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 .
Status of Claims and Application
This non-final action on the merits is in response to the request for continued examination including remarks and amendments received by the office on 05 August 2025. Claims 1-6 and 19 are pending. Claim 1 is amended. Claim 19 is newly added. No claims are cancelled.
Response to 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 (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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 ,4 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0126644 to Slaczka et al (‘644 hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, ‘644 teaches a multilayer, multimaterial membrane (Paragraph 0044) which is radiation transparent (paragraph 0014) referred to as a multi-material separation layer (paragraph 0029). ‘644 teaches that the multi-material separation layer may comprise three or four or more layers of laminated material (paragraph 0044). Regarding the uppermost layer, ‘644 teaches that this layer should have sufficient oxygen permeability to effect inhibition of curing (paragraph 0033) and expressly teaches using FEP (paragraph 0039) or a polyolefin (paragraph 0040, PMP or Polymethylepentene being a polyolefin). Regarding the remaining layers not in contact with the resin ‘644 teaches PDMS as a suitable material as well as expressly teaching materials other than PDMS may be utilized in the first layer (Paragraph 0037, the first layer of PDMS reading upon the radiation-transparent flexible substrate with a first and second side). ‘644 teaches that a third material may be located between the first layer and the surface of the container (paragraph 0045). ‘644 does not explicitly teach that the third material comprises either a polyolefin or FEP, but ‘644 teaches that materials compatible with PDMS include the materials discussed throughout the disclosure as suitable for use as a barrier material such as FEP and PMP. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized a layer of PMP or FEP as a third material as ‘644 is silent with respect to a specific material prompting one of ordinary skill to look to related art and make a selection, and both FEP and PMP are discussed in ‘644 as materials suitable for use in a layer bonded to PDMS presenting a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding the newly added limitation that the claimed multi-material membrane is configured to form a bottom surface of a tank for containing a photo-curing resin, examiner will make two points. First, this limitation is properly regarded as a recitation of intended use of the claimed apparatus and not accorded patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II) and 2144.07 for more regarding intended use and art recognized suitability for purpose. Secondly, the ‘644 reference teaches this limitation (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 2, ‘644 teaches a layer of radiation transparent flexible substrate comprising silicone (paragraph 0043, PDMS).
Regarding claim 4, ‘644 teaches the thickness of the first film, the barrier layer (paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 19, ‘644 teaches the multi-material membrane wherein the multi-material membrane is secured to a frame configured to stretch the multi-material membrane along a first plane parallel to extent of the frame, and wherein the frame is secured to a bottom rim of the tank sidewall, thereby positioning the multi-material membrane as the bottom surface of the tank insofar as this limitation is regarded as a recitation of intended use of the claimed apparatus. The prior art membrane of ‘644 could be used in the manner described. See MPEP 2114(II) for guidance regarding intended uses of apparatuses.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘644 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Tensile properties of fumed silica filled polydimethylsiloxane networks” by Yue et al. (“Yue” hereafter).
Regarding claim 3, ‘644 teaches the use of fillers, but does not disclose the use of fumed silica. In the related art of film production, “Yue” teaches the use of fumed silica in a PDMS membrane for the benefit of increasing the strain resistance of the PDMS film (RESULTS, table 2). It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the benefit of increasing the strain resistance of the flexible membrane.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘644 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0240968 to Thomas et al. (‘968 hereafter).
Regarding claim 5, ‘644 does not teach the thickness of the second film. In same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘968 teaches a thickness of the film layer which encompasses the claimed range (paragraph 0039). It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of ‘644 with those of ‘968 for the benefit of making a sufficiently durable membrane.
Regarding claim 6, ‘644 does not teach the thickness of the radiation transparent flexible substrate. In same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘968 teaches a thickness of the film layer which encompasses the claimed range (paragraph 0039). It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of ‘644 with those of ‘968 for the benefit of making a sufficiently durable membrane.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘644 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0195994 to El-Siblani et al. (‘994 hereafter), made of record per applicant disclosure.
Regarding claim 19, ‘644 is silent with respect to the use of a frame as claimed. In the same field of endeavor, photopolymer based stereolithography, ‘994 teaches a frame configured to stretch a multi-material membrane along a first plane parallel to extent of the frame (Fig 8 item 51), and wherein the frame is secured to a bottom rim of the tank sidewall, thereby positioning the multi-material membrane as the bottom surface of the tank (Fig 8 item 64) for the benefit of securely yet releasably positioning the membrane. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘644 with those of ‘994 for the benefit of constructing an easily repairable stereolithographic apparatus.
Response to Arguments
In support of the patentability of the instant application, applicant has argued that the previously and above applied prior art, particularly the ‘644 reference, does not teach a membrane configured to form a bottom surface of a tank for containing photo-curing liquid resin as required by the amended claim 1. This argument is not persuasive. As a first matter, this limitation is regarded as an intended use of the claimed apparatus. Secondly, the ‘644 reference does show the membrane as forming the bottom surface of the tank (see Fig 2)
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this non-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 John P Robitaille whose telephone number is (571)270-7006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached on (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JPR/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
