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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-11 and 22-26 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Groups I and IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 09/08/2025.
Applicant argues that Group II and III an apparatus and a method of making a device which is a single unified inventive concept and should be examined together. However the examiner maintains the restriction as group II and III do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: Claims 12 , 19 are either obvious or anticipated by Diegel et. al. , “Curved layer Fused Deposition Modeling in Conductive Polymer Additive Manufacturing. Diegel discloses that a manufacturing device/method with a deposition module configured to progressively deposit filaments to form a structure comprising at least one layer (Figure 1, page 663, page-665, para 1), and to deposit one or more functional elements, each functional element comprising an electrically conductive element (abstract , page-663, page-667, 2nd para, conductive electronic tracks are an integral part of the plastic component), an optical fiber or a hollow tube, so as to be embedded within the layer, or arranged between two layers (Figure 2, page-667, polymer mixed with nanotubes/ tubes with central void ). Accordingly, the special technical feature linking these inventions, a non-planar layer formed of a plurality of filaments, does not provide a contribution over the prior art, and no single general inventive concept exists.
Hence the restriction is deemed final. Elected claims 12-18 will be examined hereafter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 in line 3 discloses electrically conductive elements by depositing one or more respective performed conductive elements preferably wires. The phrase “ preferably” does not disclose if that is a required or optional limitation.
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) 12-13, 14,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diegel et. al. , “Curved layer Fused Deposition Modeling in Conductive Polymer Additive Manufacturing” listed in IDS dated 03/12/2024 and in view of Carolo , “5 axis 3D printer” listed in IDS 03/12/2024.
Regarding Claim 12 Diegel discloses apparatus for manufacturing a device, comprising: a deposition module configured to progressively deposit filaments to form a structure comprising at least one layer (Figure 1, page 663, page-665, para 1), and to deposit one or more functional elements, each functional element comprising an electrically conductive element (abstract , page-663, page-667, 2nd para, conductive electronic tracks are an integral part of the plastic component), an optical fiber or a hollow tube, so as to be embedded within the layer, or arranged between two layers (Figure 2, page-667, polymer mixed with nanotubes/ tubes with central void ); Diegel discloses that the apparatus consists of XY axis that moves a dispensing head and the platform moves along the z-axis (page- 664, 665); however it didn’t specifically disclose that a spatial manipulation system configured to allow relative movement between a structure being formed and at least a portion of the deposition module where , the relative movement including translation relative to three mutually non-parallel translation axes (print head, handles translation along three non-parallel axes (X, Y, Z) and rotation about two mutually non-parallel rotation axes (e.g., A and B axes) during either or both of the progressive deposition of material and the deposition of the one or more functional elements. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art of 3D printing Carolo discloses 5-axis printer which have three non-parallel translational axis along with rotational axes along the direction of the deposition of material (page-2 and 3, Beyond three Axes, Five Axes in 3D printing).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Diegel’s teaching of the apparatus with that of the Carolo’s 5- axis printer for the purpose of creating complex and intricate geometries with non planar surfaces (page-2 and 3, Beyond three Axes, Five Axes in 3D printing).
Regarding Claim 13 Diegel/ Carolo disclose wherein the spatial manipulation system comprises: a first subsystem configured to provide the translation relative to the three mutually non-parallel translation axes and rotation about the two mutually non-parallel rotation axes (deposition/print head for the polymer material, handles translation along three non-parallel axes (X, Y, Z, page 2-3, Carolo) and rotation about two non-parallel axes (e.g., A and B axes), providing 5-degree-of-freedom control, page 2-3, Carolo ). Further, Diegel discloses a deposition/print head for the conductive element (page-667), which could be the second subsystem configured to provide relative translational movement between the first subsystem (deposition/print head for the polymer material ) and the structure being formed (non planar surface formed by the polymer material as shown in Diegel). Therefore, Diegel combined with Carolo will meet the claim limitation.
Regarding Claim 14, Diegel discloses the progressive deposition of material comprises an additive manufacturing process (Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) is a widely used additive manufacturing technique that builds objects layer-by-layer by extruding melted thermoplastic filament from a nozzle (abstract, page-665).
Regarding Claim 16 Diegel discloses the deposition module is configured to form one or more of the electrically conductive elements by depositing one or more respective preformed conductive elements, preferably wires (page-667).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diegel et. al. , “Curved layer Fused Deposition Modeling in Conductive Polymer Additive Manufacturing” listed in IDS dated 03/12/2024 and in view of Carolo , “5 axis 3D printer” as applied to Claim 12 in view of Cardenas (US 20210339488).
Regarding Claim 15 Diegel/Carolo disclose apparatus for manufacturing a device, comprising: a deposition module configured to progressively deposit filaments with a conductive element (page 665, 667) but didn’t disclose that wherein the deposition module comprises a laser module configured to irradiate a layer of precursor material. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Cardenas discloses deposition module comprises a laser module configured to irradiate a layer of precursor material deposited by the deposition module to transform the precursor material and thereby form one or more of the electrically conductive elements by increasing an electrical conductivity of the precursor material ([0010], [0011], [0012]).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Diegel/Carolo’s system with that of Cardena’s laser source for irradiating the layer for the purpose of improved conductivity ([007]) .
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diegel et. al. , “Curved layer Fused Deposition Modeling in Conductive Polymer Additive Manufacturing” listed in IDS dated 03/12/2024 and in view of Carolo , “5 axis 3D printer” listed in IDS 03/12/2024 as applied to Claim 12 in view of MARK (US20160067928).
Regarding Claim 17 Diegel/Carolo disclose apparatus for manufacturing a device, comprising: a deposition module configured to progressively deposit filaments with a conductive element (page 665, 667) but didn’t disclose that deposit model could deposit a reinforcing fiber. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the 3D printing art, Mark discloses that two materials where the fiber reinforced composite filament and the polymeric material are extruded form the deposition head ([0006], [0080]).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Diegel/Carolo’s system with that of Mark’s teaching of fiber reinforced composite filament for the purpose of good tensile properties in the product ([0086], Mark).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diegel et. al. , “Curved layer Fused Deposition Modeling in Conductive Polymer Additive Manufacturing” listed in IDS dated 03/12/2024 and in view of Carolo , “5 axis 3D printer” listed in IDS 03/12/2024 as applied to Claim 12 in view of MORRIS (US 20200207024).
Regarding Claim 18 Diegel/Carolo disclose apparatus for manufacturing a device, comprising: a deposition module configured to progressively deposit filaments with a conductive element (page 665, 667) but didn’t disclose that comprising a temperature- controlled chamber which encloses at least the deposition module and holder, such that the ambient temperature around the structure can be controlled. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, MORRIS discloses a temperature controlled deposition /print head-20 with a conduit for holding (Figure 1, [0024].
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Diegel/Carolo’s system with that of MORRIS’s teaching of temperature controlled deposition head for the purpose of inhibiting premature curing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-700-7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DEBJANI ROY/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights