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 Non-Final Rejection is in response to the Applicant’s claim amendment received on 03/10/2026, in response to the Final Rejection mailed on 01/07/ 2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-10 and 13 – 20) in the reply filed on 5/16/2025 is acknowledged.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-9, 13-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honorato Ruiz et al. (US 2019/0217536 A1, the examiner uses equivalent US 11,225,015 B2; herein after “Honorato”) and in further view of either one of Kunc et al. (US 2020/0023556) or Graf (US 2016/0059498 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Honorato teaches:
a method of manufacturing an article (see Figs. 1 – 5C; abstract; col 1 lines 60 to col 11 lines 35), the method comprising: feeding a polymeric material into an extruder having a nozzle (Fig 1. Item 25 spool of material that includes polymeric material and continuous fiber; Honorato states that materials such as polymeric material and continuous fiber can be extruded either together separately in two different channels in a print head, see col 3 lines 45-65, col 6 lines 35-50, col 7 lines 10-20); feeding a continuous fiber into the extruder, the continuous fiber and the polymeric material together forming a molding compound (see col 4 lines 45-65 discloses using continuous fiber and polymeric material together to form the 3D printed object, see col 1 lines 60 to col 2 lines 65 for additional details on materials); discharging the molding compound from the nozzle onto a deposition surface to form a three-dimensional object (see Fig 1 item 24. 3 is exemplary nozzle that deposits material on a mold 23 to form layered object).
However, Honorato fail to teach forming a mold charge by positioning the three-dimensional preform within a mold, the mold including a top mold component and a bottom mold component; and compression molding the mold charge within the mold to form a finished article.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing preforms, Kunc et al. teach rapid manufacturing of a preform (3D printing), the method involves feeding a polymeric material includes multiple elongated fiber reinforcements into an extruder (12) to form a molding compound, and the extruder is provided with a nozzle opening (14). A three-dimensional preform is formed by discharging the molding compound from the nozzle opening onto a deposition surface (18). Multiple discontinuous elongated fiber powders self-align due to shear forces during the extrusion. A mold charge by positioning the three-dimensional preform is formed within a mold, and the mold includes a top mold component (22) and a bottom mold component (24). The compression molding preform within the mold to form a finished article having anisotropic properties due to alignment of the discontinuous elongated fiber reinforcements within a portion of the finished article (see abstract; Figs. 1-5). It is noted that only the preform is shaped without additional of binders (Fig 5).
Also, in the same field of endeavor, pertaining to composite structures. Graf teaches taking a preform (fibrous mat, blank, layered preform, layered structures) (see [0020][0028][0047][0049]) that is previously formed (any known method), and deforming via compression molding using top and bottom shaped compression mold surfaces that uses heating and cooling (Fig. 1 item 3; 0022]-[0024]), for the benefit of achieving desired strength/stiffness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention was made to use the 3D printing process and materials as taught by Honorato with forming a preform, as suggested by Kunc et al. and Graf, and further reshaping via compression molding as suggested by either one of Kunc et al./Graf, for the benefit of achieving desired stiffness in the preform that can be then further used to form a final composite structure. By doing so, the preform made, as suggested by Graf can be used in variety of applications for producing fiber-reinforced shaped parts (see abstract; Fig. 1; [0022]-[0028], [0046]-[0048]) or can readily be used as final product (Fig. 1-5; Kunc et al.; abstract).
As for claim 2, Honorato further teach wherein the nozzle of the extruder includes a single central channel configured to discharge the continuous fiber with the polymeric material (Fig. 1 shows a single central channel configured to discharge the continuous fiber with the polymeric material; see col 3 lines 45-65, col 6 lines 35-50, col 7 lines 10-20).
As for claims 6 - 7, Honorato further teach wherein the continuous fiber is one of a carbon fiber (see 2 lines 60-65) and provides suggestion for continuous fiber unidirectionally in the preform (see Figs 1- 5c, exemplary Figs. 5a-5c).
As for claims 8 - 9, Honorato further teach wherein the polymeric material is thermoplastic including polyamide, PEEK, PAEK, PEKK (see col 3 lines 5-20 which includes thermoplastic material such as PA, PEEK, PAEK, PEKK).
Regarding claims 13-14 and 16-18, Honorato teaches: a method of forming an an article (see abstract; it is noted that broadly any part form a preform as claimed; see Figs. 1-5c; col 1 lines 60 to col 11 lines 60), the method comprising:
feeding a polymeric material into an extruder including a nozzle (col 1 lines 60 to col 2 lines 65, col 6 lines 10 to col 8 lines 55) ; feeding a continuous fiber into the extruder, the continuous fiber and the polymeric material together forming a molding compound (see col 2 lines 60 to col 3 lines 5 disclose using continuous fiber made of carbon or glass forming together with molding compound as per col 3 lines 5-20) ; and forming a three-dimensional object by discharging the molding compound from the nozzle onto a deposition surface (Fig 1 shows deposition surface where material is 3D printed).
Honorato further teaches wherein the continuous fiber is embedded in the polymeric material (Fig 1; col 3 lines 45-65 discloses the continuous fiber can be either supplied via embedded with the polymeric material or separate from the polymeric material via additional channel in the print head), and the continuous fiber and polymeric material are simultaneously discharged together from a same nozzle of the extruder (Fig 1); wherein the continuous fiber is arranged unidirectionally in the preform (Figs 5a-5c various directions the continuous fiber may be arrange);
wherein the continuous fiber is one of a carbon fiber, a glass fiber, a basalt fiber, and a Kevlar fiber (see col 2 lines 60 to col 3 lines 5 which discloses use of carbon or glass fibers); wherein the polymeric material is one of a thermoplastic and a thermoset;
wherein the polymeric material includes at least one of a nylon material, polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polyaryletherketone (PAEK), polyetherketone (PEK), polyetherketoneketone (PEKK), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), polycarbonate (PC), polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), polyethylenimine (PEI), and polypropylene (PP) (see col 3 lines 5-15 states “According to the invention, the meltable material may be a thermoplastic material such as PA (Polyamide), PEEK (Polyether ether ketone), PAEK (Polyaryletherketone) or PEKK (Polyetherketoneketone), which can be unreinforced or reinforced with short fibers. In a preferred embodiment, the meltable material is in the form of a filament for better storing and handling.”).
However, Honorato fail to teach obtaining a preform via 3D printing and then an article formed via compression molding, wherein the compression molding the 3D preform includes a mold without additional of any additional material to the 3D printing preform.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing preforms, Kunc et al. teach rapid manufacturing of a preform (3D printing), the method involves feeding a polymeric material includes multiple elongated fiber reinforcements into an extruder (12) to form a molding compound, and the extruder is provided with a nozzle opening (14). A three-dimensional preform is formed by discharging the molding compound from the nozzle opening onto a deposition surface (18). Multiple discontinuous elongated fiber powders self-align due to shear forces during the extrusion. A mold charge by positioning the three-dimensional preform is formed within a mold, and the mold includes a top mold component (22) and a bottom mold component (24). The compression molding preform within the mold to form a finished article having anisotropic properties due to alignment of the discontinuous elongated fiber reinforcements within a portion of the finished article (see abstract; Figs. 1-5). It is noted that only the preform is shaped without additional of binders (Fig 5).
Also, in the same field of endeavor, pertaining to composite structures. Graf teaches taking a preform (fibrous mat, blank, layered preform, layered structures) (see [0020][0028][0047][0049]) that is previously formed (any known method), and deforming via compression molding using top and bottom shaped compression mold surfaces that uses heating and cooling (Fig. 1 item 3; 0022]-[0024]), for the benefit of achieving desired strength/stiffness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention was made to use the 3D printing process and materials as taught by Honorato with forming a preform, as suggested by Kunc et al. and Graf, and further reshaping via compression molding as suggested by either one of Kunc et al./Graf, for the benefit of achieving desired stiffness in the preform that can be then further used to form a final composite structure. By doing so, the preform made, as suggested by Graf can be used in variety of applications for producing fiber-reinforced shaped parts (see abstract; Fig. 1; [0022]-[0028], [0046]-[0048]) or can readily be used as final product (Fig. 1-5; Kunc et al.; abstract).
Claim(s) 3-5, 10, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honorato Ruiz et al. (US 2019/0217536 A1, the examiner uses equivalent US 11,225,015 B2; herein after “Honorato”) in view of either one of Kunc et al. (US 2020/0023556) or Graf (US 2016/0059498 A1) and in further view of Lewicki et al. (US 2017/0015060 A1).
Regarding claims 3 – 5 and 10, Honorato discloses all the limitations to the claim invention as disclosed above, however, fail to explicitly teach that a volume fraction of the continuous fiber in the polymeric material is great than 0% and less than or equal to 60% or extruder including coaxially aligned channels… as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing, Lewicki et al. shows a print head (106) that is used for printing continuous fiber in one channel an the polymer matrix (resin) in another channel (see Fig 2; [0035]-[0040]), which is able to control the continuous fiber to polymeric resin ratio. Honorato and Lewicki provides suggestion for having coaxially aligned channels (see Honorato, col 3 lines 45-65, col 6 lines 35-50, col 7 lines 10-20; or Fig. 2 and [0041] of Lewicki) and having optimized quantity of polymeric resin to fiber ([0009] [0044], of Lewicki). It would have been obvious to further modify the print head above with including control of fiber to polymeric resin matrix, and with having coaxial aligned channels, as suggested by Honorato and Lewicki, for the purpose of better material control and providing optimized quantity of distinct material (including fibers or polymeric materials) for producing variety of structures having desired mechanical strength. However, the above Honorato and Lewicki, fails to explicitly teach volume fraction of the continuous fiber in the polymeric being great than 0% and less than or equal to 60% as claimed.
However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05(II). It would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success since Honorato and Lewicki, specifically teaches control of the polymeric resin in the fiber the 3D printed object (see [0009] [0044], of Lewicki). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method taught by Honorato such that the volume fraction of the continuous fiber in the polymeric being great than 0% and less than or equal to 60%, as suggested by Lewicki, as with a reasonable expectation of success in order to produce a 3D printed part having desired mechanical properties (density, stiffness, tensile strength).
As for claim 10, Lewicki discloses coaxial die for a single polymeric resin and fiber, thus duplication of parts having plurality of channels for applying plurality of fibrous materials and resin would have been obvious in view of Honorato and Lewicki as applied (see Honorato teaches in col 3 lines 45-65, col 6 lines 35-50, col 7 lines 10-20 choosing desired print head; Lewicki discloses at least a print head that includes channel for a resin and fibers separately), for the purpose of making a product of different fibers and polymeric resin. Honorato provides suggestion for using different type and number of print heads (see col 3 lines 45-55), thus the examiner takes Official Notice, according to MPEP section 2144.03 (Reliance on Common Knowledge in the Art or "Well-Known"), based on the teaching using prints heads that applies different fibers and resins would have been obvious as result for forming a materially distinct product.
Regarding claim 15 and 20, Honorato teach all the limitations to the claim invention as discussed above, however, failed to explicitly teach wherein the extruder is a coaxial extruder including a nozzle having a first opening coaxially aligned with a larger second opening, the continuous fiber is discharged through the first opening, and the polymeric material is discharged through the second opening so as to surround the continuous fiber upon exit from the nozzle; wherein a volume fraction of the continuous fiber in the polymeric material is greater than 0% and less than or equal to 60%.
In the same field of endeavor, In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing, Lewicki et al. shows a print head (106) that is used for printing continuous fiber in one channel an the polymer matrix (resin) in another channel (see Fig 2; [0035]-[0040]), which is able to control the continuous fiber to polymeric resin ratio. Honorato and Lewicki provides suggestion for having coaxially aligned channels (see Honorato, col 3 lines 45-65, col 6 lines 35-50, col 7 lines 10-20; or Fig. 2 and [0041] of Lewicki) and having optimized quantity of polymeric resin to fiber ([0009] [0044], of Lewicki). It would have been obvious to further modify the print head above with including control of fiber to polymeric resin matrix, and with having coaxial aligned channels, as suggested by Honorato and Lewicki, for the purpose of better material control and providing optimized quantity of distinct material (including fibers or polymeric materials) for producing variety of structures having desired mechanical strength.
Honorato and Lewick fail to explicitly teach volume fraction of the continuous fiber in the polymeric being great than 0% and less than or equal to 60% as claimed.
However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05(II). It would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success since Honorato and Lewicki, specifically teaches control of the polymeric resin in the fiber the 3D printed object (see [0009] [0044], of Lewicki). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method taught by Honorato such that the volume fraction of the continuous fiber in the polymeric being great than 0% and less than or equal to 60%, as suggested by Lewicki, as with a reasonable expectation of success in order to produce a 3D printed part having desired mechanical properties (density, stiffness, tensile strength).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 and 13-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 11, 904, 528 B2 - Three-dimensional Printing Of Free-radical Polymerizable Composites With Continuous Fiber Reinforcement For Building Components And Buildings.
US 2019/0184619 A1 – long fiber reinforced thermoplastic filament.
US 2022/0266516 A1 - Three-dimensional (3D) Printing Apparatus Is Used For Performing 3D Printing Of Building Component, Comprises Base Composite Material Channel Configured To Pass Base Composite Material Via 3D Printing Apparatus, Fiber Strand Channel Configured To Pass Fiber Strand Through 3D Printing Apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 PM).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743