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 .
Response to Amendment
By way of the amendment filed 2/26/2026; claims 1-20 and 29 are cancelled, claims 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, and 30 are amended, claims 23, 24, and 27 were previously presented, and claims 31 is withdrawn and amended, and claims 32-40 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
The previous objections are withdrawn due to the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections under this heading are withdrawn due to the amendments.
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, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold (U.S. PGPub 2018/0369912), as evidenced by Wagner et al (U.S. PGPub 2002/0160620; herein Wagner), 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.
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 2/26/2026 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
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 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