DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment dated 18 May 2026 is hereby acknowledged. Claims 49-54, 56, 59-64, 66-68, and 70 as amended are pending. All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
New grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 18 May 2026. For this reason, the present action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 49-54, 56, 61-62, 66, 67, and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al., “Water-based coatings for 3D printed parts,” J. Coat. Technol. Res. 12(5) 889-897 (2015) (“Zhu”) in view of WO 2015/046217 A1 (“Nishimura”) and US 2014/0220354 (“Gao”).
A partial machine translation of WO 2015/046217 A1 is enclosed.
As to claim 49, as an initial matter, it is presumed that “low profile” means features providing a surface area roughness in the recited range, and is interpreted as surface Ra based on applicant’s specification. Zhu teaches coatings for 3D printed parts (articles) for smoothing of the build lines resulting from the 3D printing process. Zhu teaches a substrate having a surface average peak height of 61 micrometers, formed by 3d printing. With reference to Fig. 5, this is a series of low profile features having a surface area roughness of approximately 30 micrometers (since surface area roughness is calculated as deviation from an average height rather than peak height). Numerous examples in Table 4 provide average peak height of 0-10 micrometers or 0-5 micrometers when coated. Again, this is calculated as less than 10 micrometers in surface area roughness, approximately 5 micrometers, which is within the recited range. Table 2 shows peak height of a surface formed by T10 tip of approximately 22 micrometers, which would provide a Ra of just over 10 micrometers, which when coated has average peak height of 17 and 13 micrometers, which would have surface Ra of under 10 micrometers.
Zhu teaches forming parts having shapes and geometric features, thus suggesting one or more intentional features (p. 889, 2nd col.), but does not discuss that the article having a plurality of intentional features having an average height as recited. However, Nishimura discloses a similar method for coating a 3-D printed object (translation, pp. 2-3). Schematically, Nishimura, Fig. 1, suggests a 3d printed feature that may be formed from two layers of fused deposition modeling material. It can be seen that the height of the feature formed by layering two layers of fused deposition modeling material is at least approximately 4 times that of the low profile features (which have a height of approximately half the height of a layer of the build material), which are bumps and valleys formed by virtue of the 3d printing process. Such a figure has a bottom and top surface opposite to one another, the top surface having a high feature and low features from the 3-d printing process. Like Zhu, the method of Nishimura is designed to fill in the intentional lines formed in the 3-d printing process (translation, pp. 2-3). Given this teaching, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a substrate, including a bottom portion and top portion, including intentional features, as discussed by Zhu, and that the formation of features of heights within the recited range relative to low profile features formed from the 3-d printing process is an obvious modification suggested by Nishimura, depending on the specific shape and features desired to be printed.
Zhu does not discuss the use of soft touch coating. However, Zhu generally teaches that coatings can provide desired surface characteristics (p. 890, col. 1). Gao teaches coatings that provide a soft touch to a substrate, and teaches that such coatings can provide microhardness in the range recited (Gao, para. 0059). As such, the use of the coating of Gao is an obvious modification to provide a soft touch to the article where desired.
As to claim 50, Zhu does not specify the thickness of the coatings providing the recited low peak height. However, schematically, Zhu teaches a thickness of approximately 20 micrometers (Fig. 8) provides average peak height of 25 micrometers (approximately Ra of 12.5 micrometers) down from 50 micrometers (Ra of approximately 25 micrometers). Given that these systems have been shown to be able to provide the recited roughness, it is reasonable to conclude that a thickness just slightly larger than 20 micrometers, extrapolating to 25 micrometers, would provide the recited roughness, while being within the ranges recited by claims 50 and 52 with respect to the starting approximate roughness of 25 micrometers. Fig. 8(b) of Zhu furthermore schematically shows a coating having an applied thickness over the peaks of about 30 micrometers, which is within 20 % of the estimated roughness based on the peak height (25-30 micrometers).
As to claim 51, As seen in Fig. 5, the low profile features are peaks and valleys that follow parallel lines from the 3D printing process.
As to claim 52, Zhu teaches that parts may be formed with layer thicknesses of 127 micrometers (p. 890, 2nd col.) by T10 tip, which would provide parallel lines of the recited pitch.
As to claim 53, Fig. 8(b) of Zhu schematically shows a coating having an applied thickness over the peaks of about 30 micrometers, which is within 20 % of the estimated roughness based on the peak height (25-30 micrometers).
As to claim 54, Zhu teaches the coating smooths the surface (p. 889, col. 1), and thus the coated article is visually smooth. Nishimura, translation, p. 4, also teaches the utility of coating for making layer lines less noticeable, which would be expected to make larger features more noticeable.
As to claim 56, Zhu teaches that the coating smooths the imperfections in formed parts, and is thus presumed to make these less visually apparent. While the recited effect is not explicitly recited, Zhu teaches coatings covering approximately 20-25 micron thickness over the features.
As to claim 61, Zhu teaches coating the part directly with the coating (p. 890, second col.), thus a basecoat.
As to claim 62, Zhu does not explicitly teach the characteristics. However, Zhu teaches the use of Jetflex coating for aircraft interiors (p. 890, col. 1), and thus would be expected to have at least some degree of stain and abrasion resistance.
As to claims 66-68, while no specific end use is exemplified, Zhu teaches that 3D printed parts may be used in a number of fields, including automotive and aerospace, thus vehicles as required by claim 66, or aerospace or automotive vehicles as required by claims 67 and 68, and as such, applications to such parts is an obvious modification suggested by Zhu.
As to claim 70, Zhu does not discuss the use of soft touch coating. However, Zhu generally teaches that coatings can provide desired surface characteristics (p. 890, col. 1). Gao teaches coatings that provide a soft touch to a substrate, and teaches that such coatings can provide microhardness in, and a coefficient of friction in the ranges recited Gao, para. 0059). As such, the use of the coating of Gao is an obvious modification to provide a soft touch to the article where desired.
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al., “Water-based coatings for 3D printed parts,” J. Coat. Technol. Res. 12(5) 889-897 (2015) (“Zhu”) in view of WO 2015/046217 A1 (“Nishimura”) and US 2014/0220354 (“Gao”) as applied to claim 49, further in view of WO 2016/201062 A1 (“Hensel”).
Zhu does not discuss the use of soft touch coating. However, Zhu generally teaches that coatings can provide desired surface characteristics (p. 890, col. 1). Hensel teaches coatings including polyurethane (see para. 0029, teaching isocyanate/polyol system) that provide a soft touch to a substrate, and teaches that such coatings can provide microhardness and delta E in the range recited (Hensel, paras. 0057-0058). As such, the use of the coating of Hensel is an obvious modification to provide a soft touch to the article and low delta E where desired.
Claim 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al., “Water-based coatings for 3D printed parts,” J. Coat. Technol. Res. 12(5) 889-897 (2015) (“Zhu”) in view of WO 2015/046217 A1 (“Nishimura”) and US 2014/0220354 (“Gao”) as applied to claim 49, further in view of US 2015/0307738 (“Schmucker”).
As to claim 60, Zhu teaches a urethane based coating system (p. 890, col. 1). Furthermore, Schmucker teaches polyurethane based coatings may be used for soft touch, having microhardness in the recited range (abstract, para. 0068).. As such, the use of polyurethane soft touch coating is an obvious modification suggested by Schmucker
Claim(s) 63 and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al., “Water-based coatings for 3D printed parts,” J. Coat. Technol. Res. 12(5) 889-897 (2015) (“Zhu”) in view of WO 2015/046217 A1 (“Nishimura”) and US 2014/0220354 (“Gao”)as applied to claim 49, further in view of US 9,199,428 (“Riebel”).
As to claims 63-64, as an initial matter “intentional” as applied to three-dimensional pattern is interpreted as product-by-process limitation, for which patentability is determined by the end product. See MPEP 2113. As such, to the extent a pattern exists, it is presumed to be intentional. Zhu teaches forming rectangular prisms, a three dimensional, regular pattern as required by claims 63 and 64, formed by 3D printing as required by claim 65 (p. 890, col. 2, Fig. 1). Furthermore, Riebel teaches that 3d printing may be used to form textures on a surface (col. 4). This texture is either a regular or irregular pattern, and as such, the use of 3d printing to form a pattern is an obvious modification suggested by Riebel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues against the combination of Zhu and Nishimura, suggesting the recited depth of low profile features. However, Nishimura is introduced to show that features can be made with 3d modeling that are in the range of height with respect to low profile features (i.e., the build lines), and that such a modification based on the specific shape formed is an obvious modification.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to soft touch coating are not persuasive. Specifically, Zhu teaches that coatings in general may be used to fill gaps in 3D printed objects, even though the same type as Gao is not exemplified.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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, Arrie Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights