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
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-15, drawn to a method of forming a polymer composite, classified in B29C64/165.
II. Claim 16-20, drawn to a manufacturing apparatus, classified in B33Y30/00.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the apparatus as claimed could be used to simply deposit fiber within FDM produced objects without the weaving around pillars.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Restriction of method and apparatus claims are typical and often examined by separate art units and involve different standards for evaluating patentability (active method steps vs. structural characteristics). Inclusion of the method claims would likely prolong prosecution as well as the examiner's search.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Caleb Nitz on 7/27/26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-15. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Interpretation
The writing head is interpreted as a device that creates the fiber and the gripper as any device that distributes a premade fiber.
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 11 is 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.
The phrase “wherein forming the array of pillars and encapsulating the fibers includes curing the polymer material” unclear if both the forming step and the encapsulating step require separate curing steps or if only 1 curing step is requiring between the two.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 10336006) in view of Takahashi (3D printed Fabric: Techniques for Design and 3D Weaving programmable Textiles).
As to claim 1, Cohen teaches a method of forming a polymer composite [Abstract], the method comprising: forming an array of vertical z axis fibers ie warp fibers separated by intermediate spaces via additive manufacturing [col 4 line 4-21, Fig 3]; weaving, waving, and/or knitting a continuous fiber in a controlled pattern within the intermediate spaces between the array of the warp fibers [col 16 line 42-67]; and encapsulating the continuous fiber with a subsequent layer of the polymer material (by being lowered into the vat and being solidified) [claim 1, col 17 line 1-15].
Cohen does not explicitly state the use of the pillars.
Takahashi teaches a method of making 3D printed textiles objects [Abstract] wherein pillars are first 3D printed then fibers are interwoven in the space between the pillars and notes that “pillars are equivalent to a warp” [Fig 2, Weaving Fiber]. The 3D printing the pillars layer by layer also allows for avoiding collisions with the outside warp/pillar [Components to Build Structure Pillar] and allows for curved pillars to be produced in order to make more complex parts [Limitations and Future Work, Integrating curved paths and 3D solid meshes]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Cohen and utilized 3D printed pillars instead of warp fibers, as suggested by Takahashi, as these allow for avoiding collisions with the outside warp/pillar and allows for making more complex parts. Moreover, substituting an art recognized equivalent for another, in this case warp fibers for pillars, is generally recognized to be obvious, see MPEP 2144.06 II.
As to claim 2, The combination of Cohen and Takahashi teaches pillar of the array of pillars is formed as a cylinder [Fig 2, Takahashi] and notes that the pillars can be “any geometric shape” [Components to Build Structure Pillar Takahashi].
As to claim 3, The combination of Cohen and Takahashi would teach the array of pillars is a first array of pillars, the method further comprising forming a second array of pillars of the polymer material on the subsequent layer of the polymer material as in Takahashi the next set of pillars are printed atop the previous set [Fig 2]
As to claim 4, The combination of Cohen and Takahashi teach that the continuous fiber is a first continuous fiber, the method further comprising weaving, waving, and/or knitting a second continuous fiber between the second array of pillars [Fig 2 Takahashi].
As to claim 5, The combination of Cohen and Takahashi teach pattern of the first continuous fiber is distinct from the pattern of the second continuous fiber as the layers alternate which side of the pillars the fiber is placed on [Fig 2].
As to claim 6, Cohen teaches weaving, waving, and/or knitting the continuous fiber includes moving a gripper (any of the distributing devices: delivery tubes, hooks/rapier) into a printing area of the polymer composite to tension the continuous fiber about the pillars of the array of pillars [col 5 line 1-45, Fig 5a-5c].
As to claim 7, Cohen teaches weaving, waving, and/or knitting the continuous fiber includes moving a writing head into a printing area of the polymer composite to tension the continuous fiber about the pillars of the array of pillars.
Takahashi teaches a method of making 3D printed textiles objects [Abstract] wherein the fiber is distributed by a fiber writing head [Table 1, Fig 2, Weaving Fiber, components to Build Structure Fiber]. This allows complex parts that are flexible but maintain their shape to be produced [Integrating curved paths and 3D solid meshes, Table 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Cohen utilized moving a writing head into a prining area of the polymer composite to tension the continuous fiber about the pillars, as suggested by Takahashi, as these allows for making more complex parts that are flexible but maintain their shape.
As to claim 8, Cohen teaches prior to weaving, waving, and/or knitting the continuous fiber, the method further comprises pre-soaking the continuous fiber in the polymer material phrased as pre-impregnating [col 21 line 63-col 22 line 15].
As to claim 9, Cohen teaches the array of pillars is formed by curing the polymer material into a pillar base having the array of pillars formed thereon, wherein the polymer material is a liquid polymer resin material that is cured into a solid polymer resin material [col 4 line 44-67]. As Takahashi when incorporated into Cohen would suggest forming pillars by 3D printing instead of using warp fibers as explained above, the combination of Cohen as modified by Takahashi would also form the pillars via the 3d printing mechanism used in Cohen, ie vat polymerization. Hence, the combination of Cohen and Takahashi teach forming the array of pillars includes submersing at least a portion of a build platform into a resin tank.
As to claim 10, Cohen teaches weaving, waving, and/or knitting the continuous fiber in the controlled pattern includes locating a tip of a gripper (the distribution tube) into the intermediate space between adjacent pillars of the array of warp [col 5 line 1-45, Fig 5a-5c]. Takahashi additionally teaches moving the writing head in the intermediate space between pillars as explained above.
As to claim 11, Cohen teaches the forming the array of pillars and encapsulating the fibers includes curing the polymer material [col 4 line 44-67].
As to claim 12, Cohen teaches encapsulating the continuous fiber with the subsequent layer of the polymer material includes submersing at least a portion of the continuous fiber in the resin tank [col 4 line 44-67]. As Takahashi when incorporated into Cohen would suggest forming pillars by 3D printing instead of using warp fibers as explained above, the combination of Cohen as modified by Takahashi would also form the pillars via the 3d printing mechanism used in Cohen, ie vat polymerization. Hence, the combination of Cohen and Takahashi teach forming the array of pillars includes submersing at least a portion of a build platform into a resin tank.
As to claim 13, Cohen teaches weaving, waving, and/or knitting the continuous fiber includes overlapping multiple layers of the continuous fiber onto the array of pillars [Figs 1a-2b].
As to claim 14, Cohen teaches the array of pillars is formed by curing the polymer material into a pillar base having the array of pillars formed thereon, wherein the polymer material is a liquid polymer resin material that is cured into a solid polymer resin material [col 4 line 44-67]. As Takahashi when incorporated into Cohen would suggest forming pillars by 3D printing instead of using warp fibers as explained above, the combination of Cohen as modified by Takahashi would also form the pillars via the 3d printing mechanism used in Cohen, ie vat polymerization. Hence, the combination of Cohen and Takahashi teach forming the array of pillars includes submersing at least a portion of a build platform into a resin tank.
Takahashi teaches a method of making 3D printed textiles objects [Abstract] wherein the fiber is distributed by a fiber writing head [Table 1, Fig 2, Weaving Fiber, components to Build Structure Fiber]. This allows complex parts that are flexible but maintain their shape to be produced [Integrating curved paths and 3D solid meshes, Table 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Cohen utilized moving the pillars produced by vat polymerization to a fiber writing device, as suggested by Takahashi, as these allows for making more complex parts that are flexible but maintain their shape.
As to claim 15, Cohen teaches the array of warp are formed on a build platform of a resin tank, wherein weaving, waving, and/or knitting the continuous fiber includes weaving, waving, and/or knitting the continuous fiber onto the array of Warp positioned on the build platform [Fig 3, col 4 line 4-21]. As the combination of Cohen and Takahashi suggest replacing the warp with pillars as explained above, the combination of Cohen and the Takahashi would place the pillars on the build platform.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights