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 .
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giller et al. (US 2019/0193335), hereinafter Giller, in view of Busbee et al. (US 2019/0246741), hereinafter Busbee.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Giller discloses a system/method of manufacturing (can be used to make an airbag – the preamble is not considered limiting where the body of the claim recites a structurally complete invention as is the case here – See MPEP 2111.02), comprising the following steps: (S1) creating a 3D printing model (par. 0057) and providing an inner mold as discussed below;
(S2) determining the number of 3D printing nozzles (this number can be one) and a positional relationship between the nozzle and the mold [the terms “inner mold” and “outer mold” are not viewed to be distinguishing as these are nominal terms] according to the 3D printing model, where either:(build platform) (par. 0033-0034) or (“support structure” 52) (par. 0039) is considered to read upon the claimed inner mold;
(S3) controlling (Figs. 6-7, par. 0051) the 3D printing nozzles to execute a printing task on the surface of the mold [(build platform) (par. 0033-0034) or (“support structure” 52) (par. 0039)] as to form a ply or layer on the surface of the mold (par. 0036 describes printing the object in layers; Fig. 5 shows a sample object sliced into layers in accordance with a model);
(S4) removing the printing nozzles and the inner mold after tasks are completed (par. 0004 – “dissolving the support material in liquid media”; par. 0046).
Giller does not explicitly describe the support structure or build platform as an “inner mold” specifically with an “outer surface.”
However, Busbee discloses a process similar to that of Giller in that Busbee also additively manufactures a product onto a substrate. In Busbee’s process, a gas-containing polymeric structure (“inner mold”) containing an outer surface is used (Busbee, par. 0060) that is used as a substrate for printing (Busbee, par. 0081-0088) for an item, demonstrating that such a substrate was known in the art as to produce a given item having a given shape (see Busbee, Figs 3 and 5; par. 0019, 0021). Busbee’s substrate in this instance is an air bag and is used to support the printed item. One of ordinary skill in the art would have thus had a reasonable likelihood of success from having incorporated the substrate/mold of Busbee into the process/system of Giller above. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have modified the system/method of Giller above to have specified that there is a mold provided with an “inner shape” as to produce the “outer” side of the item, as is claimed.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Giller/Busbee discloses the subject matter of claims 1 and 9, and further discloses that a printing task would be a discharge rate with respect to dots per inch at each position (Giller, par. 0031).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Giller/Busbee discloses the subject matter of claims 2 and 10, and further discloses that the printing material can include both a polyamide and PET or polyethylene terephthalate (Giller, par. 0042).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Giller/Busbee discloses the subject matter of claims 1 and 9, and further discloses that there are one or more print heads (33) (Giller, par. 0038) which are used to deposit material. Because the BRI of the claim only requires one print nozzle, the areas would overlap with any other nozzle that is present.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Giller/Busbee discloses the subject matter of claims 1 and 9, and further discloses that there is a coating of a release agent on the surface of the mold or object (Giller, par. 0006).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Giller/Busbee discloses the subject matter of claims 1/9, and further discloses that the support structure/mold is made of a water-soluble material (Giller, par. 0046), and is removed by placing the structure in water to dissolve the mold (par. 0006).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Giller/Busbee discloses the subject matter of claims 1/9 above, and further discloses, from Busbee above, that the mold can be made of an air bag (Busbee, par. 0060). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have removed the air from the air bag as to have removed the item from the mold in accordance with Giller above.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Giller/Busbee discloses the subject matter of claims 1/9 above, and the print heads would be implied as moving in any direction as necessary (Giller, par. 0038; Fig. 3).
Claims 17-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Giller (US 2019/0193335) in view of Busbee (US 2019/0246741), and further in view of Lopez Romano et al. (US 2019/0184639), hereinafter Lopez Romano.
Regarding claims 17 and 24, Giller discloses a system/method of manufacturing (can be used to make an airbag – the preamble is not considered limiting where the body of the claim recites a structurally complete invention as is the case here – See MPEP 2111.02), comprising the following steps: (S1) creating a 3D printing model (par. 0057) and providing an inner mold as discussed below;
(S2) determining the number of 3D printing nozzles (this number can be one) and a positional relationship between the nozzle and the mold [the terms “inner mold” and “outer mold” are not viewed to be distinguishing as these are nominal terms] according to the 3D printing model, where either:(build platform) (par. 0033-0034) or (“support structure” 52) (par. 0039) is considered to read upon the claimed inner mold;
(S3) controlling (Figs. 6-7, par. 0051) the 3D printing nozzles to execute a printing task on the surface of the mold [(build platform) (par. 0033-0034) or (“support structure” 52) (par. 0039)] as to form a ply or layer on the surface of the mold (par. 0036 describes printing the object in layers; Fig. 5 shows a sample object sliced into layers in accordance with a model);
(S4) removing the printing nozzles and the inner mold after tasks are completed (par. 0004 – “dissolving the support material in liquid media”; par. 0046).
Giller does not explicitly describe the support structure or build platform as an “inner mold” specifically with an “outer surface.”
However, Busbee discloses a process similar to that of Giller in that Busbee also additively manufactures a product onto a substrate. In Busbee’s process, a gas-containing polymeric structure (“inner mold”) containing an outer surface is used (Busbee, par. 0060) that is used as a substrate for printing (Busbee, par. 0081-0088) for an item, demonstrating that such a substrate was known in the art as to produce a given item having a given shape (see Busbee, Figs 3 and 5; par. 0019, 0021).
Busbee’s substrate in this instance is an air bag and is used to support the printed item. One of ordinary skill in the art would have thus had a reasonable likelihood of success from having incorporated the substrate/mold of Busbee into the process/system of Giller above. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have modified the system/method of Giller above to have specified that there is a mold provided with an “inner shape” as to produce the “outer” side of the item, as is claimed.
Giller/Busbee does not explicitly disclose that the mold is provided as an outer mold with an opening and a hollow portion as required in the claims.
However, Lopez Romano discloses (see Fig. 7) an “impression chamber” which reads upon an “outer mold provided with an opening and a hollow portion” (par. 0033) with a printing bed (8) located within the chamber. The system operates by moving the print head (7) in multiple directions and would remove the object by bringing it back through the opening as shown in Fig. 7. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found the impression chamber of Lopez Romano to be a substitutable environment for the environment of other Giller or Busbee above, as in all cases, a product is additively manufactured to a specification, thus leading one of ordinary skill in the art to have a reasonable expectation of success from using any of the described molding environments as is required to produce a desired object from additive manufacturing. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the above from Giller/Busbee to have substituted the impression chamber or “outer mold provided with an opening and a hollow portion” as is required in the claims.
Regarding claims 18 and 25, Giller/Busbee/Lopez Romano discloses the subject matter of claims 17/24 above, and the print heads would be implied as moving in any direction as necessary (Giller, par. 0038; Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 19 and 26, Giller/Busbee/Lopez Romano discloses the subject matter of claims 17/24 and further discloses that the printing material can include both a polyamide and PET or polyethylene terephthalate (Giller, par. 0042).
Regarding claims 20 and 27, Giller/Busbee/Lopez Romano discloses the subject matter of claims 17/24, and further discloses that there are one or more print heads (33) (Giller, par. 0038) which are used to deposit material. Because the BRI of the claim only requires one print nozzle, the areas would overlap with any other nozzle that is present.
Regarding claims 21 and 28, Giller/Busbee/Lopez Romano discloses the subject matter of claims 17/24, and further discloses that there is a coating of a release agent on the surface of the mold or object (Giller, par. 0006).
Regarding claims 22 and 29, Giller/Busbee/Lopez Romano discloses the subject matter of claims 17/24 and the print heads would be implied as moving in any direction as necessary (Giller, par. 0038; Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 23 and 30, Giller/Busbee/Lopez Romano discloses the subject matter of claims 17/24, and further discloses that the final position of the printing nozzle(s) would be different from the starting position (as the nozzles move in accordance with Giller, par. 0033-0038) they would move around the chamber as in Lopez Romano above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed below. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant first argues that Giller does not disclose a “mold” because it is eventually removed from the object being produced. However, this is not persuasive as the cited portion relating to a mold at least partially defines the part being made, and so therefore, under BRI, it is clearly is acting as a mold in this instance. Applicant’s argument seems to presume that the entire structure must be shaped by the mold and the mold must not be destructible after use, and also that the mold must be pre-existing, but this is clearly not the case here. The claim only requires “as to form a ply on the outer surface of the inner mold” but does not specify more than this detail.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., coverage of the entirety of a mold, with no gaps or openings) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The claim itself requires “removing . . . the inner mold” and so clearly, removing the mold or support structure once the item is finished is not precluded by the claim, especially when it is explicitly required by the claim. There is no implicit or inherent requirement in the term “mold” that requires “an entirety” of an object to be molded. It is well-known in the art that many molds can be used to produce parts of objects which then assembled together produce a larger part and that a mold can produce a portion of a part. Furthermore, the release layer within the mold would not be precluded from the claims, Applicant’s specification, at par. 0062 explicitly allows for such a feature. Applicant also argues that neither reference teaches a mold, but this is clearly not the case. Both references teach what can be viewed as a mold under BRI. Accordingly, the rejections are maintained as outlined above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW D GRAHAM whose telephone number is (469)295-9232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM (CST).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/ANDREW D GRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742