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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/24/2026 has been entered.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 30, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold (U.S. PGPub 2018/0369912; already of record), as evidenced by Wagner et al (U.S. PGPub 2002/0160620; herein Wagner, already of record), in view of Maidin et al (Effect of Vacuum Assisted Fused Deposition Modeling on 3D Printed ABS Microstructure; already of record, herein Maidin). Regarding claim 21:
Gold teaches most of the method of claim 21 in the Abstract and paragraphs 0007, 0023, 0031, 0034, 0036, 0037, 0046, 0071, and 0071. Gold teaches (a) fusing at least a portion of a given layer of build material to form at least one fused region; (b) providing a subsequent layer of build material; (c) repeating steps (a) and (b) until the object is formed; and (d) at least one step of depositing a second material by chemical vapor deposition during or after forming the object. The layer material can be a polymer, and the apparatus used has a vacuum source. The layers can be made via fused filament fabrication. Gold teaches using PLCVD or UHVCVD, and as evidenced by Wagner (paragraphs 0012 and 0030), such CVD processing occurs at under 1 mbar.
Gold does not teach that the apparatus used for the fused filament fabrication is completely or partially within a vacuum chamber. In the same field of endeavor Maidin teaches printing ABS filaments in vacuum (Methodology, page 4879), and that printing in vacuum increased the bonding strength between layers (Conclusion, page 4880).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to filament print in a vacuum chamber as taught by Maidin, since it increases the bonding strength between layers.
Regarding claim 22:
Gold teaches the coating material can be a metal (paragraph 30. Metal is inorganic, thermally conductive, and electrically conductive.
Regarding claim 25:
Gold, as evidenced by Wagner (paragraph 0030), teaches UDVCVD, which occurs at 1x10-2 mbar or less.
Regarding claim 27:
Due to the breadth of the phrase “reactive coating”, Gold teaches claim 27 in paragraph 0030, since the gas used creates coatings that can react, such as most of the metals listed will readily form oxides.
Regarding claim 28:
Gold is silent to the polymer used.
In the same field of endeavor Maidin teaches printing ABS filaments in vacuum (Methodology, page 4879), and that printing in vacuum increased the bonding strength between layers (Conclusion, page 4880). ABS is an engineering polymer as stated by the Applicant in paragraph 0019 of the specification.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use ABS, since selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 29:
Gold teaches using fused deposition modeling (paragraph 0071), which is seen as the claimed fused filament fabrication.
Regarding claim 30:
As previously discussed Gold teaches iteratively forming the polymer layers.
Regarding claim 41:
Gold does not explicitly teach a cooling system and cooling the workpiece, however no skilled artisan would operate such a 3D printer in a non-controlled work environment. Thus it would be obvious that the printer of Gold would be in a room with a controllable temperature, i.e. HVAC which would include cooling.
Additionally, as seen in Figure 1 of Maidin (reproduced below), the printer is in a lab setting, thus again a room with controllable temperature, i.e. HVAC which would include cooling.
PNG
media_image1.png
488
894
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold and Maidin, as applied above and in further view of Shetty et al (U.S. PGPub 2020/0276019; herein Shetty, already of record). Regarding claim 23:
Gold teaches coating in materials that are one or both osseointegrative and antibacterial in paragraph 0030. However, Gold does not state that the final product is a medical implant.
In the same field of endeavor Shetty teaches that medical implants can be printed and CVD coated (e.g. paragraphs 0007 and 0031).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to create a medical implant, based on the processing capabilities of Gold, since it has been shown that 3D printing and CVD coating can create medical implants, such a design choice is seen as obvious since the shape of a final object is obvious (MPEP 2144.04 IV B). In this case the art shows that implants can be made via printing and CVD coating, thus Gold would be capable of printing and coating a shape that is a medical implant.
Regarding claim 24:
Gold teaches CVD, but not PVD. In the same field of endeavor Shetty teaches that one can use either PVD or CVD for the same purpose (paragraph 0031).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use PVD since the art has shown PVD and CVD to be equivalents for the same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06 II)
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold and Maidin, as applied above and in further view of Cheng et al (Surface functionalization of 3D-printed plastics via initiated chemical vapor deposition; herein Cheng, already of record). Regarding claim 26:
Gold teaches filament printing and CVD coating, but does not expressly state that the coating would be on all the exposed surfaces.
In the same field of endeavor Cheng teaches printing (at standard pressure) and then iCVD coating the printed part (e.g. Experimental, pages 1634-1635). Cheng also teaches that the iCVD processing creates a conformal coating (page 1630, right column, lines 3-6), this means exposed surfaces will be coated.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use iCVD coating, since it is a conformal coating over the entire exposed surface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the Gold does not teach fused filament fabrication in vacuum. This is an incorrect interpretation of the Examiner’s Office Action. Gold explicitly teaches fused filament fabrication, but does not place the entire printer in vacuum, just the nozzle element at the surface. Thus the combination with Maidin who does teach placing an entire fused filament printer within a vacuum chamber, as previously discussed.
The Applicant argues that since Maidin teaches a higher vacuum then the combination is improper.
The Examiner disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Gold already teaches the required pressure when printing via fused filament. The combination with Maidin is to show that one can place the entirety of a printer in a vacuum chamber. Since Gold already teaches the desired vacuum there is nothing stopping a skilled artisan from applying the pressure of Gold to a vacuum chamber which is a well-known and understood system.
The Applicant argues that neither Gold nor Maiden teach or suggest in any way to perform the fused filament fabrication at the claimed pressure. Gold explicitly teaches this:
Gold teaches most of the method of claim 21 in the Abstract and paragraphs 0007, 0023, 0031, 0034, 0036, 0037, 0046, 0071, and 0071. Gold teaches (a) fusing at least a portion of a given layer of build material to form at least one fused region; (b) providing a subsequent layer of build material; (c) repeating steps (a) and (b) until the object is formed; and (d) at least one step of depositing a second material by chemical vapor deposition during or after forming the object. The layer material can be a polymer, and the apparatus used has a vacuum source. The layers can be made via fused filament fabrication. Gold teaches using PLCVD or UHVCVD, and as evidenced by Wagner (paragraphs 0012 and 0030), such CVD processing occurs at under 1 mbar.
Gold applies the pressure to a localized region, but the pressure is as claimed, and the processing is a claimed. All Gold is missing is a vacuum chamber for the entire printer, which is what Maidin shows a possible since it allows for better bonding.
Vacuum chambers and systems are well known and well within the abilities of a skilled artisan. Thus if Gold teaches you can fuse filament print at under 1 mbar, and Maidin teaches a printer can be placed within a vacuum chamber, there is no giant leap in technology or thought to place the printer of Gold within a vacuum chamber capable of the needed pressures used by Gold.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The combination of Gold and Maidin pass this test.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-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, 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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights