 1, “using 3-dimensional printing and other printing techniques, including the use of one or more mixing nozzles”), a mixing container (Col 1. “mixing chamber”), and a spray nozzle (Col. 47, “spray nozzle”).
Espalin further teaches the inject jet (Par. [0008] “direct wire embedding head utilized in 3D printing”; Par. [0035] “The wire can be composed of, for example, copper, stainless steel, nickel chromium, monel, nickel titanium, Kevlar, co-axial wire, optical fiber, or another similar material.”; Par. [0039], “The wire 18 is driven by the rotating pinch rollers and the direction of the rotation determines whether the wire 18 is being pushed (or advanced) out of the tip 38 or being pulled back in (or retracted).”; Par. [0044], “During the dwelling time, the wire 18 is advanced beyond the tip's orifice 41 as depicted in FIG. 3(c)”; Par. [0046], “After the starting point is established, the hot orifice 41 is brought back to the plastic surface 39 and immediately traversed as shown in FIG. 3(e) by an automation motion system while advancing the wire 18 forward to create the wire pattern”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Woytowitz, Malkani, and Espalin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Woytowitz, Malkani, and Espalin do not explicitly teach wherein the performing of the programmatic reinforcement of the 3D object comprises using a multi-nozzle system to print the 3D object.
However, Busbee teaches using a multi-nozzle system of the 3D printer to print the 3D object (Col. 8-9 “using 3-dimensional printing and other printing techniques, including the use of one or more mixing nozzles”).
Woytowitz, Malkani, Espalin, and Busbee are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3d printing.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above digital twin simulation framework, as taught by Woytowitz, Malkani, and Espalin, and using a multi-nozzle system to print the 3D object, as taught by Busbee.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to enable simultaneous or selection deposition of different materials when printing a 3d object as suggested by Busbee (Col. 2).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Woytowitz, Malkani, Espalin, and Busbee teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Busbee further teaches wherein the multi-nozzle system comprises one or more 3D printing nozzles (Col. 1, “using 3-dimensional printing and other printing techniques, including the use of one or more mixing nozzles”), a mixing container (Col 1. “mixing chamber”), and a spray nozzle (Col. 47, “spray nozzle”).
Espalin further teaches the inject jet (Par. [0008] “direct wire embedding head utilized in 3D printing”; Par. [0035] “The wire can be composed of, for example, copper, stainless steel, nickel chromium, monel, nickel titanium, Kevlar, co-axial wire, optical fiber, or another similar material.”; Par. [0039], “The wire 18 is driven by the rotating pinch rollers and the direction of the rotation determines whether the wire 18 is being pushed (or advanced) out of the tip 38 or being pulled back in (or retracted).”; Par. [0044], “During the dwelling time, the wire 18 is advanced beyond the tip's orifice 41 as depicted in FIG. 3(c)”; Par. [0046], “After the starting point is established, the hot orifice 41 is brought back to the plastic surface 39 and immediately traversed as shown in FIG. 3(e) by an automation motion system while advancing the wire 18 forward to create the wire pattern”).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mark [US 10,682,844 B2] teaches a 3D printing system that includes multiple nozzles.
Paddock et al. [USPGPUB 2022/0347930 A1] teaches a computer-implemented method that includes receiving fabrication data from an additive manufacturing system during fabrication of an object by the additive manufacturing system, generating a digital representation of the fabrication data, adjusting based at least in part of the digital representation an aspect of the additive manufacturing system, and implementing the adjusted aspect during the fabrication of the object.
Woytowitz et al. [USPGPUB 2020/0156323 A1] teaches methods for printing a 3D object, comprising processing a computer model of the 3D object to generate a strength or stress profile of the computer model.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PETER XU whose telephone number is (571)272-0792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/PETER XU/Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights