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 .
Response to Arguments
The previous rejections under 112(a) have been withdrawn in response to the amendment filed 7/22/2025.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims now specify the product itself includes three regions, a first phase, an interface and a second phase, and that Rolland only discloses continuous phases rather than discontinuous phases. Examiner disagrees and notes [0017] and [0174] of Rolland describe multiple discontinuous phases which include liquid included within a solid polymer scaffold. The interface, as defined in the specification, is simply the area between the two of them, for example the surface of the solid between the solid and liquid phases, see [0070] of the instant application’s pre-grant publication. The rejection is updated to reflect the two phases both being part of the product itself as taught by Rolland.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 80-84, 86-88, 90-95, 98, 100-103, and 106-108 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rolland (US 2018/0264719.)
Regarding claim 80, Rolland meets the claimed, A method for making a product, the method comprising: combining at least one first polymerizable component and at least one second polymerizable component different from the at least one first polymerizable component to form a composition, (Rolland [0173] describes an additive manufacturing method beginning with combining a polymerizable liquid first component and a second solidifiable component which are different resins) and polymerizing the at least one first polymerizable component in the presence of the at least one second polymerizable component to form at least one first polymer structure, (Rolland [0174] describes irradiating the liquid, which contains both the first and second components, in the build region with light to form a polymer scaffold from the first component and leaving the second component in the uncured liquid form) wherein at least two phases are formed in the product after the product is made from the at least one first polymer structure and the at least one second polymerizable component (Rolland [0174] describes two phases are included in the scaffold, the solid part of the scaffold and the liquid uncured second component) wherein the at least two phases in the product after the product is made comprise an interface between a first discontinuous phase comprising the at least one first polymer structure and a second discontinuous phase comprising the at least one second polymerizable component, (Rolland [0174] describes a scaffold containing both a solid and liquid component wherein the ‘interface’ would be the surface of the solid portion of the scaffold where it meets the liquid portion of the scaffold.) wherein the interface in the product after the product is made has a concentration gradient within the interface of the at least one second polymerizable component, which decreases within the interface with distance away from the second phase towards the first phase (Rolland [0174] describes the liquid and solid portions of the scaffold, the concentration of the second liquid component is greater touching the surface on the liquid side than on the solid side) wherein the product is a functional product, a functional precursor product, or a combination of a functional and functional precursor product (Rolland [0174] describes forming a 3D object, the 3D object would have at least aesthetic function.)
Regarding claim 81, Rolland meets the claimed, The method of claim 80, wherein: the at least one first polymer structure comprises at least one region having the at least one second polymerizable component, the at least one region having less of the at least one first polymer structure compared to the at least one second polymerizable component; (Rolland [0174] describes the polymer scaffold contains some of the uncured second component.)
Regarding claim 82, Rolland meets the claimed, The method of claim 80, wherein: the at least one first polymer structure comprises at least one region having the at least one second polymerizable component, the at least one region having less of the at least one first polymer structure compared to the at least one second polymerizable component, (Rolland [0174] describes the polymer scaffold contains some of the uncured second component) and the at least one second polymerizable component is near, adjacent and/or coupled to the at least one first polymer structure; (Rolland [0174] describes the polymer scaffold contains some of the uncured second component, therefore the second component being near to first component.)
Regarding claim 83, Rolland meets the claimed, The method of claim 80, wherein: the at least one second polymerizable component is polymerizable/polymerized whereby the at least one second polymerizable component reacts with the at least one first polymer structure to form at least one second polymer bonded/tethered to the at least one first polymer structure (Rolland [0014] describes the second polymerizable component is a chain extender which reacts with the first component) or the at least one second polymerizable component is polymerizable/polymerized to form the at least one second polymer, whereby the at least one second polymer reacts with the at least one first polymer structure to form a bond/tether therebetween.
Regarding claim 84, Rolland meets the claimed, The method of claim 80, wherein the method further comprises polymerizing the at least one second polymerizable component to form at least one second polymer (Rolland [0231] describes an additional second step for curing the second component.)
Regarding claim 86, Rolland meets the claimed, The method of claim 80, wherein the at least one first polymer structure is a 3D-printed structure (Rolland [0173] describes making a 3D printed scaffold.)
Regarding claim 87, Rolland meets the claimed, The method of claim 86, wherein: the 3D-printed structure has at least one region comprising the at least one second polymerizable component and/or an at least one second polymer formed by polymerizing the at least one second polymerizable component; (Rolland [0174] describes the polymer scaffold contains some of the uncured second component).
Regarding claim 88, Rolland meets the claimed, The method of claim 80, wherein the polymerizing comprises initiating polymerization in selected region(s) of the composition to form the at least one first polymer structure (Rolland [0174] and [0183] describe irradiating the build region in a selected pattern.)
Regarding claim 90, Rolland meets the claimed, The method of claim 80, wherein: the at least one first polymerizable component and the at least one second polymerizable component are selectively irradiated at a wavelength such that one of the at least one first polymerizable component and the at least one second polymerizable component polymerizes (Rolland [0173] describes using UV light to polymerize the first component.)
Regarding claim 91, Rolland meets the claimed, The method of claim 90, wherein polymerized and unpolymerized regions are formed in the product (Rolland [0174] describes the polymer scaffold contains both the polymerized first component and the uncured second component.)
Regarding claim 92, Rolland meets the claimed, The method of claim 91, wherein the selectively irradiation comprises patterned irradiation, (Rolland [0182]-[0183] describe patterned irradiation) the patterned irradiation comprising one or more of direct writing application of light, interference, nanoimprint, diffraction gradient lithography, vat, volume, stereolithography, holography and digital light projection (DLP) (Rolland [0156] describe suitable radiation sources including DLP.)
Regarding claim 93, Rolland meets the claimed, The method of claim 92, wherein the method is 3D printing selected from the group consisting of vat polymerization, stereolithographic (SLA) printing, digital light processing (DLP) and volumetric 3D printing (Rolland [0156] describes DLP.)
Regarding claim 94, Rolland meets the claimed, The method of claim 90, wherein the at least one first polymerizable component has at least one of an orthogonal polymerization mechanism, a rate of polymerization and a thermodynamic miscibility and the at least one second polymerizable component has at least one of an orthogonal polymerization mechanism, a rate of polymerization and a thermodynamic miscibility (Rolland [0228]-[0230] describe suitable resins for the first component and Rolland [0234]-[0235] describe suitable resins for the second component, since both resins are polymerizable, they both inherently have a rate of polymerization.)
Regarding claim 95, Rolland meets the claimed, The method of claim 94, wherein one or more of the orthogonal polymerization mechanism, rate of polymerization and thermodynamic miscibility is different between the at least one first polymerizable component and the at least one second polymerizable component (Rolland [0234] the second component is cured at a different wavelength than the first component meaning it has a different rate of polymerization than the first component when exposed to at least one wavelength.)
Regarding claim 98, Rolland meets the claimed, The method of claim 90, wherein the method produces selective positioning of functionality in the product (Rolland [0174] describes irradiating the liquid in the build region with light to form a polymer scaffold from the first component and leaving the second component in the uncured form in some locations thereby providing selective positioning.)
Regarding claim 100, Rolland meets the claimed, The method of claim 80, wherein at least one of said at least two phases is a composite, (Rolland [0252] describe the second component is a composite, the second component is in the liquid phase in [0173]-[0174]) a concentration gradient, a coating or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 101, Rolland meets the claimed, The method of claim 80, wherein: one or both of the at least one first polymerizable component and the at least one second polymerizable component comprises one or more of at least one monomer, at least one oligomer and at least one resin; (Rolland [0228] describes the first component is a monomer.)
Regarding claim 102, Rolland meets the claimed, The method of claim 101, wherein the at least one monomer comprises one or more of (meth)acrylate(s), acrylate(s), amine containing monomer(s) and epoxide containing monomer(s) (Rolland [0230] describes acrylates, methacrylates, and epoxides.)
Regarding claim 103, Rolland meets the claimed, The method of claim 101, wherein the at least one resin comprises one or more of at least one acrylate-based resin (Rolland [0230] describes acrylates, methacrylates, and epoxides.)
Regarding claim 106, Rolland meets the claimed, A method for making a product, the method comprising combining at least one first polymerizable component and at least one second polymerizable component different from the at least one first polymerizable component to form a composition, (Rolland [0173] describes an additive manufacturing method beginning with combining a polymerizable liquid first component and a second solidifiable component which are different resins) and polymerizing the at least one first polymerizable component in selected regions of the composition to form the product, the product having at least two phases including: a first discontinuous phase containing at least one first polymer structure formed from the at least one first polymerizable component in the selected regions; (Rolland [0174] describes irradiating the liquid, which contains both the first and second components, in the build region with light to form a polymer scaffold from the first component and leaving the second component in the uncured liquid form) and, a second discontinuous phase containing the at least one second polymerizable component in unselected regions, (Rolland [0174] describes two phases are included in the scaffold, the solid part of the scaffold and the liquid uncured second component) wherein the first polymer structure has a concentration gradient across an entirety of first polymer structure of the at least one second polymerizable component, which increases toward the unselected regions, (Rolland [0174] describes a solidified first component, therefore the concentration of the second component would increase as it moves towards uncured liquid because there is no second component in the solid scaffolding) wherein the product is a functional product, a functional precursor product, or a combination of a functional and functional precursor product (Rolland [0174] describes forming a 3D object, the 3D object would have at least aesthetic function)
Regarding claim 107, Rolland meets the claimed, The method of claim 106, wherein the unselected regions comprise one or more of spaces, holes, apertures, depressions and pores (Rolland [0174] describes a scaffolding with uncured portions and [0017] describes foam or lattice. Additionally, other embodiments describe pores or channels, see [0395].)
Regarding claim 108, Rolland meets the claimed, The method of claim 106, further comprising polymerizing the at least one second polymerizable component after polymerizing the at least one first polymerizable component (Rolland [0231] describes an additional second step for curing the second component.)
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 96 and 109 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolland (US 2018/0264719) modified by Campbell (“Morphology Control in a Dual-Cure System for Potential Applications in Additive Manufacturing”, see NPL copy provided with the IDS dated 5/16/2022.)
Regarding claim 96, Rolland meets the claimed, The method of claim 95, wherein the at least one second polymerizable component has one or more of a slower polymerization rate, slower orthogonal reactivity and lower solubility than the at least one first polymerizable component, (Rolland [0234] the second component is cured at a different wavelength than the first component meaning it has a slower rate of polymerization at the wavelength at which the first component is cured.)
Rolland does not disclose and the at least one second polymerizable component diffuses towards non-irradiated region(s).
Analogous in dual-cure resins, Campbell also describes a dual-cure resin system for 3D printing and meets the claimed, and the at least one second polymerizable component diffuses towards non-irradiated region(s) (Campbell page 6 discloses that a dimethacrylate polymer is cured first and the remaining epoxy polymer diffuses out of the mixture.)
The courts have held that combining prior art elements, such as the polymers of Rolland and the dual-cure diffusing polymers of Campbell, according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the dual-cure polymer system in Rolland with a dual-cure system comprising a polymer that diffuses during polymerization as disclosed in Rolland in order to form the dual-phases, see Campbell page 6.
Regarding claim 109, Rolland meets the claimed, The method of claim 106, wherein polymerizing the at least one first polymerizable component comprises irradiating the at least one first polymerizable component in the selected regions (Rolland [0174] describes irradiating the liquid, which contains both the first and second components, in the build region with light to form a polymer scaffold from the first component.)
Rolland does not explicitly describe, and the at least one second polymerizable component diffuses towards the unselected regions which are non-irradiated regions during the polymerization of the at least one first polymerizable component.
Analogous in dual-cure resins, Campbell also describes a dual-cure resin system for 3D printing and meets the claimed, (Campbell page 6 discloses that a dimethacrylate polymer is cured first and the remaining epoxy polymer diffuses out of the mixture.)
The courts have held that combining prior art elements, such as the polymers of Rolland and the dual-cure diffusing polymers of Campbell, according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the dual-cure polymer system in Rolland with a dual-cure system comprising a polymer that diffuses during polymerization as disclosed in Rolland in order to form the dual-phases, see Campbell page 6.
Claim 97 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Rolland (US 2018/0264719.)
Regarding claim 97, the embodiment of Rolland cited in the rejection of claim 80 does not specifically describe that the first and second component are homogenous and does not explicitly meet the claimed, The method of claim 80, wherein the composition is substantially homogeneous.
Another embodiment Rolland meets the claimed, The method of claim 80, wherein the composition is substantially homogeneous (Rolland ]0572] describes a homogenous solution of a dual-cure resin.)
The courts have held that combining prior art elements, such as the dual-cure resin of Rolland with the specific resin example disclosed later in Rolland, according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the dual-cure resin discussed in earlier embodiments of Rolland with the homogenous mixed dual-cure resin described in Rolland [0572] in order to synthesize the dual-cure liquid properly, see Rolland [00572].
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 VICTORIA BARTLETT whose telephone number is (571)272-4953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
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 Zhao can be reached on 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.
/V.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744