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
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 11-20 remain withdrawn.
In view of the amendment, filed 04/27/2026, the following objections and rejections are withdrawn from the previous Office Action mailed 01/26/2026:
Specification and claim objections
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Any new grounds of rejection are necessitated by claim amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The examined claims are directed to a system that is interpreted as a device/apparatus. The examiner notes that recitations directed toward a manner of operating a device do not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. MPEP 2114 (II). Furthermore, materials or articles worked upon by an apparatus in its intended use do not impart patentability to the apparatus claims. MPEP 2115.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sweeney et al., Dielectric Barrier Discharge Applicator for Heating Carbon Nanotube-Loaded Interfaces and Enhancing 3D-Printed Bond Strength, Nano Letters 2020 (“Sweeney Nano Letters”), of record.
PNG
media_image1.png
476
707
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Sweeney Nano Letters discloses a system (Fig. 1A, above) for free-form fabrication of composites (for 3D printing of composite parts comprising carbon nanotubes and thermoplastic, Abstract), the system comprising:
A dielectric barrier (DBD) applicator (DBD applicator, Fig. 1A) configured to create an electric field (electric current lines, Figs. 1A and 1C) proximal to a composite (proximal to an underlying 3D printed composite part, Fig. 1A), the DBD applicator comprising:
A first electrode (conductor, Fig. 1A) disposed within a dielectric barrier (within dielectric disc, Fig. 1A); and
A second electrode (grounded print head nozzle, Fig. 1A) spaced apart from the first electrode (Fig. 1A),
Wherein the first and second electrodes are configured to apply the electric field to the composite to induce Joule heating in the composite to heat the composite (electric field is applied via the electrode configuration and induces Joule heating of the printed composite part, p. 2311, second column, Figs. 1A and 1C).
Sweeney Nano Letters describes using the apparatus for fabrication of composite parts comprised of carbon nanotubes and thermoplastic as opposed to composites comprised of continuous carbon fibers (i.e., the present claim reflects a different manner in which the same structure is intended to be employed, which does not impart patentability to an apparatus claim, MPEP 2114); however, the use of the apparatus to perform the same function of heating while working on a different material does not reflect a structural change to any of the claimed structural elements of the apparatus. As such, the requirements of the claim are met by the prior art.
Regarding claim 3, Sweeney Nano Letters discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the first electrode, the second electrode, and the dielectric barrier are configured to generate a plasma between the first electrode and the composite part (plasma discharge, Fig. 1B, p. 2311 left column).
Regarding claims 4-7, Sweeney Nano Letters discloses the system of claim 1 further comprising an alternating current generator electrically coupled to the first and second electrodes (AC supply, Fig. 1A and 1C), wherein the dielectric barrier comprises a dielectric disc (Fig. 1A) and the second electrode forms part of a nozzle tube that extends through the dielectric disc (Fig. 1A), further comprising a heater block disposed around the nozzle tube (Fig. 1A) and configured to heat the composite material as it flows through the nozzle tube (Fig. 1A), wherein the dielectric disc comprises a conductor disposed within the dielectric disc (Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 9, Sweeney Nano Letters discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the first electrode is configured to move relative to the composite part (is positioned around nozzle of 3D printer head, Fig. 1A, p. 2311 left column, thus moves with the printer head relative to the part during deposition and/or is moved relative to the part when a part is removed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeney et al., US 20200070416 A1 (“Sweeney ‘416”) in view of Sweeney et al., Dielectric Barrier Discharge Applicator for Heating Carbon Nanotube-Loaded Interfaces and Enhancing 3D-Printed Bond Strength, Nano Letters 2020 (“Sweeney Nano Letters”), references of record.
Regarding claim 1, Sweeney ‘416 discloses a system (Fig. 2) for free-form fabrication of continuous carbon fiber composites (for additive manufacturing of polymer/continuous fiber composites, [0035], and therefore capable of working on continuous carbon fiber composites), the system comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
1518
1290
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A plasma applicator (plasma applicator apparatus 130, Fig. 2, which includes a high voltage electrode 134 encapsulated by a dielectric insulator 136, [0036]) configured to create an electric field (creates plasma field 140, Fig. 2, [0036]) proximal to a continuous carbon fiber composite (proximal to the composite layers 131, Fig. 2), the plasma applicator comprising:
A first electrode (high voltage electrode 134, Fig. 2, [0036]) disposed within a dielectric barrier (encapsulated by dielectric insulator 136, Fig. 2, [0036]); and
A second electrode (print head nozzle 122 and/or part carrier 124, both of which are grounded, Fig. 2, [0036]) spaced apart from the first electrode (Fig. 2),
Wherein the first and second electrodes are configured to apply the electric field to the continuous carbon fiber composite for heating by the plasma applicator (conduction heating via plasma applicator, [0033], configuration applies electric field to the part and completes conduction pathway between plasma applicator and 3D part, [0036]).
Sweeney ‘416 discloses the high voltage electrode encapsulated in the dielectric insulator and the configuration to apply a plasma across an air gap with no pressurization requirements. Accordingly, the disclosure at least strongly implies the plasma applicator is a DBD applicator. See MPEP 2144.01 regarding implicit disclosure. Sweeney ‘416 further suggests that the invention intends to address prior issues related to strength and heating of 3D parts ([0005]-[0006]) and achieves heating via the conduction pathway ([0033], [0036]). Still, the reference is silent as to the plasma being a dielectric barrier discharge and the effect of the system being to induce Joule heating for curing.
In the analogous art of 3D printing (Abstract), Sweeney Nano Letters discloses a DBD applicator configuration having substantially the same structure (Fig. 1A below and associated caption) wherein the first and second electrodes (conductor within dielectric disc and grounded nozzle, respectively, Fig. 1A) are configured to apply a DBD plasma to induce Joule heating (Abstract, p. 2311) in a 3D printed part to cure the printed composite material (Fig. 1A, in line with instant Fig. 2, configured such that the 3D printed part passes through the generated electric field, where the material is heated, p. 2311). Sweeney Nano Letters teaches that DBDs involve a low temperature plasma gas which does not damage temperature-sensitive substrates (p. 2310), and the configuration can achieve Joule heating in the printed layers below the surface and eliminate cumbersome postprocessing treatments and produce parts ready for functional end-use applications (p. 2311).
PNG
media_image1.png
476
707
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In case such configuration was not already present, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plasma applicator of Sweeney ‘416 to adopt the configuration of Sweeney Nano Letters such that the plasma was a DBD plasma and the first and second electrodes were configured to induce Joule heating for curing in order to achieve non-destructive localized heating in printed layers below the surface and thereby reduce or eliminate the need for further postprocessing as taught by Sweeney Nano Letters.
Regarding claim 3, the combination discloses the system of claim 1, and Sweeney ‘416 discloses the first electrode, the second electrode, and the dielectric barrier are configured to generate a plasma between the first electrode and the continuous carbon fiber composite (plasma field, [0007], [0036]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination discloses the system of claim 1, and Sweeney ‘416 discloses an alternating current generator electrically coupled to the first and second electrodes (signal generator, [0007], that outputs a high potential electromagnetic signal comprising an alternating current signal, [0008]-[0009]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination discloses the system of claim 4, and Sweeney ‘416 discloses the dielectric barrier comprises a dielectric disc (the plasma field applicator has a disc-like shape, [0013], Fig. 2) and the second electrode forms part of a nozzle tube (the nozzle 122 being grounded, Fig. 2, [0036]) that extends through the dielectric disc (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, the combination discloses the system of claim 5. Sweeney ‘416 discloses the deposited material is heated ([0035]) but is silent as to a heater block disposed around the nozzle tube and configured to heat the continuous carbon fiber composite as it flows through the nozzle tube.
Sweeney Nano Letters further discloses a heater block (heater block, Fig. 1A) disposed around the nozzle tube (around nozzle, a tube, Fig. 1A) and configured to heat the composite material as it flows through the nozzle tube (Fig. 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further specify the system of Sweeney ‘416 included a heater block disposed around the nozzle tube and configured to heat the continuous carbon fiber composite as it flows through the nozzle tube in order to implement a known structure suitable for heating the 3D printed materials for deposition, as shown by Sweeney Nano Letters.
Regarding claim 7, the combination discloses the system of claim 6, and Sweeney ‘416 discloses the dielectric disc comprises a conductor (high voltage electrode 134, Fig. 2, [0036]) disposed within the dielectric disc (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, the combination discloses the system of claim 1, and Sweeney ‘416 discloses the second electrode forms at least part of a plate (the grounded part carrier 124, Fig. 2, [0036]) that is configured to move relative to the first electrode (capable of relative movement, [0035]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination discloses the system of claim 1, and Sweeney ‘416 discloses the first electrode is configured to move relative to the continuous carbon fiber composite (the print head nozzle 122, to which the first electrode 134 is attached, Fig. 2, is capable of moving relative to the part carrier 124 supporting the printed object, [0035]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination discloses the system of claim 1, and Sweeney ‘416 discloses a conductive substrate (part carrier 124, which grounds the part to complete the conduction pathway, Fig. 2, [0036]) upon which the continuous carbon fiber composite rests after being extruded by a print head (configured to receive extruded composite print material, Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeney et al., US 20200070416 A1 (“Sweeney ‘416”), in view of Sweeney et al., Dielectric Barrier Discharge Applicator for Heating Carbon Nanotube-Loaded Interfaces and Enhancing 3D-Printed Bond Strength, Nano Letters 2020 (“Sweeney Nano Letters”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsai et al., US 20160271874 A1, of record.
Regarding claim 2, the combination discloses the system of claim 1. Sweeney ‘416 exemplifies the high potential electromagnetic signal output by the signal generator comprises an AC signal ([0007]-[0009]) but further discloses that the signal can comprise a short duration pulse signal, a rectified signal, etc. ([0033]) and the controller can modify the frequency, voltage, current, and waveform shape ([0032]).
Sweeney ‘416 does not explicitly disclose a direct current generator electrically coupled to the first and second electrodes.
In the analogous art of 3D printing ([0024]), Tsai discloses a 3D printing device including a plasma applicator for dielectric barrier discharge ([0024]). Tsai teaches the plasma applicator includes electrodes connected to one or more high voltage power sources ([0037]), including a pulsed DC or an AC supply ([0027]). Accordingly, Tsai supports that a pulsed DC power supply was a known alternative to an AC supply as a high voltage power source for plasma applicators.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the high voltage power source provided as a DC generator as taught by Tsai for the AC generator of Sweeney ‘416 as a substitution of one known element for another yielding predictable results of providing power to the electrodes. Sweeney ‘416 teaches the system can use pulsed or rectified signals and Tsai teaches the pulsed DC supply was a known alternative to an AC supply for powering plasma applicators.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (p. 8, section 1) that the examiner relies on implicit disclosure in Sweeney ‘416 to address the plasma being a dielectric barrier discharge. This argument is not found persuasive because the rejection did not rely solely on Sweeney 416’s implicit disclosure but instead additionally applies Sweeney Nano Letters.
Regarding the application of Sweeney Nano Letters, Applicant argues (p. 8, section 2) that the reference uses DBD to induce Joule heating in carbon nanotube loaded interfaces between printed thermoplastic layers for welding those layers together, and that resistive heating occurs at the CNT coatings at the layer interfaces and not in continuous carbon fibers. Applicant states that by contrast, amended claim 1 requires the electric field to induce Joule heating in continuous carbon fibers which is a different process.
This argument is not found persuasive as it is directed to a procedural difference but does not reflect a structural distinction between the prior art and claimed devices. Whether the prior art device is used to work on carbon nanotube composites or carbon fiber composites does not change its physical structure. If Applicant understands these operations to require different structure, then that structure is not presently claimed. The examined claims are apparatus claims. Apparatus claims cover the structural limitations of what a device is and not what a device does. MPEP 2114.
Applicant argues (p. 9, section 3) that there is no motivation for the combination because it pertains to the welding of thermoplastic interfaces and not the curing of carbon fiber composites. Applicant argues that Sweeney Nano Letters uses different materials, has a different purpose of welding vs. curing, and the Joule heating mechanism differs in applying current through CNT networks vs. through carbon fibers of the printed part.
These arguments are not found persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Sweeney Nano Letters is analogous art and communicates that essentially the same structure as the primary reference can be used for achieving efficient Joule heating processes for 3D printing. Welding and curing in the respective references corresponds to heating. Each system is intended to heat an underlying 3D printed material via the application of the electric field. The exemplified working on different materials in this case does not affect the structure of the apparatus, and the apparatus of Sweeney 416 could have been used to work on different materials without changing its structure.
Applicant argues (p. 9, section 4) that Joule heating is a structural limitation because the “configured to” language imposes structural requirements on the electrode configuration in terms of spacing, dielectric properties, and power characteristics.
This argument is not found persuasive. The “configured to” language with respect to electrodes requires at most the capability of the electrodes to perform the intended use. The combination as applied addresses the intended use directed to inducing Joule heating. A particular material to which the heating is applied does not impart a specific structural limitation to the claimed apparatus. Applicant does not specify what the particular structural requirements are for spacing, dielectric properties, and power reflected by the “configured to” language but they are not clearly reflected in the argued claim language. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., particular spacing, dielectric properties, and power characteristics) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claim 2, Applicant argues (p. 9, last paragraph) that the same arguments apply for the additional combination including Tsai. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons provided above.
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 JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/LARRY W THROWER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights