DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/6/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to the extent that they apply to the current rejection. Applicant argues that the newly added limitations are not disclosed by Fripp, but these features are disclosed by the newly added references. The examiner notes that claims 21-31 do not require the first and 2nd layers be angled relative to one another. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., ie the angled paths in claims 21-31) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 21-26, 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fripp et al. (US 2016/0263827 A1, hereinafter Fripp).
Regarding Claims 21-25, Fripp teaches a method of printing a three-dimensional object in which a first base material like a bath of silicone has a fluid curing agent also containing silicone dispensed therein [0087]-[0096]. The deposition nozzle is configured as a needle (15) that translates through the bath [0027, Fig 5,6]. The first fluid component may for example be a room temperature vulcanizing liquid silicone rubber suitable for mold making and casting. May comprise silicone oil and a cross-linker together with a thickener like fumed silica to form a gel. This material cross-links under ambient conditions albeit very slowly, and thus when forming the 3D structures of Fripp causes the invention as claimed to be carried out with curing of trapped material occurring after the trapping ink is cured. At least a portion of support matrix in between the ink layers would solidify for the following 2 reasons: the bath has some degree of hardener (as applicant acknowledges) and as the ink inserted into the bath comprises a catalyst and the same material as the bath it would react with the bath at least somewhat [0041, 0023, 0026,0138, 0139, 141]. Fripp clearly discloses that the curing agent may be a crosslinker (phrased as a hardener) or can be a catalyst to harden the base material and make a 3D object [0017]. In other words, for the purpose of hardening the bath material, they are art recognized equivalents and using 2 art recognized equivalents in combination is generally recognized to be obvious, see MPEP 2144.06. Furthermore, Fripp does disclose at least one embodiment where hardener and catalysts are added in inks to the base matrix [0138], so having the hardener and catalyst be premixed in the ink is just change in sequence of adding ingredients, see MPEP 2144.04.
As to claim 26, Fripp teaches that the at least one material and the support matrix can be solidified using different processes [0041, 0023, 0026,0138, 0139, 141].
As to claims 28 and 30, Fripp teaches that different inks can react with different components within the bath and added sequentially which would be 2 different time periods [0138-0141], additionally, bath material proximate the deposited curing agent cures crosslink at a faster rate and high degree so this would be a different time period than the other intermediary bath material [0041, 0023, 0026,0138, 0139, 141].
As to claim 29, Fripp teaches that the material immediate the ink vulcanizes (ie crosslinks) at a faster rate than the rest of the bath [0023, 0041]. As crosslinking silicone is an exothermic reaction it would result in a temperature difference in the 2 processes.
As to claim 31 Fripp teaches removing the component when complete [0009, 0014] and notes multiple components can be made in the same bath and so notes reusing the bath when making the other articles [0046]
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fripp et al. (US 2016/0263827 A1, hereinafter Fripp) in view of Porter (US 2018/0207863) and Wright (US 2013/0260146).
As to claim 27, Fripp teaches crosslinking/curing silicone as explained above does not explicitly state 2 different processes of curing wherein the wavelength differs between the processes.
Porter teaches a method of 3D printing [Abstract] wherein the silicones are crosslinked by uv curing in the presence of photoactive catalyst [0073] these materials are widely used in 3D printing and can their properties can be customized by degree of crosslinking [0071-0075]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Fripp and photocured material via a photocatalyst, as suggested by Porter, in order to crosslink and customized the silicone.
Wright teaches a method of UV curing silicone [Abstract] and notes that the wavelength for optimal absorbance for even curing is greatly dependent on the dimensions of the part being cured [0063, 0064]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Fripp and utilized different wavelengths, as suggested by Wright, in order to achieve the desired absorbance for crosslinking.
Claims 1-6, 8, 16-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fripp et al. (US 2016/0263827 A1, hereinafter Fripp) and Mark (US 2019/0009472).
Regarding Claims 1-6, 8 and 16-18, 20, Fripp teaches a method of printing a three-dimensional object in which a first base material like a bath of silicone has a fluid curing agent also containing silicone dispensed therein [0087]-[0096]. The deposition nozzle is configured as a needle (15) that translates through the bath [0027, Fig 5,6]. The first fluid component may for example be a room temperature vulcanizing liquid silicone rubber suitable for mold making and casting. May comprise silicone oil and a cross-linker together with a thickener like fumed silica to form a gel. This material cross-links under ambient conditions albeit very slowly, and thus when forming the 3D structures of Fripp causes the invention as claimed to be carried out with curing of trapped material occurring after the trapping ink is cured. At least a portion of support matrix in between the ink layers would solidify for the following 2 reasons: the bath has some degree of hardener (as applicant acknowledges) and as the ink inserted into the bath comprises a catalyst and the same material as the bath it would react with the bath at least somewhat [0041, 0023, 0026,0138, 0139, 141]. Fripp clearly discloses that the curing agent may be a crosslinker (phrased as a hardener) or can be a catalyst to harden the base material and make a 3D object [0017]. In other words, for the purpose of hardening the bath material, they are art recognized equivalents and using 2 art recognized equivalents in combination is generally recognized to be obvious, see MPEP 2144.06. Furthermore, Fripp does disclose at least one embodiment where hardener and catalysts are added in inks to the base matrix [0138], so having the hardener and catalyst be premixed in the ink is just change in sequence of adding ingredients, see MPEP 2144.04.
Fripp does not explicitly state the first layer and second layer have paths that are angled to one another.
Mark teaches a method of 3D printing [Abstract] and notes that layers of a 3D product are deposited in orthogonal directions [0277, 0243, 0308, 0312, 0317] in order to prevent the build up of seams [0277] and improves raster time and tensile strength [0308]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Fripp and had the paths be angled relative to one another, as suggested by Mark, in order to prevent the buildup of seams [0277], improve raster time, and enhance tensile strength.
As to claim 8, Fripp teaches removing the component when complete [0009, 0014] and notes multiple components can be made in the same bath and so notes reusing the bath when making the other articles [0046]
Claims 7, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fripp et al. (US 2016/0263827 A1) and Mark (US 2019/0009472), as applied to 1-6, 8, 16-18, 20, and in further view of Porter (US 2018/0207863).
As to claim 7, 19, Fripp teaches crosslinking silicone as explained above, but does not explicitly state photocuring via a photocatalyst.
Porter teaches a method of 3D printing [Abstract] wherein the silicones are crosslinked by uv curing in the presence of photoactive catalyst [0073] these materials are widely used in 3D printing and can their properties can be customized by degree of crosslinking [0071-0075]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Fripp and photocured material via a photocatalyst, as suggested by Porter, in order to crosslink and customized the silicone.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights