Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/871,859

A METHOD OF MANUFACTURING A 3D ITEM BY MEANS OF FUSED DEPOSITION MODELLING

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 05, 2024
Priority
Jun 16, 2022 — EU 22179357.3 +1 more
Examiner
MATZEK, MATTHEW D
Art Unit
1742
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Signify Holding B.V.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
46%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
Est. Remaining
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 46% of resolved cases
46%
Career Allowance Rate
329 granted / 714 resolved
-18.9% vs TC avg
Strong +37% interview lift
Without
With
+37.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
753
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
82.7%
+42.7% vs TC avg
§102
6.8%
-33.2% vs TC avg
§112
2.9%
-37.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 714 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 Group I, claims 1–6 in the reply filed on 5/26/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 7–9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 5/26/2026. 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) 1–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wetzel (US 2016/0281267 A1). Wetzel teaches a thermoplastic filament for use in making three-dimensionally printed parts, wherein the filament comprises a portion at its center that extends along the length of the filament, and extensions that extend from the center portion. Wetzel abstract, ¶¶ 7, 16, Fig. 1A. The filament cross section may have a concave shape, wherein the concave shape is a polygonal shape. Id. ¶ 64. The ratio of the length of the filament relative to the center portion is greater than 1. Id. ¶ 65. The extensions extend in a direction perpendicular to the center axis of the filament and comprise two different materials, a first material of a darker first color and a second material of a lighter color. Id. ¶¶ 16, 50, 53, Fig. 1A. As shown in the figure below, the filament extensions are distributed regularly around the filament center portion and are straight. Id. PNG media_image1.png 192 458 media_image1.png Greyscale Fig. 1A Wetzel fails to teach that the polygonal shape of the filament is a star or cross shape. The prior art reference does teach that the “filament is optionally in the form of a cylinder, an rectangular prism, elongated prism structure with a cross sectional area in the shape of a circle, square, rectangle, trapezoid, hexagon, pentagon, other polygon as desired, or an irregular outer shape of the cross sectional area.” Id. ¶ 64. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected a star or cross shape for the filament as the polygon shape selected is merely a matter of design choice because star and cross shapes are polygons. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D MATZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6. 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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571.272.7783. 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. /MATTHEW D MATZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 05, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12680198
SUPER-TOUGH CELLULOSE AEROGEL FIBER AS WELL AS PREPARATION METHOD AND USE THEREOF
1y 6m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12668396
DEGRADABLE CONTAINMENT FEATURES
3y 5m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12668036
COMPOSITE THERMOPLASTIC MATERIAL FOR COMPOSITE TUBULAR STRUCTURES
3y 0m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12668316
COMPOSITE BODY PART COMPRISING METAL FILAMENTS FOR A ROAD VEHICLE, RELATIVE ROAD VEHICLE AND RELATIVE PRODUCTION METHOD
3y 1m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12658339
THICKNESS DIRECTION CONDUCTIVE LAMINATED COMPOSITE MATERIAL AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR
5y 1m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
46%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+37.1%)
3y 9m (~2y 2m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 714 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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