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 claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 5/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: for proper antecedent basis (which does not rise to the level of indefiniteness) lines 7 and 8 should say “access flow characteristics of the semi-molten primary material during deposition”. Since during the deposition in lines 3and 4 the primary material is semi-molten. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: there needs to be a “the before “secondary material”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the semicolon after “further comprising” is not needed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: there needs to be a “the” before “flow characteristics”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 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. Dependent claims not rejected separately are rejected due to their dependency.
The term “semi-molten” in claims 1 and 7 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “semi-molten” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What are the metes and bounds of what is or is not “semi-molten.” Does “semi-molten” only refer to thermoplastic polymers, or can it refer to softened metals? Since the specification is silent on the meaning the term is vague and indefinite.
Claim 1 is seen as vague and indefinite due to the “utilizing” limitation of lines 7 and 8. Nothing is done with the assessed flow characteristics in the process of claim 1, it is a dead end in the process. How is the information utilized in the process of claim 1? It is not until one gets to claim 7 that this is answered.
Claim 2 is seen as vague and indefinite, since it is not clear what is meant by “include” in the limitation. Does the Applicant mean for “include” to be defined per MPEP 2111.03 I, or does “include” mean a list of three possibilities based on “or” in paragraph 0051 of the specification when talking about the same limitation? There is no disclosure stating the scenarios involve the structure, only the print head. The problem is also how the scenarios are claimed. The Applicant needs to amend claim 2 to align with either the disclosure or how the Applicant wants claim 2 to actually be read. For examination purposes the Examiner is treating claim 2 (based on the specification) as if it read as:
“wherein the operational scenarios comprise at least one of repositioning, directional changes, or pauses in a deposition process.”
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.
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 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butcher et al (US 2015/0165666; herein Butcher).
Concurrently dispensing a semi-molten primary material and a secondary reinforcement material having a higher melting point than the primary material onto a structure (Figure 1, fiber filament 122 and polymer filament 112 are printed through a nozzle 150 onto a structure, the polymer filament is at least partially melted by the nozzle, paragraph 0023. Based on the materials listed in paragraphs 0018-0019 the fiber filament has a higher melting point)
Operating a controlled energy source to sever the secondary reinforcement material during operational scenarios (Figures 1 and 3, paragraph 0031, cutter 170 with cutting blade 330, which can be a laser)
Based on properties of the secondary reinforcement material, determining, and regulating preparatory actions for the secondary reinforcement material (Since the fiber filament 122 is cut by the cutting blade 330, which can be a laser, then the processing of the fiber filament is based on the properties thereof)
Further regarding claim 1, Butcher does not explicitly teach:
Utilizing computational methodologies to assess flow characteristics of the primary material during deposition
However, since the polymer filament of Butcher needs to be at least partially melted by the nozzle, then the melting point of the polymer needs to be assessed. Butcher does not explicitly use a computational means.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to automate a manual activity, since it has been held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (See MPEP 2144.04 III)
Regarding claim 2, Butcher teaches:
Wherein the operational scenarios comprise at least one of repositioning, directional changes, or pauses in a deposition process (paragraph 0030 the coextruded filament can be cut any number of times in order to match the shape of the component, this covers the required scenarios)
Regarding claim 3, Butcher teaches:
Wherein a laser severs the secondary reinforcement material during the operational scenarios (As previously discussed the filaments are cut by a laser)
Regarding claim 5, Butcher teaches:
Wherein the primary material and/or secondary material were selected from filaments of multiple different diameters (As seen in Figures 2A and 2B the fiber filament 122 and the polymer filament 112 are different diameters)
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark et al (US 9186846; herein Mark, already of record).
Concurrently dispensing a semi-molten primary material and a secondary reinforcement material having a higher melting point than the primary material onto a structure (Figures 1A and 1B, a filament made from a nylon matrix 4A with carbon fiber strands 6A is extruded onto a structure through a nozzle, and heated as claimed per the Abstract and column 13 lines 25-35)
Operating a controlled energy source to sever the secondary reinforcement material during operational scenarios (Figure 1A, the cutter 8 can be a laser, column 13 line 66 through column 14 line 8)
Based on properties of the secondary reinforcement material, determining, and regulating preparatory actions for the secondary reinforcement material (Since the carbon fiber is cut by a laser, then the processing of the carbon fiber is based on the properties thereof)
Further regarding claim 1, Mark does not explicitly teach:
Utilizing computational methodologies to assess flow characteristics of the primary material during deposition
Mark teaches that a predetermined viscosity is maintained (column 13, lines 25-25). Thus viscosity must be measured and calculated, but Mark does not explicitly use a computational means to .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to automate a manual activity, since it has been held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (See MPEP 2144.04 III)
Regarding claim 2, Mark teaches:
Wherein the operational scenarios comprise at least one of repositioning, directional changes, or pauses in a deposition process (S117 and/or S117A in the flow chart of Figure 2)
Regarding claim 3, Mark teaches:
Wherein a laser severs the secondary reinforcement material during the operational scenarios (As previously discussed Mark uses a laser to cut the carbon fiber)
Regarding claim 4, Mark teaches:
Wherein the secondary material comprises two or more reinforcement wires (The carbon fiber of Mark can have 1000 individual strands, column 12 lines 41-49)
Regarding claim 5, Mark teaches:
Wherein the primary material and/or secondary material were selected from filaments of multiple different diameters (As seen by the filament in the fibers and the use 1000 individual strands, the two materials are of different diameters)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butcher or Mark, in view of Choi (KR 20190130198; with machine translation). Regarding claim 6, Butcher nor Mark teach:
Further comprising: modifying a diameter of an adjustable nozzle to accommodate combined diameters of the selected primary material and the selected secondary material
In the same field of extruding two materials through a nozzle, Choi teaches using an adjustable nozzle (paragraphs 0034 and 0056)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to use an adjustable nozzle, as taught by Choi, since it allows the use of reinforced filaments without changing out the nozzle.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butcher or Mark, in view of MacNeish, III et al (US 2021/0053293; herein MacNeish). Regarding claim 7, Butcher nor Mark teach:
Modifying a heat of a dual-extrusion print head based on flow characteristics of the semi-molten primary material
In the same field of endeavor of 3D printing, MacNeish teaches controlling the process based on the flow characteristics of the material (paragraph 0108).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to control as taught by MacNeish, since doing so helps optimize the build process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2016/0052208 teaches laser cutting of feedstock in a 3D printer
US 2019/0022935 teaches an adjustable nozzle diameter when using reinforcements
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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 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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights