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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 14-20 are the subject of this NON-FINAL Office Action. This is the first action on the merits.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the Invention of claims 14-20 and the species of polyurethane foam, rib structure and extruder movement of claim 17 in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. However, upon further consideration in light of the prior art below, the election of species is withdrawn.
Claims 1-13 are withdrawn as drawn to unelected inventions.
Claim Interpretations
Claim 14 states that the foam insert is intended to be used “for a fuel tank,” but does not require a fuel tank in the claimed non-transitory machine-readable medium, or in any instructions for scanning a fuel tank to measure its dimensions, shape, etc. Thus, this is interpreted as an intended use and encompasses any foam product.
As to “the shape profile based on a property of an interior of the fuel tank,” the claim does not require that the non-transitory machine-readable medium have any particular “shape profile,” much less from any particular fuel tank, on/in the instructions. Thus, this encompasses any shape.
The Examiner applied the closest prior art based on the intended use (fuel tank insert); however, any prior art that prints a lattice structure of a foam anticipates. Thus, Applicants should consider claim amendments to overcome all of this prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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; or
(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PETTEY (US20200016441).
As to claim 14, PETTEY teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising machine-readable instructions to cause at least one processor circuit to at least (“The present disclosure can solve these problems by first, programmatically, via appropriate computer-aided design (CAD) software programs, designing the ideal foam structure (cell size and cell shape) for the target application”; para. 0044; see also para. 0052ff, explain CAD software design):
cause a printer to deposit material to form a first portion of a lattice structure of a foam insert for a fuel tank (first strut; Figs. 1 & 3-6, showing lattice structure 12/14 or 30/31/34 or 40/44/48 of foam insert 10 printed by 3D printer of Figure 6); and
cause the printer to deposit the material to form a second portion of the lattice structure of the foam insert, the first portion and the second portion of the lattice structure defining a shape profile of the foam insert, the shape profile based on a property of an interior of the fuel tank (second strut; Figs. 1 & 3-6, showing lattice structure 12/14 or 30/31/34 or 40/44/48 of foam insert 10 printed by 3D printer of Figure 6).
It is also noted that polyurethanes are known, standard options for fuel tank foam lattice inserts (paras. 0005, 0006 & 0069).
As to claim 15, PETTEY teaches wherein the printer includes a first extruder and the machine-readable instructions are cause one or more of the least one processor circuit to cause the first extruder to move in a first direction to form the first portion of the lattice structure and to move in a second direction to form the second portion of the lattice structure, the first direction opposite the second direction (paras. 0089-94 and Fig. 6).
As to claim 19, PETTEY teaches wherein the shape profile defines a curved portion of the foam insert (Figs. 1 & 3-5).
As to claim 20, PETTEY teaches wherein the first portion and the second portion form a first layer of the lattice structure and the machine-readable instructions are to cause one or more of the least one processor circuit to cause the printer to move to form a second layer of the lattice structure (Figs. 1 & 3-5).
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) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PETTEY (US20200016441), in view of CORMIER (US20230173751).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply familiar multi-nozzle extrusion devices to manufacture the lattice of PETTEY faster with a reasonable expectation of success.
PETTEY teach to produce a lattice structure intended for fuel tanks using an extruder.
PETTEY does not explicitly teach as to claim 16, wherein the machine-readable instructions are cause one or more of the least one processor circuit to cause a printhead of the first extruder to rotate in a fore-aft direction to cause the first extruder to move from the first direction to the second direction; as to claim 17, wherein the printer includes a second extruder and the machine-readable instructions are to cause one or more of the least one processor circuit to cause the second extruder to move to form a second portion of the lattice structure during movement of the first extruder; or as to claim 18, wherein the machine-readable instructions are to cause one or more of the least one processor circuit to cause one of the first extruder or the second extruder to move to form a third portion of the lattice structure based on a size of openings of the lattice structure defined by the shape profile, the third portion between the first portion and the second portion.
However, multi-nozzle lattice printing is a familiar technique to achieve faster printing. For example, CORMIER teaches a plurality of articulating-arm extruders each capable of at least three degrees of freedom which is particularly designed to fabricate lattice geometry structures using nonplanar toolpathings (Abstract, paras. 0003-10, Figures 1-4). One nozzle can print one strut while another nozzle prints another strut (Fig. 3A or 3E); or one nozzle can move in fore-aft to change directions (paras. 0046 & 0072, for example); and one of the nozzles can print a third structure between the two struts (Fig. 3b). This system yields better “part strength through lattice geometry and improved extrusion speed” (para. 0006). A skilled artisan would have recognized the benefit of such a multi-nozzle design for printing the lattice structure known in the art such as in PETTEY to achieve stronger lattice structures with more economical prints.
In sum, the claims are obvious because the prior art as whole clearly demonstrates that multi-nozzle extruders with multiple axes of movement (or degrees of freedom) were routinely used to achieve known lattice printing results.
Prior Art
Other prior art teaches 3D printed lattice for fuel tanks: US20230039519; CN 108099589A.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELODY TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-1846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/YUNG-SHENG M TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743