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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/3/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to the extent that they apply to the current rejection. The examiner does not rely on Budge in the current rejection for the features argued by applicant.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Torres Martinez (WO 2022/180290 with US 2024/01317894 utilized as translation).
As to claim 1, Torres Martinez teaches a device for additively manufacturing a component, said device having a material application unit (22, 23, 24) which is movable along at least two axes [Abstract, 0047, 0059] and which has an extruder (3) and a nozzle (4) for applying a material strand being centrally received through the annulus of the rotary head (5, 18, first, 2nd, third crowns) and separated from it [Fig 2], the device comprising: a rotary head (6, 18) in the shape of annulus (6,18) [0026] having a compressor (5) for compressing a material strand [0041] and, the rotary head being disposed on the material application unit and being rotatable around the nozzle [Fig 2, 4], and a control device which is configured to control at least the rotary head [0053, 0066] and the compressor [0010, 0020] and the heating device [0016-0019]. The annular rotary (first, 2nd, third crowns) head surrounds the nozzles as it is located all around it and separated from the nozzle [Fig 2, 4] as the compressor (5) [0041, Fig 2] are on the rotary head they can be rotated or swiveled around the nozzle [Fig 2, 4, 8, 0047] the rotary head is rotatable during material application [0017] and would be capable of being operated such that the compressor and heating device are aligned relative to the nozzle depending on the a path curve to be followed by the material application unit [0016-0019, 0041, 0042 Fig 2, 4].
As to claim 2, Torres Martinez teaches the compressor has a compressor roll which is rotatably mounted around a rotation axis (46) [0041, Fig 2, 4].
As to claim 3, Torres Martinez teaches the compressor is coolable [0068] and/or heatable as it would be capable of being heated or cooled by any external device and likely receives some secondary heat from the extrudate and/or the cure enhancer [0041, Fig 2, 4].
As to claim 4, Torres Martinez teaches the heating device has a heating module for a contactless heating process (ie an infrared lamp) [0016-0019].
As to claim 5, Torres Martinez teaches that the temperature detecting element for detecting at least the temperature of a deposited material strand [0064].
As to claim 6, Torres Martinez teaches a distance detecting element (the thermographic camera) for determining the distance between at least one material strand that has already been applied and a nozzle outlet [0064].
As to claim 7, Torres Martinez teaches an extruder is configured to process granulate [0049].
As to claim 8, Torres Martinez teaches a printing table/plate [0056-0058, 0020] which would be heatable as it could be heated by any external device and likely receives some secondary heat from the extrudate/ infrared lamp system previously discussed.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torres Martinez (WO 2022/180290) in view of Budge (US 2019/0202121).
As to claim 5, Torres Martinez teaches a thermographic camera which would provide distance detection.
In the alternative, Budge teaches an additive manufacturing machine [Abstract]. Budge teaches a distance detecting element for determining the distance between at least one material strand that has already been applied and a nozzle outlet as this allows for the process to be tailored to the specific parameters of the process [0028]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Torres Martinez and included a distance detecting element for determining the distance between at least one material strand that has already been applied and a nozzle outlet, as suggested by Budge, in order to allow for the process to be tailored to the specific parameters of the process.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torres Martinez (WO 2022/180290) in view of Mark (US 2015/0266243) and Collins (“What are fixed and floating bearings in the context of linear motion?”).
As to claim 9, The Torres Martinez does not explicitly teach a translatable print table/plate as explained above but has a compensation unit for compensating thermally induced changes in dimension, the compensation unit having at least one fixed bearing and one floating bearing.
Mark teaches a method of 3D printing fiber reinforced composite [Abstract] wherein the
successive deposition occurs on print table phrased as build table (16) that forms the print plate which acts as substrate for the deposited material and can also be translated relative to the nozzle [0080, 0100, 0170, 204, Fig 1a-1c]. The print plate is heatable as it would be capable of being heated or cooled by any external device and likely receives some secondary heat from the extrudate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Budge and included a heatable build table/plate, as suggested by Mark, in order to create a substrate for the part being built and allow for translation of the part relative to the nozzle to aid in the printing process.
Collins teaches different configurations of fixed and floating bearings and notes a plate resting on linear guides and that the use of a mix of fixed and floating bearings prevents jerky movement of the plate when translated [second section] and additionally notes that floating bearing are used to compensate for thermal expansion in contrast to fixed bearing [first section]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Budge and utilized a compensation unit with at least one fixed bearing and one floating bearing, as suggested by Collins, in order to avoid jerky translation and compensate against thermal expansion.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Torres Martinez (WO 2022/180290) in view of Burgess (US 2022/0078955).
As to claim 10, Torres Martinez does not explicitly state the manufacturing chamber which is sealed against the environment.
Burgess notes that 3D printing within a clean environment can “greatly reduce the time between design and use” when the application of the 3D printed part is also within a clean environment and printing within a clean environment also improves the parts recyclability [0060]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Torres Martinez and had the manufacturing chamber be sealed against the environment, ie in a clean room, as suggested by Burgess, as printing within a clean environment also improves the part’s recyclability and minimized downtime when the part was intended to be used in a clean application.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Torres Martinez (WO 2022/180290) in view of Mark (US 2015/0266243).
As to claim 11, Torres Martinez teaches control device is configured to control the rotating speed of the rotation of the rotary head around the nozzle in accordance with the movement speed of the material application unit in such a manner that the rotary head performs a full rotation around the nozzle as explained above but does not explicitly state while the material application unit traces a full winding around the component rotation axis ie the deposition is accomplished in a spiral or overlapping circle pattern.
Mark teaches a method of 3D printing fiber reinforced composite [Abstract] wherein the material application unit traces a full winding around the component rotation axis phrased as circular, oval loops or “Zamboni” pattern in order to deposit and iron the component [0129, 0163]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Torres Martinez and included the material application unit traces a full winding around the component rotation axis ie the deposition is accomplished in a spiral or overlapping circle pattern, as suggested by Mark, as this pattern had proven successful at compacting/ironing the part and depositing material within 3D printing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights