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
The amendment filed 05/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 43 have been amended. Claims 2-3, 16-32, 34-35, 37-42 and 44-45 have been canceled. Accordingly, claims 1, 4-15, 33, 36 and 43 remain pending and are the claims addressed and examined below.
The non-final action mailed on 02/27/2026 will be vacated with the instant non-final office action replacing the previously mailed non-final action in view of Applicant’s persuasive arguments against previously applied reference(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-4, filed 05/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Howe et al. (US 2020/0164570) (see Howe as applied in the rejections below).
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-11, 14-15 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe et al. (US 2020/0164570) in view of Hamberger et al. (WO 2022/117416; of record, citations taken from the translated version filed 02/27/2026) and further in view of Normile et al. (US 2020/0238602).
As to claim 1: Howe discloses the claimed system (i.e., additive deposition machine 100 which is a Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) 3D printer) (Howe at [0039]), comprising:
an extrusion assembly (EA) (i.e., print head 102 including extruder 104), which is configured to melt solid filament wire material of one or more substances and to output the molten filament onto a substrate (i.e., print head 102 includes extruder 104 and feeder 106 which feeds filament 110 into extruder 104 to be melted and to be dispensed from nozzle 108 onto substrate 112 on a build platform 114; FDM is an extrusion-based process that feeds thermoplastic in solid wire form from a nozzle and then melts the wire to extrude into a shape that is resolidified) (Howe at [0003], [0039], [0043], Figure 1B, Figure 2B);
a motion assembly, which is configured to move the EA relative to the substrate along a first axis (i.e., laterally moving in an x-y plane 120 the print head 102 while simultaneously vertically moving the substrate 112 on the build platform 114 in the z-direction 122 relative to one another so as to position the print head 102 to deposit the molten filament 124) (Howe at [0040], [0044], [0045], Figure 1B, Figure 2A, Figure 2B, Figure 2D), and to move the substrate along a second axis, while the EA outputs the molten wire material so as to produce a line of a filament on the substrate (i.e., laterally moving in an x-y plane 120 the print head 102 while simultaneously vertically moving the substrate 112 on the build platform 114 in the z-direction 122, so as to move the substrate 112 and print head 102 in mid-air while extruding/drawing a filament from the nozzle 108) (Howe at [0040], [0044], [0045], [0047], Figure 1B, Figure 2A, Figure 2B, Figure 2D – extruder 104 is attached to a robotic motion assembly);
wherein the EA is configured to produce, along the line, one or more puddles of the molten granules, and to produce a section of the line by pulling a portion of the molten filament from the puddle and disposing the pulled portion on the substrate along the first axis (i.e., after the nozzle 108 deposits an anchor 116a directly onto the surface of the substrate 112, the build platform 114 drops away vertically from the nozzle 108 and the nozzle 108 pulls on a drop of material 124 to thin the material out into a filament or string along the substrate 112) (Howe at [0040], [0041], [0044], [0045], [0046], [0047], Figure 2B); and
a processor, which is configured to control the EA and the motion assembly to dispose the filament on a predefined region of the substrate (i.e., system 1100 used to implement processing elements needed to control the AM machine described, the system 1100 including a computer 1102 comprising a processor 1104) (Howe at [0044], [0045], [0087], Figure 11).
Howe discloses FDM is an extrusion-based process that feeds thermoplastic in solid wire form from a nozzle and then melts the wire to extrude into a shape that is resolidified (Howe at [0003], [0039], [0043], Figure 1B, Figure 2B); and simultaneously moving the substrate 112 and print head 102 in mid-air, along different directions, while extruding/drawing a filament from the nozzle 108 (Howe at [0040], [0044], [0045], Figure 2B). Though, Howe fails to explicitly disclose the EA being configured to melt granules of one or more substances and output the molten granules; and the motion assembly being configured to vibrate the substrate along a second axis, different from the first axis, while the EA outputs the molten granules so as to produce a line of a filament on the substrate.
However, Hamberger teaches a build platform arrangement for the extrusion-based production of at least one three-dimensional object (Hamberger at [0003], [0005], [0009]-[0011]). Hamberger further teaches a construction platform having a functional device designed as a drive device for generating a driving force that sets the construction platform in motion in at least one degree of freedom; a suitable drive device including a vibration generation device used to generate a vibration on the construction platform (Hamberger at [0037], [0079], Fig. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the vibration generation device used to generate a vibration on the construction platform as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Hamberger above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Howe, modified by Hamberger, still fail to explicitly disclose the claimed EA being configured to melt granules of one or more substances and output the molten granules.
However, Normile teaches an extrusion deposition modeling system 100 comprising an extruder head 150, a build plate 130, and a multi-axis drive system 120 which controllably moves extruder head 150 relative to build plate 130 (Normile at [0021], FIG. 1). Normile further teaches the role of the extrusion head 150 is to receive plastic in pellet form from feed tube 152 and to melt the plastic and drive it out of the end of the nozzle 158, the plastic pellets being stored in a large external pellet reservoir 102 and provided to the extruder head 150 in small increments as needed (i.e., the EA being configured to melt granules of one or more substances and output the molten granules) (Normile at [0027], FIG. 1); and as an alternative to the pellet extruder head 150, an extruder made to receive material in the form of a long strand or filament instead of pellets, as either type of extruder accomplishes controllable discharge of heated extrusion material from a nozzle (Normile at [0028]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize granules rather than filaments to deposit molten granules from an extruder assembly as such is known in the art of extrusion based additive manufacturing given the discussion of Normile above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., pellet extruder head) for another (i.e., extruder to receive material in the form of a filament) to obtain predictable results (i.e., either type of extruder accomplishes controllable discharge of heated extrusion material from a nozzle as recognized by Normile at [0028]).
As to claim 4: Howe, Hamberger and Normile disclose the system of claim 1. Howe, modified by thus far, further discloses the claimed wherein the processor is configured to determine the predefined region by controlling: (i) a first movement profile for moving the EA along the first axis, and a second moving profile for vibrating the substrate in the second axis (Howe at [0040], [0044], [0045], [0087]; and Hamberger at [0037], [0079], Fig. 1), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 5: Howe, Hamberger and Normile disclose the system of claim 1. Howe, modified by thus far, further discloses the claimed wherein the processor is configured to control the motion assembly to move the EA in an opposite direction along the first axis, so as to dispose an additional filament on an additional predefined region of the substrate (Howe at [0040], [0044], [0045], [0087], Figure 2C, Figure 8A, Figure 8D).
As to claim 6: Howe, Hamberger and Normile disclose the system of claim 5. Howe, modified by thus far, further discloses the claimed wherein at least a portion of the predefined region overlaps at least a portion of the additional predefined region (Howe at [0040], [0044], [0045], [0087], Figure 2C, Figure 8A, Figure 8D).
As to claim 7: Howe, Hamberger and Normile disclose the system of claim 6. Howe, modified by thus far, further discloses the claimed wherein the processor is configured to control the motion assembly and the EA to produce a plurality of the filaments and the additional filaments, and to produce a first array of one or more bundles by coupling, in each of the bundles, between two or more of the filaments and the additional filaments (Howe at [0040], [0044], [0045], [0087], Figure 2C, Figure 8A, Figure 8D).
As to claim 8: Howe, Hamberger and Normile disclose the system of claim 7. Howe, modified by thus far, further discloses the claimed wherein the processor is configured to control the motion assembly and the EA to produce at least one of the bundles by intertwining between one or more of the filaments and one or more of the additional filaments (Howe at [0040], [0044], [0045], [0087], Figure 2C, Figure 8A, Figure 8D).
As to claim 9: Howe, Hamberger and Normile disclose the system of claim 7. Howe, modified by thus far, further discloses the claimed wherein the processor is configured to control the motion assembly and the EA to produce at least one of the bundles by coupling, two or more of the filaments and the additional filaments, to a puddle of the molten granules (Howe at [0040], [0044], [0045], [0087], Figure 2B, Figure 2C, Figure 8A, Figure 8D).
As to claim 10: Howe, Hamberger and Normile disclose the system of claim 7. Howe, modified by thus far, further discloses the claimed wherein the motion assembly is configured to rotate the substrate about a rotation axis, and wherein the processor is configured to control: (i) the motion assembly to rotate the substrate at a predefined rotation angle, and (ii) the motion assembly and the EA to produce, on the substrate, a second array of one or more of the bundles (Howe at [0040], [0044], [0045], [0087], Figure 2C, Figure 8A, Figure 8D; and Hamberger at [0030], [0031], [0032], [0034]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 11: Howe, Hamberger and Normile disclose the system of claim 10. Howe, modified by thus far, further discloses the claimed wherein the processor is configured to control the motion assembly and the EA to produce a layer comprising at least two of the bundles of the first and second arrays intertwined with one another (Howe at [0040], [0044], [0045], [0087], Figure 2C, Figure 8A, Figure 8D).
As to claim 14: Howe, Hamberger and Normile disclose the system of claim 11. Howe, modified by thus far, further discloses the claimed wherein the processor is configured to control the motion assembly and the EA to produce one or more reinforcement points (RPs) between one or more pairs of the intertwined bundles (Howe at [0040], [0044], [0045], [0087], Figure 2B, Figure 2C, Figure 8A, Figure 8D).
As to claim 15: Howe, Hamberger and Normile disclose the system of claim 14. Howe, modified by thus far, further discloses the claimed wherein the processor is configured to control the motion assembly and the EA to produce at least one of the RPs by welding at least one of the pairs to one another (Howe at [0040], [0044], [0045], [0087], Figure 2C, Figure 8A, Figure 8D).
As to claim 43: Howe discloses the claimed method (i.e., method for manufacturing a structure) (Howe at [0005]), comprising:
melting, in an extrusion assembly (EA), solid filament wire of one or more substances and outputting the molten filament wire onto a substrate (i.e., print head 102 includes extruder 104 and feeder 106, the feeder 106 feeds filament 110 into extruder 104 to be melted and to be dispensed from nozzle 108 onto substrate 112 on a build platform 114; FDM is an extrusion-based process that feeds thermoplastic in solid wire form from a nozzle and then melts the wire to extrude into a shape that is resolidified) (Howe at [0003], [0039], [0043], Figure 1B, Figure 2B);
moving the EA relative to the substrate along a first axis (i.e., laterally moving in an x-y plane 120 the print head 102 while simultaneously vertically moving the substrate 112 on the build platform 114 in the z-direction 122 relative to one another so as to position the print head 102 to deposit the molten filament 124) (Howe at [0040], [0044], [0045], Figure 1B, Figure 2A, Figure 2B, Figure 2D), and moving the substrate along a second axis, different from the first axis, while the EA outputs the molten filaments so as to produce a line of a filament on the substrate (i.e., laterally moving in an x-y plane 120 the print head 102 while simultaneously vertically moving the substrate 112 on the build platform 114 in the z-direction 122, so as to move the substrate 112 and print head 102 in mid-air while extruding/drawing a filament from the nozzle 108) (Howe at [0040], [0044], [0045], [0047], Figure 1B, Figure 2A, Figure 2B, Figure 2D – extruder 104 is attached to a robotic motion assembly);
producing, along the line, one or more puddles of the molten granules (i.e., the nozzle 108 deposits an anchor 116a directly onto the surface of the substrate 112) (Howe at [0040], [0041], [0044], [0045], [0046], [0047], Figure 2B); and
producing a section of the line by pulling a portion of the molten granules from the puddle and disposing the pulled portion on the substrate along the first axis (i.e., after the nozzle 108 deposits an anchor 116a directly onto the surface of the substrate 112, the build platform 114 drops away vertically from the nozzle 108 and the nozzle 108 pulls on a drop of material 124 to thin the material out into a filament or string along the substrate 112) (Howe at [0040], [0041], [0044], [0045], [0046], [0047], Figure 2B).
Howe discloses FDM is an extrusion-based process that feeds thermoplastic in solid wire form from a nozzle and then melts the wire to extrude into a shape that is resolidified (Howe at [0003], [0039], [0043], Figure 1B, Figure 2B); and simultaneously moving the substrate 112 and print head 102 in mid-air, along different directions, while extruding/drawing a filament from the nozzle 108 (Howe at [0040], [0044], [0045], Figure 2B). Though, Howe fails to explicitly disclose the claimed melting granules of one or more substances and outputting the molten granules; and vibrating the substrate along a second axis, different from the first axis, while the EA outputs the molten granules so as to produce a line of a filament on the substrate.
However, Hamberger teaches a build platform arrangement for the extrusion-based production of at least one three-dimensional object (Hamberger at [0003], [0005], [0009]-[0011]). Hamberger further teaches a construction platform having a functional device designed as a drive device for generating a driving force that sets the construction platform in motion in at least one degree of freedom; a suitable drive device including a vibration generation device used to generate a vibration on the construction platform (i.e., vibrating the substrate along a second axis, different from the first axis, while the EA outputs the molten granules so as to produce a line of a filament on the substrate) (Hamberger at [0037], [0079], Fig. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the vibration generation device used to generate a vibration on the construction platform as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Hamberger above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Howe, modified by Hamberger, still fail to explicitly disclose the claimed melting granules of one or more substances and outputting the molten granules.
However, Normile teaches an extrusion deposition modeling system 100 comprising an extruder head 150, a build plate 130, and a multi-axis drive system 120 which controllably moves extruder head 150 relative to build plate 130 (Normile at [0021], FIG. 1). Normile further teaches the role of the extrusion head 150 is to receive plastic in pellet form from feed tube 152 and to melt the plastic and drive it out of the end of the nozzle 158, the plastic pellets being stored in a large external pellet reservoir 102 and provided to the extruder head 150 in small increments as needed (i.e., melting granules of one or more substances and outputting the molten granules) (Normile at [0027], FIG. 1); and as an alternative to the pellet extruder head 150, an extruder made to receive material in the form of a long strand or filament instead of pellets, as either type of extruder accomplishes controllable discharge of heated extrusion material from a nozzle (Normile at [0028]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize granules rather than filaments to deposit molten granules from an extruder assembly as such is known in the art of extrusion based additive manufacturing given the discussion of Normile above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., pellet extruder head) for another (i.e., extruder to receive material in the form of a filament) to obtain predictable results (i.e., either type of extruder accomplishes controllable discharge of heated extrusion material from a nozzle as recognized by Normile at [0028]).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe, Hamberger and Normile as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Reimer et al. (US 2021/0045868; of record).
As to claim 12: Howe, Hamberger and Normile disclose the system of claim 11. Howe, modified by thus far, fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein the processor is configured to control the motion assembly and the EA to produce the intertwined bundles in a crisscross configuration.
However, Reimer teaches a method for the manufacture of a stabilized fabric composed of a woven fabric, where the techniques used to form a woven fabric include 3D printing (Reimer at Abstract, [0202]). Reimer further teaches utilizing a plan weave pattern in which a single filling fiber is passed over and under each warp fiber, with the pattern inn adjacent rows alternating (i.e., crisscross configuration) (Reimer at [0027], [0202], FIG. 8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a crisscross configuration as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Reimer above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
As to claim 13: Howe, Hamberger, Normile and Reimer disclose the system of claim 12. Reimer further reads on the claimed wherein the processor is configured to control the motion assembly and the EA to produce the intertwined bundles at first and second orientations, respectively, wherein the first and second orientations define a given angle between the intertwined bundles (Reimer at [0027], [0202], FIG. 8), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 12.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe, Hamberger and Normile as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mark (US 2017/0232674; of record).
As to claim 33: Howe, Hamberger and Normile disclose the system of claim 1. Howe, modified by thus far, fails to disclose the claimed wherein the EA comprises an air curtain, which is configured to perform one or both of: (i) shaping the line of the filament produced on the substrate, and (ii) improving an attachment of the line of the filament to the substrate.
However, Mark teaches a multi-element printer head 1500 which includes an air nozzle 1508; and the air nozzle 1508 being used to enable rapid cooling of the extruded feature to aid in forming structures (i.e., wherein the EA comprises an air curtain, which is configured to perform one or both of: (i) shaping the line of the filament produced on the substrate, and (ii) improving an attachment of the line of the filament to the substrate) (Mark at [0093], FIG. 2H).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the multi-element print head having an air nozzle as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Mark above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of the air nozzle being used to enable rapid cooling of the extruded feature to aid in forming structures (as recognized by Mark at [0093], FIG. 2H).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe, Hamberger and Normile as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shnell et al. (US 2023/0321908; of record).
As to claim 36: Howe, Hamberger and Normile disclose the system of claim 1. Howe, modified by thus far, fails to disclose the claimed system comprising a machine learning (ML) engine, which is configured receive an input comprising one or more attributes of one or more physical properties of a fabric, and to output a mechanical structure of the fabric.
However, Shnell teaches a 3D printing system which includes a modularized control system, and the modularized control system including a printer control board and a machine learning processor (Shnell at [0009]). Moreover, Shnell teaches the onboard processor of the 3D printing system including one or more sensor fusion machine learning algorithms and is used to edit the 3D printed parts during and after the print process (Shnell at [0012], [0075]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a machine learning engine to input attributes of physical properties to output a mechanical structure as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Shnell above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so increasing the quality of the finished parts due to increased quality control during printing (as recognized by Shnell at [0075]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILEIGH K. DARNELL whose telephone number is (469)295-9287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, MST.
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 H. 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.
/BAILEIGH KATE DARNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights