LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL SECURITY, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 23, 2020

2019005701 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2020)

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