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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the communication filed on 12/18/2025. Currently claims 1-15 are pending in the application; with claims 7-15 withdrawn from consideration.
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 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.
Claims 1, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.102 as being anticipated over Oztan et al. (Oztan et al.: "Microstructure and mechanical properties of three dimensional-printed continuous fiber composites", Journal of Composite Materials, Vol 53 (2) Page 271-280, First Published July 13, 2018), hereafter, referred to as “Oztan”.
Regarding claim 1, Oztan teaches a three-dimensional (3D) printing build material composition in (Abstract, Table 2), comprising polyamide (nylon) particles present in an amount of at least 83.5 or 83.3 wt.% based on a total weight of the build material composition; and a filler material consisting of aramid (Kevlar) fibers having an average aspect ratio ranging from about 0.1 mm/20 µm to about 1.2 mm/16 µm, (i.e., with approximate fiber dimensions specified in Fig. 9(b) that are within the claimed range), wherein the aramid fibers are present in an amount of 16.5 or 16.7 wt.% based on the total weight of the build material composition (Table 2). Oztan also teaches that the 3D articles are printed on a Mark One 3D printer featuring FFF printing technology (Chapter Materials and Methods).
Regarding claim 6, Oztan teaches that polyamide (nylon) particles are present in an amount of 83.5 or 83.3 wt.% (equivalent to up to about 98%) based on the total weight of the material; by teaching aramid fibers are present in an amount of 16.5 or 16.7 wt.% based on the total weight of the build material composition (Table 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Oztan et al. (Oztan et al.: "Microstructure and mechanical properties of three dimensional-printed continuous fiber composites", Journal of Composite Materials, Vol 53 (2) Page 271-280, First Published July 13, 2018), in view of Nauka et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0126631 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Nauka”.
Regarding claim 2, Oztan teaches a three-dimensional (3D) printing build material composition in (Abstract, Table 2), comprising polyamide (nylon) particles and a filler material consisting of aramid (Kevlar) fibers. But Oztan fails to explicitly teach that the composition comprises of a flow aid present in an amount up to 0.2 wt. % based on the total weight of the build material composition. However, Nauka teaches that a flow aid is present in composition for 3D printing in up to 2 wt. % quantity (claims 7, and 12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to incorporate the teaching of Nauka, and combine to have such an agent to improve fluidity in claimed composition for 3D article printing (KSR Rationale A, MPEP 2143). Since both the references deal with a composition used in a 3D printing process, one would have a reasonable expectation of success from the combination.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Oztan et al. (Oztan et al.: "Microstructure and mechanical properties of three dimensional-printed continuous fiber composites", Journal of Composite Materials, Vol 53 (2) Page 271-280, First Published July 13, 2018), in view of Dickson et al. (Andrew N. Dickson et al.: “Fabrication of continuous carbon, glass and Kevlar fibre reinforced polymer composites using additive manufacturing”, Additive Manufacturing, Volume 16, August 2017, Pages 146-152), hereafter, referred to as “Dickson”.
Regarding claims 3-5, Oztan teaches a three-dimensional (3D) printing build material composition in (Abstract, Table 2), comprising polyamide (nylon) particles and a filler material consisting of aramid (Kevlar) fibers. Oztan also teaches that the aramid fibers are present in an amount of 16.5 or 16.7 wt.% based on the total weight of the build material composition (Table 2). But Oztan fails to explicitly teach that the aramid fibers are present in an amount ranging form about 2 wt. % to about 14 wt. %. However, Dickson teaches in Table 3, presence of aramid fibers in nylon material composition for 3D printing in quantity of 8 and 10 wt.% of the total material weight. It would also have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the property of the final article will depend on the size and amount of the fibers used in the composition. Therefore, the size (including the aspect ratio) of aramid fibers and the amount is selected by a person skilled in the art depending on specified properties of the material to optimize the 3D article printed thereof. Oztan and Dickson teaches different quantity of aramid fibers for the composition in line with optimization. Therefore, maintaining the average aspect ratio of the aramid fibers ranges from about 0.5 mm/20 μm to about 0.55 mm/16 μm, and the aramid fibers are present in an amount ranging from about 2 wt. % to about 14 wt. % based on the total weight of the build material composition (as claimed in claim 3); and the average aspect ratio of the aramid fibers ranges from about 0.7 mm/20 μm to about 0.85 mm/16 μm, and the aramid fibers are present in an amount ranging from about 2 wt. % to about 10 wt. % based on the total weight of the build material composition (as claimed in claim 4); and the average aspect ratio of the aramid fibers ranges from about 1.1 mm/20 μm to about 1.2 mm/16 μm, and the aramid fibers are present in an amount ranging from about 2 wt. % to about 4 wt. % based on the total weight of the build material composition (as claimed in claim 5); would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation. Please see In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Responses to Arguments
The Applicant argued in the “Remarks” submitted in the response of 12/18/2025, regarding the Examiner’s assertion in the “Restriction Requirement” that recent developments in additive manufacturing have made this technique a novel tool to supplement and/or replace conventional manufacturing methods, by showing to reinforce polymers with continuous and high-strength fibers and enhance their mechanical strength (please see US2018/0356118 as requested). Therefore, the use of polymers and fibers is well known in the 3D printing literature, and disqualification of a prior art based on a discussion of pros and cons of a technology is not persuasive regarding the restriction requirement.
Additionally, the Applicant’s argument filed on 12/18/2025 regarding the 102 rejections has also been fully considered. Applicant’s argument with respect to claim 1 has been carefully considered, but is not persuasive. The Applicant argues that in Fig. 9B, Oztan teaches an SEM image showing microstructural features of failed 3D printed specimens, showing insufficiency of the bonding between the reinforcement and the matrix. However, the Examiner’s position is that the processing deficiency resulting in insufficient bonding does not take away the dimensional teaching regarding the aspect ratio of the fibers that could be analyzed from a figure, based on the recited independent composition claim of the instant application. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that based on the teaching of Oztan. the rejection set forth in this office action address the scope of the claim as recited, and is relevant.
Because the rejections are being maintained on the amended independent claims, and since there is no substantive arguments on the rejections against the references applied against rest of the dependent claims, these rejections are being maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M AMEEN whose telephone number is (469) 295 9214. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm (Central Time).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on (571) 272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD M AMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights