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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species D in the reply filed on 4/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 3-4, 9-10, 12-15 and 22-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/15/2026.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the variable Tsk, but fails to define the variable in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, 11 and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Skelton et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0316500).
Regarding claim 1, Skelton et al. discloses an additive manufacturing system (title; figure 1A, system 100), comprising:
an extruder (barrel 103 with extruder screw 104) comprising a static-mixing nozzle (nozzle 108) having a static-mixing channel defined by a channel wall (figure 2b, sleeve 111), the static-mixing channel having a diameter DSMC (figure 2b, sleeve 111 diameter, not labeled, [0026]) and a longitudinal center axis having length LSMC (figure 2b, length of sleeve 111 from 111a to 111b), an input end (figure 2B, 111A) and an opposing output end (figure 2B, 111B and 109), the static-mixing channel being fluidly coupled at the input end to feeding means through which additive manufacturing material and short-chopped fiber are to be provided to the extruder ([0019]; [0026]), the static-mixing nozzle comprising static-mixing structures distributed inside the static-mixing channel and extending radially inward from the channel wall, the mixing structures having a length LMS, a width WMS and a radial dimension RMS, and being longitudinally distributed and radially staggered over a portion of the length of LSMC of the static-mixing channel (figures 2B, 4A, 4B and 4C, randomizing element 112; [0026]); and
wherein the static-mixing nozzle is configured to guide a bead of the additive manufacturing material and short-chopped fiber from the input end to the output end of the static-mixing channel, mix the short-chopped fiber with the additive manufacturing material to randomize orientations of the short-chopped fiber within the additive manufacturing material, and extrude a bead of mixed additive manufacturing material and short-chopped fiber through the output end, causing the extruded bead to be deposited as part of a layer of an object being formed by the additive manufacturing system (figure 1A, nozzle 108, printing exit port 109 and PE; figure 2B, randomizing element 112; figure 3A; [0006]; [0019]; [0031]).
Regarding the limitations in claim 1 which are directed to a manner of operating discloses system (“wherein the static-mixing nozzle is configured to guide….”) and the material worked upon (“fiber”, “additive manufacturing material” “bead of mixed additive manufacturing material”), it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Skelton et al. discloses all the structural limitations of the claim, as explained above, and the static mixing nozzle is capable to perform as recited (figure 1A, nozzle 108, printing exit port 109 and PE; figure 2B, randomizing element 112; figure 3A; [0006]; [0019]; [0031]).
Regarding claim 2, Skelton et al. discloses wherein the static-mixing structures extend from and are connected to one position on the channel wall to another position on the channel wall (figure 2B, randomizing element 112 extend from walls 111; [0026]).
Regarding claim 5, Skelton et al. discloses wherein the static-mixing structures are grids having planar portions and a plurality of flow openings (figures 2B, 4A, 4B, 4C, randomizing element 112 with modules 115 having grid elements with grates 116; [0032]).
Regarding claim 6, Skelton et al. discloses wherein the diameter of the flow openings DFO is from 1 to 50% of DSMC (see figure 4C, spaces of randomizing element 112 compared to circular diameter; [0032]-[0037]).
Regarding claim 7, Skelton et al. discloses wherein the static-mixing structures are connected from an upstream position on the channel wall to a downstream position of the channel wall (figures 2B, 4A and 4B, randomizing element 112).
Regarding claim 8, Skelton et al. discloses wherein the bead has a skin comprising aligned short chop fibers, the skin having a radial thickness TSK ([0031]; [0040]), and the radial dimension of the static-mixing structures RMS is a least as great as the skin thickness TSK (figures 2B and 4A-4C, randomizing element 112; [0017]; [0031]-[0032]; [0037]-[0039]). It is noted that the limitations is directed to the material worked upon which does not further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 11, Skelton et al. discloses wherein the radial dimension RMS of the mixing structures is greater than 0.2 TSK (figures 2B and 4A-4C, randomizing element 112; [0017]; [0031]-[0032]; [0037]-[0039]). It is noted that the limitations is directed to the material worked upon which does not further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 16, Skelton et al. discloses wherein the short-chopped fibers have a length of from 0.1 mm to 12 mm (figure 3A; [0026]; [0040]; [0041]). It is noted that the limitations is directed to the material worked upon which does not further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 17, Skelton et al. discloses wherein the short-chopped fiber comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of C fiber, glass fiber, or bio fiber (figure 3A; [0003]; [0005]; [0006]; [0040]). It is noted that the limitations is directed to the material worked upon which does not further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 18, Skelton et al. discloses wherein the short-chopped fiber has an aspect ratio S=L/d less than 100, L being the fiber's length and d being the fiber's diameter (figure 3A; [0040]). It is noted that the limitations is directed to the material worked upon which does not further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 19, Skelton et al. discloses wherein the additive manufacturing material is a thermoplastic polymer ([0003]; [0005]; [0018]; [0037]; [0040]; [0041]). It is noted that the limitations is directed to the material worked upon which does not further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 20, Skelton et al. discloses wherein the static-mixing channel is tubular (figures 1-3, nozzle 108; figure 4C; [0025]-[0027]; [0030]).
Regarding claim 21, Skelton et al. discloses a static-mixing nozzle for an additive manufacturing system (abstract; figure 1A, nozzle 108) comprising:
a static-mixing channel defined by a channel wall (figure 2b, sleeve 111), the static-mixing channel having a diameter DSMC (figure 2b, sleeve 111 diameter, not labeled, [0026]) and a longitudinal center axis having length LSMC (figure 2b, length of sleeve 111 from 111a to 111b), an input end (figure 2B, 111A) and an opposing output end (figure 2B, 111B and 109), the static-mixing channel being fluidly coupled at the input end to feeding means through which additive manufacturing material and short-chopped fiber are to be provided to the extruder (figure 5; [0019]; [0026]), the static-mixing nozzle comprising static-mixing structures distributed inside the static-mixing channel and extending radially inward from the channel wall, the mixing structures having a length LMS, a width WMS and a radial dimension RMS, and being longitudinally distributed and radially staggered over a portion of the length of LSMC of the static-mixing channel (figures 2B, 4A, 4B and 4C, randomizing element 112; [0026]); and
wherein the static-mixing nozzle is configured to guide a bead of the additive manufacturing material and short-chopped fiber from the input end to the output end of the static-mixing channel, mix the short-chopped fiber with the additive manufacturing material to randomize orientations of the short-chopped fiber within the additive manufacturing material, and extrude a bead of mixed additive manufacturing material and short-chopped fiber through the output end, causing the extruded bead to be deposited as part of a layer of an object being formed by the additive manufacturing system (abstract; figure 1A, nozzle 108, printing exit port 109 and PE; figure 2B, randomizing element 112; figure 3A; [0006]; [0019]; [0031]).
Regarding the limitations in claim 1 which are directed to a manner of operating discloses system (“wherein the static-mixing nozzle is configured to guide….”) and the material worked upon (“fiber”, “additive manufacturing material” “bead of mixed additive manufacturing material”), it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Skelton et al. discloses all the structural limitations of the claim, as explained above, and the static mixing nozzle is capable to perform as recited (figure 1A, nozzle 108, printing exit port 109 and PE; figure 2B, randomizing element 112; figure 3A; [0006]; [0019]; [0031]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/ELIZABETH INSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights