LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL SECURITY, LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 23, 20202019005701 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2020) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/802,064 07/17/2015 James Lewicki IL-12984 1077 24981 7590 11/23/2020 Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY PO BOX 808, L-703 LIVERMORE, CA 94551-0808 EXAMINER CUMMINS IV, MANLEY L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1743 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/23/2020 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): llnldocket@llnl.gov PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JAMES LEWICKI, ERIC B. DUOSS, WILLIAM ELMER, MICHAEL J. KING, JENNIFER NICOLE RODRIGUEZ, and MARCUS A. WORSLEY Appeal 2019-005701 Application 14/802,064 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, MICHAEL G. McMANUS, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC and the United States of America as represented by the United States Department of Energy. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-005701 Application 14/802,064 2 Appellant’s invention is directed to an apparatus for additive manufacturing continuous filament carbon fiber epoxy composites (Spec. ¶ 2; Claim 1). Claim 1 is on appeal: 1. An apparatus for additive manufacturing a carbon fiber epoxy product comprising: an additive manufacturing print head; a continuous carbon fiber core operatively connected to said additive manufacturing print head, said continuous carbon fiber core comprising a multiplicity of fibers; a tapered nozzle in said additive manufacturing print head that receives said continuous carbon fiber core with said tapered nozzle having a first end that is an entrance, a second end that is an exit, and a center that extends from said first end to said second end, wherein said continuous carbon fiber core enters said first end of said tapered nozzle, wherein said continuous carbon fiber core is located in said center from said first end to said second end; a fiber core shaper in said tapered nozzle that shapes said continuous carbon fiber core, wherein said fiber core shaper extends from said first end to said second end and surrounds and contacts said continuous carbon fiber core in said tapered nozzle from said first end to said second end, wherein said fiber core shaper, said tapered nozzle, and said continuous carbon fiber core are positioned so that said fiber core shaper directly contacts said continuous carbon fiber core in said tapered nozzle from said first end to said second end and shapes said continuous carbon fiber core; Appeal 2019-005701 Application 14/802,064 3 an epoxy resin; an inorganic filler comprising silica; a tailored epoxy resin and silica feed operatively connected to said print head and operatively connected to said first end of said tapered nozzle; an epoxy resin and silica chamber in said tapered nozzle that extends from said first end to said second end, wherein said epoxy resin chamber surrounds and is open to said fiber core shaper in said tapered nozzle from said first end to said second end of said tapered nozzle, wherein said epoxy resin and silica is directed into said resin and silica chamber in said tapered nozzle; an extruded material that is extruded from said tapered nozzle wherein said extruded material is made of said continuous carbon fiber core and said epoxy resin and said silica; a surface that receives said extruded material wherein said extruded material is deposited on said surface to build the carbon fiber epoxy product; an independent satellite curing head operatively connected to said print head; and ultraviolet radiation produced by said independent satellite curing head, wherein said independent satellite curing head is positioned away from said tapered nozzle and wherein said independent satellite curing head focuses said ultraviolet radiation on said extruded material that is deposited on said surface; and an alternative curing system surrounding said tapered nozzle; wherein said alternative curing system surrounding said tapered nozzle and said independent satellite curing head that focuses said ultraviolet radiation on said extruded material that is deposited on said surface cure said extruded material and build the carbon fiber epoxy product. (emphasis added) Appeal 2019-005701 Application 14/802,064 4 Appellant appeals the following rejections presented in the Final Office Action: Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jang (US 5,936,861; issued Aug. 10, 1999) in view of Tyler (US 2014/0061974 A1; published Mar. 6, 2014). FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS The Examiner’s findings regarding the obviousness of claim 1 over Jang and Tyler are located on pages 3–9 of the Final Office Action. The Examiner finds Jang teaches the subject matter of claim 1, except for guide tube 24 (i.e., fiber core shaper) contacting the fiber in the tapered nozzle from the first end to a second end, and the use of a satellite curing head (Final Act. 3–5, 8). The Examiner finds Jang teaches that the tip 25 is changeable and may include a hole with a diameter smaller than the fiber core shaper 24 (Final Act. 6). The Examiner provides three rationales for why Jang’s fiber core shaper 24 apparatus would have been capable of contacting the fiber from first end to the second end of the nozzle (Final Act. 6-8). The first rationale is based on optimizing fiber diameter and opening in changeable tip 25 of guide tube 24 so that contact results between the guide tube 24 (i.e., fiber core shaper) and the fiber (Final Act. 7). The Examiner’s second rationale is based on the recognition that absent tip 25, the only way to prevent backflow of the matrix material into the guide tube 24 would have been to make the fiber/fiber tow the same diameter as the guide tube 24 (Final Act. 8). The third rationale is based on an obvious change in shape/size or proportion of the fiber diameter relative to the guide tube 24 diameter (Final Act. 8). The Examiner further finds that the Jang Appeal 2019-005701 Application 14/802,064 5 does not teach an independent satellite curing head operatively connected to the print head and ultraviolet radiation produced by the independent satellite curing head as recited in claim 1 (Final Act. 8). The Examiner finds that Tyler teaches a fiber composite three-dimensional printer using an independent satellite curing head 501 connected to the print head that produced ultraviolet radiation (Final Act. 9). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to incorporate Tyler’s known curing means into Jang’s print head for the benefit of curing extruded composite material more quickly upon the extruded material’s exit for the nozzle as taught by Tyler (Final Act. 9). Appellant argues that Jang fails to teach all the limitations of claim 1 (Appeal Br. 9). Appellant contends that Jang and Tyler lack a fiber core shaper as recited in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 9). Appellant argues that Jang’s Figure 2 shows that there is space around the fiber along the entire length of the guide tube 24 (Appeal Br. 10–11). Appellant contends that Jang does not teach the fiber shaper contacts the fiber core from the first end to said second end of the nozzle as recited in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 11). Appellant contends that Jang’s guide tube 24 does not directly contact the fiber core as required by claim 1 (Appeal Br. 12). The Examiner responds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the claimed fiber core shaper would have required a hollow internal cavity having a sufficiently uniform cross-sectional area from end-to-end because such a shaper is capable of direct physical contact with the fiber along the entire length of the shaper’s internal surface (Ans. 18). The Examiner finds that Jang’s hollow guide tube 24 with a uniform diameter would have met this limitation because it is capable of contacting Appeal 2019-005701 Application 14/802,064 6 carbon fiber of a substantially similar diameter (Ans. 18). The Examiner finds that Appellant has not responded to or otherwise rebutted specifically the Examiner’s three rationales supporting the conclusions that Jang’s guide tube 24 would have been capable of functioning as a fiber shaper where the fiber contacts the shaper from the first end to the second end of the nozzle (Ans. 17–18, 20). The preponderance of the evidence favors the Examiner’s obviousness conclusions. Appellant’s arguments do not address specifically or otherwise show reversible error with any of the Examiner’s rationales concerning the capability of the guide tube 24 to function as a fiber core shaper (Final Act. 7–8). Appellant’s arguments only concern whether Jang expressly teaches the fiber-core shaper limitation. The Examiner reasonably finds that the recitation of the fiber is the material worked upon by the apparatus and is an intended use of the device (Final Act. 2). The claim requires, inter alia, “a fiber core shaper . . .that shapes said continuous carbon fiber core, . . . wherein said fiber core shaper . . . shapes said continuous carbon fiber core.” The claims uses the active verb “shapes” to describe the function of the fiber core shaper. In a 2017 decision, the Federal Circuit construed a system claim including active verbs. There, the Court held that “[t]hough claim 8 includes active verbs—presents, receives, and generates—these verbs represent permissible functional language used to describe capabilities of the ‘reporting module’ . . . . the claims at issue here merely claim that the system “possess[es] the recited structure [which is] capable of performing the recited functions.” MasterMine Software v Microsoft Corp., 874 F.3d 1307, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Tex. Instruments Inc., 520 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Appeal 2019-005701 Application 14/802,064 7 Appellant argues that Jane and Tyler fail to teach the epoxy resin and silica feed limitations (Appeal Br. 13). Appellant contends that Jang’s small cell 80 is outside of Jang’s hollow guide tube 24 and the Jang reference small cell 80 does not teach or suggest a tailored epoxy resin and silica feed operatively connected to the print head (Appeal Br. 14). The Examiner correctly finds that the claim recitation of an epoxy resin and silica feed is merely the material worked upon and does not further limit the apparatus structure (Final Act. 2). As such, the epoxy and silica feed limitation is treated as an intended use of the apparatus. In the present case, the Examiner finds Jang teaches using epoxy in the three-dimensional additive process (Final Act. 4). The Examiner finds that Jang teaches the same structure, except for the satellite curing head, as recited in claim 1 such that Jang’s apparatus would have been capable of using epoxy with silica filler as the matrix material fed through opening 82 into small cell 80 of the nozzle 22 (Final Act. 5). Appellant does not dispute this finding regarding the capability of Jang’s apparatus structure (Appeal Br. 13–14). Appellant argues that Jang and Tyler fail to teach an epoxy resin and silica chamber in the tapered nozzle that extends from said first end to said second end, wherein said epoxy resin chamber surrounds and is open to said fiber core shaper in said tapered nozzle from said first end to said second end of the tapered nozzle (Appeal Br. 14–15). Appellant contends that Jang’s small cell 80 is outside of the hollow guiding tube 24 (Appeal Br. 15). Appellant argues that Jang does not teach that epoxy resin and silica are directed into the resin and silica chamber in the tapered nozzle (Appeal Br. 16). Appellant argues that Jang’s small cell 80 is not Appellant’s tailored epoxy resin and silica feed (Appeal Br. 16). Appeal 2019-005701 Application 14/802,064 8 We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments because they fail to address the Examiner’s specific findings with respect to these limitations (Final Act. 4–5). The Examiner provides annotated figures on page 19 of the Answer where the Examiner shows how Jang’s nozzle structure compares to Appellant’s nozzle structure. As shown in the annotated figure, Jang’s Figure 2 shows nozzle 84 that forms a small cell 80 that fills with matrix material via opening 82 and surrounds the portion of the guide tube 24 that extends from the first end (entrance) of the nozzle 84 to the second end (exit) of the nozzle. The matrix material fed into small cell 80 via opening 82 is considered an intended use of the apparatus. In other words, we agree with the Examiner that Jang’s device is capable of using epoxy with silica as the matrix material fed to small cell 80 (i.e., the epoxy and silica chamber that surrounds the guide tube 24). Appellant argues for the first time in the Reply Brief that Jang and Tyler fail to teach the satellite curing head (Reply Br. 4–6). Appellant refers to the Answer at pages 10–17 as providing the statements being rebutted by Appellant (Reply Br. 5). Although Appellant contends that the Examiner embellished on his statements in the Answer regarding the finding that Jang teaches an alternative curing system (i.e., Figure 2, ref. no. 88) (Reply Br. 6), and Tyler teaches an independent satellite curing head, Appellant raised no argument against this combination in the principal Brief. The Examiner relied on Tyler to teach the satellite curing head and the Examiner found that Jang teaches an alternative curing system on pages 8–9 of the Final Office Action. These arguments should have been made earlier in prosecution. Nevertheless, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because they do not Appeal 2019-005701 Application 14/802,064 9 dispute the Examiner’s finding that Jang teaches an alternative curing system (Reply Br. 5–6). Appellant contends that Jang does not teach a satellite curing head, which is not disputed by the Examiner. The Examiner relies on Tyler to teach a satellite curing head (Final Act. 9). Appellant argues that Tyler’s ultraviolet light is not an independent satellite curing head that is positioned away from the nozzle (Reply Br. 6). We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments because claim 1 does not recite any particular distance that the satellite curing head needs to be away from nozzle. Claim 1 requires that the satellite curing head be positioned away from the nozzle and focuses ultraviolet light on the extruded material. Tyler’s ultraviolet light 501 focuses light on the extruded product (¶ 51). Appellant contends that the satellite curing head operatively connected to a print head is a structural limitation, not an intended use as found by the Examiner on pages 7–8 of the Answer (Reply Br. 12). Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner does not find that the attachment of the satellite curing head to the print head is an intended use (Final Act. 9). Instead the Examiner correctly finds in the Answer that the focusing of the satellite light source on the extruded material is an intended use (Ans. 7–8). Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reasons for combining the teachings of Jang and Tyler are not valid reasons (Appeal Br. 17). Appellant appears to argue that the Examiner’s finding that Jang’s guiding tube 24 corresponds to Appellant’s fiber core shaper is erroneous (Appeal Br. 18). We understand Appellant to be challenging the Examiner’s finding regarding Jang’s guide tube 24 structure. We find these arguments Appeal 2019-005701 Application 14/802,064 10 unpersuasive for the reasons discussed earlier in this decision. Jang’s guide tube 24 positions the fiber within the nozzle 84 as does Appellant’s structure. Appellant’s argument about the spacing between the fiber and guide tube 24 is not persuasive because it fails to address the Examiner’s determination that Jang’s guide tube 24 is capable of using a fiber with a diameter the same size as the guide tube (Final Act. 7–8). Appellant makes similar arguments regarding the Examiner’s reasons (i.e., findings) regarding the recited tailored epoxy feed (Appeal Br. 19–21). We are unpersuaded by these arguments for the same reasons discussed above. The Examiner correctly finds the epoxy and silica feed is merely an intended use of material worked upon by the device (Final Act. 5). The Examiner finds that Jang’s opening 82 and small cell 80 in nozzle 84 are capable of holding epoxy and silica (Final Act. 5). No evidence of unexpected results or criticality has been alleged or proffered by Appellant. On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 1 over Jang and Tyler. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1 103(a) Jang, Tyler 1 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation