DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 5/11/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 15-20 have been cancelled. Claims 1-2 have been amended. Claims 1-14 are pending with claim 14 being withdrawn from further consideration.
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 Amendments and Arguments
The Applicant’s amendments have overcome the § 112(b) rejection as set forth in the office action of 2/12/2026. Therefore, the § 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues SMIDDY’s operation is a vacuum-convey/gravity-feed/purge-unload cycle. It is not a two-chamber pellet hopper operated to maintain a rough vacuum in a downstream chamber while cycling an upstream inlet for continued feeding.
The Examiner would like to note that the arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim language. The claim language does not disclose an notion of cycling for continued feeding. 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., all distinctions pointed from the specification, such as continued feeding) 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).
Additionally, the Applicant’s arguments with respect to FURUKAWA with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “feedstock source” should read “pellet feedstock source” in line 21. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the feedstock” should read “the pellet feedstock” in line 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the feedstock” should read “the pellet feedstock” in line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the feedstock” should read “the pellet feedstock” in line 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the feedstock” should read “the pellet feedstock” in line 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the feedstock” should read “the pellet feedstock” in line 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the feedstock” should read “the pellet feedstock” in line 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the feedstock” should read “the pellet feedstock” in line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the feedstock” should read “the pellet feedstock” in line 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smiddy et al. (U.S. 11,472,108), hereinafter SMIDDY, in view of Kimura et al. (WO 2016103389A1, original and translation provided), hereinafter KIMURA.
Regarding claim 1, SMIDDY teaches: A method of additively manufacturing reduced porosity composites (SMIDDY teaches a method for additively manufacturing composites [Abstract].), the method comprising the steps of: providing an additive manufacturing printer comprising a feed hopper (SMIDDY teaches an additive manufacturing printer (extruder 61) with a feed hopper [Figs. 1-2, 5; Col. 5, lines 17-23].), the feed hopper comprising: a first hopper wall defining a feed inlet and a chamber opening (SMIDDY teaches a first hopper wall defining a feed inlet (83) and a chamber opening (90) [Fig. 5; Col. 6, lines 63-67 – Col. 7, lines 1-3].); a second hopper wall contacting an outlet end of the first hopper wall and defining a feed outlet (SMIDDY teaches a second hopper wall contacting an outlet end of the first hopper wall and defining a feed outlet (92) [Fig. 5; Col. 7, lines 13-15].); a vacuum lid contacting a feed end of the first hopper wall (SMIDDY teaches a vacuum lid contacting a feed end of the first hopper wall [Fig. 5].); . . . ; a second valve disposed proximate the chamber opening in an open position (SMIDY teaches a second valve (90) disposed proximate the chamber opening in an open position [Fig. 5; Col. 7, lines 4-9; Col. 7, lines 27-30].); and a vacuum pump (SMIDDY teaches a vacuum pump (78) [Fig. 5; Col. 7, lines 22-26].); wherein the first hopper wall and the vacuum lid define a first chamber disposed proximate to a second chamber defined by the first hopper wall and the second hopper wall (SMIDDY teaches the first hopper wall and the vacuum lid define a first chamber disposed proximate to a second chamber defined by the first hopper wall and the second hopper wall [Fig. 5].); and wherein the first chamber and the second chamber are in selective fluid communication via the chamber opening (SMIDDY teaches the first chamber and the second chamber are in selective fluid communication via the chamber opening (90) [Fig. 5; Col. 7, lines 27-30].); applying a rough vacuum to the first chamber and the second chamber using the vacuum pump (SMIDDY teaches the pump (78) is activated to open the flapper valve (90) [Col. 7, lines 27-30].); feeding a pellet feedstock into the feed hopper of the additive manufacturing printer (SMIDDY teaches the pellets go to the extruder (61) [Fig. 1; Col. 7, lines 13-15].); . . . ; allowing the pellet feedstock to exit the feed hopper via the feed outlet (SMIDDY teaches allowing the pellets to exit the hopper via the feed outlet (92) [Fig. 5; Col. 7, lines 13-15].); heating the pellet feedstock to give a heated printing material (SMIDDY teaches the pellets are heated [Col. 5, lines 27-32].); and extruding the heating printing material out of the additive manufacturing printer (SMIDDY teaches extruding the pellets out of the additive manufacturing printer (61) [Fig. 1; Col. 5, lines 47-49].).
SMIDDY is silent as to: a first valve disposed proximate the feed inlet in a closed position and opening the first valve and the closing the second valve, thereby pulling the pellet feedstock into the first chamber from a feedstock source; closing the first valve and the opening the second valve, thereby allowing the pellet feedstock from the first chamber to enter the second chamber and maintain a rough vacuum in the second chamber. In the same field of endeavor, extrusion, KIMURA teaches: a first valve disposed proximate the feed inlet in a closed position (KUMRA teaches a first valve (32) disposed proximate the feed inlet (31) is in a closed position [0024].) and opening the first valve and the closing the second valve (KIMURA teaches opening the first valve (32) and closing the second valve (34) [0024; 0032].), thereby pulling the pellet feedstock into the first chamber from a feedstock source (KIMURA teaches when the first valve (32) is opened, the collection portion (31) and the decompression hopper (33) communicate with each other [0024; 0032].); closing the first valve and the opening the second valve, thereby allowing the pellet feedstock from the first chamber to enter the second chamber and maintain a rough vacuum in the second chamber (KIMURA teaches closing the first valve (32) and opening the second valve (34) to allow the feedstock from the first chamber to enter the second chamber and maintain a vacuum [0024; 0027; 0033-0034].). KIMURA teaches the molding material may be resin pellets [0012]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify SMIDDY, by having a second valve at the feed opening, as suggested by KIMURA, in order for the molding material to be gas-transported [0032].
Regarding claim 2, KIMURA further teaches: wherein the method further comprises a step of drying the pellet feedstock at a drying temperature for a drying time (KIMURA teaches drying the molding material for a drying time [0038; 0043-0045; Fig. 3].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify SMIDDY, by drying the feedstock at a drying time at a drying temperature, as suggested by KIMURA, in order to suppress deterioration of the molding material [0038].
Regarding claim 5, KIMURA further teaches: wherein the feedstock comprises a reinforcing fiber (KIMURA teaches the molding material may including reinforcing fiber [0012].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify SMIDDY, by having the feedstock comprise a reinforcing fiber, as suggested by KIMURA, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Regarding claim 6, KIMURA further teaches: wherein the reinforcing fiber comprises a carbon fiber or a glass fiber (KIMURA teaches the reinforcing fiber may be a glass or carbon fiber [0012].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify SMIDDY, by having the feedstock comprise a carbon or glass fiber, as suggested by KIMURA, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Claim(s) 2-4, 9-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smiddy et al. (U.S. 11,472,108), hereinafter SMIDDY, and Kimura et al. (WO 2016103389A1), hereinafter KIMURA, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (CN 109575584A, original and translation provided), hereinafter YANG.
Regarding claim 2, SMIDDY and FURUKAWA teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, YANG teaches drying the feedstock at a drying temperature for a drying time [pgs. 2, 4]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify SMIDDY and KIMURA, by drying the feedstock, as suggested by YANG, in order to have a material with excellent performance and high mechanical strength [pg. 2].
Regarding claim 3, YANG further teaches: wherein the step of drying the feedstock occurs less than 6 hours before the step of extruding the feedstock out of the additive manufacturing printer (YANG teaches the drying step is set to 6 hours [pg. 4]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to dry the material for 6 hours since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties and further being motivated to have a material with excellent performance and high mechanical strength [pg. 2].
Regarding claim 4, YANG further teaches: wherein the drying temperature is a temperature of between 40 to 120°C and the drying time is between 2 and 12 hours (YANG teaches drying the material at 80°C for 6 hours [pg. 4].).
Regarding claim 9, SMIDDY and KIMURA teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the step of heating the feedstock further comprises displacing the feedstock through multiple temperature control zones. In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, YANG further teaches: wherein the step of heating the feedstock further comprises displacing the feedstock through multiple temperature control zones (YANG teaches the pellets are put through multiple temperature control zones [pg. 4].). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify SMIDDY and KIMURA, by using multiple temperature control zones as suggested by YANG, in order to create a product without warpage [pg. 4].
Regarding claim 10, YANG teaches: wherein the feedstock is displaced through four temperature control zones, the temperature control zones consisting of: a feed heating section having a feed temperature; a mixing section having a mixing temperature; a metering section having a metering temperature; and an exit section having exit temperature (YANG teaches four temperature zones can be used, three zones and a zone for the nozzle head [pg. 2].).
Regarding claim 11, YANG further teaches: wherein: the feed temperature is a temperature of between 150 to 210 °C; the mixing temperature is a temperature of between 190 to 250°C; the metering temperature is a temperature of between 210 to 270°C; and the exit temperature is a temperature of between 210 to 270°C (YANG teaches all four zones are set to a temperature range of 180-245°C [pg. 2]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.).
Regarding claim 13, SMIDDY and KIMURA teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the additive manufacturing printer is a single screw extruder having a screw speed of between 20 to 140 rpm or between 200 to 1000 rpm during the step of extruding the heated printing material out of the additive manufacturing printer. In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, YANG teaches: wherein the additive manufacturing printer is a single screw extruder having a screw speed of between 20 to 140 rpm or between 200 to 1000 rpm during the step of extruding the heated printing material out of the additive manufacturing printer (YANG teaches a single-screw extruder at a speed of 200 rpm during extruding [pg. 4]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify SMIDDY and KIMURA, by using a single-screw extruder at 200 rpm, as suggested by YANG, in order to create a product without warpage [pg. 4].
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smiddy et al. (U.S. 11,472,108), hereinafter SMIDDY, and Kimura et al. (WO 2016103389A1), hereinafter KIMURA, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of TAYLOR et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0231807), hereinafter TAYLOR.
Regarding claim 7, SMIDDY and KIMURA teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the feedstock comprises a carbon fiber in an amount of from 0.01 to 25 wt. %. In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, TAYLOR further teaches: wherein the feedstock comprises a carbon fiber in an amount of from 0.01 to 25 wt. % (TAYLOR teaches the carbon fiber may be about 30 wt. % [0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify SMIDDY and KIMURA, by having the feedstock comprise a carbon fiber with 30 wt. %, as suggested by TAYLOR, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Regarding claim 8, SMIDDY and KIMURA teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the feedstock comprises a glass fiber in an amount of from 0.01 to 45 wt. %. In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, TAYLOR further teaches: wherein the feedstock comprises a glass fiber in an amount of from 0.01 to 45 wt. % (TAYLOR teaches the glass fiber may be about 30 wt. % [0035].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify SMIDDY and KIMURA, by having the feedstock comprise a glass fiber with 30 wt. %, as suggested by TAYLOR, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smiddy et al. (U.S. 11,472,108), hereinafter SMIDDY, and Kimura et al. (WO 2016103389A1), hereinafter KIMURA, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krichtman et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2013/0141491), hereinafter KRICHTMAN.
Regarding claim 12, SMIDDY and KIMURA teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the rough vacuum is a vacuum of between -200 to -760 torr. In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, KRICHTMAN teaches a vacuum pipe system is connected to a pump that applies a reduced pressure of -0.4 to -0.8 bar (-300 torr to -600 torr) [0079], which meets the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify SMIDDY and KIMURA, by having a vacuum pressure of -300 torr to -600 torr, as suggested by KRICHTMAN, in order to move the material through the system [0079; 0083].
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 CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant can 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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights