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
Applicant amendment filed 12/10/2025 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
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, 3, 6, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Butcher et al. (US2015/0165666) hereinafter Butcher.
Regarding claim 1, Butcher teaches:
A system for making a component having a plurality of layers sequentially deposited via additive manufacturing, the system comprising:
a nozzle comprising an orifice (Fig 1: nozzle 150, channel 152);
a print controller configured to define a print pattern for the nozzle for each layer of the component, wherein the print pattern defines a print order in which filaments are deposited from the nozzle to form one of the plurality of layers of the component ([0025-0026]); and
a cutter at the orifice of the nozzle and configured to cut the filament, including a reinforcing material contained therein, when specified by the print pattern (Fig 1: cutter 170; [0024]);
wherein the nozzle is configured to move according to the print pattern for the layer of the component being formed (Fig 4; [0026, 0032]) and simultaneously coextrude a matrix material and the reinforcing material from the orifice of the nozzle as one of the filaments (Fig 1, 2b; [0023, 0029]), such that the reinforcing material is fully immersed within the matrix material (Fig 1, 2b; [0023, 0029]); and
wherein the reinforcing material is one or more longitudinally-extending continuous members embedded within the matrix material (Fig 1, 2b; [0023, 0029, 0032]).
Butcher does not teach an elastomeric matrix. However, this limitation is directed to the material worked upon, and "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115.
Furthermore, applicant specification discloses that the elastomeric material can be thermoplastic. Butcher teaches that the matrix material can be a thermoplastic ([0019]).
Regarding claim 3, Butcher teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Butcher does not explicitly recite wherein the reinforcing material is one or more fibers having a tensile strength that is greater than a tensile strength of the elastomeric matrix material. However, this limitation is directed to the material worked upon, and "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 6, Butcher teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Butcher further teaches wherein the print pattern is a continuous print pattern, in which the filament is deposited in a continuous manner from the orifice for the layer of the component (Fig 4; [0032]).
Regarding claim 8, Butcher teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Butcher does not teach wherein the reinforcing material comprises a metal. However, this limitation is directed to the material worked upon, and "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 9, Butcher teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Butcher does not teach wherein the reinforcing material consists of a metal. However, this limitation is directed to the material worked upon, and "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Asgeirsson et al. (US2020/0147875) hereinafter Asgeirsson.
Regarding claim 2, Butcher teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Butcher does not teach wherein the print controller is configured to dispense the filament according to a different print pattern in different layers of the component, such that the elongation and/or the elasticity of the different layers is different from each other.
In the same field of endeavor regarding additive manufacturing, Asgeirsson teaches using different deposition patterns to form different regions having different elasticities for the motivation of dynamically changing the properties of the material ([0085, 0103]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller as taught by Butcher to form different regions of different elasticity as taught by Asgeirsson in order to dynamically change the properties of the material.
Regarding claim 7, Butcher teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Butcher does not teach a build plate that is configured to control a surface temperature thereof, wherein the nozzle is configured to form a first layer of the plurality of layers of the component directly on the build plate; and/or
a build chamber that is configured to control an internal temperature thereof, wherein the nozzle is configured to form the layer of the component within the build chamber; and/or
an energy source configured to cure the elastomeric matrix material.
In the same field of endeavor regarding additive manufacturing, Asgeirsson teaches an energy source configured to cure the elastomeric matrix material for the motivation of accelerating curing of an elastomer ([0097-0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus as taught by Butcher with the energy source as taught by Asgeirsson in order to accelerate curing of an elastomer.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butcher as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mark et al. (US2016/0067928) hereinafter Mark.
Regarding claim 4, Butcher teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Butcher does not teach a second nozzle configured to dispense only the elastomeric matrix material to fill in spaces within the layer of the component that are designated to be filled with the elastomeric matrix material but devoid of the reinforcing material.
In the same field of endeavor regarding additive manufacturing, Mark teaches a printer having two printheads configured to deposit with one head a fiber reinforced composite filament and with a remaining head apply pure or neat matrix resin for the motivation of forming a combination of fiber-embedded filament segments and pure polymer segments ([0080, 0115]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus as taught by Butcher to include a second nozzle as taught by Mark in order to form a combination of fiber-embedded filament segments and pure polymer segments.
Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butcher as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dobosz et al. (US2022/0250308) hereinafter Dobosz.
Regarding claim 5, Butcher teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Butcher does not teach the nozzle comprises a mixer configured to intermix at least two components of an elastomeric polymer within the nozzle, such that the elastomeric matrix material is the elastomeric polymer, the at least two components being a resin, a hardener, one or more pigments, and/or a softener; or
the nozzle is configured to extrude the elastomeric matrix material substantially concentrically around the reinforcing material, such that the reinforcing material is fully immersed in the elastomeric matrix material.
In the same field of endeavor regarding additive manufacturing, Dobosz teaches the nozzle comprises a mixer configured to intermix at least two components of an elastomeric polymer within the nozzle, such that the elastomeric matrix material is the elastomeric polymer, the at least two components being a resin, a hardener, one or more pigments, and/or a softener for the motivation of meeting demanding performance requirements ([0001, 0036, 0116, 0126, 0128-0129, 0279]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nozzle as taught by Butcher to mix components as taught by Dobozs in order to meet demanding performance requirements.
Regarding claim 10, Butcher teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Butcher does not teach wherein the reinforcing material is made of woven fibers and the cutter is configured to cut through the woven fibers.
However, Butcher teaches that the cutter comprises any type of blade capable of cutting a co-extruded filament including glass fiber ([0018, 0031]).
In the same field of endeavor regarding additive manufacturing, Dobosz teaches coextruding a woven glass fiber as continuous reinforcement for the motivation of meeting demanding performance requirements ([0001, 0301, 0307]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cutter as taught by Butcher to be capable of cutting a woven fiber since Dobozs teaches woven glass fiber as suitable reinforcement material in order to meet demanding performance requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/10/2025 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.
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
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 ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm EST.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights