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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/23/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-11 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 1 and 10 recite the limitation "the filament diameter is equal to or smaller than 500 micrometers" in line 23 of claim 1 and line 15 of claim 10. However, both claims 1 and 10 have established that “each filament has a filament diameter” (reference line 19 of claim 1; and line 10 of claim 10). It is unclear which filament diameter is equal to or smaller than 500 micrometers. Examiner has interpreted the filament diameter to mean the filament diameter of each filament. Hence, the limitation is read as “the filament diameter of each filament is equal to or smaller than 500 micrometers”.
Claims 2-9 and 11 are rejected for dependence on claims 1 and 10, respectively.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "wherein at least one of step f) and step g) is performed in the 3D printer" in line 2 and depends from claim 1. However, step f) is established in claim 2. For examination purposes, claim 4 is interpreted to depend from claim 2.
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) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodgers (US 2014/0141168 A1), in view of Newell (US 2020/0324462 A1).
Rodgers teaches a method for manufacturing a 3D item by means of fused deposition modelling using a 3D printer (system 10 in Figure 1; paragraph 0050, include extrusion-based additive manufacturing systems…“FDM” and “FUSED DEPOSITION MODELING”) having a printer head (18) with an entrance opening (inlet end 64),wherein the method comprises the steps of:
a) providing a 3D printable material (filament 52),
b) feeding the 3D printable material into the printer head via the entrance opening (Figure 3; paragraph 0060, controller 34 may direct wheels 54 of drive mechanism 40 to selectively draw successive segments filament 52 from consumable assembly 22 to liquefier assembly 44…includes inlet end 64 for receiving the fed filament 52),
c) melting the 3D printable material in the printer head (paragraph 0061, heating of liquefier tube 56 at heating zone 68 melts the PA material of filament 52 in liquefier tube 56 to form melt 70.), and
d) layer-wise depositing the 3D printable material to provide the 3D item comprising a plurality of layers of 3D printed material (paragraph 0062, the downward movement of filament 52 functions as a viscosity pump to extrude the PA material of melt 70 out of nozzle 48 as extruded roads to print 3D part 30 in a layer-by-layer manner), and
g) drying the plurality of filaments (under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the plurality of filaments are inherently dried (via ambient air) prior to feeding into the print head; noting Applicant has not provided any specific requirement as to ‘drying’), and wherein step g) occurs before step b).
Rodgers teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose the 3D printable material comprises a filament assembly of a plurality of filaments, each filament of the filament assembly comprising a thermoplastic polymer, wherein, at the entrance opening of the printer head and in a cross section perpendicular to a direction of elongation of the filament assembly, (i) the filament assembly has a smallest bounding circle, being the smallest virtual circle that one can draw around the plurality of filaments that together constitute the filament assembly, the smallest bounding circle having a smallest bounding diameter and a smallest bounding circumference, (ii) each filament has a filament diameter and a filament circumference, and (iii) the plurality of filaments has a compound filament circumference, the compound filament circumference being the sum of the filament circumferences, wherein the smallest bounding diameter is in a range of 1 millimeter to 1 centimeter, and the filament diameter is equal to or smaller than 500 micrometers, and wherein the ratio of the compound filament circumference and the smallest bounding circumference is higher than 1.
Newell teaches a 3D printable material for manufacturing a 3D item by means of fused deposition modelling (paragraph 0010, relates to a filament for use in an extrusion based additive manufacturing system),
wherein the 3D printable material comprises a filament assembly (250 in Figure 8) of a plurality of filaments (braided comingled tow forms core portion 256), each filament of the filament assembly comprising a thermoplastic polymer (Figure 4-5; paragraphs 0061-0063, filament 150 is formed by braiding a plurality of twisted strands 152 of comingled tow fibers. The filament 150 has the selected volume percent and materials of tow material and the selected volume percent and material of thermoplastic material),
wherein, in a cross section perpendicular to a direction of elongation of the filament assembly,
(i) the filament assembly has a smallest bounding circle, being the smallest virtual circle that one can draw around the plurality of filaments that together constitute the filament assembly, the smallest bounding circle having a smallest bounding diameter and a smallest bounding circumference (Figure 8; shell diameter 258d),
(ii) each filament has a filament diameter and a filament circumference (strands 152 in Figure 5, each have a diameter and a circumference as example of braided comingled tow of core portion 256), and
(iii) the plurality of filaments has a compound filament circumference, the compound filament circumference being the sum of the filament circumferences (Figure 5, sum of each of circumferences of braided comingled tow within core portion 256).
Newell teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose the smallest bounding diameter is in a range of 1 millimeter to 1 centimeter, the filament diameter of each filament is equal to or smaller than 500 micrometers, nor the ratio of the compound filament circumference and the smallest bounding circumference is higher than 1.
With respect to the smaller bounding diameter (i.e., shell diameter 258d) being in a range of 1 millimeter to 1 centimeter, Newell discloses the core portion (256) and shell portion (258) are coextruded (paragraph 0071). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the shell diameter, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimized the shell diameter for the purpose of balancing the necessary physical properties for the part to be printed to the strength of the filament assembly during printing.
With respect to the filament diameter of each filament is equal to or smaller than 500 micrometers, Newell discloses the fibers have a diameter between 0-10 micron (paragraph 0017). Further, bundles of tow material (i.e. fibers) are twisted to form strands of a selected diameter (paragraph 0038). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have optimized the diameter of each tow material (i.e., fibers) for the same reasoning as above; specifically, to balance the necessary physical properties for the part to be printed to the strength of the filament assembly during printing.
With respect to the ratio of the compound filament circumference (i.e., core diameter 256d) and the smallest bounding circumference (outer diameter 258d) being higher than 1. Newell discloses the relative dimensions for shell diameter 258d to core diameter 256d are desirably selected for the same reasoning as above (paragraph 0072).
As both Rodgers and Newell relate to printing by means of fused deposition modeling using a filament, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have substitute the 3D printable material of Rodgers for that disclosed by Newell and the results of the substitution would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. One would have been motivated to use the 3D printable material of Newell for the benefit of a less expensive core material to be utilized while a shell material provides the desired mechanical properties (paragraph 0044), as disclosed by Newell.
Regarding claim 2, Rodgers, as modified by Newell, further discloses e) providing a plurality of filaments, each filament comprising a thermoplastic polymer (Figure 4-5; paragraphs 0061-0063 of Newell, filament 150 is formed by braiding a plurality of twisted strands 152 of comingled tow fibers. The filament 150 has the selected volume percent and materials of tow material and the selected volume percent and material of thermoplastic material), and f) forming the plurality of filaments into the filament assembly (Figures 5-7; paragraph 0038 of Newell).
Regarding claim 3, Rodgers, as modified by Newell, teaches all the elements of claim 2 and further discloses step f) comprises one or more of bundling, weaving, twisting, and braiding (Figures 5-7 of Newell, showing strands being bundled, twisted and braided).
Regarding claim 4 Rodgers, as modified by Newell, teaches all the elements of claim [2] and further discloses at least one of step f) and step g) is performed in the 3D printer (as noted in claim 1 above, filaments are inherent dried in air; hence, under broadest reasonable interpretation are also ‘dried’ in the 3D printer).
Regarding claim 5, Rodgers, as modified Newell further discloses the plurality of filaments comprises a first group of filaments and a second group of filaments, and wherein the first group of filaments has a property being different from a property of the second group of filaments (paragraph 0078 of Newell, the thermoplastic-based material comingled in the comingled tow material and additional portions or layers of the filaments 250, 300 and 310 may be the same or different. Further the different thermoplastic materials may be miscible with each other to enhance bonding between layer or immiscible to weaken the bond between layers depending upon desired properties of the part.).
Regarding claim 6, Rodgers, as modified by Newell, teaches all the elements of claim 5 and further discloses the first group of filaments comprises a first thermoplastic polymer, and wherein the second group of filaments comprises a second thermoplastic polymer being different from the first thermoplastic polymer (paragraph 0078 of Newell, the thermoplastic-based material comingled in the comingled tow material and additional portions or layers of the filaments 250, 300 and 310 may be the same or different. Further the different thermoplastic materials may be miscible with each other to enhance bonding between layer or immiscible to weaken the bond between layers depending upon desired properties of the part.).
Regarding claim 7, Rodgers, as modified by Newell, teaches all the elements of claim 5, but does not disclose the first group of filaments comprises first particles, and wherein the second group of filaments comprises second particles being different from the first particles. However, as noted in claim 5, Newell discloses the first and second group of filaments have a property being different from one another. Further, Newell discloses the said filaments are formed by co-extrusion (paragraphs 0070-0071 of Newell). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have added different particles therein during the co-extrusion to provide different properties. One would have been motivated to provide different particles in order to retain the properties of the thermoplastic material.
Regarding claim 7, Rodgers, as modified by Newell, teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose the smallest bounding circumference is at least 2 mm. However, Newell discloses the relative dimensions for shell diameter 258d to core diameter 256d are desirably selected for the same reasoning as above (paragraph 0072 of Newell). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the smallest bounding circumference since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimized the shell diameter for the purpose of balancing the necessary physical properties for the part to be printed to the strength of the filament assembly during printing.
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newell.
Regarding claim 10, Newell teaches a 3D printable material for manufacturing a 3D item by means of fused deposition modelling (paragraph 0010, relates to a filament for use in an extrusion based additive manufacturing system),
wherein the 3D printable material comprises a filament assembly (250 in Figure 8) of a plurality of filaments (braided comingled tow forms core portion 256), each filament of the filament assembly comprising a thermoplastic polymer (Figure 4-5; paragraphs 0061-0063, filament 150 is formed by braiding a plurality of twisted strands 152 of comingled tow fibers. The filament 150 has the selected volume percent and materials of tow material and the selected volume percent and material of thermoplastic material),
wherein, in a cross section perpendicular to a direction of elongation of the filament assembly,
(i) the filament assembly has a smallest bounding circle, being the smallest virtual circle that one can draw around the plurality of filaments that together constitute the filament assembly, the smallest bounding circle having a smallest bounding diameter and a smallest bounding circumference (Figure 8; shell diameter 258d),
(ii) each filament has a filament diameter and a filament circumference (strands 152 in Figure 5, each have a diameter and a circumference as example of braided comingled tow of core portion 256), and
(iii) the plurality of filaments has a compound filament circumference, the compound filament circumference being the sum of the filament circumferences (Figure 5, sum of each of circumferences of braided comingled tow within core portion 256).
Newell teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose the smallest bounding diameter is in a range of 1 millimeter to 1 centimeter, the filament diameter of each filament is equal to or smaller than 500 micrometers, nor the ratio of the compound filament circumference and the smallest bounding circumference is higher than 1.
With respect to the smaller bounding diameter (i.e., shell diameter 258d) being in a range of 1 millimeter to 1 centimeter, Newell discloses the core portion (256) and shell portion (258) are coextruded (paragraph 0071). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the shell diameter, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimized the shell diameter for the purpose of balancing the necessary physical properties for the part to be printed to the strength of the filament assembly during printing.
With respect to the filament diameter of each filament is equal to or smaller than 500 micrometers, Newell discloses the fibers have a diameter between 0-10 micron (paragraph 0017). Further, bundles of tow material (i.e. fibers) are twisted to form strands of a selected diameter (paragraph 0038). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have optimized the diameter of each tow material (i.e., fibers) for the same reasoning as above; specifically, to balance the necessary physical properties for the part to be printed to the strength of the filament assembly during printing.
With respect to the ratio of the compound filament circumference (i.e., core diameter 256d) and the smallest bounding circumference (outer diameter 258d) being higher than 1. Newell discloses the relative dimensions for shell diameter 258d to core diameter 256d are desirably selected for the same reasoning as above (paragraph 0072).
Regarding claim 11, Newell teaches all the elements of claim 10 and further discloses the plurality of filaments in the filament assembly (250 in Figure 8) is one or more of bundled, woven, twisted, and braided (Figures 5-7, showing strands being bundled, twisted and braided).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 12 is allowable for requiring:
“…wherein the 3D printer comprises a drying device located upstream of the entrance opening of the printer head,
the drying device being arranged to dry the plurality of filaments before the 3D printable material is received by the printer head, and
wherein the 3D printer comprises an assembling element for receiving the plurality of filaments and for providing the filament assembly.”
The closest prior art, Rodgers, discloses a 3D printer (system 10 in Figure 1) for manufacturing a 3D item by means of fused deposition modelling (paragraph 0050, include extrusion-based additive manufacturing systems …“FDM” and “FUSED DEPOSITION MODELING),
wherein the 3D printer comprises a printer head (18) with an entrance opening (64 in Figure 3) for receiving a 3D printable material (filament 52), wherein the 3D printer comprises a drying device (manifold 76 in Figure 3; paragraph 0062, provides air) located upstream of the entrance opening of the printer head (as shown in Figure 3, manifold 76 is upstream of inlet end 64). However, Rodgers fails to teach or suggest the drying device being arranged to dry a plurality of filaments before the 3D printable material is received by the printer head, and wherein the 3D printer comprises an assembling element for receiving the plurality of filaments and for providing the filament assembly.
Claim 13 would be allowable at least for depending on claim 12.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Virak Nguon whose telephone number is (571)272-4196. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (and alternate Fridays) 7:30-5:00.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/VIRAK NGUON/Examiner, Art Unit 1741 3/05/2026