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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 8-14 and 16-18 remain withdrawn.
In view of the amendment, filed 06/12/2026, the following objections and rejections are withdrawn from the previous Office Action mailed 03/12/2026:
Drawings and claim objections
Prior art rejections are updated according to claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, propulsion system 14, and friction die 16, Fig. 2, [0058]) comprising at least one friction disk (pinch rollers 24 which propel/push the feedstock, Fig. 2, [0058], i.e., move the material via contact and friction), 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]) by the at least one friction disk (by the pinch rollers 24, Fig. 2) 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 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 supplying 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, of record).
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues (p. 7) that Liu’s friction die does not and cannot accelerate the starting material along the output direction and it is the propulsion system that provides the force to move the material through and out of the device. Applicant argues (p. 7) that the examiner’s characterization of Liu’s rollers as part of a “friction arrangement” that “accelerates” the material conflates two structurally and functionally distinct components and that nothing in Liu teaches or suggests a friction disk that both accelerates and processes the starting material as now required by claim 1.
These arguments are not found persuasive. The rejection does not set forth that Liu’s friction die accelerates the material along the output direction. The pinch rollers of Liu apply friction to the starting material in the act of pushing the material through the device and are considered as part of Liu’s “friction arrangement,” i.e., the system 10 (Fig. 2). The pinch rollers functioning in the disclosed manner meet the claim language of “at least one friction disk.” Claim 1 does not require that the at least one friction disk itself both accelerates and processes (liquifies, plasticizes, breaks down). 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 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). The claim requires at most that the friction disk accelerates the material and that the material is processed (liquified, plasticized, broken down) by “the friction arrangement” (not specifically the disk).
Regarding claim 4, Applicant argues (p. 8) that Liu’s temperature control system around the sleeve is directed to improving tool life and extrusion quality but not preheating the feedstock material during the supplying.
This argument is not found persuasive. Liu teaches temperature control including the heating system added around the sleeve ([0092]). Such temperature control to improve the extrusion and material processing ([0092]) involves heating the material being supplied through the system. Heating the material during such supply before it is further heated locally via the friction die is considered to meet preheating.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant argues (pp. 8-9) against the examiner’s characterization of the material discharge rate as a result effective variable subject to routine optimization. Applicant argues (p. 9) that the claimed discharge rate is not simply a matter of adjusting extrusion parameters in a conventional system and is uniquely enabled by the friction disk-based architecture of the claimed friction arrangement.
This argument is not found persuasive. The prior art shows the variable to be result-effective as previously set forth and the rejection provided a rationale for obviousness. Applicant does not show criticality of the claimed range or unexpected results, or otherwise provide a persuasive rebuttal argument of the prima facie case of obviousness (e.g., MPEP 2144.05(III)).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
/FARAH TAUFIQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights