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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-6 and 8-26 are pending. Claims 1-6, 8-11, 15, 18 and 22-23 are the subject of this FINAL Office Action.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse in the reply filed on 03/02/2026 is acknowledged for the species of raster technique of claim 9, heat/compression technique of claim 15, consolidation tool configuration of claim 18 and continuous fibers of claim 22. Claims 12-14, 16-17, 19-21 and 24-26 are withdrawn because they are directed to non-elected species.
Duplicate Claims
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 706.03(k).
New Grounds of Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 112 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(d)Reference in Dependent Forms.—
Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers..
Claims 2, 6, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As to claim 2, claim 1 already requires heated tip consolidation tool. Thus, claim 2 fails to further limit claim 1.
As to claim 6, claim 1 already requires consolidation tool comprises an independently controlled heated tool, with the independent control being with respect to the deposition tool. Thus, claim 6 fails to further limit claim 1.
As to claim 15, claim 1 already requires applying, using the consolidation tool, heat and a compressive force concurrent with the application of the shear force to consolidate the composite raster and reduce void content. Thus, claim 15 fails to further limit claim 1 because it is broader when it allows either consolidation or filling out gaps within the composite raster.
As to claim 18, claim 1 already requires heated tip which would require a heating element. Thus, claim 18 fails to further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
New Grounds of 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 –
(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 1-6, 8-11, 15, 18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TAKEYAMA (US20190255766).
For claims 1-6, 8, 15, 18, TAKEYAMA teaches printing composite materials using an FDM device 10 by depositing composite reinforced extrudate M, then consolidating using pressure, heat and ultrasonic vibration tip 20/28 (Figs. 18-19 & 26; para. 0170). The tip 20/28 moves in x and y direction yielding shear (i.e. force parallel to extrudate) (Figs. 18-19).
As to claims 9-11, TAKEYAMA teaches that the consolidation tool can start and end anywhere (Figs. 18-19).
As to claim 23, TAKEYAMA teaches fiber length of continuous fibers which are longer than consolidation tool tip “contact length” (paras. 0148, 0157). The claim fails to define the “contact length,” which means the fibers are any length.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner finds Applicants’ arguments un-convincing in light of the claim scope. The claims only require running a consolidation tool, separate from a deposition nozzle/tip, having a heated tip that also applies compressive force over the deposited composite raster (intended to apply a shear force to reduce fiber waviness, whatever this means, and consolidate the raster and reduce void content). Nothing in the claims requires any particular apparatus or step different from what is taught in the prior art. To this end, when Applicants argue that TAKEYAMA fails to teach “heating the filament through its thickness, and may also heat further layers below to reduce void content in composite raster, not just an outer layer of it,” this fails to address the claims. The Examiner agrees that TAKEYAMA teaches
improving the adhesion between deposited layers through control of the viscosity of the "outer peripheral portion" of the thermoplastic matrix on previously deposited material and controlling the heating of this outer layer just prior to having fresh material deposited on it. Therefore, consolidation and reheating must occur shortly before deposition of fresh material onto this reheated layer, while it is still warm. This process does not reheat the inside of the filament
(Reply, pg. 8; emphases original). However, this is not excluded by the broad claims. The rejection sticks.
New Grounds of Rejection - 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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over TAKEYAMA (US20190255766), in view of MARK (US20140328963).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing to apply the familiar separate consolidation tool of TAKEYAMA to continuous fiber composite extruded materials to achieve the same effects with a reasonable expectation of success.
TAKEYAMA does not explicitly teach continuous fiber composites.
However, MARK demonstrates that the same consolidation technique found in TAKEYAMA was applicable to continuous composite extrusion. TAKEYAMA teaches discontinuous fibers. TAKEYAMA is silent about continuous fibers. MARK also teaches consolidation (e.g. ironing tool) for continuous fiber composites extrusion intended to reduce voids (paras. 0007, 0009, 0030, 0083, 0174 and throughout). This is similar to the pressing, heating and ultrasonic procedure in TAKEYAMA. In fact, MARK even calls this similar procedure “consolidation” (para. 0083, 0098). Thus, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply the similar “consolidation” technique of TAKEYAMA to the continuous fiber extrusion process of MARK to achieve similar results.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MELODY TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-1846. 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, Heather Calamita can be reached at 571-272-2876. 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.
/YUNG-SHENG M TSUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1684
Prosecution Insights