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 1-21 in the reply filed on May 7th, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 7, 9, 14 and 15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 1, “adding a foaming agent” should say “adding the foaming agent” for claim language consistency.
Claim 7, line 1, “fabricating the preform…” should say “the fabricating the preform…” for claim language consistency.
Claim 9, line 1, “claim 8 further including” should say “claim 8, further including” for claim language consistency.
Claim 14, line 1, “claim 1 further including” should say “claim 1, further including” for claim language consistency.
Claim 15, line 1, “wherein determining the scaling factor” should ay “wherein the determining the scaling factor” for claim language consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1 recites "by exposing the preform to a target temperature for a target time via a heat generating device" which includes the structural generic placeholder of "heat generating device" associated with the functional limitation of "exposing the preform to a target temperature for a target time ". The specification defines corresponding structure for the claimed generic placeholder of "heat generating device" to include one or more emitters that are configured to emit thermal energy or other types of energy ([0079]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 8 fails to further limit the claim upon which it depends, claim 1, as it recites the same limitations already recited in the last two lines of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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, 2, 7, 8, 13, 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wawrousek et al. (US 20140182170 A1; hereafter Wawrousek), in view of Desktop Metal Unveils FreeFoam (NPL 1 from IDS filed on 01/07/2026; hereafter Desktop Metal).
Regarding claim 1, Wawrousek discloses a method of manufacturing a foam component ([0283]; 3D printing and foaming to make a foamed part), the method comprising:
generating, via a computer-aided design (CAD) software, three-dimensional data ([0285]; analysis tools convert design of part into a computer readable file (e.g. a CAD file)) corresponding to the foam component;
fabricating the preform ([0283]; additive manufacturing the part and expanding afterwards) from a thermoplastic elastomer ([0275]; material can be thermoplastic elastomers (TPE));
adding a foaming agent ([0283]; blowing agent(s)) to the preform;
and foaming the preform by exposing the preform to a target temperature for a target time ([0283]; expanding the part upon exposure to controlled heat and pressure conditions) via a heat generating device ([0283]; post-processing mold or oven).
While Wawrousek further discloses the three-dimensional data is designed using input parameters and various selection criteria ([0285]), such as shape, size and density ([0237]), and the preform can fabricated in a reduced size and expanded afterwards to their desired size ([0283]), Wawrousek does not explicitly disclose scaling the three-dimensional data based on a scaling factor.
However, in the analogous art Desktop Metal teaches additively manufacturing a perform (Pg. 1; 3D printing fully dense part that can expand) that is designed to expand by a scaling factor (Pg. 1; the part is programmed to expand a specific amount and is printed in a fully dense design) when exposed to a temperature (Pg. 2; heating cycle) via a heat generating device (Pg. 2; oven).
Wawrousek and Desktop Metal are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of 3D printing preforms capable of foaming. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wawrousek with the teachings of Desktop Metal to provide scaling, using the CAD software, the three-dimensional data to correspond to a preform that is smaller than the foam component based on a scaling factor. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Using computer-aid design (CAD) software to prepare instructions for additive manufacture is well-known in the art and incorporating a scaling factor into the design for the preform would improve design freedom by allowing for the manufacture of high strength-to-weight ratio parts that can reduce shipping costs (Desktop Metal Pg. 1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Wawrousek discloses the method of claim 1, wherein Wawrousek further discloses the preform includes a lattice structure ([0225, 0283]; midsole and preform thereof is formed as a lattice structure).
Regarding claim 7, modified Wawrousek discloses the method of claim 1, wherein Wawrousek further discloses fabricating the preform includes fabricating the preform via at least one of a powder bed printer ([0275]), a stereolithography printer ([0274]), a selective laser sintering printer ([0274]), or a fused deposition modeling printer ([0274]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Wawrousek discloses the method of claim 1, wherein Wawrousek discloses foaming the preform includes exposing the preform to a target temperature for a target time ([0283]; expanding the part upon exposure to controlled heat and pressure conditions) via the heat generating device ([0283]; post-processing mold or oven).
Regarding claim 13, modified Wawrousek discloses the method of claim 1, wherein Wawrousek further discloses the foam component is a midsole for an article of footwear ([0163]), wherein the midsole is configured to be attached to an outsole and an upper of the article of footwear ([0229]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Wawrousek discloses the method of claim 1, wherein Desktop Metal further teaches determining the scaling factor (Pg. 1; the part is programmed to expand a specific amount and is printed in a fully dense design).
Regarding claim 21, modified Wawrousek discloses the method of claim 1, wherein Wawrousek further discloses the thermoplastic elastomer is thermoplastic polyester elastomer ([0275]; material can be thermoplastic elastomers (TPE)).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wawrousek et al. (US 20140182170 A1; hereafter Wawrousek), in view of Desktop Metal Unveils FreeFoam (NPL 1 from IDS filed on 01/07/2026; hereafter Desktop Metal) as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Jacobs (US 20170197342 A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Wawrousek discloses the method of claim 1.
While Wawrousek discloses the perform may include a physical blowing agent, such as a gas ([0283]), Wawrousek does not explicitly disclose adding the foaming agent includes charging the preform with the gas.
However, in the analogous art Jacobs teaches additively manufacturing a preform ([0025]) and adding a foaming agent ([0007]; inert gas) to the preform by charging the preform with a gas ([0007]; subjecting the preform to at least one inert gas to drive gas into the preform).
Wawrousek and Jacobs are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of 3D printing thermoplastic elastomer preforms capable of foaming. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Wawrousek with the teachings of Jacobs to provide adding the foaming agent includes charging the preform with the gas. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would for the manufacture of foam parts with good dimensional accuracy and allow for controlled uniformity of expansion (Jacobs [0036-0037]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Wawrousek discloses the method of claim 3, wherein Wawrousek further discloses the gas includes at least one of nitrogen or carbon-dioxide ([0283]; nitrogen or carbon-dioxide).
Regarding claim 5, modified Wawrousek discloses the method of claim 3.
Modified Wawrousek does not disclose charging the preform with the gas includes dissolving the gas into the preform at an elevated pressure ([0007]; subjecting the preform to at least one inert gas at a pressure higher than atmospheric in order to drive gas into the preform).
However, in the analogous art Jacobs further teaches the additively manufactured preform is charged with the gas includes dissolving the gas into the preform at an elevated pressure ().
Wawrousek and Jacobs are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of 3D printing thermoplastic elastomer preforms capable of foaming. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Wawrousek with the teachings of Jacobs to provide charging the preform with the gas includes dissolving the gas into the preform at an elevated pressure. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would for the manufacture of foam parts with good dimensional accuracy and allow for controlled uniformity of expansion (Jacobs [0036-0037]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Wawrousek discloses the method of claim 5.
Modified Wawrousek does not explicitly disclose the elevated pressure is about 175 bar.
However, in the analogous art Jacobs further teaches the elevated pressure is about 175 bar ([0031]; 20 to 800 bar; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05).
Wawrousek and Jacobs are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of 3D printing thermoplastic elastomer preforms capable of foaming. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Wawrousek with the teachings of Jacobs to provide the elevated pressure is about 175 bar. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would for the manufacture of foam parts with good dimensional accuracy and allow for controlled uniformity of expansion (Jacobs [0036-0037]).
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wawrousek et al. (US 20140182170 A1; hereafter Wawrousek), in view of Desktop Metal Unveils FreeFoam (NPL 1 from IDS filed on 01/07/2026; hereafter Desktop Metal) as applied to claims 8 and 14 respectively, and further in view of Jiang et al. (CN 215943509 U; hereafter Jiang; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 9, modified Wawrousek discloses the method of claim 8.
Modified Wawrousek does not disclose determining the target temperature and the target time based on the scaling factor.
However, in the analogous art Jiang teaches that it is well-known in the art of thermoplastic elastomer foaming ([0059]) that the expansion ratio of a foam is related to temperature and time conditions applied during a foaming process ([0010, 0038, 0050]; final foaming ratio can be controlled via calculated bubble nucleation rate, which is calculated by using foaming temperature and time), wherein the foam expansion ratio can be calculated from the temperature and time conditions ([0038, 0050]; final foaming ratio can be controlled via calculated bubble nucleation rate, which is calculated by using foaming temperature and time). The foam expansion ratio corresponds to a scaling factor for the degree that the foam expands in volume. From these teachings one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize that the calculation can be used to determine temperature and time conditions when selecting a given expansion ratio, i.e. scaling factor.
Wawrousek and Jiang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of manufacturing thermoplastic elastomer foam products. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Wawrousek with the teachings of Jiang to provide determining the target temperature and the target time based on the scaling factor. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow the scaling factor for the foam expansion to accurately controlled (Jiang [0010]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Wawrousek discloses the method of claim 14.
Modified Wawrousek does not disclose determining the scaling factor includes determining a target density of the foamed component.
However, in the analogous art Jiang teaches that it is well-known in the art of thermoplastic elastomer foaming ([0059]) that the expansion ratio of a foam is related to the density of said foam ([0097]; final foaming ratio is calculated using density of the foam preform), wherein the foam expansion ratio can be calculated from the density ([0097]; final foaming ratio is calculated using density of the foam preform). The foam expansion ratio corresponds to a scaling factor for the degree that the foam expands in volume. From these teachings one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize that the calculation can be used to determine a scaling factor, i.e. scaling factor, when selecting a given density.
Wawrousek and Jiang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of manufacturing thermoplastic elastomer foam products. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Wawrousek with the teachings of Jiang to provide determining the scaling factor includes determining a target density of the foamed component. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow the scaling factor for the foam expansion to accurately controlled (Jiang [0010]).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wawrousek et al. (US 20140182170 A1; hereafter Wawrousek), in view of Desktop Metal Unveils FreeFoam (NPL 1 from IDS filed on 01/07/2026; hereafter Desktop Metal) and Jiang et al. (CN 215943509 U; hereafter Jiang; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation) as applied to claim 9, and further in view of Daschlein et al. (US 20160297943 A1; hereafter Daschlein).
Regarding claim 10, modified Wawrousek discloses the method of claim 9.
Modified Wawrousek does not explicitly disclose the target time is about three hours.
However, in the analogous art Daschlein teaches a method of foaming thermoplastic elastomer ([0001]), wherein the foaming process comprises conditions of heating at about 135 °C ([0122]) for about three hours ([0044]; expanding step preferably between 1 hour and 6 hours; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05).
Wawrousek and Daschlein are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of manufacturing thermoplastic elastomer foam products. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Wawrousek with the teachings of Daschlein to provide the target time is about three hours. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for the manufacture of foam parts with a low density, closed cells and a homogeneous cell distribution (Daschlein [0032]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Wawrousek discloses the method of claim 9.
Modified Wawrousek does not explicitly disclose the target temperature is between about 135 Celsius (C) and about 165 C.
However, in the analogous art Daschlein teaches a method of foaming thermoplastic elastomer ([0001]), wherein the foaming process comprises conditions of heating at about 135 °C ([0122]) for about three hours ([0044]; expanding step preferably between 1 hour and 6 hours; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05).
Wawrousek and Daschlein are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of manufacturing thermoplastic elastomer foam products. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Wawrousek with the teachings of Daschlein to provide the target temperature is between about 135 Celsius (C) and about 165 C. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for the manufacture of foam parts with a low density, closed cells and a homogeneous cell distribution (Daschlein [0032]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Wawrousek discloses the method of claim 9.
Modified Wawrousek does not explicitly disclose the target temperature is one of about 135 C, about 145 C, about 155 C, or about 165 C.
However, in the analogous art Daschlein teaches a method of foaming thermoplastic elastomer ([0001]), wherein the foaming process comprises conditions of heating at about 135 °C ([0122]) for about three hours ([0044]; expanding step preferably between 1 hour and 6 hours; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05).
Wawrousek and Daschlein are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of manufacturing thermoplastic elastomer foam products. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Wawrousek with the teachings of Daschlein to provide the target temperature is about 135 C. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for the manufacture of foam parts with a low density, closed cells and a homogeneous cell distribution (Daschlein [0032]).
Claims 16, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Wawrousek et al. (US 20140182170 A1; hereafter Wawrousek), in view of Desktop Metal Unveils FreeFoam (NPL 1 from IDS filed on 01/07/2026; hereafter Desktop Metal) as applied to claim 14, and further in view of FreeFoam Youtube (NPL 1).
Regarding claim 16, modified Wawrousek discloses the method of claim 14.
Modified Wawrousek does not explicitly disclose the scaling factor includes an x direction scaling factor, a y direction scaling factor, and a z direction scaling factor.
However, in the analogous art FreeFoam Youtube teaches the foam preform programmed to expand a specific amount of Desktop Metal expands in X, Y and Z directions (timestamp 2:07).
Wawrousek and FreeFoam Youtube are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of 3D printing preforms capable of foaming. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Wawrousek with the teachings of FreeFoam Youtube to provide the scaling factor includes an x direction scaling factor, a y direction scaling factor, and a z direction scaling factor. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). FreeFoam Youtube describes the foam preform of Desktop Metal in motion, wherein Desktop Metal teaches that using computer-aid design (CAD) software to prepare instructions for additive manufacture is well-known in the art and incorporating a scaling factor into the design for the preform would improve design freedom by allowing for the manufacture of high strength-to-weight ratio parts that can reduce shipping costs (Desktop Metal Pg. 1).
Regarding claim 17, modified Wawrousek discloses the method of claim 16.
Modified Wawrousek does not explicitly disclose at least two of the x direction scaling factor, the y direction scaling factor, and the z direction scaling factor have different magnitudes.
However, in the analogous art FreeFoam Youtube further teaches the foam preform programmed to expand a specific amount of Desktop Metal expands in X, Y and Z directions (timestamp 2:07), wherein at least two of the x direction scaling factor, the y direction scaling factor, and the z direction scaling factor have different magnitudes (timestamp 2:07).
Wawrousek and FreeFoam Youtube are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of 3D printing preforms capable of foaming. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Wawrousek with the teachings of FreeFoam Youtube to provide at least two of the x direction scaling factor, the y direction scaling factor, and the z direction scaling factor have different magnitudes. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). FreeFoam Youtube describes the foam preform of Desktop Metal in motion, wherein Desktop Metal teaches that using computer-aid design (CAD) software to prepare instructions for additive manufacture is well-known in the art and incorporating a scaling factor into the design for the preform would improve design freedom by allowing for the manufacture of high strength-to-weight ratio parts that can reduce shipping costs (Desktop Metal Pg. 1).
Regarding claim 18, modified Wawrousek discloses the method of claim 17.
Modified Wawrousek does not explicitly disclose the z direction scaling factor has a magnitude of about 1.6, the x direction scaling factor has a magnitude of about 1.45, and the z direction scaling factor has a magnitude of about 1.45.
However, Desktop Metal further teaches the foam preform can be programmed to expand a specific amount between 2 to 7 times its original printed size (Pg. 1) and FreeFoam Youtube teaches the expansion happens in X, Y and Z directions (timestamp 2:07). The claimed direction scaling factors result in an overall scaling factor of 3.364, which is taught by Desktop Metal (Pg. 1). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the directional scaling factors to arrive at the claimed magnitudes as the scaling factor lies within conditions disclosed in the prior art.
Wawrousek and Desktop Metal are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of 3D printing preforms capable of foaming. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Wawrousek with the teachings of Desktop Metal to provide the z direction scaling factor has a magnitude of about 1.6, the x direction scaling factor has a magnitude of about 1.45, and the z direction scaling factor has a magnitude of about 1.45. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Using computer-aid design (CAD) software to prepare instructions for additive manufacture is well-known in the art and incorporating a scaling factor into the design for the preform would improve design freedom by allowing for the manufacture of high strength-to-weight ratio parts that can reduce shipping costs (Desktop Metal Pg. 1).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wawrousek et al. (US 20140182170 A1; hereafter Wawrousek), in view of Desktop Metal Unveils FreeFoam (NPL 1 from IDS filed on 01/07/2026; hereafter Desktop Metal) and FreeFoam Youtube (NPL 1) as applied to claim 17, and further in view of Ebe et al. (US 20200332085 A1; hereafter Ebe).
Regarding claim 19, modified Wawrousek discloses the method of claim 17.
Modified Wawrousek does not explicitly disclose the z direction scaling factor has a magnitude of about 3.2, the x direction scaling factor has a magnitude of about 2.9, and the z direction scaling factor has a magnitude of about 2.9.
However, Desktop Metal further teaches the foam preform can be programmed to expand a specific amount from its original printed size (Pg. 1) and FreeFoam Youtube teaches the expansion happens in X, Y and Z directions (timestamp 2:07). The claimed direction scaling factors result in an overall scaling factor of 26.912. In the analogous art, Ebe teaches that foamable thermoplastic elastomer ([0167]) can expand at a ratio not smaller than 25 times and an upper limit of 250 times ([0128]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the directional scaling factors to arrive at the claimed magnitudes as the scaling factor lies within conditions disclosed in the prior art.
Wawrousek and Ebe are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of manufacturing thermoplastic elastomer foam products. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Wawrousek with the teachings of Ebe to provide the z direction scaling factor has a magnitude of about 3.2, the x direction scaling factor has a magnitude of about 2.9, and the z direction scaling factor has a magnitude of about 2.9. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for the manufacture of foam articles with minimum peeled surface ([0041]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Wawrousek discloses the method of claim 17.
Modified Wawrousek does not explicitly disclose the z direction scaling factor has a magnitude of about 6.4, the x direction scaling factor has a magnitude of about 5.8, and the z direction scaling factor has a magnitude of about 5.8.
However, Desktop Metal further teaches the foam preform can be programmed to expand a specific amount from its original printed size (Pg. 1) and FreeFoam Youtube teaches the expansion happens in X, Y and Z directions (timestamp 2:07). The claimed direction scaling factors result in an overall scaling factor of 215.296. In the analogous art, Ebe teaches that foamable thermoplastic elastomer ([0167]) can expand at a ratio not smaller than 70 times and an upper limit of 250 times ([0128]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the directional scaling factors to arrive at the claimed magnitudes as the scaling factor lies within conditions disclosed in the prior art.
Wawrousek and Ebe are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of manufacturing thermoplastic elastomer foam products. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Wawrousek with the teachings of Ebe to provide the z direction scaling factor has a magnitude of about 6.4, the x direction scaling factor has a magnitude of about 5.8, and the z direction scaling factor has a magnitude of about 5.8. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for the manufacture of foam articles with minimum peeled surface ([0041]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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.
/VIPUL MALIK/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights