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 .
The amendment dated 10/15/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 11-12, and 14 amended. Claims 2, 4, 10, 13, and 15 cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11-12, 14, and 16 have been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rodgers et al. (US 20190111615, herein Rodgers).
Regarding Claim 8, Rodgers teaches: A method of producing a modeled object by material extrusion using a 3D printer, the 3D printer comprising a modeling stage having a placement surface for placing the modeled object thereon (Paragraph 41, platen 14), the method comprising:
forming at least one modeling layer on a surface of a modeling sheet disposed on the placement surface, using a molten product of a modeling layer material (Paragraph 51), wherein:
the modeling layer material comprises a first thermoplastic resin (Paragraphs 32 and 100),
the modeling sheet comprises a second thermoplastic resin (Paragraphs 32 and 100) and an inorganic filler (Paragraph 102); and
wherein the second thermoplastic resin is weldable with the first thermoplastic resin (Paragraphs 51-53).
Regarding Claim 9, Rodgers teaches: The method of producing a modeled object according to claim 8, wherein a content of the inorganic filler is from 25% by mass to 80% by mass with respect to a total mass of the modeling sheet (Paragraph 102).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 11-12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodgers in view of Zhang et al. (US 20180058148, herein Zhang).
Regarding Claim 1, Rodgers teaches: A method of producing a modeled object by material extrusion using a 3D printer, the 3D printer comprising a modeling stage having a placement surface for placing the modeled object thereon (Paragraph 41, platen 14), the method comprising:
forming at least one first modeling layer on a surface of a modeling sheet disposed on the placement surface, using a molten product of a first modeling layer material (Paragraph 51) and
forming at least one second modeling layer on the at least one first modeling layer, using a molten product of a second modeling layer material (Paragraphs 51-52),
wherein the first modeling layer material comprises a first thermoplastic resin (Paragraphs 32 and 100) and an inorganic filler (Paragraph 102), and
wherein the second modeling layer material comprises a second thermoplastic resin that is weldable with the first thermoplastic resin (Paragraphs 51-53), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first modeling layer material is different from the second modeling layer material.
While Rodgers teaches that layers can be printed using a large variety of materials, and that the composition of materials and filler can vary within a large range, and that colorants or anti-oxidants can be added to the blend, Rodgers does not explicitly state that two different layers can have different materials or compositions of materials.
However, Zhang, in the same field as additive manufacturing, discloses that it is well known in the art that in additive manufacturing, each layer may be the same or different material (Paragraphs 54 and 55). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the same or different materials for the first and second layers, as different parts of the object may require different material properties for use (Paragraph 92).
Regarding Claim 3, Rodgers teaches: The method of producing a modeled object according to claim 1, wherein a content of the inorganic filler is from 25% by mass to 80% by mass with respect to a total mass of the first modeling layer material (Paragraph 102).
Regarding Claim 5, Rodgers teaches: The method of producing a modeled object according to claim 1, wherein the modeling sheet comprises a third thermoplastic resin that is weldable with the first thermoplastic resin (Paragraphs 51-53).
Regarding Claim 6, Rodgers teaches: The method of producing a modeled object according to claim 1, wherein:
the first modeling layer material comprises the first thermoplastic resin (Paragraphs 32 and 100),
the second modeling layer material comprises a second thermoplastic resin that is weldable with the first thermoplastic resin (Paragraphs 51-53),
the modeling sheet comprises a third thermoplastic resin that is weldable with the first thermoplastic resin (Paragraphs 51-53), and
at least one selected from the group consisting of the first thermoplastic resin, the second thermoplastic resin, and the third thermoplastic resin comprises a crystalline thermoplastic resin (Paragraphs 97-98).
Regarding Claim 7, Rodgers teaches: The method of producing a modeled object according to claim 6, wherein the crystalline thermoplastic resin comprises a propylene-based polymer (Paragraph 87).
Regarding Claim 11, Rodgers teaches: The method of producing a modeled object according to claim 2, wherein the inorganic filler comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of talc, calcium carbonate, and magnesium sulfate (Paragraph 102).
Regarding Claim 12, Rodgers teaches: A modeled object, comprising a plurality of modeling layers disposed one on another in layers in a first direction (Paragraph 51), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein a material of a surface modeling layer, which is a modeling layer located at one end in the first direction, of the plurality of modeling layers, is different from a material of another modeling layer excluding the surface modeling layer,
wherein the surface modeling layer comprises a first thermoplastic resin (Paragraphs 32 and 100) and an inorganic filler (Paragraph 102), and
wherein the other modeling layer comprises a second thermoplastic resin that is weldable with the first thermoplastic resin (Paragraphs 51-53).
While Rodgers teaches that layers can be printed using a large variety of materials, and that the composition of materials and filler can vary within a large range, and that colorants or anti-oxidants can be added to the blend, Rodgers does not explicitly state that two different layers can have different materials or compositions of materials.
However, Zhang, in the same field as additive manufacturing, discloses that it is well known in the art that in additive manufacturing, each layer may be the same or different material (Paragraphs 54 and 55). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the same or different materials for the first and second layers, as different parts of the object may require different material properties for use (Paragraph 92).
Regarding Claim 14, Rodgers teaches: The modeled object according to claim 12, wherein a content of the inorganic filler is from 25% by mass to 80% by mass with respect to a total mass of the surface modeling layer (Paragraph 102).
Regarding Claim 16, Rodgers teaches: The method of producing a modeled object according to claim 8, wherein the inorganic filler comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of talc, calcium carbonate, and magnesium sulfate (Paragraph 102).
Response to Arguments
Applicant has argued that while Rodgers discloses two types of filaments, the reference is silent towards the materials being weldable to each other. They state that in FDM technology the support materials is often selected for its lack of weldability to allow for easy removal.
However, the Examiner notes that Rodgers makes it clear that the different layers are melted and fused together, and therefore are “weldable”, and therefore reads upon the claim as currently presented.
The Examiner does note that the Applicant’s specification makes note that the issue they are solving in the prior art is the difficulty of removal, and that their invention, as the Examiner understands it, is that the particular composition of different modeling layers allows for a better balance between the ability to weld it to structures intended to remain with the object and reducing warpage, while reducing time it takes to separate the object through scraping or other means (Page 13). However, the Examiner does not believe that the word “weldable” is the best word to capture this concept, as the Examiner interprets “weldable” as “the ability to be welded together”, and clearly, in Rodgers, the resin layers are welded (melted) together. The Examiner believes the inventive concept may related to the degree of weldability, but that is not captured in the current claim language. Even in the Applicants background art, it is disclosed that in the conventional prior art, the layers and modeling sheet are welded together and the difficulty lies in separating the two, therefore, even in the admitted prior art it is clear that the different materials are weldable, therefore “weldability” does not appear to be a distinguishing concept between the prior art and the invention as the Examiner understands the term.
While the Examiner does not have any specific language in mind at this time that would help to overcome the rejection, the Examiner suggests that the Applicant may want to focus on the differences outlined above, or to provide a more definitive definition of what they consider “weldable” to mean to help distinguish their claims from the art of record.
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 ROBERT E FENNEMA whose telephone number is (571)272-2748. 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, John Cottingham can be reached at 571-272-7079. 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.
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117