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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 15th, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment, filed on March 30th, 2026, the following are withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on January 15th, 2026.
Objection of claims 9 and 16 due to minor informalities
Rejection of claims 1-3, 5-16, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Rejections of claims 1-3, 5-16, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in view of the amendments
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-16, 18 and 19 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.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims necessitate a new grounds of rejection provided below.
New Grounds of Rejection
Claim Interpretation
Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that the claims are directed to an apparatus/a system and therefore are only limited by positively recited elements. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Furthermore, it is well settled that the intended uses of and the particular material used in an apparatus have no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims. In other words, the process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2114 (II) and 2115 for further details.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 15, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (CN 110039764 A; hereafter Yu; paragraph numbers correspond to previously attached English machine translation), in view of Nguyen et al. (US 20190240611 A1; hereafter Nguyen), Dudukovic et al. (US 20200147874 A1; hereafter Dudukovic) and Belcher et al. (US 20210031449 A1 from IDS filed on 03/02/2026; hereafter Belcher).
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses a system for additively manufacturing a structure ([0008]), the system comprising:
a nozzle component (Fig. 1; [0008]; nozzle component 20) including:
a housing (Marked Fig. 1; housing) having:
a first nozzle (Marked Fig. 1; first nozzle) formed on the housing for receiving a powder ([0040]; core layer material can be powder), and channeling the powder through the nozzle component (Marked Fig. 1; [0040]; the core layer material, which can be powder, moves through the first nozzle);
a second nozzle (Marked Fig. 1; second nozzle) formed on the housing and configured to receive a polymer ([0040]; skin layer material can be plastic) and channeling the polymer through the housing without intermixing of the polymer and the powder (Marked Fig. 1; [0040]; the skin layer material, which can be plastic, moves through the second nozzle without mixing with the core layer material);
and a print head (Marked Fig. 1; print head) in communication with the housing and configured to receive both the powder and the polymer (Marked Fig. 1; print head receives both the core layer material (powder) and the skin layer material (plastic)), and to co-extrude the powder and the polymer so that the polymer forms a shell that encases the powder (Marked Fig. 1; [0039-0040]; the core layer material (powder) and the skin layer material (plastic) are co-extruded to form a core-skin composite structure).
PNG
media_image1.png
747
771
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yu does not explicitly disclose the powder is capable of capturing carbon dioxide, a vibration unit operably associated with the nozzle component and configured to provide a vibration energy to the print head to cause portions of the powder in a jammed state to flow out from the nozzle component and the print head configured to prevent commingling of the powder and the polymer until both the powder and the polymer have fully exited the print head.
However, Nguyen teaches a system for additively manufacturing a structure for transporting carbon dioxide ([0029-0030]; system for 3D printing structures for absorbing CO2), the system comprising a nozzle (Fig. 3; [0042]; print head 302) configured to co-extrude a powder capable of capturing carbon dioxide ([0009]; solid sorbent powder for absorbing CO2) and a polymer ([0009]; gas-permeable polymer). The nozzle can be a core-shell nozzle ([0034]).
Yu and Nguyen are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of co-extrusion 3D printing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yu with the teachings of Nguyen to select the powder as capable of capturing carbon dioxide. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Doing so would enhance the capability of the additive manufacturing system for producing a wider variety of products, such as gas reactors with faster CO2 absorption rates (Nguyen [0030]).
Furthermore, it is well settled that the intended uses of and the particular material used in an apparatus have no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114 (II) and 2115 for further details.
Yu, in view of Nguyen, does not disclose a vibration unit operably associated with the nozzle component and configured to provide a vibration energy to the print head to cause portions of the powder in a jammed state to flow out from the nozzle component and the print head configured to prevent commingling of the powder and the polymer until both the powder and the polymer have fully exited the print head.
However, Dudukovic teaches a system for additively manufacturing a structure ([0008]), the system comprising a print head nozzle (Fig. 1; [0033]; nozzle 20) and a vibration unit (Fig. 1; [0033]; excitation source 30 applies a vibration) configured to provide a vibration energy to the print head nozzle (Fig. 1; [0033]; excitation source 30 induces a vibration in nozzle 20). The print head nozzle is configured to dispense build powder ([0033]; powdered material feedstock) and the vibratory motion imparted by the vibration unit allows the build powder to flow in a highly controlled manner from the print head nozzle ([0033]).
Yu and Dudukovic are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of additive manufacturing using a print head. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yu, in view of Nguyen, with the teachings of Dudukovic to provide a vibration unit operably associated with the nozzle component and configured to provide a vibration energy to the print head. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(D). Doing so would allow for a highly controlled release of material from the print head (Dudukovic [0033-0034]) and therefore improve accuracy when additively manufacturing the structure.
Yu, in view of Nguyen and Dudukovic, does not explicitly disclose the print head configured to prevent commingling of the powder and the polymer until both the powder and the polymer have fully exited the print head.
However, Belcher teaches a print head (Fig. 2G) for additive manufacturing ([0089]) that co-extrudes a core material ([0095, 0097]; core reagent material from core reagent container 8) and a shell material ([0095, 0097]; shell reagent material from shell reagent container 9) using a first nozzle (Fig. 2G; [0097]; first cavity 28) and a second nozzle (Fig. 2G; [0097]; second cavity 29), wherein the print head is configured to prevent commingling of the core material and the shell material until both the core material and the shell material have fully exited the print head (Fig. 2H; [0097]).
Yu and Belcher are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of additive manufacturing using a print head. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yu, in view of Nguyen, with the teachings of Belcher to provide the print head configured to prevent commingling of the powder and the polymer until both the powder and the polymer have fully exited the print head. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(D). Doing so would improve the quality of the extruded core-shell structure by preventing the core and shell material from mixing until they exit the print head and ensure consistent flow of materials while being suitable for cheap and easy construction (Belcher [0117]).
Yu, in view of Nguyen, Dudukovic and Belcher, comprises all the positively recited elements of the claimed apparatus and as such would be capable of the intended use of “cause portions of the powder in a jammed state to flow out from the nozzle component”. A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114 (II) and 2115 for further details.
Regarding claim 2, modified Yu discloses the system of claim 1, wherein Yu further discloses the housing includes an internal depending tubular portion (Marked Fig. 1; internal depending tubular portion) extending coaxially through the housing and through the print head (Marked Fig. 1; internal depending tubular portion extends coaxially through housing and print head).
Regarding claim 3, modified Yu discloses the system of claim 1, wherein Yu further discloses the print head includes an annular path (Marked Fig. 1; annular flow path) for channeling the polymer out therefrom.
Regarding claim 5, modified Yu discloses the system of claim 1.
Modified Yu does not disclose an excitation signal generator configured to provide an excitation signal to the vibration unit.
However, Dudukovic further teaches an excitation signal generator ([0032-0033]; 30 is moved in a controlled fashion by an excitation motion control subsystem 32) configured to provide an excitation signal to the vibration unit ([0032-0033]; 32 provides excitation signal to 30).
Yu and Dudukovic are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of additive manufacturing using a print head. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Yu with the teachings of Dudukovic to provide an excitation signal generator configured to provide an excitation signal to the vibration unit. Doing so would allow for a highly controlled release of material from the print head (Dudukovic [0033-0034]) and therefore improve accuracy when additively manufacturing the structure.
Regarding claim 6, modified Yu discloses the system of claim 5.
Modified Yu does not disclose a computer configured to control the excitation signal generator.
However, Dudukovic further teaches a computer configured to control the excitation signal generator (Fig. 1; electronic controller, with memory, software application and wireless communication subsystem, controls 32).
Yu and Dudukovic are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of additive manufacturing using a print head. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Yu with the teachings of Dudukovic to provide a computer configured to control the excitation signal generator. Doing so would allow for a highly controlled release of material from the print head (Dudukovic [0033-0034]) and therefore improve accuracy when additively manufacturing the structure.
Regarding claim 7, modified Yu discloses the system of claim 1, further Yu further discloses comprising a nozzle motion control subsystem configured to control motion of the nozzle component along X and Y axes ([0024]; driving components including X-axis driving stepper motor and Y-axis driving stepper motor for movement in X-axis and Y-axis).
Regarding claim 8, modified Yu discloses the system of claim 7.
Modified Yu does not explicitly disclose a computer in communication with the nozzle motion control subsystem and configured to provide electronic toolpath commands to the nozzle motion control subsystem for controlling motion of the nozzle component.
However, Nguyen further teaches a computer ([0043]; computer controller 308) in communication with a nozzle motion control subsystem ([0043]; movement of the print head 302 is controlled by computer controller 308 which provides freedom of movement along all axes as indicated by the arrows 309) and configured to provide electronic toolpath commands to the nozzle motion control subsystem for controlling motion of the nozzle ([0043]; the instructions for creating the reactor 312 is fed to the computer controller 308 and the computer controller 308 uses the instructions to move the print head 302 through a series of moments).
Yu and Nguyen are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of co-extrusion 3D printing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yu with the teachings of Nguyen to provide a computer in communication with the nozzle motion control subsystem and configured to provide electronic toolpath commands to the nozzle motion control subsystem for controlling motion of the nozzle component. It is well-known in the art of extrusion-based 3D printing to use computer control for controlling nozzle movement in order to provide accurate control over the material shape (Nguyen [0009]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yu discloses the system of claim 1, further Yu further discloses comprising the polymer ([0040]; skin layer material can be plastic).
Regarding claim 10, modified Yu discloses the system of claim 9, wherein Nguyen further teaches the powder comprises a carbonate-based composite sorbent capable of capturing carbon dioxide ([0030]; sodium carbonate for CO2 capture).
Regarding claim 11, modified Yu discloses the system of claim 9, wherein Nguyen further teaches the polymer comprises a thermally curable polymer ([0009]; gas-permeable polymer may be silicone, which is thermally curable).
Regarding claim 12, modified Yu discloses the system of claim 1, further Yu further discloses comprising the powder ([0040]; core layer material can be powder).
Regarding claim 15, modified Yu discloses the system of claim 12, wherein Nguyen further teaches the powder comprises at least one of: a metal organic frameworks(MOF) powder core ([0007]); a metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) ([0007]); a zeolite ([0007]); or an activated carbon ([0007]).
Regarding claim 16, Yu discloses a system for additively manufacturing a structure ([0008]), the system comprising:
a nozzle component (Fig. 1; [0008]; nozzle component 20) including:
a housing (Marked Fig. 1; housing) having:
a first nozzle (Marked Fig. 1; first nozzle) formed on the housing for receiving a powder ([0040]; core layer material can be powder);
an internal depending tubular portion (Marked Fig. 1; internal depending tubular portion) in communication with the first nozzle for channeling the powder through the nozzle component (Marked Fig. 1; [0040]; internal depending tubular portion is in communication with the first nozzle, wherein the core layer material, which can be powder, moves through the first nozzle), the internal depending tubular portion being aligned coaxially with a longitudinal axis extending through the housing (Marked Fig. 1; internal depending tubular portion extends coaxially with a longitudinal axis extending through the housing);
a second nozzle (Marked Fig. 1; second nozzle) formed on the housing non-parallel to the first nozzle (Marked Fig. 1; second nozzle is perpendicular to first nozzle) and configured to receive a polymer ([0040]; skin layer material can be plastic);
an annular flow path (Marked Fig. 1; annular flow path) formed around an exterior of the internal depending tubular portion (Marked Fig. 1; annular flow path is exterior of internal depending tubular portion) for channeling the polymer through the housing without intermixing of the polymer and the powder (Marked Fig. 1; [0040]; the skin layer material, which can be plastic, moves through the second nozzle and annular flow path without mixing with the core layer material);
and a print head (Marked Fig. 1; print head) in communication with the housing and configured to receive both the powder and the polymer (Marked Fig. 1; print head receives both the core layer material (powder) and the skin layer material (plastic)), and to co-extrude the powder and the polymer so that the polymer forms a shell that encases the powder as the powder and the polymer are extruded from the print head (Marked Fig. 1; [0039-0040]; the core layer material (powder) and the skin layer material (plastic) are co-extruded to form a core-skin composite structure).
PNG
media_image1.png
747
771
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yu does not explicitly disclose the powder is capable of capturing carbon dioxide, a vibration unit configured to provide a vibration energy to the print head to cause a portion of the powder jammed within the nozzle component to be released and the print head configured to prevent commingling of the powder and the polymer until both the powder and the polymer have fully exited the print head.
However, Nguyen teaches a system for additively manufacturing a structure for transporting carbon dioxide ([0029-0030]; system for 3D printing structures for absorbing CO2), the system comprising a nozzle (Fig. 3; [0042]; print head 302) configured to co-extrude a powder capable of capturing carbon dioxide ([0009]; solid sorbent powder for absorbing CO2) and a polymer ([0009]; gas-permeable polymer). The nozzle can be a core-shell nozzle ([0034]).
Yu and Nguyen are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of co-extrusion 3D printing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yu with the teachings of Nguyen to provide the powder is capable of capturing carbon dioxide. Doing so would enhance the capability of the additive manufacturing system for producing a wider variety of products, such as gas reactors with faster CO2 absorption rates (Nguyen [0030]).
Furthermore, it is well settled that the intended uses of and the particular material used in an apparatus have no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114 (II) and 2115 for further details.
Yu, in view of Nguyen, does not disclose a vibration unit configured to provide a vibration energy to the print head to cause a portion of the powder jammed within the nozzle component to be released and the print head configured to prevent commingling of the powder and the polymer until both the powder and the polymer have fully exited the print head.
However, Dudukovic teaches a system for additively manufacturing a structure ([0008]), the system comprising a print head nozzle (Fig. 1; [0033]; nozzle 20) and a vibration unit (Fig. 1; [0033]; excitation source 30 applies a vibration) configured to provide a vibration energy to the print head nozzle (Fig. 1; [0033]; excitation source 30 induces a vibration in nozzle 20). The print head nozzle is configured to dispense build powder ([0033]; powdered material feedstock) and the vibratory motion imparted by the vibration unit allows the build powder to flow in a highly controlled manner from the print head nozzle ([0033]).
Yu and Dudukovic are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of additive manufacturing using a print head. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yu, in view of Nguyen, with the teachings of Dudukovic to provide a vibration unit configured to provide a vibration energy to the print head. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(D). Doing so would allow for a highly controlled release of material from the print head (Dudukovic [0033-0034]) and therefore improve accuracy when additively manufacturing the structure.
Yu, in view of Nguyen and Dudukovic, does not explicitly disclose the print head configured to prevent commingling of the powder and the polymer until both the powder and the polymer have fully exited the print head.
However, Belcher teaches a print head (Fig. 2G) for additive manufacturing ([0089]) that co-extrudes a core material ([0095, 0097]; core reagent material from core reagent container 8) and a shell material ([0095, 0097]; shell reagent material from shell reagent container 9) using a first nozzle (Fig. 2G; [0097]; first cavity 28) and a second nozzle (Fig. 2G; [0097]; second cavity 29), wherein the print head is configured to prevent commingling of the core material and the shell material until both the core material and the shell material have fully exited the print head (Fig. 2H; [0097]).
Yu and Belcher are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of additive manufacturing using a print head. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yu, in view of Nguyen, with the teachings of Belcher to provide the print head configured to prevent commingling of the powder and the polymer until both the powder and the polymer have fully exited the print head. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(D). Doing so would improve the quality of the extruded core-shell structure by preventing the core and shell material from mixing until they exit the print head and ensure consistent flow of materials while being suitable for cheap and easy construction (Belcher [0117]).
Yu, in view of Nguyen, Dudukovic and Belcher, comprises all the positively recited elements of the claimed apparatus and as such would be capable of the intended use of “cause a portion of the powder jammed within the nozzle component to be released”. A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114 (II) and 2115 for further details.
Regarding claim 18, modified Yu discloses the system of claim 16.
Modified Yu does not disclose an excitation signal generator in communication with the vibration unit and configured to generate an excitation signal which is applied to the vibration unit to control the vibration unit.
However, Dudukovic further teaches an excitation signal generator ([0032-0033]; 30 is moved in a controlled fashion by an excitation motion control subsystem 32) in communication with the vibration unit and configured to generate an excitation signal which is applied to the vibration unit to control the vibration unit ([0032-0033]; 32 provides excitation signal to 30).
Yu and Dudukovic are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of additive manufacturing using a print head. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Yu with the teachings of Dudukovic to provide an excitation signal generator in communication with the vibration unit and configured to generate an excitation signal which is applied to the vibration unit to control the vibration unit. Doing so would allow for a highly controlled release of material from the print head (Dudukovic [0033-0034]) and therefore improve accuracy when additively manufacturing the structure.
Regarding claim 19, modified Yu discloses the system of claim 16, wherein Yu further discloses a nozzle motion control subsystem configured to control motion of the nozzle component along X, Y and Z axes ([0024]; driving components including X-axis, Y-axis and Z-axis driving stepper motors for movement in X-axis, Y-axis and Z-axis).
Modified Yu does not explicitly disclose a computer in communication with the nozzle motion control subsystem and configured to provide electronic toolpath commands to the nozzle motion control subsystem for controlling motion of the nozzle along all axes.
However, Nguyen further teaches a computer ([0043]; computer controller 308) in communication with a nozzle motion control subsystem ([0043]; movement of the print head 302 is controlled by computer controller 308 which provides freedom of movement along all axes as indicated by the arrows 309) and configured to provide electronic toolpath commands to the nozzle motion control subsystem for controlling motion of the nozzle along all axes ([0043]; the instructions for creating the reactor 312 is fed to the computer controller 308 and the computer controller 308 uses the instructions to move the print head 302 through a series of moments).
Yu and Nguyen are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of co-extrusion 3D printing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yu with the teachings of Nguyen to provide a computer; and a nozzle motion control subsystem in communication with the computer for receiving toolpath commands, and generating signals for controlling movement of the nozzle component along at least one of X, Y and Z axes. It is well-known in the art of extrusion-based 3D printing to use computer control for controlling nozzle movement in order to provide accurate control over the material shape (Nguyen [0009]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (CN 110039764 A; hereafter Yu; paragraph numbers correspond to previously attached English machine translation), in view of Nguyen et al. (US 20190240611 A1; hereafter Nguyen), Dudukovic et al. (US 20200147874 A1; hereafter Dudukovic) and Belcher et al. (US 20210031449 A1 from IDS filed on 03/02/2026; hereafter Belcher) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 112339264 A; hereafter Wang; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 13, modified Yu discloses the system of claim 12.
Modified Yu does not explicitly disclose the powder comprises bicarbonate-based powder.
However, the claim contains limitations (bicarbonate-based powder) which are directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus. These limitations are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2115. In this particular case, the liquid additive build material does not add additional structure to the device and is thus not given patentable weight.
Furthermore, Wang teaches a system for additively manufacturing a structure ([0008]), the system comprising a nozzle (Fig. 4; [0008]; two-component feed nozzle) configured to co-extrude a powder (claim 6; bicarbonate powder) and a polymer (claim 6; thermoplastic polymer), wherein the powder comprises a bicarbonate-based powder (claim 6; bicarbonate powder).
Yu and Wang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of co-extrusion 3D printing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Yu with the teachings of Wang to select the powder as a bicarbonate-based powder. Doing so would enhance the capability of the system for producing a wider variety of products, such as heat insulation (Wang [0005]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (CN 110039764 A; hereafter Yu; paragraph numbers correspond to previously attached English machine translation), in view of Nguyen et al. (US 20190240611 A1; hereafter Nguyen), Dudukovic et al. (US 20200147874 A1; hereafter Dudukovic) and Belcher et al. (US 20210031449 A1 from IDS filed on 03/02/2026; hereafter Belcher) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Abbs et al. (US 20220165441 A1; hereafter Abbs).
Regarding claim 14, modified Yu discloses the system of claim 12.
Modified Yu does not explicitly disclose the powder comprises stainless steel powder.
However, the claim contains limitations (stainless steel powder) which are directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus. These limitations are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2115. In this particular case, the liquid additive build material does not add additional structure to the device and is thus not given patentable weight.
Furthermore, Abbs teaches a system for additively manufacturing a structure (Fig. 8; [0028]), the system comprising a nozzle (Fig. 8; [0042]; nozzle 210) configured to co-extrude a powder (Fig. 8; [0041]) and a second material (Fig. 8; [0045-0046]; at least two separate streams of material), wherein the powder comprises stainless steel powder ([0046]; stainless steel).
Yu and Abbs are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of co-extrusion 3D printing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Yu with the teachings of Abbs to select the powder as a stainless steel powder. Doing so would enhance the capability of the system for producing a wider variety of products, such as radiation shielding overlay (Abbs [0041]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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.
/V.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights