DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 11/18/2025, claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13, 15-20 are pending. Claims 2, 4, 12, and 14 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 15, and 18 are currently amended. Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13, and 15-20 are considered in the current Office 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 .
Status of Previous Objections/Rejections
Previous objection to drawing is withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment.
Previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment.
Previous 35 USC 102 rejections are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment.
Previous 35 USC 103 rejections are maintained in view of the Applicant’s argument. See response to argument below.
New prior art rejection has been applied to claims 5 and 15 as the amendment changed the scope of the claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 8 recites “... to move at least the the lens” should read as “…to move at least the lens”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3, 6, 9-11, 13, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2020/0001528A1 (“Tyler et al” hereinafter Tyler), in view of US2023/0158735 (“Hughes et al” hereinafter Hughes) and US2019/0255775 (“Kao et al” hereinafter Kao).
Regarding Claim 1, Tyler teaches a system (Figure 2) for making a finished component having a three-dimensional (3D) reinforcement integrally formed within a cured additive manufacturing fluid via an additive manufacturing process (abstract and [0007]-[0008]), the system comprising:
a transport (Figure 2, build surface 22) configured to have the 3D reinforcement attached thereto and to at least partially immerse the 3D reinforcement within the additive manufacturing fluid in an uncured state (Figure 2 and [0025], build surface 22 attached to the structure 12, which is made from continuous reinforcement material [0013], and immerse the structure within the resin contained within the vat 14 [0011]) ;
an energy source configured to emit energy to a focal point (Figure 2, energy source 20 located at the bottom of the vat 14 and [0020]), the energy being configured to change the additive manufacturing fluid from the uncured state to a cured state ([0019]);
a controller ([0020], controller may be provided and communicatively coupled with energy source 20) configured to control a position of the focal point to pass over at least a portion of an outer surface of the 3D reinforcement according to a curing pattern ([0032]), changing the additive manufacturing fluid from the uncured state to the cured state on the portion of the outer surface of the 3D reinforcement defined by the curing pattern as the curing pattern is executed by the controller ([0032]);
a basin (Figure 2, vat 14) containing the additive manufacturing fluid in the uncured state ([0011]); and
the transport being configured to sequentially immerse the 3D reinforcement attached to each of the plurality of build plates within the additive manufacturing fluid (Figure 2 and [0011]).
Tyler fails to teach a roller; wherein the roller is configured to guide the plurality of build plates of the transport sequentially into the additive manufacturing fluid and through a region in the basin in which the energy is directed for curing the additive manufacturing fluid.
However, Hughes teaches a roller ([0057]), wherein the roller is configured to guide the plurality of build plates of the transport sequentially into the additive manufacturing fluid ([0057], attaching the multilayer structure to the build platform comprises applying pressure to the multilayer structure using a roller) and through a region in the basin in which the energy is directed for curing the additive manufacturing fluid (Figure 2 and [0058]).
Tyler and Hughes are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of additive manufacturing system and solidifying/hardening materials layer-by-layer to formed an article. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the system of the modified Tyler such that it discusses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Hughes to enhance contact and adhesion between the adhesive layer of the multilayer structure and the build platform ([0057]).
Tyler fails to teach wherein the transport comprises a plurality of build plates that are attached in an end-to-end manner.
Kao teaches the transport comprises a plurality of build plates that are attached in an end-to-end manner (Figure 3, the build platforms located on the left side of the working hole and the build platforms located on the right side of the working hole are attached in an end-to-end manner).
Tyler and Kao are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of additive manufacturing system and solidifying/hardening materials layer-by-layer to formed an article. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the system of Tyler such that it discusses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Kao to allow for the laser emitter to be inserted through the platform ([0022]). Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known design for the build plate. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Tyler teaches the system of claim 1, comprising a second energy source with an emitter (Tyler, Figure 2, the energy source 20 located above the vat 14 and it is implied that all energy source has an emitter) configured to emit energy to a second focal point, the energy being configured to change the additive manufacturing fluid from the uncured state to the cured state ([0019]). Tyler further discloses the build surface may be perforated ([0025]) but fails to teach wherein: at least one build plate of the plurality of build plates comprises a hole; and the emitter is configured to extend through the hole, into a volumetric region defined within the 3D reinforcement, for curing the additive manufacturing fluid over some or all of an inner surface of the 3D reinforcement.
However, Kao teaches at least one build plate of the plurality of build plates comprises a hole (Figure 3, platform 21 comprises of a working hole 211 located at the center of the platform 21 and [0006]); and the emitter is configured to extend through the hole ([0006], the platform includes a working hole configured to provide a laser emitter for processing a shaped object), into a volumetric region defined within the 3D reinforcement (Figure 1 and 3, the tip of the laser emitter 101 is inserted through the working hole 211), for curing the additive manufacturing fluid over some or all of an inner surface of the 3D reinforcement ([0022], a laser emitter 101 for processing a shaped object 102 with a laser).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the system of the modified Tyler such that it discusses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Kao to allow the laser beam to reach the shaped object without being reflected by the build platform ([0022]).
Regarding Claim 6, the modified Tyler teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the energy comprises one or more of ultraviolet light, laser light, electromagnetic waves, electronic beam (Tyler, [0019], energy source 20 may be or example, a UV light projector, a laser, an electron beam emitter), and gamma rays.
Regarding Claim 9, the modified Tyler teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the additive manufacturing fluid comprises a liquid polymer (Tyler, [0011], the vat 14 holds a supply of resin such as photopolymer resin).
The Claims contain limitations (liquid polymer) 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.
Regarding Claim 10, the modified Tyler teaches the system of claim 1, wherein: the 3D reinforcement comprises polymeric fibers and/or mesh, natural fibers and/or mesh, metal fibers and/or mesh, and mixtures thereof (Tyler, [0013], example of reinforcement includes separate fibers, tows, rovings, ribbons, and/or sheets of material); and
the 3D reinforcement is in a form of a knitted or woven fabric, a lay-up comprising a plurality of stacked layers, and/or as a welded structure ([0013], example of reinforcement includes separate fibers, tows, rovings, ribbons, and/or sheets of material).
The Claims contain limitations (3D reinforcement) 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.
Regarding Claim 11, Tyler teaches a method (Figure 2) for making a finished component having a three-dimensional (3D) reinforcement integrally formed within a cured additive manufacturing fluid via an additive manufacturing process ([0008]), the method comprising:
providing a transport (Figure 2, build surface 22);
attaching the 3D reinforcement to the transport (Figure 2 and [0025], build surface 22 attached to the structure 12, which is made from continuous reinforcement material [0013]);
providing a basin containing the additive manufacturing fluid in an uncured state (Figure 2, vat 14 and [0011]) ;
using the transport to at least partially immerse the 3D reinforcement within the additive manufacturing fluid in an uncured state ([0011], immerse the structure 12 and the build surface 22 within the resin contained within the vat 14 [0011]);
emitting energy from an energy source to a focal point to change the additive manufacturing fluid from the uncured state to a cured state (Figure 2, energy source 20 located at the bottom of the vat 14 and [0019]-[0020]); and
controlling, using a controller ([0020], controller may be provided and communicatively coupled with energy source 20), a position of the focal point to pass over at least a portion of an outer surface of the 3D reinforcement according to a curing pattern ([0032]), thereby changing the additive manufacturing fluid from the uncured state to the cured state on the portion of the outer surface of the 3D reinforcement defined by the curing pattern as the curing pattern is executed by the controller ([0032]);
the transport sequentially immerses the 3D reinforcement attached to each of the plurality of build plates within the additive manufacturing fluid (Figure 2 and [0011]).
Tyler fails to teach wherein a roller guides the plurality of build plates of the transport sequentially into the additive manufacturing fluid and through a region in the basin in which the energy is directed for curing the additive manufacturing fluid.
However, Hughes teaches wherein a roller guides the plurality of build plates of the transport sequentially into the additive manufacturing fluid ([0057], attaching the multilayer structure to the build platform comprises applying pressure to the multilayer structure using a roller) and through a region in the basin in which the energy is directed for curing the additive manufacturing fluid (Figure 2 and [0058]).
Tyler and Hughes are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of additive manufacturing system and solidifying/hardening materials layer-by-layer to formed an article. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the system of the modified Tyler such that it discusses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Hughes to enhance contact and adhesion between the adhesive layer of the multilayer structure and the build platform ([0057]).
Tyler fails to teach wherein the transport comprises a plurality of build plates that are attached in an end-to-end manner.
Kao teaches the transport comprises a plurality of build plates that are attached in an end-to-end manner (Figure 3, the build platforms located on the left side of the working hole and the build platforms located on the right side of the working hole are attached in an end-to-end manner).
Tyler and Kao are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of additive manufacturing system and solidifying/hardening materials layer-by-layer to formed an article. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the system of Tyler such that it discusses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Kao to allow for the laser emitter to be inserted through the platform ([0022]). Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known design for the build plate. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim 13, the modified Tyler teaches the method of claim 11, providing a second energy source with an emitter (Figure 2, the energy source 20 located above the vat 14 and it is implied that all energy source has an emitter), emitting energy from the emitter to a second focal point to change the additive manufacturing fluid from the uncured state to the cured state over some or all of an inner surface of the 3D reinforcement ([0019]), Tyler further discloses the build surface may be perforated ([0025]) but fails to teach at least one build plate of the plurality of build plates comprise a hole; extending the emitter through the hole, into a volumetric region defined within the 3D reinforcement.
However, Kao teaches at least one build plate of the plurality of build plates comprise a hole (Figure 3, platform 21 comprises of a working hole 211 located at the center of the platform 21 and [0006]); extending the emitter through the hole ([0006], the platform includes a working hole configured to provide a laser emitter for processing a shaped object), into a volumetric region defined within the 3D reinforcement (Figure 1 and 3, the tip of the laser emitter 101 is inserted through the working hole 211).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method of Tyler such that it discusses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Kao to allow the laser beam to reach the shaped object without being reflected by the build platform ([0022]).
Regarding Claim 16, the modified Tyler teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the energy comprises one or more of ultraviolet light, laser light, electromagnetic waves, electronic beam (Tyler, [0019], energy source 20 may be or example, a UV light projector, a laser, an electron beam emitter), and gamma rays.
Regarding Claim 19, the modified Tyler teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the additive manufacturing fluid comprises a liquid polymer (Tyler, [0011], the vat 14 holds a supply of resin such as photopolymer resin).
Regarding Claim 20, the modified Tyler teaches the method of claim 11, wherein: the 3D reinforcement comprises polymeric fibers and/or mesh, natural fibers and/or mesh, metal fibers and/or mesh, and mixtures thereof (Tyler, [0013], example of reinforcement includes separate fibers, tows, rovings, ribbons, and/or sheets of material); and
the 3D reinforcement is in a form of a knitted or woven fabric, a lay-up comprising a plurality of stacked layers, and/or as a welded structure ([0013], example of reinforcement includes separate fibers, tows, rovings, ribbons, and/or sheets of material. The reinforcements may include, for example, carbon fibers, wood fibers, mineral fibers).
Claim(s) 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2020/0001528A1 (“Tyler et al” hereinafter Tyler), in view of US2023/0158735 (“Hughes et al” hereinafter Hughes) and US2019/0255775 (“Kao et al” hereinafter Kao) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US10,618,270 (“Knecht et al” hereinafter Knecht).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified Tyler teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the roller is immersed within the additive manufacturing fluid contained within the basin.
However, Knecht teaches the roller is immersed within the additive manufacturing fluid contained within the basin (Col. 20, lines 25-31, claim 1, a roller configured to be partially submerged in the flowable resin in the vat).
Tyler and Knecht are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of additive manufacturing system and solidifying/hardening materials layer-by-layer to formed an article. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the system of Tyler such that it discusses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Knecht to carry the flowable resin to an application site within the build area for application to produce the object (Col. 2, lines 17-20). Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known design for the roller. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim 15, the modified Tyler teaches the system of claim 11, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the roller is immersed within the additive manufacturing fluid contained within the basin.
However, Knecht teaches the roller is immersed within the additive manufacturing fluid contained within the basin (Col. 20, lines 25-31, claim 1, a roller configured to be partially submerged in the flowable resin in the vat).
Tyler and Knecht are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of additive manufacturing system and solidifying/hardening materials layer-by-layer to formed an article. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the system of Tyler such that it discusses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Knecht to carry the flowable resin to an application site within the build area for application to produce the object (Col. 2, lines 17-20). Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known design for the roller. See MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2020/0001528A1 (“Tyler et al” hereinafter Tyler), in view of US2023/0158735 (“Hughes et al” hereinafter Hughes) and US2019/0255775 (“Kao et al” hereinafter Kao) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US2022/0194003 (“Goldman et al” hereinafter Goldman).
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Tyler teaches the system of claim 6, Tyler fails to teach a lens configured, when the energy is incident on the lens, to focus the energy to the focal point within the additive manufacturing fluid, so that the additive manufacturing fluid is changed from the uncured state to the cured state only at the focal point.
However, Goldman teaches a lens (Figure 1, variable focus lens 114), when the energy is incident on the lens, to focus the energy to the focal point within the additive manufacturing fluid ([0020], the variable focus lens 114 that is configured to produce varying focal lengths (thus producing light with different spot sizes on a curing plane in the build region 120)), so that the additive manufacturing fluid is changed from the uncured state to the cured state only at the focal point ([0022]).
Tyler and Goldman are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of additive manufacturing system and solidifying/hardening materials layer-by-layer to formed an article. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the system of the modified Tyler such that it discusses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Goldman to adjust the focal length of the light; thus, the light source will have different spot sizes on the curing plane ([0022]).
Regarding Claim 8, the modified Tyler teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the controller is configured to move at least the lens so that the focal point moves over some or all of an outer surface of the 3D reinforcement to cure the additive manufacturing fluid over the outer surface of the 3D reinforcement (Goldman, [0024] and [0027], variable focus lens 114 may comprise a flexure mechanism in which one or more piezoelectric actuators may be coupled to a solid material such as glass, which may form part of a lens. The actuator controls the movement of the lens and adjusting the focal point of the lens).
Regarding Claim 17, the modified Tyler teaches the method of claim 16, Tyler fails to teach providing a lens; directing the energy from the energy source onto the lens; and using the lens focus the energy to the focal point within the additive manufacturing fluid, so that the additive manufacturing fluid is changed from the uncured state to the cured state only at the focal point.
However, Goldman teaches providing a lens; directing the energy from the energy source onto the lens (Figure 1, energy from light source 112 are directed to the variable focus lens 114); and using the lens focus the energy to the focal point within the additive manufacturing fluid ([0020], the variable focus lens 114 that is configured to produce varying focal lengths (thus producing light with different spot sizes on a curing plane in the build region 120)), so that the additive manufacturing fluid is changed from the uncured state to the cured state only at the focal point ([0022]).
Tyler and Goldman are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of additive manufacturing system and solidifying/hardening materials layer-by-layer to formed an article. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the system of the modified Tyler such that it discusses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Goldman to adjust the focal length of the light; thus, the light source will have different spot sizes on the curing plane ([0022]).
Regarding Claim 18, the modified Tyler teaches the method of claim 17, comprising using the controller to move at least the lens so that the focal point moves over some or all of an outer surface of the 3D reinforcement to cure the additive manufacturing fluid over the outer surface of the 3D reinforcement (Goldman, [0024] and [0027], variable focus lens 114 may comprise a flexure mechanism in which one or more piezoelectric actuators may be coupled to a solid material such as glass, which may form part of a lens. The actuator controls the movement of the lens and adjusting the focal point of the lens).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 5 and 15 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 arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues "[u]se of the roller [to] enhance contact and adhesion between the adhesive later of the multilayer structure and the build platform" in no way teaches "guid[ing] the plurality of build plates of the transport sequentially into the additive manufacturing fluid." Thus, the "roller" in Hughes is in no way disclosed as being configured to perform the function described in original claim 5 and now in currently amended claim 1. Furthermore, inasmuch as the 3D reinforcement material allegedly disclosed in Tyler is shown as being formed using additive manufacturing to form a three-dimensional structure, the use of a "roller" in Hughes to compress or in any way interact with this structure would not be regarded by persons having ordinary skill in the art to be obvious.
The Examiner respectfully disagreed. Firstly, Hughes teaches attaching the multilayer structure to the build platform comprises applying pressure to the multilayer structure using a roller ([0057]) and utilizing a wiper or roller or a recoater to planarize a new layer of fluid photocurable composition ([0098]). During the process of applying pressure to the multilayer structure using the roller, the roller inevitably will push/press the build plates into the fluid photocurable composition and thus read upon the claimed functional limitation. Furthermore, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (MPEP 2144. IV).
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 XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
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.
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights