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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 14, 16, 19, 24, 26-27, 30-32 and 34-39 are pending. Claims 28 and 29 have been canceled. Claim 14 has been amended. Claim 39 is new. The prior art rejection has been revised in view of the amendment. The previous rejections under 35 USC 112 are moot in view of the amendment.
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, 26-27, 31-32, 34-37, and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robeson (US 2017/0028618) in view of Castanon (US 2022/0305730), Padilla (US 2021/0316367), and Zitelli (US 2023/0083095) or Lopez (US 2021/0094224).
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); 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), ; projecting an image onto the focal plane of the projector (irradiation source irradiates build region, [0063], Fig. 2), 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 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, wherein the image has been modified to compensate for a difference in a refractive index of air and a refractive index of perfluorodecalin.
However, in the same field of endeavor of VAT stereolithography ([0001]), Castanon teaches the oxygen soluble liquid comprising perfluorodecalin ([0019] [0022], Fig. 6), 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]).
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]).
Additionally, in the same field of additive manufacturing by selectively solidifying layers of liquid ([0006] of Zitelli), Zitelli teaches wherein the image has been modified to compensate for a difference in a refractive index of air and a refractive index of the fluid (changing glass sheets and lenses to modify the projected image to account for differences in refractive index, [0050] [0063] [0088]). Separately, 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 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.
It would have further been obvious to modify the projected image with the glass sheets and lenses of Zitelli to compensate for a difference in a refractive index of air and a refractive index of the perfluorodecalin because, as noted above, it would have been obvious to modify the method to use perfluorodecaline and with that in mind, [0050] [0063] [0088] of Zitelli teaches using glass sheets and lenses to refract light to compensate for refraction before reaching the target. Alternatively, 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. With the use of perfluorodecaline, following the teachings of Lopez would compensate for a difference in a refractive index of air and a refractive index of perfluorodecalin because that is the difference in refraction that would have to be compensated for.
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.
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, while not necessarily perfluorodecalin, the refractive index would have to be the same as that of perfluorodecalin to make any sense of compensating the image for the refraction caused by 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 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)).
Regarding claim 39, Robeson as modified teaches wherein the image has been modified to compensate for an amount by which the image gets smaller due to the difference in the refractive index of air and the refractive index of perfluorodecalin (as modified, this is the nature of the refraction being compensated before by the glass sheet and lenses of Zitelli, [0050] [0063] [0088]).
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), Padilla (US 2021/0316367), and Zitelli (US 2023/0083095) or Lopez (US 2021/0094224), 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), Padilla (US 2021/0316367), and Zitelli (US 2023/0083095) or Lopez (US 2021/0094224), 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Lopez does not remedy the deficiencies of Robeson, Castanon, and Padilla because Lopez’s teachings about modifying internal structures to account for refractions does not specifically “compensate for a difference in a refractive index of air and a refractive index of perfluorodecalin.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Lopez teaches the progressive variation of internal structures to reduce reflections and/or refractions, in other words, to compensate for them. The particular refractions at issue are those for air and perfluorodecalin. It accordingly follows from the teachings of Lopez that the compensation should be for the difference in a refractive index of air and a refractive index of perfluorodecalin. Additionally, and as separately noted above, Zitelli also teaches the the use of glass and lenses to compensate for refraction.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are derivative of the unpersuasive argument presented above and are similarly unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zitelli (US 12,186,977) teaches subject matter similar to Zitelli (US 2023/0083095), cited above.
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 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
Prosecution Insights