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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 26, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 14, 16, 19, 24, 26-32 and 34-38 are pending. Claims 6, 10, 13, and 23 have been canceled. Claim 14 has been amended. The prior art rejection has been revised in view of the amendment. The previous rejection under 35 USC 112d is moot in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14, 16, 19, 24, 26-32, and 34-38 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 14, as amended, in part recites, “wherein the three-dimensional object has a cross-sectional area that would otherwise cause deformation of the oxygen permeable membrane in the absence of the oxygen soluble liquid comprising perfluorodecalin.” [0036] does not provide sufficient support to provide an adequate written description of the amended claim language. [0036] discusses large volumes of ink causing deformation, with a wider middle line of membrane having more deformation (see also Fig. 10). [0036] at its closest discloses “This problem may worsen when printing over a large cross-sectional areas.” This teaching is not tied to perfluorodecalin as opposed to every other oxygen soluble liquid. Accordingly, the combination, “wherein the three-dimensional object has a cross-sectional area that would otherwise cause deformation of the oxygen permeable membrane in the absence of the oxygen soluble liquid comprising perfluorodecalin” does not have an adequate written support in the disclosure. Claims 16, 19, 24, 26-32, and 34-38 rejected as depending from claim 14.
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.
Claims 14, 16, 19, 24, 26-32, and 34-38 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.
Claim 14, as amended, in part recites, “wherein the three-dimensional object has a cross-sectional area that would otherwise cause deformation of the oxygen permeable membrane in the absence of the oxygen soluble liquid comprising perfluorodecalin.” It is not clear if Applicant has a particular other oxygen soluble liquid in mind for the comparison, or a particular volume of ink involved. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of this claim limitation are unclear. A relatively small cross-sectional area could be sufficient if “absence” meant in comparison to having no liquid below the membrane, or a particularly low density liquid. There would be added confusion if we were talking about an oxygen soluble liquid that has a higher density than perfluorodecalin. Given the discussion in Applicant’s remarks, perhaps a threshold of membrane area and hydrostatic pressure, or resistance to deformation thereof would more clearly delineate a boundary for the claim.Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 14, 16, 26-28, 31-32, and 34-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robeson (US 2017/0028618) in view of Castanon (US 2022/0305730) and Padilla (US 2021/0316367).
Regarding claim 14, Robeson discloses a method for forming a three-dimensional object (abstract), comprising: providing a platform (carrier, [0063], Fig. 2) and an oxygen soluble liquid having a build surface (immiscible liquid pool with oxygen inhibitor, [0059], Fig. 2), the build surface and the platform defining a build region therebetween (polymerizable liquid in between, [0063], Fig. 2); disposing a photosensitive liquid (polymerizable liquid, [0063], Fig. 2) comprising a bio-ink (carrying live cells in the polymerizable liquid, [0062]) on the oxygen soluble liquid (immiscible liquid pool with oxygen inhibitor, [0059] [0063], Fig. 2) wherein (1) a density of the oxygen soluble liquid is greater than a density of the photosensitive liquid ([0008]; relative density as claimed because the polymerizable liquid is floating directly on the immiscible liquid, [0063], Fig. 2), and (3) a height of photosensitive liquid is greater than twice a height of the oxygen soluble liquid ([0064] [0095], overlapping range, see MPEP 2144.05(I)); disposing the oxygen soluble liquid on a flat surface of an optically transparent member (window, [0063], Fig. 2), the flat surface extending across dimensions of the build surface (to build, irradiation passes through the window under the dimensions of the build surface, [0063], Fig. 2), wherein (1) the oxygen soluble liquid is in physical contact with the photosensitive liquid and the optically transparent member (Fig. 2), (2) the dimensions of the build surface define a support region between the photosensitive liquid and the optically transparent member (Fig. 2), and (3) the support region consists of the oxygen soluble liquid and does not include an oxygen permeable membrane (Fig. 2); maintaining, using a pump, a constant concentration of oxygen in the oxygen soluble liquid of the build region by recirculating the oxygen soluble liquid through the pump (refreshing oxygen content by recirculating the fluid, [0065]); irradiating the build region through the optically transparent member and the oxygen soluble liquid to form a solid polymer from the photosensitive liquid (irradiation source irradiates build region to polymerize object in the polymerizable liquid, [0063], Fig. 2), wherein a plane of polymerization is aligned with a focal plane of the projector during formation of the three-dimensional object (Fig. 2), wherein the three-dimensional object has a cross-sectional area that would otherwise cause deformation of the oxygen permeable membrane in the absence of the oxygen soluble liquid comprising perfluorocarbon liquids (with a perfluorocarbon taught and [0091] teaching a higher density hydrocarbon, a high density liquid and thereby resistance to deformation is taught, the size of the object is not taught as limited beyond the area of the vessel, and therefore there is at least an overlapping range, see MPEP 2144.05(I)) wherein (1) a density of the oxygen soluble liquid is greater than a density of the photosensitive liquid (abstract), and (3) a height of photosensitive liquid is greater than twice a height of the oxygen soluble liquid ([0064] [0095], overlapping range, see MPEP 2144.05(I)); and advancing the platform away from the build surface (carrier progressively advances as the object forms, [0063], Fig. 2).
Robeson teaches a method substantially as claimed. Robeson does not disclose the oxygen soluble liquid comprising perfluorodecalin, (2) the oxygen soluble liquid has an oxygen solubility of greater than 0.3 ml O2/ml oxygen soluble liquid, recirculating, using a peristaltic pump, oxygen soluble liquid through the peristaltic pump, and irradiating, by a projector, the build region through the optically transparent member and the oxygen soluble liquid to form a solid polymer from the photosensitive liquid, wherein a plane of polymerization is aligned with a focal plane of the projector during formation of the three-dimensional object.
However, in the same field of endeavor of VAT stereolithography ([0001]), Castanon teaches the oxygen soluble liquid comprising perfluorodecalin ([0019] [0022], Fig. 6), (2) the oxygen soluble liquid has an oxygen solubility of greater than 0.3 ml O2/ml oxygen soluble liquid (as per [0025] of Applicant’s disclosure, perfluorodecalin has an inherent property of oxygen solubility of 40.5 ml O2/100 ml or 0.405 ml O2/ml), and irradiating, by a projector, the build region through the optically transparent member and the oxygen soluble liquid to form a solid polymer from the photosensitive liquid (emitting device 40 below bottom wall 148 of tank 142 emits light to cure or polymerize resin, [0016-19], Fig. 6), wherein a plane of polymerization is aligned with a focal plane of the projector during formation of the three-dimensional object (thin layer of resin is cured at and proximate to upper surface of the membrane, this entails the emitting device with a focal plane forming this layer, [0018], Fig. 6).
Additionally, in the same field of recirculating fluid for additively manufacturing by selectively solidifying layers of liquid ([0074] [0131] [0312] of Padilla), Padilla teaches recirculating, using a peristaltic pump (peristaltic pump connected for recirculation, [0305] [0312]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Robeson for the oxygen soluble liquid to be perfluorodecalin because [0091] of Robeson teaches perfluorocarbon liquids and [0022] of Castanon teaches that perfluorocarbon can be perfluorodecalin, performing the same function in the same technical context, being one of the art recognized equivalents for this purpose. Further, it would have been obvious to further modify the method of Robeson such that the irradiation is performed by a projector because Robeson is silent as to details on the irradiation source and [0016-19] of Castanon teaches emitting device 40 as a known way to solve the problem in the same technical context, irradiating to solidify polymerizable liquid above an oxygen rich carrier fluid for vat stereolithography. Finally, it would have been obvious to further modify the method of Robeson to make the pump a peristaltic pump because Robeson is silent as to the type of pump and [0312] of Padilla teaches a peristaltic pump to recirculate fluid for vat photopolymerization (see [0131]). Accordingly, substituting the type of pump to be a peristaltic pump would have predictably obtained the result of recirculating the oxygen soluble fluid. The recirculation would maintain the oxygen level because [0065] of Robeson teaches refreshing the oxygen content.
Regarding claim 16, Robeson as modified teaches maintaining an oxygen inhibition layer thickness of at least 20 μm (a series of ranges of at least 10 microns to 400 microns or more, which overlaps with the recited range, Robeson [0095], see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 26, Robeson as modified teaches wherein the oxygen soluble liquid has an oxygen solubility of 0.5 ml O2/ml oxygen soluble liquid (perfluorodecalin has an oxygen solubility of 0.49, which is within the range of 0.5, [0022] of Castanon).
Regarding claim 27, Robeson as modified teaches wherein the oxygen soluble liquid has an oxygen solubility of 0.6 ml O2/ml oxygen soluble liquid (a range of such liquids that would overlap with the recited 0.6, [0022] of Castanon; see [0028] of Applicant’s disclosure; note that by depending from claim 1, the recited fluid must have both perfluorodecalin and another component that elevates the oxygen solubility to the recited 0.6 ml O2/ml; Applicant has not disclosed such an example, and presumably believes that tuning oxygen solubility as such was well understood to a person of ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 28, Robeson as modified teaches as modified teaches projecting an image onto the focal plane of the projector (thin layer of resin is cured at and proximate to upper surface of the membrane, this entails the emitting device with a focal plane forming this layer, Castanon [0018], Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 31, Robeson as modified teaches wherein the photosensitive liquid is water soluble (the photosensitive liquid is carrying live cells in the polymerizable liquid, [0062] of Robeson, which also teaches that such polymerizable liquids are generally aqueous, and therefore water soluble).
Regarding claim 32, Robeson as modified teaches wherein the oxygen soluble liquid is non-compressible (liquid perfluorodecalin is a liquid and therefore non-compressible; of note, [0022] of Castanon; [0032-33] of Applicant’s disclosure indicates that a high density oxygen carrier liquid is non-compressible).
Regarding claim 34, Robeson as modified teaches maintaining an oxygen inhibition layer thickness of 20 µm during formation of the three-dimensional object (overlapping range, [0064], MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 35, Robeson as modified teaches maintaining an oxygen inhibition layer thickness of 25 µm during formation of the three-dimensional object (overlapping range, [0064], MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 36, Robeson as modified teaches maintaining an oxygen inhibition layer thickness of 30 µm during formation of the three-dimensional object (overlapping range, [0064], MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 37, Robeson as modified teaches circulating, using the peristaltic pump, oxygen soluble liquid at flow rate of 10 µL/min to maintain the constant concentration of oxygen in the oxygen soluble liquid ([0065] of Robeson teaches circulation to refresh oxygen content, and it would be ordinary experimentation to determine a proper level; separately, without specifying the rate, an overlapping range is taught, MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claim(s) 19 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robeson (US 2017/0028618) in view of Castanon (US 2022/0305730) and Padilla (US 2021/0316367), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kloke (US 2017/0319358).
Regarding claim 19, Robeson as modified teaches a method substantially as claimed. [0062] of Robeson teaches printing with live cells but not what is printed.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing polymerized structures produced in layers by the irradiation of light radiation (abstract), Kloke teaches wherein the three-dimensional object is an artificial organ (abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method of Robeson to print an artificial organ because [0062] of Robeson teaches printing with live cells and the abstract of Kloke teaches printing an artificial organ as a multi-cell object ([0001]).
Regarding claim 38, Robeson as modified teaches wherein the three-dimensional object is an artificial lung, an artificial heart, an artificial kidney, or an artificial liver (as modified regarding claim 19, [0039] of Kloke teaches each of these options).
Claim(s) 24 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robeson (US 2017/0028618) in view of Castanon (US 2022/0305730) and Padilla (US 2021/0316367), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of El-Siblani (US 2019/0270243) and Feller (US 2019/0061246).
Regarding claim 24, Robeson as modified teaches wherein a thickness of the optically transparent member is less than the thickness of the oxygen soluble liquid (while the dimensions of Fig. 2 are not specified, Robeson at least teaches an overlapping range and thereby establishes a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.05 (I); while not pertinent to the prima facie case of obviousness, Fig. 2 depicts window as less thick than immiscible liquid pool, [0064], Fig. 2).
Assuming, arguendo, that the teachings of Robeson as modified are not sufficient, Robeson as modified nonetheless teaches a method substantially as claimed. By this assumption, Robeson as modified is deficient as to wherein a thickness of the optically transparent member is less than the thickness of the oxygen soluble liquid.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing by light irradiation of a liquid photocurable resin through a rigid optically transparent window, ([0003], [0080], 0084]), Feller teaches wherein a thickness of the optically transparent member is 0.001 mm (1 micron, [0089]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method of Robeson such that a thickness of the optically transparent member is less than the thickness of the oxygen soluble liquid because [0089] of Feller teaches a rigid optically transparent member across an art recognized range of sizes, including sizes that would result in an overlapping range with the limitation (overlapping range of limmiscible liquid pool thicknesses in [0064] of Robeson). See MPEP 2144.05(I)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method of Castanon such that the thickness of bottom wall 148 is less than the thickness of chamber 164 of fluid 165 because Fig. 6 of Castanon teaches an undefined and therefore overlapping range and and [0057] [0084-88] of El-Siblani and [0089] of Feller teach specific numbers within the overlapping range that are consistent the limitation.
Regarding claim 30, Robeson as modified teaches wherein a thickness of the photosensitive liquid is greater than the thickness of the optically transparent member (while the dimensions of Fig. 2 are not specified, Robeson at least teaches an overlapping range and thereby establishes a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.05 (I), polymerizable liquid is at least thicker than the dead zone, [0095]).
Assuming, arguendo, that the teachings of Robeson as modified are not sufficient, Robeson as modified nonetheless teaches a method substantially as claimed. By this assumption, Robeson as modified is deficient as to wherein a thickness of the photosensitive liquid is greater than the thickness of the optically transparent member.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing by light irradiation of a liquid photocurable resin through a rigid optically transparent window, ([0003], [0080], 0084]), Feller teaches wherein a thickness of the optically transparent member is 0.001 mm (1 micron, [0089]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method of Robeson such that a thickness of the photosensitive liquid is greater than the thickness of the optically transparent member because [0095] and Fig. 2 of Robeson teaches an overlapping range, and [0089] of Feller teaches specific numbers within the overlapping range that are consistent the limitation. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robeson (US 2017/0028618) in view of Castanon (US 2022/0305730) and Padilla (US 2021/0316367), and as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Lopez (US 2021/0094224).
Regarding claim 29, Robeson is silent as to modifying the image based on a difference in refractive indices between air and the oxygen soluble liquid.
However, in the same field of endeavor of bottom-up stereolithography ([0006]), Lopez teaches modifying the image based on a difference in refractive indices between air and the oxygen soluble liquid (varying shape of internal structures to reduce refractions (thereby modifying the image that is projected), [0007-08]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method of Robeson to modify the image as in [0007-08] of Lopez because [0007-08] of Lopez teaches a method to reduce distortion in a way that would change the projected image.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that membrane deformation was an unrecognized problem. This argument is not persuasive for multiple reasons. [0091] of Robeson teaches the use of a higher density hydrocarbon liquid as the oxygen carrier liquid. High density acts to counteract deformation and would have been understood to do so, hence Robeson’s teaching in the abstract that the oxygen carrier liquid must have a higher density than the polymerizable liquid. [0091] of Robeson in this context teaches the usage of a perfluorocarbon. The difference between Robeson and claim 14 is the particular perfluorocarbon, as [0091] of Robeson teaches the category. [0019] [0022] of Castanon are referenced as teaching perfluorodecalin as the perfluorocarbon in this technical context.
Accordingly, the design considerations that Applicant argues would not have been obvious (high density in the oxygen carrier liquid) are already part of the teachings of Robeson. The category of liquid, with reference to their higher density, is taught by the primary reference, ([0091] and abstract of Robeson). Applicant’s argument that it would not have been obvious to select an oxygen carrier liquid from the category, despite [0019] [0022] of Castanon teaching that liquid in the same technical context is unpersuasive.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are derivative of the unpersuasive argument presented above and are similarly unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/ Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744