Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/829,308

SOLID FREEFORM FABRICATION USING A PLURALITY OF MODELING MATERIALS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Sep 10, 2024
Examiner
LIU, XUE H
Art Unit
1742
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Stratasys, Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
622 granted / 854 resolved
+7.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
882
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
47.4%
+7.4% vs TC avg
§102
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
§112
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 854 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 11-20 in the reply filed on 3-6-26 is acknowledged. Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3-6-26. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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) 11, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Batchelder et al. (English translation of JP2597778). Regarding claim 11, Batchelder et al. discloses a system 10 for solid freeform fabrication, the system comprising: A solid freeform fabrication apparatus having a plurality of dispensing heads 12 (para 31); A building material supply apparatus 34 configured to supply a first modeling material, a second modeling material, and a support material 94, to said fabrication apparatus; and A controller 46 having a circuit configured to receive slice data corresponding to cross-sections of a three-dimensional layered object 90, and to control said dispensing heads to dispense said materials in layers according to said slice data to form (fig. 1-2, 7-9, 11), for at least one of said layers, different regions having different translucency (para 32). Regarding claim 18, Batchelder et al. discloses wherein said controller is configured to form at least one of said different regions from said first or second modeling materials (para 31). 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. Claim(s) 12-14, 16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batchelder et al. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Jang et al. (US, 6,405,095). Regarding claim 12, Batchelder et al. does not teach wherein said controller is configured to form one of said different regions as a translucent island within another one of said region. However, Jang et al. teaches each region may consist of several island-like subregions that do not touch each other (col. 15, line 22-38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Batchelder et al. with the teaching of Jang et al. in order to produce composites with different patterns. Regarding claim 13, Batchelder et al. does not teach wherein said controller is configured to form one of said different regions as an island within a translucent region. However, Jang et al. teaches each region may consist of several island-like subregions that do not touch each other (col. 15, line 22-38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Batchelder et al. with the teaching of Jang et al. in order to produce composites with different patterns. Regarding claim 14, Jang et al. teaches wherein said controller is configured to form said different regions on an outer surface of said layered object (col. 19, line 53-65). Regarding claim 15, Jang et al. teaches wherein said controller is configured to form said different regions as a pattern that is flush with said outer surface (col. 17, line 26-41). Regarding claim 20, Jang et al. discloses wherein at least one of said dispensing heads is an inkjet dispensing head (col. 8, line 16-26, fig. 2, claim 3). Claim(s) 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batchelder et al. in view of Jang et al. as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of O’Malley, III et al. (US 7,688,318). Regarding claim 15, Batchelder et al. does not teach wherein said controller is configured to form said different regions as a patterned relief on said outer surface. However, O’Malley, III et al. teaches the model of the object 202 which includes a cylinder 402 and an extruded cut 406 (fig. 4-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Batchelder et al. with the teaching of O’Malley, III et al. in order to form an object or complex 3D shapes. Regarding claim 17, Batchelder et al. does not teach wherein said controller is configured to form said different regions as an intaglio in said outer surface. However, O’Malley, III et al. teaches the model of the object 202 which includes a cylinder 402 and an extruded cut 406 (fig. 4-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Batchelder et al. with the teaching of O’Malley, III et al. in order to form an object or complex 3D shapes. Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batchelder et al. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Napadensky et al. (2004/0187714). Regarding claim 19, Batchelder et al. does not teach wherein for at least one of said different regions, said controller is configured to interlace said firs modeling material with said second modeling material. However, Napadensky et al. teaches a method wherein an additional material comprises a non-solidifiable material that does not solidify forming a hollow three-dimensional object (para 55-60, 69). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Batchelder et al. with the teaching of Napadensky et al. in order to form a hollow three-dimensional object. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUE H LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5522. The examiner can normally be reached 1PM - 10PM. 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 5702721176. 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. /X.H.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 10, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600070
A MOLD TOOL FOR INJECTION MOLDING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594704
MOLD STRUCTURE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING MOLDED PRODUCT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594365
IONIC COMPOUNDS FOR MEDICAL DEVICE APPLICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594730
METHOD OF FORMING A WIND TURBINE ROTOR BLADE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583167
Cooling Ring for Cooling a Film Tube
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+12.4%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 854 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month