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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 8, 2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9-10 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Dikovsky (US 2014/0312535).
Claim 1: Dikovsky discloses a method of additive manufacturing of a three-dimensional object, including sequentially forming a plurality of layers in a configured pattern corresponding to a shape of the object (¶ 75), thereby forming the object (¶ 75), wherein the formation including dispensing at least three building material formulations (¶¶ 63, 76-79, figs. 1, 3) including a first building material formulation which includes one or more modeling material formulations which, upon exposure to a curing condition, forms a first modeling material (¶¶ 63, 76-79, figs. 1, 3), and a second building material formulation which, upon exposure to the curing condition, forms a second material which is a liquid or a liquid-like material and which features flowability when subjected to a positive pressure of no more than 1 bar at ambient conditions (¶¶ 63, 76-79, figs. 1, 3; material remains flowable when no pressure is applied), and a third building material formulation which forms, upon exposure to the curing condition, a hardened support material (¶¶ 63, 76-79, figs. 1, 3), and exposing the dispensed at least three building material formulations to the curing condition to form a first modeling material, the second liquid or liquid-like material, and the hardened support material (¶¶ 63, 76-79, figs. 1, 3), wherein the dispensing is such that the first modeling material forms at least one hollow structure at least partially enclosing the second material and the hardened support material (¶¶ 63, 76-79, figs. 1, 3). Dikovsky also teaches that materials within the hollow model can “be drained, burnt-out or otherwise removed once the process is complete” (¶ 9). To the extent that that the support material could be considered to be combined from a second embodiment of Dikovsky, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to include the support material in the embodiment cited to allow better separation between the tissues, for example when serving as a device for surgery training or other educational purposes, as taught by Dikovsky (¶ 63).
Claim 3: Dikovsky discloses the shape of the object is described by computer object input data and the method includes generating computer object data describing cavities in the hollow structure (¶¶ 86-87; figs. 5A-C), generating computer object data describing the cavities in shrunk form such that their outmost surfaces encompass a volume which is reduced compared to the volume of the cavities received as input (¶¶ 86-87; figs. 5A-C), and combining said computer object input data with the computer object data to provide combined computer object data describing the hollow structure and a core encapsulated by the hollow structure in a manner that there is a gap between an inner surface of the hollow structure and an outermost surface of the core (¶¶ 86-87; figs. 5A-C).
Claim 7: Dikovsky discloses the second material is flowable when subjected to a positive pressure of no more than 0.5 bar (¶¶ 86-87; material remains flowable when no pressure is applied).
Claim 9: Dikovsky discloses the second material includes a non-curable material (¶¶ 86-87).
Claim 10: Dikovsky discloses the non-curable material includes PEG 400 (¶ 86).
Claim 52: Dikovsky discloses the second material forms an intermediate shell between an inner surface of the hollow structure and the hardened support material (¶¶ 63, 76-79, figs. 1, 3).
Claims 8, 11-13, 17, 21-22, 27, 32-33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dikovsky (US 2014/0312535), as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, in view of Napadensky (US 2007/0168815).
Claim 8: Dikovsky discloses the second liquid material having the same viscosity following curing, but is silent as to the claimed viscosity range. However, Napadensky discloses a method of additive manufacturing of a three-dimensional object, including sequentially forming a plurality of layers in a configured pattern corresponding to a shape of the object (¶¶ 81-89), thereby forming the object (¶¶ 81-89), wherein the formation including dispensing at least two building material formulations (¶¶ 81-89) including a first building material formulation which includes one or more modeling material formulations which, upon exposure to a curing condition, forms a first modeling material (¶¶ 81-89), and a second building material formulation which, upon exposure to the curing condition, forms a second material which is a liquid or a liquid-like material and which features flowability (¶¶ 62-65), wherein the second building material formulation has a viscosity of 20-500 cps at ambient temperature, and remains a liquid following curing (¶¶ 62-65). As taught by Napadensky et al., compositions that include viscosities in the claimed range are simple and easily obtainable and provide support for three-dimensional objects (¶ 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have included compositions that include viscosities in the claimed range in the support formulations of Dikovsky in order to provide simple, easily obtainable materials to support three-dimensional objects.
Claim 11: Dikovsky is silent as to the second building material formulation including a non-curable material and a curable material. However, Napadensky discloses a method of additive manufacturing of a three-dimensional object, including sequentially forming a plurality of layers in a configured pattern corresponding to a shape of the object (¶¶ 81-89), thereby forming the object (¶¶ 81-89), wherein the formation including dispensing at least two building material formulations (¶¶ 81-89) including a first building material formulation which includes one or more modeling material formulations which, upon exposure to a curing condition, forms a first modeling material (¶¶ 81-89), and a second building material formulation which, upon exposure to the curing condition, forms a second material which is a liquid or a liquid-like material and which features flowability (¶¶ 62-65), wherein the second building material formulation includes a non-curable material and a curable material (¶¶ 62-65). As taught by Napadensky et al., compositions that include curable and non-curable materials are simple and easily obtainable and provide support for three-dimensional objects (¶ 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have included the curable and non-curable materials in the support formulations of Dikovsky in order to provide simple, easily obtainable materials to support three-dimensional objects.
Claim 12: Napadensky discloses the curable component including a mono-functional monomer (¶¶ 101-106).
Claim 13: Napadensky discloses the curable component being hydrophilic (¶ 160).
Claim 17: Napadensky discloses an amount of the curable material in the formulation is greater than about 20% (¶ 106), which overlaps the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when the ranges of a claimed element overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art. See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
Claims 21-22: Napadensky discloses, subsequent to exposing, removing the second material by washing (¶¶ 148-149).
Claim 27: Dikovsky discloses the first modeling material forms a hollow structure that is enclosed within the hollow structure and the liquid material is enclosed within the hardened support material (¶¶ 85-86; figs. 5A-C).
Claims 32-33 and 35: Napadensky discloses removing the support material and liquid material with a cleaning solution (¶¶ 148-149).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but to the extent that the arguments are relevant to the 103 grounds of rejection they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that that the relevancy of paragraph 63 cannot be understood. More specifically, Applicant’s representative is confused as to how the gel or gel-like material in paragraph 63 can be a support material. This argument has been considered but is also not persuasive. Paragraph 63 explicitly states that the support material can be a gel or gel-like material.
Applicant further argues that “before appealing to the board” claim 1 has been amended to recite removing materials. This argument has also been considered but is not persuasive. Dikovsky also teaches removal of the materials as discussed in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY THROWER whose telephone number is (571)270-5517. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm MT 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.
/LARRY W THROWER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754