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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/07/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/09/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 04/07/2026, with respect to the specification, the drawings, and the priority have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of the specification, the drawings, and the priority has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/07/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under §35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) and §35 U.S.C. 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 US 20160052208 A1 – Debora and US 20170165917 A1 – McKiel, JR.. the new references teach all of the new amendments.
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.
Claim 18 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the bundling channel" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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: “a position adjusting mechanism“ in claim 16.
Prong 1: a position adjusting mechanism (generic placeholder)
Prong 2: to move the first driver into alignment with the first wire and move the second driver into alignment with the second wire. (Function)
Prong 3: No structure
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.
The specification recites [0090] “In some examples, the position adjusting mechanism comprises a stage for holding at least the driver roller. The stage may further have one or more linear actuators that are mechanically attached to the stage.”
[0091] “In some examples, the system comprises a plurality of driver rollers. Each driver roller may be independently coupled (e.g., mechanically attached) to a position adjusting mechanism. Each position adjusting mechanism may be independently in communication with controller.”
Using the specification, the examiner interprets the “position adjusting mechanism” as any device that can move a wire onto a groove.
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 1-3, 5-13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170210074 A1 – Ueda in view of US 20160052208 A1 – Debora and US 20170165917 A1 – McKiel, JR..
Regarding claim 1, Ueda is directed towards an three-dimensional printing system. Ueda does teach a first driver configured to (i) accept a first wire and (ii) direct the first wire towards a wire merger ([0061] The material feed device 8 is configured to feed the filament FL.), a second driver configured to (i) accept a second wire and (ii) direct the second wire towards the wire merger ([0064] The fiber introducing device 9 is configured to feed the carbon fibers FB.), the wire merger comprising two entry orifices, an exit channel, and an exit orifice, wherein the exit channel is positioned between the two entry orifices and the bundling channel, exit orifice (See figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
646
980
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ueda also teaches wherein the wire merger is configured to receive the first wire from the first driver and the second wire from the second driver via the two entry orifices respectively, wherein the Wire merger is configured to combine the first wire and the second wire into a between the exit channel and the exit orifice, and wherein the wire merger is configured to emit the bundle via the exit orifice ([0051] The head 4 has a nozzle 7, a material feed device (a resin pushing device, a material feeder, or a first feeder) 8 configured to feed the filament (a resin material, a base material, or a first continuous material including a resin) FL to the nozzle 7, and a fiber introducing device (a fiber guide unit, a fiber feeder, or a second feeder) 9 configured to supply the filament FL with carbon fiber(s) (a carbon fiber bundle, fiber(s), a functional material, or a second continuous material including fiber(s)) FB which is continuously formed. In one embodiment, the molding device 1 further has a cutting device (a cutting unit or a cutter) 10 configured to cut the carbon fiber(s) FB and a filament heating device (a resin softening unit, a heater, or a first heating unit) 21 configured to heat the filament FL. In an example, at least a portion of the filament heating device 21 is provided in the nozzle 7. In an example, the material feed device 8 is configured to feed the filament FL while pushing the filament FL through the nozzle 7.), and a controller in communication with the first driver and the second driver, wherein the controller is configured to control the first driver and the second driver ([0050] In one embodiment, as shown in FIG. 1, a molding device 1 has a casing 2, a platform (a support member or a pad) 3 which is disposed inside the casing 2, a head (a printer head) 4 which supplies the platform 3 with a filament FL, and a control device (a controller) 5 as main constitution elements. In FIG. 1, an arrow Z indicates a vertical direction (upward and downward), an arrow X indicates one direction in a horizontal direction, and an arrow Y indicates a direction that is a horizontal direction and is perpendicular to the Z direction and the X direction.).
Ueda does not expressly teach wherein the first driver is external to the wire merger, wherein the second driver is external to the wire merger, and the first wire and the second wire are directed such that the bundle is in parallel.
McKiel is directed towards an transposing extruded materials to fabricate an object surface. McKiel does teach the first driver is external to the wire merger, wherein the second driver is external to the wire merger (Figure 1 and elements 104a (first wire driver) and 104b(second wire driver)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ueda to include the first driver is external to the wire merger, wherein the second driver is external to the wire merger because the wire drivers of McKiel with the mergers of Ueda allow for the user to maintain the drivers easier since they are external from the rest of the unit.
Debora is directed towards an extrusion device. Debora does teach the first wire and the second wire are directed such that the bundle is in parallel ([0028] In some embodiments, the first feedstock and the second feedstock may be selected from a plurality of feedstock that are positioned in parallel and attached to an actuator allowing relative motion between the plurality of feedstock and the cutting module.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ueda to include the first wire and the second wire are directed such that the bundle is in parallel because the parallel process of Debora allows the wire merger of Ueda to use the material at the same rate.
Regarding claim 2, Ueda, McKiel, and Debora does teach the limitations of claim 1. Ueda does teach a first wire source configured to hold the first wire (Figure 1, the spool for FB), and a second wire source configured to hold the second wire (Figure 1, the spool for FL).
Regarding claim 3, Ueda, McKiel, and Debora does teach the limitations of claim 1. Ueda does teach the first driver comprises a first grooved roller ([0062] In an example, the filament driving rollers 16 can have tire-shaped rollers and filament holding grooves), and the second driver comprises a second grooved roller ([0129] FIG. 21, the guide part 81 has a groove 175 that is provided near the inlet ports 173 of the nozzle member 172. In an example, the fiber(s) FB is guided along a bottom surface of the groove 175).
Regarding claim 5, Ueda, McKiel, and Debora does teach the limitations of claim 1. Ueda does teach the first wire and the second wire converge between the two entry orifices and the exit orifice (Figure 1, within the printer head (4)).
Regarding claim 6, Ueda, McKiel, and Debora does teach the limitations of claim 1. Ueda does teach further comprising a Y-shaped passageway (Figure 1 the merger point of filament FL and FB).
Regarding claim 7, Ueda, McKiel, and Debora does teach the limitations of claim 6. Ueda does teach the Y-shaped passageway terminates at the exit channel (Figure 1 and see rejection of claim 1 above.).
Regarding claim 8, Ueda, McKiel, and Debora does teach the limitations of claim 1. Ueda does teach the Wire merger is further configured to direct the first wire and the second wire towards the exit orifice (Figure 1 and see rejection of claim 1 above.).
Regarding claim 9, Ueda, McKiel, and Debora does teach the limitations of claim 1. Ueda does teach the wire merger is further configured to direct the bundle towards the exit orifice (Figure 1 and see rejection of claim 1 above.).
Regarding claim 10, Ueda, McKiel, and Debora does teach the limitations of claim 1. Ueda does teach further comprising a guide configured to deposit the bundle onto a substrate of a 3D printing system ([Claim 14] a guide part configured to guide the fibers to the linear resin at an angle at which the fibers cross the linear resin.).
Regarding claim 11, Ueda, McKiel, and Debora does teach the limitations of claim 10. Ueda does teach the wire merger is configured to direct the bundle out of the exit orifice towards the guide (Figure 1 and see rejection of claim 1 above.).
Regarding claim 12, Ueda, McKiel, and Debora does teach the limitations of claim 1. Ueda does teach the exit channel and the exit orifice are in connection to form a continuous pathway for the first wire and the second wire (Figure 1 and see rejection of claim 1 above.).
Regarding claim 13, Ueda, McKiel, and Debora does teach the limitations of claim 1. Ueda does teach the wire merger is configured to receive the first wire and the second wire simultaneously (Figure 1 and see rejection of claim 1 above.).
Regarding claim 18, Ueda, McKiel, and Debora does teach the limitations of claim 1. Ueda does teach the controller is in communication with the bundling channel to control combining of the first wire and the second wire into the bundle ([0050] In one embodiment, as shown in FIG. 1, a molding device 1 has a casing 2, a platform (a support member or a pad) 3 which is disposed inside the casing 2, a head (a printer head) 4 which supplies the platform 3 with a filament FL, and a control device (a controller) 5 as main constitution elements. In FIG. 1, an arrow Z indicates a vertical direction (upward and downward), an arrow X indicates one direction in a horizontal direction, and an arrow Y indicates a direction that is a horizontal direction and is perpendicular to the Z direction and the X direction.).
Regarding claim 19, Ueda, McKiel, and Debora does teach a first wire source configured to hold a first wire; a second wire source configured to hold a second wire; a first driver configured to (i) accept the first wire from the first wire source and (ii) direct the first wire towards a wire merger, wherein the first driver is external to the wire merger; a second driver configured to (i) accept the second wire from the second wire source and (ii) direct the second wire towards the wire merger wherein the second driver is external to the wire merger; the wire merger comprising two entry orifices, an exit channel, and an exit orifice; wherein the exit channel is positioned between the two entry orifices and the exit orifice(See rejection of claim 1 above).; a guide configured to receive the bundle from the exit orifice, wherein the guide is configured to deposit the bundle onto a substrate of a 3D printing system (See rejection of claim 10 and 11 above);
Ueda also teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the power source to supply an electrical current to the bundle and the substrate ([Claim 1] and [0108] Alternatively, a part that is in contact with the carbon fibers FB is set as an electrode, and the carbon fibers FB are electrified and heated via the part. For example, the rollers 18 (refer to FIG. 1) of the fiber introducing device 9 and other rollers (not shown) may be set as a pair of electrodes, and a current can be applied to the carbon fibers FB via these rollers).
Ueda does not expressly teach a power source in communication with the controller.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill that a power source in communication with the controller is necessary to run the unit of Ueda. Evidence of this is at least but not limited to ¶0050 which states “a controller configured to control an operation device including at least one of the head, the platform, and the cutting device is provided.” And claim 1 which states “ a controller configured to control an operation device associated with at least one of the head, the platform, and the cutting device, wherein the first continuous material includes a linear resin which extends continuously, and the operation device includes a feeder configured to drive at least the first continuous material toward the nozzle and a heating unit configured to soften the linear resin such that the fibers are introduced into the linear resin at a coupling position between the feeder and the outlet of the nozzle.”
Regarding claim 20, providing a first wire, a second wire, and a wire merger, wherein the wire merger comprises two entry orifices, an exit channel, and an exit orifice; wherein the exit channel is positioned between the two entry orifices and the exit orifice; (See rejection of claim 1 above).
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170210074 A1 – Ueda, US 20160052208 A1 – Debora and US 20170165917 A1 – McKiel, JR in view of US 9144862 B2 - Hemmert.
Regarding claim 4, Ueda, McKiel, and Debora does teach the limitations of claim 3. Ueda does not expressly teach the first driver comprises at least one additional groove adjacent to the groove, wherein the second driver comprises at least one additional groove adjacent to the groove.
Hemmert is directed towards a multi-diameter wire feeder. Hemmert does teach wherein a drive roll has two grooves ([Col.8 Ln. 18-20] The drive roll 42 includes two grooves 120 and 122, one on each side of the drive roll 42).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ueda to include a drive roll has two grooves because using the multiple grooved rollers of Hemmert allows the two rollers of Ueda to be able to handle multiple sizes of wire with no replacement of parts. furthermore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the same teachings of more than one groove on the roller of Hemmert to the multiple rollers of Ueda, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 17, Ueda, McKiel, and Debora does teach the limitations of claim 1. Ueda does not expressly teach the first wire is a first material and the second wire is a second material, wherein the bundle comprises the first material and the second material, wherein the first material and the second material are selected from the group consisting of steel, stainless steel, iron, chromium, nickel, titanium, platinum ,palladium, aluminum, and any combination thereof.
Hemmert does teach the first wire is a first material and the second wire is a second material, wherein the bundle comprises the first material and the second material, wherein the first material and the second material are selected from the group consisting of steel ([Col. 2 Ln. 43-45] FIG. 7 is a side view of an embodiment of the drive roll of FIG. 4, including grooves for conveying steel wire of different sizes;).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ueda to include steel wire because the steel wire of Hemmert allows the system of Ueda to preform specific functions that would require a steel wire. Furthermore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a specific material (steel) of Hemmert to the first and second wires of Ueda, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170210074 A1 – Ueda, US 20160052208 A1 – Debora and US 20170165917 A1 – McKiel, JR in view of US 20170368739 A1 – Brennan.
Regarding claim 14, Ueda, McKiel, and Debora does teach the limitations of claim 1. Ueda does not expressly teach a first conduit and a second conduit for providing respective continuous passageways for the first wire and the second wire to the wire merger.
Brennan does teach a first conduit and a second conduit for providing respective continuous passageways for the first wire and the second wire to the wire merger ([0050] Generally, the exemplary material deposition system 10 as described herein may be applicable to nearly any additive manufacturing system that uses material feedstock fed through conduits or passages.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ueda to include a conduit for providing continuous passageways for the first wire and the second wire to the wire merger because the passages of Brennan allow the material to flow freely and directly in the system of Ueda. Furthermore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the conduits/passages of Brennan to the first and second conduits/passages of Ueda, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170210074 A1 – Ueda, US 20160052208 A1 – Debora and US 20170165917 A1 – McKiel, JR in view of US 5902537 A - Almquist.
Regarding claim 16, Ueda, McKiel, and Debora does teach the limitations of claim 1. Ueda does not expressly teach each of the first driver and the second driver comprises a position adjusting mechanism to move the first driver into alignment with the first wire and move the second driver into alignment with the second wire.
Almquist does teach each of the driver comprises a position adjusting mechanism to move the driver into alignment with the material ([[Col. 13 Ln. 3-8] The frame which positions roller 30 may also be mounted on a multipoint, e.g., 3 or 4 point, stand (not shown) which may be manually or automatically adjustable based on manual or automatic sensing of the plane along which roller 30 is swept.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ueda to include to move the driver into alignment with the material because driver adjustment means of Almquist allows the two rollers of Ueda to be able to align the wire with the driver to avoid the wire from slipping or jamming. furthermore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the adjustment means of Almquist to apply to the first and second rollers of Ueda, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE whose telephone number is (571)272-5853. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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, Steven W Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights