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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 9 are currently amended; claim 2 is original, claims 4 and 10-11 are cancelled, claim 12 is previously presented, and claims 5, and 13-18 are withdrawn.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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) 1-2, 4, 6, 9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waterloo (US20200390169 A1) in view of Mark et al (US 2022/0001600 A1) and NPL, Bayer Material Science.
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 9, Waterloo discloses a method for producing a padding by means of 3D printing by deposition [0125] of at least one first filament [0068], characterized in that said at least one first filament is deposited directly onto a portion of fabric to make at least the first layer of a plurality of layers that define a multi-plane structure [0125] (see figure 3, figure 28).
Waterloo does not explicitly disclose characterized in that said first filament is deposited at a speed comprised between 400mm/min and 4200mm/min (450-3,000 mm/min in claim 6), and in that the printing temperature TS is comprised between 170°C and 260°C (200 C-250 C for claim 9).
One ordinary skill in the art would look to conventional art to determine the speed and temperature of the filament deposited. Analogous 3d printing art, Mark et al, discloses stitching speeds obtained with a system operated in the manner described above, was capable of stitching speeds between about 2500 mm/min and 5000 mm/min. However, the stitching speed will vary based on nozzle heating, matrix material, and other appropriate design considerations [0026]. MPEP 2144.04 states overlapping ranges is a prima facie evidence of obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a range 2500 mm/min and 5000 mm/min (450 mm/min and 3000 mm/min in claim 9) as taught by Mark et al into the method taught by Waterloo since the stitching speed will vary based on nozzle heating, matrix material, and other appropriate design considerations.
As for the printing temperature, both Waterloo and the applicant use polyurethane as the filament. The melting point of polyurethane is 210-220°C which overlaps with Applicant’s range of between 170°C and 260°C (200-250 C for claim 9). Further, MPEP 2144.05 discloses In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 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. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a print temperature range of between170°C and 260°C (200-250 C for claim 9) as taught by Mark and NPL into the method taught by Waterloo based the material used and design needs of the final product.
Regarding claim 2, Waterloo discloses characterized in that said at least one first filament is made of thermoplastic elastomer material (TPE) [0068].
Regarding claim 4, Waterloo discloses said portion of fabric (18) comprises polyurethane or its derivatives [0068].
Regarding claim 12, Waterloo discloses said structure comprises at least one layer made with a pattern of deposition that is different from the pattern of deposition of said first layer and characterized in that each layer of said plurality of layers is made with a pattern of deposition, and consequently a plan view conformation, that is different from the layer that immediately follows and/or precedes it ([0077-0078], figures 2, 4-5, discloses different cross sections and configurations).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Waterloo (US20200390169 A1) in view of Mark et al (US 2022/0001600 A1) and NPL, Bayer Material Science, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Chang et al (US 2022 0267556 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Waterloo doesn’t explicitly disclose at least one first filament has a hardness comprised between 40 Shore A and 95 Shore A. However, analogous foam art, Chang discloses the solid foamable material has a Shore A hardness of from about 35 A to about 95 A, optionally from about 55 A to about 90 A [0123]. This overlaps with applicant’s range of at least one first filament has a hardness comprised between 40 Shore A and 95 Shore A. MPEP 2144.04 states overlapping ranges is a prima facie evidence of obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a range of between 40 Shore A and 95 Shore A at taught by Chang into the method taught by Waterloo since it is conventionally well known and in order to maintain comfort, performance and durability [0003].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Waterloo does not disclose the printing speed and temperature however is the combination of Waterloo with Mark and the NPL teaches this. Analogous 3d printing art, Mark et al, discloses stitching speeds obtained with a system operated in the manner described above, was capable of stitching speeds between about 2500 mm/min and 5000 mm/min. However, the stitching speed will vary based on nozzle heating, matrix material, and other appropriate design considerations [0026]. As for the printing temperature, both Waterloo and the applicant use polyurethane as the filament. The melting point of polyurethane is 210-220°C which overlaps with Applicant’s range of between 170°C and 260°C (200-250 C for claim 9). Hence the claim limitation is taught.
The 112(b) rejection is withdrawn in light of amendments.
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 FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 pm.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights