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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-7 and 15, in the reply filed on 02/06/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Mechtcherine (WO 2020193150 A1) does not disclose features of the device of claim 8 including accelerating the starting material along the output direction to be applied to a construction platform or already manufactured areas of the object or breaking down of the material into particles. This is not found persuasive because the device of claim 8 was shown to have the capability of accelerating as well as breaking down the starting material, as required by a device claim. A particular manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. MPEP 2114. Mechtcherine et al. disclose the device of Fig. 4, comprising a friction arrangement (fiber strand supply unit 40, Fig. 4, [0096]-[0097]) to which a strand-shaped starting material can be supplied (reinforcement strand 28, Fig. 4). The friction arrangement is configured to accelerate the starting material along an output direction (roller pairs 42, 43 advance strand 28 in working direction, Fig. 4, [0097]), i.e., is capable of moving the starting material along the output direction when activated, to apply the starting material to a construction platform and/or to already manufactured areas of the object for manufacturing the object (to apply the strand with a new layer, Fig. 4, [0097]). The capability to apply the starting material to a construction platform or other area of an object is met by the strand being applied with a construction material to the underlying surface (Fig. 4). The friction arrangement is configured to at least partially break down the strand into particles, i.e., small pieces, in that it includes the cutting device 44 for cutting the strand material (Fig. 4, [0097]).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 8-14 and 16-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/06/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “10b” in Fig. 10. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 4 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4, lines 2-3, should read “during the supplying” for proper reference to the previously introduced “supplying” step of claim 1. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al., US 20210053283 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a method for additive manufacturing of an object (Abstract), comprising:
Supplying a strand-shaped starting material (supplying feedstock material 102, Fig. 2, [0058]) to a friction arrangement (to system 10 including sleeve 12 and friction die 16, Fig. 2, [0058]), and
Accelerating the starting material along an output direction through the friction arrangement (see downward arrow, Fig. 2, to achieve extrusion, the feedstock material 102 is pushed along the indicated direction by rollers 24 of propulsion system 14, [0058]) to apply the starting material to a construction platform and/or to already manufactured areas of the object for manufacturing the object (material exits extrusion hole 18, Fig. 2, [0054]; is extruded onto a substrate, [0008]),
Wherein the strand-shaped starting material is at least partially liquefied and/or at least partially plasticized and/or at least partially broken down into particles by the friction arrangement (the feedstock is made malleable and softened for extrusion, [0008]; heated by friction caused by contact between friction die and feedstock material within sleeve so as to become malleable, [0054]; i.e., at least partially plasticized).
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses the method of claim 1, characterized in that heating the starting material by the friction arrangement is effected by friction (heating by friction, [0054]).
Regarding claim 3, Liu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the friction arrangement is heated (the friction arrangement is exposed to heat from the heated feedstock material in contact with the friction die and sleeve, [0054], and thus is heated; note also that a further heating system can be applied around the sleeve, [0092]).
Regarding claim 6, Liu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the object is produced from different starting materials either by supplying different starting materials to the same friction arrangement simultaneously or successively and/or by providing a plurality of friction arrangements to which different starting materials are supplied (the feedstock material 102 comprising mixtures of different materials, [0060], i.e., supplying different materials to the same friction arrangement simultaneously or successively).
Regarding claim 7, Liu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a component is additively manufactured by applying mineral and/or inorganic building material in layers onto a surface and/or by producing mineral and/or inorganic building material in layers onto a surface (performing additive manufacturing, [0008], [0053], “additive manufacturing” as used in the reference refers to the building of 3D objects in successive layers, [0004], [0008]; the feedstock material including mineral and/or inorganic building material, metal [0060]).
Regarding claim 15, Liu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the starting material is a metal wire, a plastic in strand form, or a composite material in strand form (the feedstock material 102 being metal, plastic, composite, in tube or bar form, [0060], Fig. 2).
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.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al., US 20210053283 A1, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Liu discloses the method of claim 1. In the referenced embodiment Liu is silent as to the starting material being preheated during the supply [the supplying]. However, Liu further discloses that a heating system can be added around the sleeve to achieve a temperature control system ([0092]) which would involve preheating of the material in the sleeve 12 before it reaches the friction die 16 at the end of the sleeve (Fig. 2). Liu teaches that a temperature control system can improve the tool life or further improve the quality of the material extrusion, deposition, and processing ([0092]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of claim 1 to further specify the starting material is preheated during the supply in implementing a temperature control system with a heating system in order to improve the quality of the material extrusion, deposition, and processing, as taught by Liu. Controllably preheating the feedstock material would have been reasonably expected to facilitate the subsequent frictional heating.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al., US 20210053283 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Jang et al., Effect of material extrusion process parameters on filament geometry and inter-filament voids in as-fabricated high solids loaded polymer composites, Additive Manufacturing (2021).
Regarding claim 5, Liu discloses the method of claim 1. Liu discloses that the system enables high deposition speed ([0008], [0093]). Liu is silent as to a material discharge of the starting material of at least 5 kg/h being effected by the friction arrangement.
In the analogous art of material extrusion for additive manufacturing, Jang discloses that extrusion rate is a key process parameter influencing filament geometry and inter-filament void formation (Abstract). Jang discloses that the material extrusion (discharge) rate determines how much material comes out of the nozzle per unit time and thus the volume deposited, thereby impacting filament geometry/thickness and void formation (p. 2, second full paragraph; Sections 3.1 and 3.2). Jang shows the extrusion rate directly affects print parameters such as line width, aspect ratio, and cross-sectional area, with each of these parameters being proportionally increased as the extrusion rate is increased (Figs. 3-4, 6-7, and corresponding description). Jang teaches these parameters can be manipulated and tuned to control filament geometry and void structures present in printed parts (pp. 8-9, Section 3.2, first, third, and last two paragraphs).
As the extrusion geometry, such as its line width, aspect ratio, and cross-sectional area, are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said material discharge rate, with said width, aspect ratio, and cross-sectional area increasing as the discharge rate is increased, as taught by Jang, the precise material discharge rate would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed material discharge rate cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the material discharge rate in the process of Liu to obtain the desired balance between the geometrical features of the extrusion, such as its line width, aspect ratio, and cross-sectional area (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20090274540 A1, Batchelder et al. disclose 3D printing including the use of an extrusion head that applies friction to the filament that partially melts the filament ([0074]-[0075]).
US 20230032408 A1, Redmann et al. disclose 3D printing by fused filament fabrication utilizing a nozzle structure that is rotated to apply friction for heating and melting the filament.
US 20170266885 A1, Gifford et al. disclose 3D printing using a print head applying high friction to the filament, as well as relevant drive structures and the printing of multiple materials.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754