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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/09/2026 has been entered.
Status of the application
This is a non-final rejection in response to the Applicant's remarks and amendment filed on 03/09/2026. Claims 1-3 and 8 are currently amended, claims 4-7,9-16 and 18-21 are previously presented and claims 17 and 22-30 are withdrawn. Accordingly claims 1-16 and 18-21are examined herein.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that the term “substantially” in the claims 1, 6 and 18 have been interpreted below as a broad but definite term/approximation broadly describing oval shaped cross-section, a flat surface, semicircular surface and material flow rates respectively. See MPEP §273.05(b)(III) (D).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2-5 recites the term “about” in the context of relative sizes (e.g.. “about on-half of a size of the first size” in claim 2, “about twice a size of the first size” in claim 3,etc.). However, the specification fails to provide a clear definition or guidance what meant by the term “about” in this context. The term “about” is a relative term, and without a defined tolerance or range, it is unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art what degree of variation is permitted. What is the acceptable range? Is it 5%, 10%, or +20%? Without a defined range, the scope of the claim is ambiguous. See MPEP 2173.05(b) I. To overcome this rejection, the Applicant is advised to delete this term from the claims.
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) 1-14,16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batchelder (US 5,653,925 – of record) in view of Alternating perimeter layers (hexagonal walls) #1823 (Published 02-14-2019 – of record) and Hoffman (US 2023/0201925).
Regarding claim 1, Batchelder teaches a method of additive manufacturing an object (Abstract), the method comprising:
depositing a base layer (L1); depositing a bottommost internal bead layer (L2) by depositing: (a) a first bead (18) in an X-Y plane at a first material flow rate, the first bead (18) having a first size in a Z-axis and (b) a second bead (18) in the X-Y plane at a .. material flow rate, the second bead having .. size in the Z-axis (see annotated Fig. 2 below; column 5, lines 10-15);
depositing an intermediate internal bead layer (L3) by depositing (c) a third bead (18) in the X-Y plane at a .. material flow rate, the third bead having a .. size in the Z- axis; depositing an uppermost internal bead layer (L4) by depositing: (d) a fourth bead (18) in the X-Y plane at a .. material flow rate, the fourth bead having a .. size in the Z- axis and (e) a fifth bead (18) in the X-Y plane at a .. material flow rate, the fifth bead having a .. size in the Z-axis; and depositing a top layer (L5) above the uppermost internal bead layer (see annotated Fig. 2 below; column 9, lines 1-15).
PNG
media_image1.png
468
741
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Batchelder does not explicitly teach that the second bead being deposited at a second material flow rate, the second bead having a second size in the Z-axis, wherein the second size is different from the first size, the third bead being deposited at third material flow rate, the third bead having a third size in the Z- axis; the fourth bead being deposited at fourth material flow rate, the fourth bead having a fourth size in the Z- axis, and the fifth bead being deposited at a fifth material flow rate, the fifth bead having a fifth size in the Z-axis, wherein the fifth size is different from the fourth size.
However, Batchelder teaches a) dispensing is controlled so as to sequentially deposit elements of material to form a part and the shape of the elements of material and the motion of the dispenser serves to create a part with a porosity content determined by the relationship between extrusion rate and element size and shape (see column 8, lines 65-67); b) adjusting the rate of dispensing the material to provide a range of porosities suitable for the formation of parts of varying characteristics (see column 9, lines 1-5 of Batchelder).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the process as taught by Batchelder with the second bead being deposited at a second material flow rate, the third bead being deposited at third material flow rate; the fourth bead being deposited at fourth material flow rate, and the fifth bead being deposited at a fifth material flow rate in order to provide a range of porosities suitable for the formation of parts of varying characteristics (see column 9, lines 1-5 of Batchelder).
Batchelder does not explicitly teach that the second bead having a second size in the Z-axis, wherein the second size is different from the first size, the third bead having a third size in the Z- axis; the fourth bead having a fourth size in the Z- axis, and the fifth bead having a fifth size in the Z-axis, wherein the fifth size is different from the fourth size.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing methods, Alternating perimeter layers (hexagonal walls) teaches a three-dimensional printing method, includes depositing beads layer in hexagon pattern, alternating bead heights of the adjacent beads, and depositing beads layer further includes depositing a second bead at a second material flow rate, the second bead having a second size in the Z-axis, wherein the second size is different from the first size (see Fig.1b below and Page 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
653
805
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the process as taught by Batchelder with the second bead having a second size in the Z-axis, wherein the second size is different from the first size, the third bead having a third size in the Z- axis; the fourth bead having a fourth size in the Z- axis, and the fifth bead having a fifth size in the Z-axis, wherein the fifth size is different from the fourth size, as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Alternating perimeter layers (hexagonal walls) above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allows for
higher strength of the printed piece (see Fig.1b above and Page 1 of Alternating perimeter layers).
While Batchelder further teaches that the first bead, the second bead, the third bead, the fourth bead, and the fifth bead can have various shapes such as elliptical or spherical shaped cross-section (see column 9, lines 22-24), Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers (hexagonal walls) does not explicitly teach that the first bead, the second bead, the third bead, the fourth bead, and the fifth bead have a substantially oval shaped cross-section, and wherein the third bead contacts the fourth bead, and the fifth bead overlaps with the third bead and the fourth bead to create a reduced gap between the third bead, the fourth bead, and the fifth bead.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing process, Hoffman teaches a method of additively manufacturing objects (Abstract), comprises depositing a plurality of beads layer by depositing a plurality of circular, oval, or oblong beads due to material flow properties relating to the material itself and the geometry of the nozzle it is emitted from (see Fig. 12; [0131] and [0137]). Hoffman further teaches the plurality of beads layer a top layer (640), a base layer (610) and a plurality of intermediate bead layers between the top and bottom layers (see annotated Fig. 6 below), and wherein a third bead (650) contacts a fourth bead (620), and the fifth bead (660) overlaps with the third bead and the fourth bead to create a reduced gap between the third bead, the fourth bead, and the fifth bead (see annotated Fig. 6 below; [0123-0125] and [0128]). Hoffman further teaches that centrally positioning a bead between the printed bead of the prior layer can effectively seal shell gaps; a double height bead of extrusion spanning shells of two printed layers can effectively seal shell gaps; and sealing of shell gaps can close off a horizontal (and/or a vertical) fluid path within a printed structure (see [0123-0126] and [0128]).
PNG
media_image3.png
555
579
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the first bead, the second bead, the third bead, the fourth bead, and the fifth bead have a substantially oval shaped cross-section as such is known in the art of 3D printing process given the discussion of Hoffman above presenting a reasonably expectation of success; and doing would involve only 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 oval shaped cross-section for the purpose of improving mechanical properties and better interlocking between layers.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the additive manufacturing method as taught by Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers and Hoffman by configuring the third bead to contact the fourth bead, and the fifth bead overlaps with the third bead and the fourth bead to create a reduced gap between the third bead, the fourth bead, and the fifth bead, 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 seal shell/ beads gaps (see [0123-0126] and [0128] of Hoffman).
Regarding claim 2, Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers and Hoffman teaches the method as discussed in claim 1 above.
Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers and Hoffman does not explicitly teach wherein the second size is about one-half of a size of the first size. However, Batchelder teaches adjusting the rate of dispensing the material to provide a range of porosities suitable for the formation of parts of varying characteristics (see column 9, lines 1-5); and Alternating perimeter layers teaches that the beads are shifted by half of layer in z dimension in order to provide higher strength of the printed piece (see Fig. 1a-Fig.1b above and Page 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the second size is about one-half of a size of the first size, as such is known in the art of 3D printing process given the discussion of Alternating perimeter layers above represents routine experimentation of identified result effective variables that is predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have the second size is about one-half of a size of the first size the purpose of providing a higher strength of the printed piece (see Fig.1b above and Page 1 of Alternating perimeter layers).
Regarding claim 3, Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers and Hoffman does not explicitly teach that wherein the second size is about twice a size of the first size.
However, Batchelder teaches adjusting the rate of dispensing the material to provide a range of porosities suitable for the formation of parts of varying characteristics (see column 9, lines 1-5); and Alternating perimeter layers teaches that the beads are shifted by half of layer in z dimension in order to provide higher strength of the printed piece (see Fig. 1a-Fig.1b above and Page 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the second size is about twice a size of the first size, as such is known in the art of 3D printing process given the discussion of Alternating perimeter layers above represents routine experimentation of identified result effective variables that is predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have the second size is about twice a size of the first size in order to provide a higher strength of the printed piece (see Fig.1b above and Page 1 of Alternating perimeter layers).
Regarding claim 4, Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers and Hoffman does not explicitly teach, wherein the fifth size is about one-half the fourth size.
However, Batchelder teaches adjusting the rate of dispensing the material to provide a range of porosities suitable for the formation of parts of varying characteristics (see column 9, lines 1-5); and Alternating perimeter layers teaches that the beads are shifted by half of layer in z dimension in order to provide higher strength of the printed piece (see Fig. 1a-Fig.1b above and Page 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the fifth size is about one-half the fourth size, as such is known in the art of 3D printing process given the discussion of Alternating perimeter layers above and it represents routine experimentation of identified result effective variables that is predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have the fifth size is about one-half the fourth size in order to provide a higher strength of the printed piece (see Fig.1b above and Page 1 of Alternating perimeter layers).
Regarding claim 5, Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers and Hoffman does not explicitly teach, wherein the fifth size is about twice the fourth size.
However, Batchelder teaches adjusting the rate of dispensing the material to provide a range of porosities suitable for the formation of parts of varying characteristics (see column 9, lines 1-5); and Alternating perimeter layers teaches that the beads are shifted by half of layer in z dimension in order to provide higher strength of the printed piece (see Fig. 1a-Fig.1b above and Page 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the fifth size is about twice the fourth size, as such is known in the art of 3D printing process given the discussion of Alternating perimeter layers above and it represents routine experimentation of identified result effective variables that is predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have the fifth size is about twice the fourth size in order to provide a higher strength of the printed piece (see Fig.1b above and Page 1 of Alternating perimeter layers).
Regarding claim 6, Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers and Hoffman further teaches the method, wherein at least one of the first bead (18), the second bead (18), the third bead (18), the fourth bead (18), or the fifth bead has, in cross-section, a substantially flat first surface, a substantially flat second surface (see Figs. 1-2; column 9, lines 22-25 of Batchelder), a first substantially semicircular surface connecting a first end of the substantially flat first surface to a first end of the substantially flat second surface, and a second substantially semicircular surface connecting a second end of the substantially flat first surface to a second end of the substantially flat second surface (see Figs. 1-2; column 9, lines 22-25 of Batchelder).
Regarding claim 7, Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers and Hoffman further teaches the method, wherein:
depositing the first bead in the X-Y plane at the first material flow rate comprises depositing a plurality of first beads (18) in the X-Y plane at the first material flow rate; depositing the second bead in the X-Y plane at the second material flow rate comprises depositing a plurality of second beads (18) in the X-Y plane at the second material flow rate; depositing the fourth bead in the X-Y plane at the fourth material flow rate comprises depositing a plurality of fourth beads (18) in the X-Y plane at the fourth material flow rate; and depositing the fifth bead in the X-Y plane at the fifth material flow rate comprises depositing a plurality of fifth beads (18) in the X-Y plane at the fifth material flow rate (see annotated Fig. 2 above; column 9, lines 1-15 of Batchelder).
Regarding claim 8, Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers and Hoffman further teaches the method, wherein a bead of (680) the plurality of first beads overlaps a bead (670) of the plurality of second beads (see annotated Fig. 6 above of Hoffman).
Regarding claim 9, Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers and Hoffman further teaches the method, wherein a bead of the plurality of fourth beads (18) is adjacent to a bead of the plurality of fifth beads (18) (see annotated Fig. 2 above of Batchelder).
Regarding claim 10, Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers and Hoffman further teaches the method, wherein: a bead (18) of the plurality of first beads (18) is adjacent to a bead (18) of the plurality of second beads; and a bead of the plurality of fourth beads is adjacent to a bead of the plurality of fifth beads (see annotated Fig. 2 above of Batchelder).
Regarding claim 11, Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers and Hoffman further teaches the method, wherein each bead (18) of the plurality of first beads (18) is adjacent to a bead (18) of the plurality of second beads (see annotated Fig. 2 above of Batchelder).
Regarding claim 12, Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers and Hoffman further teaches the method, wherein each bead of the plurality of fourth beads (18) is adjacent to a bead (18) of the plurality of fifth beads (see annotated Fig. 2 above of Batchelder).
Regarding claim 13, Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers and Hoffman further teaches the method, wherein: each bead of the plurality of first beads (18) is adjacent to a bead (18) of the plurality of second beads; and each bead (18) of the plurality of fourth beads (18) is adjacent to a bead of the plurality of fifth beads (see annotated Fig. 2 above of Batchelder).
Regarding claim 14, Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers and Hoffman further teaches the method, wherein the first bead, the second bead, the third bead, the fourth bead, and the fifth bead are deposited using an additive manufacturing machine (see column 4, lines 57-62 and column 9, lines 18-25 of Batchelder).
Regarding claim 16, Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers and Hoffman further teaches the method, wherein the additive manufacturing machine includes an extruder head and a base platen (platform) (see column 1, lines 19-21; column 2, lines 6-11; column 9, lines 18-21 of Batchelder).
Regarding claim 18, Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers and Hoffman does not explicitly teach, wherein the first material flow rate, the third material flow rate, and the fourth material flow rate are substantially the same and wherein the second material flow rate and the fifth material flow rate are substantially the same. However, Batchelder teaches that a) dispensing is controlled so as to sequentially deposit elements of material to form a part and the shape of the elements of material and the motion of the dispenser serves to create a part with a porosity content determined by the relationship between extrusion rate and element size and shape (see column 8, lines 65-67), b) adjusting the rate of dispensing the material to provide a range of porosities suitable for the formation of parts of varying characteristics (see column 9, lines 1-5 of Batchelder); and Alternating perimeter layers teaches that the beads are shifted by half of layer in z dimension in order to provide higher strength of the printed piece (see Fig. 1a-Fig.1b above and Page 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the first material flow rate, the third material flow rate, and the fourth material flow rate are substantially the same and wherein the second material flow rate and the fifth material flow rate are substantially the same, as such is known in the art of 3D printing process given the discussion of Alternating perimeter layers above and it represents routine experimentation of identified result effective variables that is predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have the first material flow rate, the third material flow rate, and the fourth material flow rate are substantially the same and wherein the second material flow rate and the fifth material flow rate are substantially the same in order to provide a higher strength of the printed piece (see Fig.1b above and Page 1 of Alternating perimeter layers) and also in order to provide a range of porosities suitable for the formation of parts (see column 9, lines 1-5 of Batchelder).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batchelder (US 5,653,925 – of record) in view of Alternating perimeter layers (hexagonal walls) #1823 (Published 02-14-2019 – of record) and Hoffman (US 2023/0201925) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gelbart (US 2016/0325498).
Regarding claim 15, Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers and Hoffman teaches the method as discussed in claim 1 above.
Batchelder further teaches wherein the additive manufacturing machine comprises an array of nozzles configured for depositing droplets in a raster deposition pattern (see column 6, lines 11-15). However, Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers and Hoffman does not explicitly teach the additive manufacturing machine comprises a two-stage nozzle.
In the same filed of endeavor, 3D printing method, Gelbart teaches an additive manufacturing method includes providing a two dimensional staggered nozzles, wherein each nozzle has an individually controllable high-speed valve, wherein a molten plastic is fed to several nozzles under constant pressure (see Fig. 2; [0003], [0006] and [0009]). Gelbart further teaches that the staggered nozzles are fed by very high and constant pressure, allowing the deposition of high viscosity materials at much higher rates than ink-jets (see [0009-0010]).
Therefore, 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 Batchelder, Alternating perimeter layers, and Hoffman in view of Gelbart with a two-stage nozzle as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Gelbart 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 allow for deposition of high viscosity materials at much higher rates than ink-jets (see [0009-0010] of Gelbart).
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batchelder (US 5,653,925 – of record) in view of Alternating perimeter layers (hexagonal walls) #1823 (Published 02-14-2019 – of record) and Hoffman (US 2023/0201925) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Preston (US 2018/0297272 – of record).
Regarding claim 19, Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers and Hoffman teaches as discussed in claim 1 above.
Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers and Hoffman does not explicitly teach wherein the first bead, the second bead, the third bead, the fourth bead or the fifth bead comprise a resin.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing methods, Preston teaches a method additive manufacturing (see [0003]), comprises depositing a plurality of bead layers (701-104), wherein depositing includes depositing a first bead, a second bead, a third bead, a fourth bead (see Fig. 7); the first bead, the second bead, the third bead, the fourth bead or the fifth bead comprise a resin (see [0042] and [0044]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the process as taught by Batchelder, Alternating perimeter layers and Hoffman in view of Preston with the first bead, the second bead, the third bead, the fourth bead or the fifth bead comprise a resin for the benefit of providing materials that can be heated to a workable plastic state under normal atmospheric conditions (see [0042] of Preston). In addition, it has been held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. (Please see MPEP 2144.07 for further details).
Regarding claim 20, Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers, Hoffman and Preston further teaches the method, wherein the resin includes a filler (see [0090-0093] and [0095] of Preston).
Regarding claim 21, Batchelder in view of Alternating perimeter layers, Hoffman and Preston further teaches the method, wherein the filler is selected from the group consisting of carbon fiber, glass fiber, wood fiber, and a metal (see [0039-0040], [0050] and [0053] of Preston).
Response to Arguments
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s) has/have overcome the claim rejection(s). Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Hoffman (US 2023/0201925). Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights