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 .
Foreign Priority Claimed under 35 USC § 119
None of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments on pages 5-6 regarding the prior art of Arbstreiter failing to teach the elements of claim 1.
Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim 1 element of “at least two of the layers have different orientations of reinforcing fibers” can be interpreted as ‘two or more of the layers having fibers comprising different orientations’. Arbstreiter teaches this interpretation by depositing cut fibers onto each deposited layer before curing, wherein the fibers “are accelerated in the direction (−z direction)” and “hit the layer 8 at a steep angle (45° to 90° relative to the layer 8 or to the x-direction) [0279]”. This results in all layers of the Arbstreiter build comprising fibers with different, semi-randomized, orientations.
The Applicant should amend claim 1 to rule out this interpretation, and to overcome the rejection of Arbstreiter.
No other arguments were presented by the Applicant.
The new claims 21-23 and the cancellation of claims 10, 15 & 20 are acknowledged.
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 1-5, 7 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arbstreiter (US20250100211A1, using the foreign application EP22154514.8 priority filing date of 2/1/2022; of record). Claim elements are presented in italics.
1. A process for producing a fiber-reinforced three-dimensional component by additive manufacturing, wherein said process includes the layerwise construction of the component from a powdery material, characterized in that at least two of the layers have different orientations of reinforcing fibers. 3
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of Arbstreiter teaches a process for producing a fiber-reinforced three-dimensional component by additive manufacturing [0002, 0067], wherein said process includes the layerwise [0032] construction of the component from a powdery material [0006, 0028]. Arbstreiter teaches fibers can be present in the material layer [0070], and fibers can be injected into the object layers [0068] via fiber application devices - with different means for controlling the depth [0071-0072], lengths [0278], and orientations [0070-0071, 0142] of reinforcing fibers as desired for each layer [0154].
2. The process according to claim 1, characterized in that the reinforcing fibers are provided together with the powdery material, and delivered in layers together with the latter, and/or said reinforcing fibers are incorporated in one or more layers by injection.
With respect to claim 2, Arbstreiter teaches said reinforcing fibers can be incorporated in one or more layers by injection [0279].
3. The process according to claim 1, characterized in that the different orientations of said reinforcing fibers are achieved by changing the direction of application of the powdery material.
With respect to claim 3, Arbstreiter teaches the different orientations of reinforcing fibers can be achieved by changing the direction of application of the powdery material [0071].
4. The process according to claim 1, characterized in that said reinforcing fibers extend through at least two layers.
With respect to claim 4, Arbstreiter teaches said reinforcing fibers extend through at least two layers ‘for a cross-layer increase in material bonding’ [0070, 0072].
5. The process according to claim 1, characterized in that said reinforcing fibers have a length of 1 mm or less.
With respect to claim 5, Arbstreiter teaches an embodiment wherein said reinforcing fibers preferably have a length less than 1 mm [0069].
7. The process according to claim 1, characterized in that the reinforcing fibers are selected from the group consisting of glass fibers, polymer fibers, carbon fibers, and ceramic fibers.
With respect to claim 7, Arbstreiter teaches the reinforcing fibers are preferably glass fibers, aramid polymer fibers, and carbon fibers [0069].
9. The process according to claim 1, characterized in that said powdery material is selected from the group consisting of oxides, carbides and nitrides of metals and transition metals, and mixtures thereof.
With respect to claim 9, Arbstreiter teaches said powdery material is selected from the group consisting of oxides, carbides and nitrides of metals and transition metals, and mixtures thereof [0171].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 6 & 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbstreiter (US20250100211A1, using the foreign application EP22154514.8 priority filing date of 2/1/2022; of record), in view of Bell (US20120156466A1; of record). Claim elements are presented in italics.
6. The process according to claim 1, characterized in that the proportion of reinforcing fibers is 10 to 60% by volume based on the total volume of the component.
With respect to claim 6, the prior art of Arbstreiter is silent on the fiber volume % of the component.
However, the prior art of Bell teaches a non-woven fiber structure formed by dispensing a starting material comprising a liquid carrier, binders, and fibers [0019]; with the starting material having an especially preferred fiber volume% range of 20-40% [0060]. This lies fully within the claimed range.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use the known technique of setting fiber volume% range to 20-40%, as taught by Bell, into the process of Arbstreiter, which is silent on the fiber weight%. This would improve the process of Arbstreiter by providing the fiber for the layerwise manufacturing process within a known optimal volume% range. This modification would not require replacement the fiber delivering means taught by Arbstreiter, only defining the component’s fiber volume%.
16. The process according to claim 1, characterized in that the proportion of the reinforcing fibers is 15 to 55% by volume based on the total volume of the component.
With respect to claim 16, Arbstreiter is silent on the fiber volume % of the component.
However, the prior art of Bell teaches a non-woven fiber structure formed by dispensing a starting material comprising a liquid carrier, binders, and fibers [0019]; with the starting material having an especially preferred fiber volume% range of 20-40% [0060]. This lies fully within the claimed range.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use the known technique of setting fiber volume% range to 20-40%, as taught by Bell, into the process of Arbstreiter, which is silent on the fiber weight%. This would improve the process of Arbstreiter by providing the fiber for the layerwise manufacturing process within a known optimal volume% range. This modification would not require replacement the fiber delivering means taught by Arbstreiter, only defining the component’s fiber volume%.
17. The process according to claim 1, characterized in that the reinforcing fibers are silicon carbide (SiC) fibers.
With respect to claim 17, Arbstreiter teaches the fibers are preferably carbon fibers, glass fibers, aramid fibers or natural fibers [0069].
Arbstreiter is silent on the use of silicon carbide (SiC) fibers.
However, Bell teaches the reinforcing fibers can be silicon carbide (SiC) fibers [0003].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use silicon carbide (SiC) fibers, taught by Bell, as the fiber type to improve the process taught by Arbstreiter, as silicon carbide is commonly known to be mechanically strong with a very high melting point.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbstreiter (US20250100211A1, using the foreign application EP22154514.8 priority filing date of 2/1/2022; of record), as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, and further in view of Guenster (US20180141235A1; of record).
8. The process according to claim 1, characterized in that the powdery material is provided in the form of a slip.
With respect to claim 8, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Arbstreiter teaches the powdery material layer is deposited before or after a treatment layer [0036, 0048], wherein the treatment layer comprises a binder [0035, 0079]; and a desired fiber layer is deposited in a ‘pre-material layer’ by a fiber application device [0067].
Arbstreiter is silent the powdery material being provided in the form of a slip.
However, the prior art of Guenster teaches an additive manufacturing method comprising a layer-wise slip deposition method [0002], the slip formed of particles of a structure-forming ceramic material suspended in a liquid phase [0006], wherein the powder-binder mixture is deposited in layers and locally vaporized to build an article [0110].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the binder deposition and powder deposition steps, taught by Arbstreiter, to the combined mixture deposition of a structure-forming ceramic material suspended in a liquid phase taught by Guenster, to predictably obtain a simplified process of depositing a binder and powder to additively manufacture a product. As Guenster is silent on fibers, the fiber deposition means taught by Arbstreiter could continue to be used in the modified process of Arbstreiter, in view of Guenster.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbstreiter (US20250100211A1, using the foreign application EP22154514.8 priority filing date of 2/1/2022; of record), in view of Guenster (US20180141235A1; of record), as set forth above in the rejection of claim 8, and further in view of Nakamoto (US5077242A; of record).
18. The process according to claim 8, characterized in that the slip further includes the reinforcing fibers.
With respect to claim 18, as set forth in the rejection of claim 8, Arbstreiter, in view of Guenster, is silent on fibers present in the ceramic slip mixture.
However, the prior art of Nakamoto teaches a slip can further include uniformly-dispersed ceramic reinforcing fibers [Col. 2, lines 24-27]. Nakamoto teaches the reinforcing fibers can provide mechanical strength and cracking resistance to resist cracking or breakage of the article [Col. 2, lines 3-10].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to apply fibers from the slip composition comprising uniformly-dispersed ceramic reinforcing fibers, taught by Nakamoto, into the fiber-free slip composition taught by the Arbstreiter, in view of Guenster process. Fine fibers within the slip composition would predictably result in improved mechanical strength and cracking resistance within each layer of the manufactured product of the modified process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21-23 are allowed.
Regarding claim 21, no prior art was found to teach “A process for producing a fiber-reinforced three-dimensional component by additive manufacturing, wherein said process includes the following steps: a) providing a first mixture including a powdery material and reinforcing fibers; b) delivering said first mixture in a first layer, wherein said reinforcing fibers have a first orientation; c) providing a further mixture including a powdery material and reinforcing fibers; d) delivering said further mixture in a further step, in which said reinforcing fibers have a second orientation that is different from said first orientation; and e) repeating steps b) and d) to obtain said fiber-reinforced three-dimensional component.”
Arbstreiter (US20250100211A1) does not teach a powdery material and a fiber delivered as a mixture, and does not teach a first layer in one fiber orientation with a second layer having a different fiber orientation than the first.
Bell (US201210156466A1) teaches a means for delivering a mixture of molten powder and fiber to form a layer; but not a powder/fiber mixture, or a means to orient the direction of the fibers differently in different layers.
Conclusion
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 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant' s disclosure – Cunningham (US11504769B2); [Claim 8]. Cunningham teaches orienting fibers within a print layer and the ability to change the orientation of the fibers from one layer to another layer; but does not teach the ability to deposit them together as a mixture.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY C GROSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-1363. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM - 5PM.
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 on 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
GREGORY C. GROSSO
Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/GREGORY C. GROSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights