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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 4, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 11 whereby the claims now have the additional limitation which recite “joining the first continuous section and second discontinuous section together.”
Applicant argues that the secondary reference, Nunes, used in the rejection of claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the prior art references of Czinger (US 2022/0032555 A1) IDS 08/29/2024 in view of Nunes (US 5,842,574), does not suggest or disclose as recited: "an internal surface of the first continuous section is in contact with at least three internal surfaces of the second discontinuous section joining the first continuous section and second discontinuous section together." However, Nunes discloses moldable material and surface indentations for the purpose of forming instrument face marking such as numbers on a clock face and other decorative indicia. Moreover, once the moldable material had cured or hardened into the three dimensional object the portion that is considered the continuous section is separated from the mold-shaped interior.
Therefore, the applicant maintains that Nunes does not suggest or disclose: "an internal surface of the first continuous section is in contact with at least three internal surfaces of the second discontinuous section joining the first continuous section and second discontinuous section together." (Applicant arguments/remarks 06/04/2026 pp. 5-8).
The examiner counter-argues that under broadest reasonable interpretation the disclosure of Nunes is analogous art that is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the limitations of contacting points between at least three internal surfaces of a second discontinuous section with the internal surface of a first continuous section are not limited by the purpose of the surfaces nor whether there is moldable material that is separated after curing or hardening. Instead, this configuration of Nunes is directly analogous to the features/limitations of claims 1 and 11 under broadest reasonable interpretation.
Moreover, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The examiner maintains the previous rejections of independent claims 1 and 11.
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) 1-7, 9-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czinger (US 2022/0032555 A1) IDS 08/29/2024 in view of Nunes (US 5,842,574).
Regarding Claim 1, Czinger discloses: an additively manufactured structure (Figs. 1, 6 abs paragraph [0022] one or more of the structures can be an additively manufactured structure) having a first continuous section with a first groove for receiving a first adhesive (Fig. 6 paragraph [0061] first structure – 600 groove – 602 with a first compartment – 608 which receives structural adhesive – 604) and a second discontinuous section with a second groove passing through a portion of the second discontinuous section for receiving a second adhesive (Fig. 6 paragraph [0061] second compartment – 610 which receives a quick-cure adhesive – 606) and this results in the joining of the first continuous section and second discontinuous section together (paragraph [0031] the first and second structures may be joined through the application of an adhesive while the structures are within the joining proximity and subsequent curing of the adhesive).
However, Czinger does not disclose that an internal surface of the first continuous section is in contact with at least three internal surfaces of the second discontinuous section.
Nunes discloses, analogously, an apparatus (Figs. 1, 2 abs, Col 3 ll. 56-66 craft package with first package portion – 11, second package portion – 14 with first and second mold-shaped interiors – 12 and 15) which require a moldable material to be disposed into the mold-shaped interiors and activated to form a complete three dimensional face – 13 or other three dimensional object (Col. 4 ll. 40-51). This moldable material once set or activated forms a three dimensional structure with a first continuous section that is within a cavity or groove (Figs. 2, 3, Col. 5 ll. 15 mold-shaped interior – 12 is particularly configured to form an instrument face (clock face) – 13) that is in contact with at least three internal surfaces of a second discontinuous section (Figs. 3, 4 Col. 5 ll. 17-25 surface manifestation – 27, 28 are instrument face markings forming discontinuous numbers – 29 and decorative indicia – 30 where the markings – 29 can be raised but also recessed – 28). See Fig. 3 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
652
1389
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the disclosure of Czinger with the teaching of Nunes whereby an additively manufactured structure having a first continuous section and a second discontinuous section for receiving a first and second adhesive, respectively, which are then joined, as disclosed by Czinger, would also include that the feature of an internal surface of the first continuous section is in contact with at least three internal surfaces of the second discontinuous section, as taught by Nunes.
This feature would be considered by the skilled artisan to be an advantageous feature because when the additively manufactured structure is formed, the first continuous section that is in contact at the at least three internal surfaces at the second discontinuous section form surface manifestations that are configured to be functional features of a three dimensional structure (Col. 5 ll. 18-25 claim 17; providing either outwardly extending or recessed instrument face markings).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Czinger and Nunes disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Nunes further teaches that the first continuous section comprises a portion of an outer surface having a convex shape (Fig. 3.Col. 5 ll. 17-25 reverse projections – 28).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Czinger and Nunes disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Czinger further discloses that the second discontinuous section has an outer surface with a window (Fig. 6 paragraph [0061] windows – 612 disposed opposite the second compartments).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Czinger and Nunes disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Czinger further discloses that the first adhesive is injected, via a robotic applicator, in the first groove and the second adhesive is injected, via the robotic applicator, in the second groove (Figs. 4A, 4B paragraph [0059] robot – 113, 115, 117 injects quick-cure adhesive – 404 ), wherein the second adhesive is different from the first adhesive (paragraph [0061] structural adhesive may be separate from the quick-cure adhesive).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, the combination of Czinger and Nunes disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Czinger further discloses that the first continuous section corresponds to a structural section with a structural adhesive and the second discontinuous section with a second adhesive corresponds to an ultra-violet (UV) section (Fig. 1 paragraph [0055] first and second structures 123, 125 upon exposure to EM radiation (e.g. ultraviolet (UV) radiation), the quick-cure adhesive cures at a faster curing rate than the curing rate of the structural adhesive).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Czinger and Nunes disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Czinger further discloses that the first adhesive is injected into the first groove before the second adhesive is injected into the second groove (Fig. 7 paragraph [0062] one adhesive that cures at a first cure rate upon exposure to time or heating and that cures at a second cure rate faster than the first cure rate upon exposure to EM radiation (e.g. UV radiation)).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Czinger and Nunes disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Czinger further discloses that the first continuous section is configured to be coupled to an additional additively manufactured structure using a tongue and groove joint (Fig. 8E paragraph [0093] first structure – 804 and second structure – 826 are joined (e.g. toward the tongue-and groove joint)).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Czinger and Nunes disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Czinger further discloses that the first adhesive is cured using a first heat cure adhesive and the second adhesive is cured using a second heat cure adhesive different from the first heat cure adhesive (Fig. 8C paragraph [0076] robot configured to separately deposit different types of adhesive such as structural adhesive applicator – 814 and quick-cure adhesive applicator – 820).
Regarding Claim 11, Czinger discloses: a method comprising printing, by additive manufacturing (Figs. 1, 6 abs paragraph [0022] one or more of the structures can be an additively manufactured structure) having a first continuous section with a first groove for receiving a first adhesive (Fig. 6 paragraph [0061] first structure – 600 groove – 602 with a first compartment – 608 which receives structural adhesive – 604) and a second discontinuous section with a second groove passing through a portion of the second discontinuous section for receiving a second adhesive (Fig. 6 paragraph [0061] second compartment – 610 which receives a quick-cure adhesive – 606) and this results in the joining of the first continuous section and second discontinuous section together (paragraph [0031] the first and second structures may be joined through the application of an adhesive while the structures are within the joining proximity and subsequent curing of the adhesive).
However, Czinger does not disclose that an internal surface of the first continuous section is in contact with at least three internal surfaces of the second discontinuous section.
Nunes discloses, analogously, a method (Figs. 1, 2 abs, Col. 2 ll. 31-47; Col 3 ll. 56-66; method of making a three dimensional utilitarian object using a craft package with first package portion – 11, second package portion – 14 with first and second mold-shaped interiors – 12 and 15) which require a moldable material to be disposed into the mold-shaped interiors and activated to form a complete three dimensional face – 13 or other three dimensional object (Col. 4 ll. 40-51). This moldable material once set or activated forms a three dimensional structure with a first continuous section that is within a cavity or groove (Figs. 2, 3, Col. 5 ll. 15 mold-shaped interior – 12 is particularly configured to form an instrument face (clock face) – 13) that is in contact with at least three internal surfaces of a second discontinuous section (Figs. 3, 4 Col. 5 ll. 17-25 surface manifestation – 27, 28 are instrument face markings forming discontinuous numbers – 29 and decorative indicia – 30 where the markings – 29 can be raises but also recessed – 28). See Fig. 3 above.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the disclosure of Czinger with the teaching of Nunes whereby a method of printing by additive manufacturing , of a structure having a first continuous section and a second discontinuous section for receiving a first and second adhesive, respectively, which are then joined, as disclosed by Czinger, would also include that the feature of an internal surface of the first continuous section is in contact with at least three internal surfaces of the second discontinuous section, as taught by Nunes.
This feature would be considered by the skilled artisan to be an advantageous feature because when the additively manufactured structure is formed, the first continuous section that is in contact at the at least three internal surfaces at the second discontinuous section form surface manifestations that are configured to be functional features of a three dimensional structure (Col. 5 ll. 18-25 claim 17; providing either outwardly extending or recessed instrument face markings).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Czinger and Nunes disclose all the limitations of claim 11, and Nunes further teaches that the first continuous section comprises a portion of an outer surface having a convex shape (Fig. 3.Col. 5 ll. 17-25 reverse projections – 28).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Czinger and Nunes disclose all the limitations of claim 11 and Czinger further discloses that the second discontinuous section has an outer surface with a window (Fig. 6 paragraph [0061] windows – 612 disposed opposite the second compartments).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Czinger and Nunes disclose all the limitations of claim 11 and Czinger further discloses that the first adhesive is injected, via a robotic applicator, in the first groove and the second adhesive is injected, via the robotic applicator, in the second groove (Figs. 4A, 4B paragraph [0059] robot – 113, 115, 117 injects quick-cure adhesive – 404 ), wherein the second adhesive is different from the first adhesive (paragraph [0061] structural adhesive may be separate from the quick-cure adhesive).
Regarding Claims 15 and 16, the combination of Czinger and Nunes disclose all the limitations of claim 11 and Czinger further discloses that the first continuous section corresponds to a structural section with a structural adhesive and the second discontinuous section corresponds to an ultra-violet (UV) section with a second adhesive (Fig. 1 paragraph [0055] first and second structures – 123, 125 upon exposure to EM radiation (e.g. ultraviolet (UV) radiation), the quick-cure adhesive cures at a faster curing rate than the curing rate of the structural adhesive).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Czinger and Nunes disclose all the limitations of claim 11 and Czinger further discloses that the first adhesive is injected into the first groove before the second adhesive is injected into the second groove (Fig. 7 paragraph [0062] one adhesive that cures at a first cure rate upon exposure to time or heating and that cures at a second cure rate faster than the first cure rate upon exposure to EM radiation (e.g. UV radiation)).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Czinger and Nunes disclose all the limitations of claim 11 and Czinger further discloses that the first continuous section is configured to be coupled to an additional additively manufactured structure using a tongue and groove joint (Fig. 8E paragraph [0093] first structure – 804 and second structure – 826 are joined (e.g. toward the tongue-and groove joint)).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Czinger and Nunes disclose all the limitations of claim 12 and Czinger further discloses that the first adhesive is cured using a first heat cure adhesive and the second adhesive is cured using a second heat cure adhesive different from the first heat cure adhesive (Fig. 8C paragraph [0076] robot configured to separately deposit different types of adhesive such as structural adhesive applicator – 814 and quick-cure adhesive applicator – 820).
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Czinger (US 2022/0032555 A1) IDS 08/29/2024 and Nunes (US 5,842,574) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, respectively, and further in view of Czinger (US 9,884,663 B2) IDS 03/12/2024, hereinafter Czinger '663, of record.
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, the combination of Czinger and Nunes disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 11, respectively, but do not disclose that the continuous section comprises a first adhesive port for injecting the first adhesive into the first groove and the second discontinuous section comprises a second adhesive port for injecting the second adhesive into the second groove.
In the same field of endeavor, Czinger ‘663 teaches a joint design of connecting tubes for a vehicle chassis space frame (abs). This joint includes feature creating a space between a surface of a tube and a surface of a joint through which adhesive may flow (abs). At least in one embodiment, injection ports are provided for injecting adhesive into the joint (Fig. 5b Col. 10 ll. 27-30).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the combination of Czinger and Nunes with the disclosure of Czinger ‘663, whereby an additively manufactured structure having a first continuous section with a first groove and a second discontinuous section with a second groove for receiving a first and second adhesive, respectively, would also include a first adhesive port for injecting the first adhesive into the first groove and a second adhesive port for injecting the second adhesive into the second groove, as taught by Czinger ‘663.
One with ordinary skill would be motivated because these injection ports are connected directly to adhesive reservoirs and these reservoirs may exert a positive pressure to the adhesive along with vacuum ports such the adhesive is distributed uniformly (Fig. 5b Col. 10 ll.32-43).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE K. SWIER whose telephone number is (571)272-4598. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8:30 am - 5:30 pm PST.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/WAYNE K. SWIER/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights