S 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 .
Status of the application
This is a final rejection in response to Applicant's remarks and amendment filed on 01/12/2026. Claim(s) 1 is/are currently amended, claim(s) 2-10 is/are new and claim(s) 11-15 is/are withdrawn. Accordingly claims 1-10 are examined herein.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/667,081, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Independent claim 1 has the newly added subject matter in this continuation application. Thus, the effective filling date of independent claim 1 is 05/25/2022. See MPEP 2133.01.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 04/28/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 12,017,407 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 11-15 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
The process as claimed in the originally filed claims can be practiced with another materially different product, such as the process of the originally filed claims does not require a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to generate one or more toolpaths for additive manufacturing a product.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 11-15 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, recites “A method for increasing shear strength of a additive manufactured product” should be changed to -- A method for increasing shear strength of [[a]] an additive manufactured product --. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claim(s) 5, 7-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoffman (US 2021/0252776 – of record).
Regarding claim 5, Hoffman teaches a method for generating instructions for additive manufacturing a product (700) with increased shear strength (see annotated Fig. 7 below; [0003] and [0079-0080]) , the method comprising:
generating, by a computing device, a first toolpath for creating a series of at least three layers of beads (710, 720, 730), the series of at least three layers having sequentially alternating widths such that a first layer and a third layer are wider than an intervening second layer, creating an interstitial gap between the first layer and the third layer (see annotated Fig. 7 below; [0026], [0070] and [0100]); and
generating, by the computing device, a second toolpath for creating a layer of infill (760) in the interstitial gap between the first layer and third layer, wherein the layer of infill extends into abutment with a wall of the second layer (see annotated Fig. 7 below; [0065], [0070], [0073] and [0100]).
Regarding claim 7, Hoffman further teaches the method, further comprising: generating, by the computing device, the first toolpath such that beads (shells) of the first layer (610) are deposited in alternating heights, wherein every other bead (650) of the first layer is of a first height and beads (660,680) between the every other beads (650,670) are of a second height less than the first height (see Fig. 6; [0054]).
Regarding claim 8, Hoffman further teaches the method, further comprising: generating, by the computing device, a third toolpath for repeating the first toolpath and the second toolpath sequentially to create additional interstitial gaps between alternating width layers having additional infill deposited in the additional interstitial gaps (i.e. after the pattern of alternating the number of shells per 6 layers shown in Fig. 7 is repeated periodically, filling the gap between the repeated lesser width bead layers with infill layers (750)) (see annotated Fig. 7 below; [0025], [0027], [0071] and [0099-0100]).
Regarding claim 10, Hoffman further teaches the method, wherein the beads comprise a substantially oval cross- section (see Figs. 6-7).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US 2021/0252776 – of record).
Regarding claim 1, Hoffman teaches a method for increasing shear strength of a additive manufactured product (700) (see annotated Fig. 7 below; [0003] and [0079-0080]) comprising:
(a) creating a wall from a series of at least three layers (710, 720, 730) of beads (shells) of material, the series of at least three layers having sequentially alternating widths to create an interstitial gap between a first layer of the at least three layers and a third layers of at least three layers, the first layer having a first width greater than a second width of a second layer of the at least three layers (see annotated Fig. 7 below; [0026] and [0100]); and the materials used are disclosed at [0104-0105]);
(b) depositing a layer of infill (infill layers (750)) into the interstitial gap between the first and third layers (see annotated Fig. 7 below; [0100]); and
(c) repeating steps (a) and (b) sequentially to create additional interstitial gaps between alternating width layers having additional infill deposited in the additional interstitial gaps (i.e. a pattern of alternating the number of shells per 6 layers shown in Fig. 7 is repeated periodically) (see annotated Fig. 7 below; [0099-0100]).
Hoffman does not explicitly teach wherein the additional infill extends into abutment with a wall of a lesser width bead layer of the layers having the alternating widths. However. Hoffman discloses that alternating numbers of shells (width) between layers to create interstitial gaps between layers (see annotated Fig. 7 below; [0026]); depositing a layer of strengthening infill (750) in the respective gaps; and wherein the strengthening infill extends into abutment with the wall of the lesser width bead layers (i.e. after the pattern of alternating the number of shells per 6 layers shown in Fig. 7 is repeated periodically, filling the gap between the repeated lesser width bead layers with infill layers (750)) (see annotated Fig. 7 below; [0027] and [0099-0100]). Hoffman further teaches and the deposited infill materials configured to seal seams and improve fluid tightness (see [0027]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that configuring additional infill extends into abutment with a wall of a lesser width bead layer of the layers having the alternating widths is a predictable variation of prior art teachings, particularly when variation is a simple combination of know elements.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the apparatus as taught by Hoffman with configuring the additional infill extends into abutment with a wall of a lesser width bead layer of the layers having the alternating widths as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Hoffman above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would effectively seals the gaps and also forming objects having walls and/or surfaces that are resistant to leaks (see [0026] of Hoffman).
PNG
media_image1.png
353
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Hoffman further teaches the method, wherein the beads of the first layer (610) are deposited in alternating heights such that every other bead (650) of the first layer is of a first height and beads(660) between the every other beads are of a second height less than the first height (see Fig. 6; [0054]).
Regarding claim 4, Hoffman further teaches the method, wherein the beads comprise a substantially oval cross- section (see Figs. 6-7).
Regarding claim 9, Hoffman teaches the method as discussed in claim 8 above.
Hoffman does not explicitly teach wherein the additional infill extends into abutment with a wall of a lesser width bead layer of the layers having the alternating widths. However, since Hoffman discloses that alternating numbers of shells (width) between layers to create interstitial gaps between layers (see annotated Fig. 7 below; [0026]); depositing a layer of strengthening infill (750) in the respective gaps; and wherein the strengthening infill extends into abutment with the wall of the lesser width bead layers (i.e. after the pattern of alternating the number of shells per 6 layers shown in Fig. 7 is repeated periodically, filling the gap between the repeated lesser width bead layers with infill layers (750)) (see annotated Fig. 7 below; [0027] and [0099-0100]); and the deposited infill materials configured to seal seams and improve fluid tightness (see [0027]), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that configuring additional infill extends into abutment with a wall of a lesser width bead layer of the layers having the alternating widths is a predictable variation of prior art teachings, particularly when variation is a simple combination of know elements.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the apparatus as taught by Hoffman with configuring the additional infill extends into abutment with a wall of a lesser width bead layer of the layers having the alternating widths as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Hoffman above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would effectively seals the gaps and also forming objects having walls and/or surfaces that are resistant to leaks (see [0026] of Hoffman).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US 2021/0252776 – of record) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Patrov (US 2016/0346999).
Regarding claims 2 and 6, Hoffman teaches the method as discussed in claims 1 and 5 above.
Hoffman does not explicitly teach wherein the infill has a substantially U-shaped configuration.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing methods, Patrov teaches a three-dimensional fabrication (see Fig. 2; [0007]), comprises depositing a plurality of layers (202,206); depositing first and second infill layers (204,208) (see Fig. 2; [0052-0054]); wherein the infill has different pattern/shapes such as triangular or diamond shapes and X-shape (see Figs. 3-17 and Fig. 27;[0077-0079]). Patrov further teaches that the infill patterns improves the strength and dimensional stability of a fabricated object without detrimentally affecting fabrication speed and the infilling improves dimensional stability and structural integrity, even along the z-axis (see [0002] and [0051]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the infill has a substantially U-shaped configuration as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing devices given the discussion of Patrov above presenting a reasonably expectation of success; and doing would involve only a mere change in a shape of an element. It has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination.
Further, one would have been motivated to select the shape of U-shaped infills for the purpose of improving the strength and dimensional stability of a fabricated object without detrimentally affecting fabrication speed and the infilling improves dimensional stability and structural integrity, even along the z-axis (as acknowledged by Patrov at [0002] and [0051]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), applicant's amendment(s) to the claim(s) has/have overcome the claim rejection(s).
With respect to Applicant’s representative argument that Hoffman does not disclose "creating a wall from a series of at least three layers of beads of material, the series of at least three layers having sequentially alternating widths to create an interstitial gap between a first layer of the at least three layers and a third layer of the at least three layers”, this argument found not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully submits that annotated Fig. 7 above of Hoffman clearly depicts the claimed configuration and [0027] describes alternating the number of shells (widths) between layers to create gaps between layers, which align with claimed limitation of alternating widths creating interstitial gaps.
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 MOHAMED K AHMED ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-0347. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM-7:30 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, 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.
/MOHAMED K AHMED ALI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights