Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/655,550

FLUID MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 06, 2024
Examiner
WILLIAMS, CEDRICK S
Art Unit
1749
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
General Electric Company
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allow Rate
295 granted / 501 resolved
-6.1% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
545
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
66.4%
+26.4% vs TC avg
§102
16.4%
-23.6% vs TC avg
§112
15.1%
-24.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 501 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 1-11 in the reply filed on 01/05/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it would not be unduly burdensome to simultaneously examine all the claims in this application. Further, Applicant respectfully submits that Applicant would be faced with an undue burden and expense if forced to file multiple divisional patent applications on the related groupings set forth in the Office Action. This is not found persuasive because as set forth in the restriction requirement. The fluid management system and method groupings are divergent having acquired separate statues in the art due to their recognized differing subject matter. Such a distinction requires different field of search (e.g. different classes/subclasses and search strategies). Thus, the approach to examining apparatus claims reciting structure is different from that of examining method claims reciting processing steps. As such, the restriction requirement is maintained and made FINAL. Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected methods. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/02/2025 and 05/06/2024 have been considered by the examiner. 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 nonobviousness. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews et al. (US 2022/0134668 A1). Regarding claim 1, Andrews discloses a fluid management system 900 within an additive manufacturing system, see at least FIG. 9, [0171], the fluid management system comprising: An additive manufacturing apparatus 100; a binder material pathway to include recycling the binder material and a cleaning fluid pathway to include recycling the cleaning fluid, see at least [0171] – (construed as at least one fluid circuit, each fluid circuit comprising a plurality of fluid pathways). The cleaning fluid pathway to include a regulating means by example a throttling valve, see [0156] – (construed as a flow-regulating valve) and a valve 813 by example a pinch valve, see [0184] – (construed as an actuating valve). The binder fluid pathway to include a valve 815 as a pinch valve, see [0177] – (construed as an actuating valve). And further the cleaning/binder pathways includes additional components such as valves, pumps and control mechanisms to adjust the fluids in the pathways, see [0186] – (construed as each of the plurality of fluid pathways comprising at least one flow-regulating valve and at least one actuating valve and a pump). The additional components/pumps are disposed to be located in any of a variety of locations within the fluid management system, see at least [0186], [0128], [0175] – (construed as at least a portion of each of the plurality of fluid pathways are fluidly connected to the pump). The additional components/pumps are further configured to allow for control of the pathway flowrate, wherein the flow rate is tunable, see at least [0188] – (construed as the pump is operable to provide a fluid to each of the plurality of fluid pathways, wherein the fluid has a flowrate within each of the plurality of fluid pathways; and each flow-regulating valve is adjustable to increase or decrease the flowrate of each of a corresponding fluid pathway). While Andrews disclose the cleaning fluid pathway includes a throttling valve to control/adjust the level of cleaning fluid, that is the flowrate of the cleaning fluid; it does not explicitly disclose the flowrate of the binder fluid within the binder fluid pathway is adjustable and the same as the cleaning fluid pathway. However, as Andrew teaches the fluid pathway valves are included to control and adjust the fluids of the pathways, see at least [0186]. One as part of routine experimentation would configure the binder adjustment scheme to be the same as that of the cleaning fluid to maintain a desirable level of binder within the system. Accordingly, 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 binder flow-regulating valve of Andrews to be adjustable such that the flowrate of the cleaning and binder fluid pathways within each thereof are substantially the same, as reasonably suggested by Andrews. Regarding claim 2, Andrews further teaches the fluid is a cleaning fluid, see at least [0171]. Regarding claim 3, Andrews further teaches the plurality of fluid pathways are fluidly coupled to a cleaning station 110, the cleaning station comprising a wet cleaning member 310 comprising a fluid channel 408 containing a volume of the cleaning fluid therein, see at least FIG. 7A. Regarding claims 4-5, Andrews further teaches a wet cleaning member pathway is fluidly coupled to the wet cleaning member 310 by a cleaning manifold 414 and a cleaning fluid reservoir such that the cleaning manifold receives the cleaning fluid from the cleaning fluid reservoir through the wet cleaning member pathway and supplies the cleaning fluid to the fluid channel, see at least [0109], [0145], FIG 7A. And the cleaning station comprises a purge wiper section 303. Regarding claim 6, Andrews further teaches a cleaning fluid drain pathway is fluidly coupled to a main cleaning vessel drain 320 of the cleaning station and a cleaning fluid reservoir such that the cleaning fluid reservoir receives cleaning fluid from the main drain of the cleaning station through the cleaning fluid drain pathway, see at least [0109]. Regarding claim 7, Andrews further teaches the fluid is a binder material, see at least [0171]. Regarding claims 8-9, Andrews further teaches the plurality of fluid pathways are fluidly coupled to the additive manufacturing apparatus, the additive manufacturing apparatus comprising an ink delivery system 804 – (construed as a print head manifold) fluidly coupled to a print head, the ink delivery system/print head manifold containing a volume of the binder material therein, see at least [0174]. The ink delivery system enables the separation of storage of the binder material from the print head and allows for the binder material to be replaced or refilled while the additive manufacturing apparatus is actively printing – (construed as a print head fill pathway is fluidly coupled to the print head manifold such that the print head manifold receives the binder material from the print head fill pathway and supplies the binder material to the print head). Regarding claim 10, Andrews further teaches the binder material return pathway is fluidly coupled to an active drain of the additive manufacturing apparatus and a binder material reservoir such that the binder material reservoir receives binder material from the active drain of the additive manufacturing apparatus through the binder material return pathway, see at least [0172], [0175] – [0176]. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews et al. (US 2022/0134668 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reinhardt et al. (US 2024/0181703 A1). Regarding claim 11, while Andrews discloses the use of a throttling valve for regulating flow; it does not explicitly disclose the valve is a needle valve. Reinhardt teaches an additive apparatus. The apparatus being configured to use a needle valve to effect precise control of the flow of material through the opening, see [0015]. It being considered, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the use of such a scheme to regulate the flow of material in the system. Accordingly, 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 flow-regulating valve of Andrews to be a needle valve, as taught by Reinhardt to provide a means for controlling the deposition of material. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Katelyn Whatley can be reached on 5712705545. 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. /CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 06, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 21, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 27, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 27, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600176
HYDROPHOBIC PATTERNS FOR TIRE TREAD GROOVES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594787
SIMULATED INFLATABLE WHEEL AND STROLLER COMPRISING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594785
WHEEL DEVICE AND MOBILE ROBOT DEVICE COMPRISING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589615
PNEUMATIC TIRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583261
AIRCRAFT TIRE WITH ZONED TREAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
59%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+26.4%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 501 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month