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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-4 and 11-14, in the reply filed on 12-19-2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Jiang ‘124 does not disclose one single-core glass filament wherein a single layer of polyamide (sic) coating is applied directly to the surface of the single glass filament. This is not found persuasive because the claims do not recite a single-core glass filament. The claims recite a single glass filament. A filament can be broadly defined as a thin, flexible, threadlike object. The fiber of Jiang ‘124 meets such a definition. This is also not found persuasive because the claims do not recite that the polyimide coating is “directly” applied to the surface, but nonetheless Jiang ‘124 teaches that polyimide can be coated onto the bare optical fiber at p. 5, lines 19-21 of the translation. Regarding the property of the coating being flame retardant or self-extinguishing, Applicant’s own disclosure says that polyimides “are inherently resistant to flame combustion” and “exhibit flame retardant and self-extinguishing properties” (p. 6, lines 31-33 of the specification). It has also been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01). Thus, if the claimed coating is polyimide-based and inherently has flame retardant and self-extinguishing properties, and the prior art coating is also polyimide-based, then the prior art coating must also necessarily have flame retardant and self-extinguishing properties. The traversal also argues that the filament of Jiang ‘124 is not suitable for additive manufacturing of three-dimensional components made of glass. This is not persuasive because additive manufacturing is not limited to the specific method claimed in Group I. Additive manufacturing with such a filament could include, for example, gluing the filament on a substrate, melting the entire filament in a crucible and extruding the melt on a substrate, or mixing chopped filament with resin and depositing the mixture on a substrate. There is also no requirement that the additive manufactured component cannot be cloudy or non-transparent, or that it have specific mechanical properties.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 5-9 and 15-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12-19-2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “three-dimensional component/object”. It is unclear what affect the slash (“/”) has on the scope of the claim. It is unclear if the slash means “and” or “or”, and if there is any difference between a “component” and an “object”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fed glass filament length" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the distance between the filament feeding nozzle and said surface of the substrate or object" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While some distance between the two recited elements necessarily exists, such a distance could be measured in different ways, and thus the limitation is unclear. For example, if the feeding nozzle is at a non-perpendicular angle to the substrate or object, there could be one distance measured perpendicularly defining a shortest distance between the nozzle and the surface, and there could be another distance measured along the angle of the fed filament from the nozzle to the surface which is different, and longer, than the perpendicular distance. Examiner recommends --a distance between the filament feeding nozzle and said surface of the substrate or object--.
Claims 4 (line 4) and 12-14 (lines 3-4) each recite the limitation “said hollow feature”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in each of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honer ‘188 (US 2022/0267188 A1) in view of Vacha ‘196 (US 5,714,196).
Regarding claim 1, Honer ‘188 teaches:
feeding continuously a single glass filament (glass fiber 2) from a filament feeding nozzle (guide sleeve 24), wherein the glass filament has a single protective film applied to the surface thereof (sheath 22), to a heating source (laser beam 3) for removing said protective film and softening said glass filament (¶ [0023], [0039], [0047]-[0048], [0065], [0069]; Figs. 1, 4)
applying said softened glass filament to a surface of a substrate or object (substrate 7, Figs. 1, 4; ¶ [0039], [0065])
said single protective film has a thickness in the range of 1 µm to 50 µm (¶ [0019] - wherein in the case where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facia case of obviousness exists; see MPEP 2144.05).
Honer ‘188 suggests that the protective film is limited to materials containing only carbon, silicon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen (¶ [0029]), but is silent regarding the protective film being flame retardant or self-extinguishing and being made of polyimide-based material. In analogous art of glass filaments with protective films, Vacha ‘196 suggests making a glass filament having a protective film made of polyimide-based material having a thickness in the range of 1-50 µm for the benefit of providing strength, durability, and moisture resistance to the filament (column 1, lines 12-20; column 4, lines 11-15). 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 method of Honer ‘188 by making the protective film made of polyimide-based material as a known protective film material for glass filaments, and for the benefit of providing strength, durability, and moisture resistance to the filament, as suggested by Vacha ‘196. Both the claimed/disclosed protective film and the protective film of Vacha ‘196 are polyimide-based, and it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01). It is also noted that Applicant’s own disclosure says that polyimides “are inherently resistant to flame combustion” and “exhibit flame retardant and self-extinguishing properties” (p. 6, lines 31-33 of the specification). Thus, in the combination of Honer ‘188 and Vacha ‘196, the polyimide-based material protective film would be flame retardant and self-extinguishing.
Honer ‘188 is silent regarding a fed glass filament length, which is a distance between the filament feeding nozzle and the surface of the substrate or object, being less than 5 millimeters. Honer ‘188 does describe that a length of filament between the nozzle and the surface from which the filament has been removed is desirably minimized to a length of less than 2 cm in order to avoid damage to the uncoated filament (¶ [0070]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to provide enough length of filament to heat and deposit the glass, but to avoid making the length of filament from the nozzle to the surface too long because the fiber would not be supported by the nozzle and would be prone to deflection, which could lead to distortion in the deposited component. It has also been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a fed glass filament length which is a distance between the filament feeding nozzle and the surface of the substrate or object in order to provide enough length of filament to heat and deposit the glass, but to avoid providing too much uncoated length in order to avoid damage to the uncoated filament, and to avoid making the length of filament from the nozzle to the surface too long because the fiber would not be supported by the nozzle and would be prone to deflection, which could lead to distortion in the deposited component.
Regarding claim 2, Honer ‘188 further teaches the glass filament material is a glass fiber having a diameter in the range of 100-500 µm (¶ [0022], [0047]), wherein in the case where the claim range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facia case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Honer ‘188 further teaches the heating source is at least one laser source (¶ [0023], [0039], [0064]-[0065]).
Claim(s) 4 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honer ‘188 (US 2022/0267188 A1) and Vacha ‘196 (US 5,714,196) in view of Drewnowski ‘210 (US 2019/0352210 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 12-14, Honer ‘188 further teaches the glass filament is hollow (¶ [0048]). Honer ‘188 is silent regarding providing a gas pressure inside the hollow filament for producing a three-dimensional component having a hollow feature. In analogous art of glass additive manufacturing, Drewnowski ‘210 suggests providing a gas pressure inside a hollow filament for producing a three-dimensional component having a hollow feature, to allow expansion of the hollow core and control over the shaping of the material (¶ [0045]-[0046], [0068]). 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 method of Honer ‘188 by providing a gas pressure inside the hollow filament for producing a three-dimensional component having a hollow feature for the benefit of allowing expansion of the hollow core and control over the shaping of the material, as suggested by Drewnowski ‘210.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin Snelting whose telephone number is (571)272-7169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00 to 5:00.
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, 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.
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741