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 .
Acknowledgement is made of amendments received 12-23-2025.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honer ‘188 (US 2022/0267188 A1) in view of Crump ‘981 (2014/0048981 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Honer ‘188 teaches:
feeding a glass filament material towards a stage (glass fiber 2, substrate 7; ¶ [0063]-[0064]; Figs. 1, 4)
heating said glass filament material such that the glass filament material becomes or remains softened (¶ [0039], [0064]-[0065])
depositing the softened glass filament material onto a surface of said stage, in which the softened glass filament material is forming a three-dimensional component of glass (¶ [0004], [0039], [0063]-[0065]
the softened glass filament material being deposited layer-by-layer (¶ [0004], [0063]-[0065])
controlling the softened glass filament material deposition with a set of actuators that actuate a relative movement of the glass filament material and the stage (¶ [0066]).
Honer ‘188 is silent regarding the glass filament material being fed in an essentially horizontal direction toward an essentially vertical stage, and regarding controlling deposition with one or more computers. In analogous art of filament additive manufacturing, Crump ‘981 suggests feeding a softened filament material and depositing the material on a surface of an essentially vertical stage in a layer-by-layer fashion, wherein the filament material is fed in an essentially horizontal direction towards the essentially vertical stage, and wherein during at least part of the depositing a three-dimensional component being formed rests on the essentially vertical stage, and wherein deposition is controlled by one or more computers and a set of actuators (¶ [0002], [0006], [0053], [0055], [0076]-[0079]; Figs. 2-14). Crump ‘981 states that horizontal or vertical deposition can be achieved by utilizing a scaffold system to support the three-dimensional component during printing (¶ [0053]). 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 feeding the glass filament material in an essentially horizontal direction onto an essentially vertical stage as a modification of layer-by-layer three-dimensional printing providing flexibility in the deposition arrangement, and by controlling the deposition by one or more computers for the benefit of providing automated digital control to the deposition process, as suggested by Crump ‘981.
Regarding claim 2, Crump ‘981 further suggests the filament material is fed essentially perpendicular to the surface of the essentially vertical stage (Figs. 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 14).
Regarding claim 3, Honer ‘188 further teaches at least one laser beam emanating from at least one laser source is used to heat the glass filament material (¶ [0039], [0064]-[0065]).
Regarding claim 5, Honer ‘188 is silent regarding an exact distance between a filament feeding nozzle (24, Figs. 1, 4) and a point of intersection of the glass filament material (glass fiber 2) with the at least one laser beam (laser beam 3, Figs. 1, 4). Honer ‘188 does note that the orientation of the laser beam relative to the glass filament material, and thus also distance from the intersection to the feeding nozzle can be altered in order to modify the shape and focus of the heating region and the heating of the glass filament material (¶ [0064]-[0065], [0074]). Further, it has 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 modify the teachings of Honer ‘188 and Crump ‘981 by selecting a distance between the filament feeding nozzle and a point of intersection of the glass filament material with the at least one laser beam to achieve a desired shape and focus of the heating region and heating of the glass filament material, as suggested by Honer ‘188.
Regarding claim 9, 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 claim 10, Honer ‘188 further teaches the glass filament material is made of at least two different materials plus a protective film (¶ [0019], [0047]).
Regarding claim 11, Honer ‘188 further teaches the glass filament material is hollow (¶ [0048]).
Regarding claim 12, Honer ‘188 and Crump ‘981 suggest the essentially vertical stage as described above, and Honer ‘188 further teaches the stage is a glass plate (glass substrate 7; ¶ [0065]-[0066]). Honer ‘188 is silent regarding a thickness of the glass plate. However, it has been held that scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04. 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 teachings of Honer ‘188 and Crump ‘981 by selecting a thickness of the plate as a mere scaling of size of the component, and for the benefit of providing sufficient support for the glass filament material deposition.
Regarding claim 13, Honer ‘188 further teaches a step of preheating the glass filament material prior to heating the glass filament material with at least one laser beam (¶ [0023], [0064]).
Claim(s) 4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honer ‘188 (US 2022/0267188 A1) and Crump ‘981 (2014/0048981 A1) in view of Harwell ‘378 (US 6,143,378).
Regarding claim 4, Honer ‘188 further teaches the glass filament material is heated by a CO2 laser (¶ [0065]), wherein a CO2 laser has principal wavelengths above 2 µm. Honer ‘188 is silent regarding at least three laser beams. In analogous art of melt depositing filament material for additive manufacturing, Harwell ‘378 suggests heating a glass filament by at least three laser beams for the benefit of producing a more symmetric melt-pool (column 4, lines 18-49; column 7, lines 3-4). 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 heating with at least three laser beams for the benefit of producing a more symmetric melt-pool, as suggested by Harwell ‘378.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Honer ‘188 further teaches a laser beam intersecting on the glass filament material for heating the glass filament material (laser beam 3, Figs. 1, 4; ¶ [0064]-[0065]), but is silent regarding a plurality of laser beams having an angle in the range of 30-60° with respect to the surface of the stage onto which the glass filament is provided, wherein the plurality of laser beams is configured to intersect at the glass filament material essentially symmetrically around the glass filament material. Harwell ‘378 suggests heating a glass filament by a plurality of laser beams configured for intersecting at the glass filament material essentially symmetrically around the glass filament material for the benefit of producing a more symmetric melt-pool (column 4, lines 18-49; column 4, line 60-column 5, line 26; column 7, lines 3-4; Figs. 2-5). Honer ‘188 and Harwell ‘378 are silent regarding a specific angle of the plurality of laser beams. However, both Honer ‘188 (Figs. 1, 4) and Harwell ‘378 (Figs. 2-5) illustrate a range of oblique angles which are within the range of more than 0° and less than 90°C with respect to the surface of the stage onto which the glass filament is provided. It has 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 modify the teachings of Honer ‘188, Crump ‘981, and Harwell ‘378 by selecting an angle of the laser beams for the benefit of achieving the desired heating of the glass filament material.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honer ‘188 (US 2022/0267188 A1) and Crump ‘981 (2014/0048981 A1) in view of Vacha ‘196 (US 5,714,196).
Regarding claim 8, Honer ‘188 further teaches the glass filament material has a protective film having a thickness in the range of 1-50 µm (¶ [0019]) and limited to materials containing only carbon, silicon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen (¶ [0029]). Honer ‘188 is silent regarding the protective film being made of polyimide. In analogous art of glass filament materials with protective films, Vacha ‘196 suggests making a glass filament material having a protective film made of polyimide 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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12-23-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Arguments are summarized as follows:
Crump is directed to extrusion-based additive manufacturing and not glass filament additive manufacturing.
Response: Both Honer and Crump perform additive manufacturing by depositing a stream of softened material onto a surface. The arrangements and advantages suggested by Crump are applicable to the method of Honer, as described above and previously.
While Crump discloses a vertical wall that defines the end of the product, the supporting part of the apparatus, i.e., the stage/base is constituted by the horizontal conveyor base 90.
Response: The vertical wall (36/296/496) is described as a platen having a receiving surface onto which material is deposited (e.g., ¶ [0069], [0093], [0108]). The vertical wall described by Crump (in combination with Honer) meets the claim limitations, as cited above. The presence of an additional horizontal base is not precluded by the claims.
The reason cited by the Office of combining the teachings of Honer and Crump does not clarify why one skilled in the art would have been led to rearrange the apparatus of Honer to provide horizontal feeding of the material to a vertical stage/base.
Response: The rejections above and previously also cited a motivation of “feeding the glass filament material in an essentially horizontal direction onto an essentially vertical stage as a modification of layer-by-layer three-dimensional printing providing flexibility in the deposition arrangement”. This motivation has not been addressed in Applicant’s arguments.
Using a vertical stage/base and horizontal feeding as claimed provides an advantage of moving fumes/smoke upwards rather than toward the print head, or in the way of the laser beam, or toward the product causing contamination.
Response: The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). The combination of Honer and Crump as described above would also provide the asserted advantages.
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 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