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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed April 15, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, and 11 are currently amended. Claims 2, 4-6, 10, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25, and 29-32 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 17-19, 22, 23, 26-28 are pending and under examination.
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 1, 3, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 22, 23 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matheu (WO 2018/165613) in view of either one of Krishnaswamy et al. (US 2019/0084241) or Trautmann et al. (US 2019/0047224).
Regarding claim 1, Matheu teaches a method for printing a three-dimensional (3D) object (Abstract) comprising: (a) directing a first light beam into a medium comprising a polymeric precursor to generate a 3D holographic projection corresponding to at least a portion of said 3D object in said medium, to cure a portion of said medium to yield said at least said portion of said 3D object; (Abstract; paragraphs [0013], [0016]-[0021], [0026]-[0029], [0040]-[0046], [0115], [0123], [0131], [0292], [0293]) and (b) directing a second light beam into said medium to cure at least a portion of a remainder of said medium (paragraph [0020] – simultaneous use of another beam directed into the medium to cure a remainder portion of the medium; also see, [0026]-[0029], [0044] and [0123]). Matheu also teaches the light beams may be directed into the medium simultaneously (paragraph [0020]).
Mattheu does not teach the first light beam is a multi-photon light beam while the second light beam is a single-photon light beam and wherein both of these specific light beams are directed into the medium substantially simultaneously.
However, each of Krishnaswamy et al. (Abstract; paragraphs [0001], [0005]-[0008], [0023], [0024], [0027], [0030], [0041], [0042] and [0050]) and Trautmann et al. (paragraphs [0008]-[0012], [0015]-[0026] and [0039]-[0047]) teach analogous methods wherein first light beam is a multi-photon light beam while the second light beam is a single-photon light beam and wherein both of these specific light beams are directed into the medium substantially simultaneously.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Mattheu and either one of the secondary references and to have directed both a multi-photon light beam and a single-photon light beam substantially simultaneously as claimed in the method of Mattheu, as suggested by either one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the secondary references of effectively printing both high and low resolution features (Krishnaswamy et al.) or coarse and fine structures (Trautmann et al.) in an effective and productive/efficient manner.
In combination, each and every limitation of the claim is taught and suggested by the prior art. Mattheu teaches the basic claimed process and each of the secondary references provide a teaching, suggestion, and motivation to utilize a combination of multi-photon and single-photon light beams at substantially the same time to facilitate an optimized process for the efficient production of both high and low resolution features/coarse and fine structures in a produced object.
As to claims 3, Matheu teaches two-photon light beams (paragraphs [0003], [0015], [0025], [0047], [0139]). Further, the secondary references teach two-photon light beams. The reason to combine the references is the same as that set forth above.
As to claims 7-9, Matheu teaches a variety of configurations may be utilized that read upon the claimed configurations (paragraphs [0019], [0031], [0038], [0045], [0123], [0159]-[0165], [0172]-[0187], [0196]-[0201]; Figures 5A and 5B).
Regarding claim 11, Matheu teaches a method for printing a three-dimensional (3D) object (Abstract comprising, (a) generating, within a medium comprising at least one polymeric precursor, a first 3D projection corresponding to a first part of said 3D object, wherein said first 3D projection comprises a substantially simultaneous holographic array of a plurality of points (Abstract; paragraphs [0013], [0016]-[0021], [0026]-[0029], [0040]-[0046], [0115], [0123], [0131], [0292], [0293]) and (b) substantially simultaneously to (a), generating at least one additional projection corresponding to at least one additional part of said 3D object, wherein said first projection and said at least one additional projection forms said 3D object within said medium (paragraph [0020] – simultaneous use of another beam directed into the medium to cure a remainder portion of the medium; also see, [0026]-[0029], [0044] and [0123]).
Mattheu does not teach the first light beam is a multi-photon light beam while the second light beam is a single-photon light beam and wherein both of these specific light beams are directed into the medium substantially simultaneously.
However, each of Krishnaswamy et al. (Abstract; paragraphs [0001], [0005]-[0008], [0023], [0024], [0027], [0030], [0041], [0042] and [0050]) and Trautmann et al. (paragraphs [0008]-[0012], [0015]-[0026] and [0039]-[0047]) teach analogous methods wherein first light beam is a multi-photon light beam while the second light beam is a single-photon light beam and wherein both of these specific light beams are directed into the medium substantially simultaneously.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Mattheu and either one of the secondary references and to have directed both a multi-photon light beam and a single-photon light beam substantially simultaneously as claimed in the method of Mattheu, as suggested by either one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the secondary references of effectively printing both high and low resolution features (Krishnaswamy et al.) or coarse and fine structures (Trautmann et al.) in an effective and productive/efficient manner.
In combination, each and every limitation of the claim is taught and suggested by the prior art. Mattheu teaches the basic claimed process and each of the secondary references provide a teaching, suggestion, and motivation to utilize a combination of multi-photon and single-photon light beams at substantially the same time to facilitate an optimized process for the efficient production of both high and low resolution features/coarse and fine structures in a produced object.
As to claims 12, 14, 17 and 18, Matheu teaches a variety of configurations may be utilized that read upon the claimed configurations (paragraphs [0019], [0031], [0038], [0045], [0123], [0159]-[0165], [0172]-[0187], [0196]-[0201]; Figures 5A and 5B).
As to claims 22 and 23, Matheu teaches simultaneous projection as claimed (paragraph [0020]).
As to claim 26, as set forth above in the rejection of claim 11, Matheu teaches the projections are made simultaneously which reads on substantially simultaneously. Claim 26, taken with claim 11, the timing is “substantially simultaneously”, but with the more specific feature that the first projection is “projected after” the additional projection. As such, the scope of the claim discloses a range of time that is slightly outside of perfectly “simultaneously”. However, as is clear by the language, this “after” is “substantially” simultaneously. The teaching of Matheu is understood to render this range of time prima facie obvious. A range in the prior art that overlaps or is “merely close” to the claimed range is sufficient to render the claim prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05 II). In this case, the same or substantially the same result is understood to be achieved and the claim is properly rejected absent any showing of new or unexpected results. Further, the secondary references as set forth above reasonably suggest and render prima facie obvious projecting as claimed. The reason to combine the references is the same as that set forth above.
As to claims 27 and 28, Matheu teaches additive production as set forth above and further teaches subtraction as claimed (paragraphs [0027], [0298], and [0299]; Figures 2A-2D).
Claims 19, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matheu (WO 2018/165613) in view of either one of Krishnaswamy et al. (US 2019/0084241) or Trautmann et al. (US 2019/0047224), as applied to claims 1, 3, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 22, 23 and 26-28 above, and further in view of Kelly et al. (US 2018/0326666). Note: this is an alternative rejection of claims 27 and 28.
As to claim 19, the combination teaches the method set forth above. Matheu does not teach rotating the medium as claimed. However, Kelly et al. teach an analogous method wherein the medium is rotated (Abstract; Figure 3; paragraph [0010], [0017], and [0034] - [0038]).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Matheu and Kelly et al. and to have rotated the medium of Matheu, as suggested by Kelly et al., for the purpose, as suggested by Kelly et al. of producing the object more quickly and while further facilitating the production of difficult geometries and fragile components.
As to claims 27 and 28, the combination teaches the method set forth above. Further, as set forth above, Matheu is understood to teach the limitations of claims 27 and 28. Alternatively, to the extent the teaching in Matheu is arguably not sufficiently explicit, Kelly teaches an analogous method wherein the process also utilizes subtraction to produce the 3D object (paragraphs [0032], [0038], [0042] and claim 1).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Matheu and Kelly et al. and to have utilized both an addition and subtraction technique as claimed in the method of Matheu, as suggested by Kelly, for the purpose, as suggested by Kelly of removing desired portions from the object in order to produce a part suitable for additional/other applications, such as tissue engineering, in an art recognized suitable manner.
Claims 1, 3, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 22, 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins (WO 2017/115076) in view of either one of 3D Printing Using Holograms is Actually Printing in 3D by Steven Dufresne (IDS document) or Shusteff et al. (US 2018/0015672) and in view of either one of Krishnaswamy et al. (US 2019/0084241) or Trautmann et al. (US 2019/0047224).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Mullins teaches a method for printing a three-dimensional (3D) object (Abstract; paragraphs [0001]-[0007]) comprising: (a) directing a first light beam into a medium comprising a precursor to generate a 3D holographic projection corresponding to at least a portion of said 3D object in said medium, to cure a portion of said medium to yield said at least said portion of said 3D object; (paragraphs [0001], [0024]-[0028], [0030]-[0037], [0048], [0049], and [0092]-[0099]; Figure 6 (602) (604) (606) (608) (626) and Figure 7 (602) and (702)) and (b) directing a second light beam into said medium to cure at least a portion of a remainder of said medium (paragraphs [0001], [0030]-[0037], [0049] and [0092]-[0099]; Figure 6 (610) (612) (618) (620) (628); Figure 7 (612) and (706) or (616) and (704)). Mullins teaches and suggests the beams are directed simultaneously (Figures 6 and 7; paragraphs [0024]-[0028], [0030]-[0037], [0048] and [0092]-[0099]).
Mullins teaches the method cures a 3D printing precursor material to form the object (paragraphs [0001], [0030], [0049], and [0099]), but does not explicitly teach the precursor is a polymeric precursor. However, the article 3D Printing Using Holograms is Actually Printing in 3D (entire article), which is speaking of a process performed by the same organization/assignee/applicant as Mullins (i.e. Daqri Holographics), and Shusteff et al. (Abstract; paragraphs [0003] [0010]-[0017] and [0032]-[0034]) disclose analogous methods and more clearly and explicitly articulate that the precursor material is a polymeric precursor.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Mullins and either one of the 3D Printing Using Holograms article or Shusteff et al., and to have used a polymeric precursor as the precursor material of Mullins as suggested by either one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of utilizing a material known in the art to be suited for analogously printing a three-dimensional object. Mullins provides general teaching and an implication that such materials may be used when using the curing language. Each of the secondary references flesh out what is reasonably implied as being a suitable material in Mullins and suggest the use of polymeric precursors for forming 3D objects in analogous methods.
Mullins does not teach the first light beam is a multi-photon/two-photon light beam while the second light beam is a single-photon light beam and wherein both of these specific light beams are directed into the medium substantially simultaneously.
However, each of Krishnaswamy et al. (Abstract; paragraphs [0001], [0005]-[0008], [0023], [0024], [0027], [0030], [0041], [0042] and [0050]) and Trautmann et al. (paragraphs [0008]-[0012], [0015]-[0026] and [0039]-[0047]) teach analogous methods wherein first light beam is a multi-photon/two-photon light beam while the second light beam is a single-photon light beam and wherein both of these specific light beams are directed into the medium substantially simultaneously.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Mullins and either one of the secondary references and to have directed both a multi-photon light beam and a single-photon light beam substantially simultaneously as claimed in the method of Mullins, as suggested by either one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the secondary references of effectively printing both high and low resolution features (Krishnaswamy et al.) or coarse and fine structures (Trautmann et al.) in an effective and productive/efficient manner.
In combination, each and every limitation of the claim is taught and suggested by the prior art. Mullins teaches the basic claimed process and each of the secondary references provide a teaching, suggestion, and motivation to utilize a combination of multi-photon/two-photon and single-photon light beams at substantially the same time to facilitate an optimized process for the efficient production of both high and low resolution features/coarse and fine structures in a produced object.
As to claims 7-9, Mullins teaches the optical element is a spatial light modulator paragraphs [0006], [0024]-[0028], [0030]-[0037], [0048], [0049], and [0092]-[0099]; Figure 6 (602) (604) (606) (608) (626) and Figure 7 (602) and (702)).
Regarding claim 11, Mullins teaches a method for printing a three-dimensional (3D) object (Abstract; paragraphs [0001]-[0007]) comprising, (a) generating, within a medium comprising at least one precursor, a first 3D projection corresponding to a first part of said 3D object, wherein said first 3D projection comprises a substantially simultaneous holographic array of a plurality of points (paragraphs [0001], [0024]-[0028], [0030]-[0037], [0048], [0049], and [0092]-[0099]; Figure 6 (602) (604) (606) (608) (626) and Figure 7 (602) and (702)) and (b) substantially simultaneously to (a), generating at least one additional projection corresponding to at least one additional part of said 3D object, wherein said first projection and said at least one additional projection forms said 3D object within said medium (paragraphs [0001], [0030]-[0037], [0049] and [0092]-[0099]; Figure 6 (610) (612) (618) (620) (628); Figure 7 (612) and (706) or (616) and (704)).
Mullins teaches the method cures a 3D printing precursor material to form the object (paragraphs [0001], [0030], [0049], and [0099]), but does not explicitly teach the precursor is a polymeric precursor. However, the article 3D Printing Using Holograms (entire article), which is speaking of a process performed by the same organization/assignee/applicant as Mullins, and Shusteff et al. (Abstract; paragraphs [0003] [0010]-[0017] and [0032]-[0034]) disclose analogous methods and more clearly and explicitly articulate that the precursor material is a polymeric precursor.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Mullins and either one of the 3D Printing Using Holograms article or Shusteff et al., and to have used a polymeric precursor as the precursor material of Mullins as suggested by either one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of utilizing a material known in the art to be suited for analogously printing a three-dimensional object. Mullins provides general teaching and an implication that such materials may be used when using the curing language. Each of the secondary references flesh out what is reasonably implied as being a suitable material in Mullins and suggest the use of polymeric precursors for forming 3D objects in analogous methods.
Mullins does not teach the first light beam is a multi-photon/two-photon light beam while the second light beam is a single-photon light beam and wherein both of these specific light beams are directed into the medium substantially simultaneously.
However, each of Krishnaswamy et al. (Abstract; paragraphs [0001], [0005]-[0008], [0023], [0024], [0027], [0030], [0041], [0042] and [0050]) and Trautmann et al. (paragraphs [0008]-[0012], [0015]-[0026] and [0039]-[0047]) teach analogous methods wherein first light beam is a multi-photon/two-photon light beam while the second light beam is a single-photon light beam and wherein both of these specific light beams are directed into the medium substantially simultaneously.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Mullins and either one of the secondary references and to have directed both a multi-photon light beam and a single-photon light beam substantially simultaneously as claimed in the method of Mullins, as suggested by either one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the secondary references of effectively printing both high and low resolution features (Krishnaswamy et al.) or coarse and fine structures (Trautmann et al.) in an effective and productive/efficient manner.
As to claims 12, 14, 17 and 18, Mullins teaches or reasonably suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art the claimed projection configurations (Figure 6; Figure 9; paragraphs [0006], [0007], [0024]-[0028], [0030]-[0037], [0044], [0045], [0046], [0092]-[0099]). Similarly, Shusteff et al. reasonably suggest the limitations (Figure 1; Figure 2; paragraphs [0010]-[0017], [0022]-[0025]) and would have been readily utilized in the method of Mullins for the reasons set forth above. The selection of particular laser projection system configurations and devices is understood to be a routine expedient in the art and would have been readily determined by one having ordinary skill in the art in view of the teaching of the prior art to achieve the described production of a 3D object as set forth in Mullins absent evidence of new or unexpected results.
As to claims 22, 23 and 26, as set forth above in the rejection of claim 11, the combination teaches the projections are made substantially simultaneously/simultaneously. This is understood to teach or render prima facie obvious (e.g., overlapping or sufficiently close ranges – see MPEP 2144.05 II) the claimed timing/sequence of the steps (e.g., selecting the sequence of performing steps is generally prima facie obvious – see MPEP 2144.04 C. In this case, the same or substantially the same result will be achieved and the scope is reasonably suggested by the rejection above sufficient to render it prima facie obvious)
Claims 19, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins (WO 2017/115076) in view of either one of 3D Printing Using Holograms is Actually Printing in 3D (IDS document) or Shusteff et al. (US 2018/0015672) and in view of either one of Krishnaswamy et al. (US 2019/0084241) or Trautmann et al. (US 2019/0047224), as applied to claims 1, 3, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 22, 23 and 26 above, and further in view of Kelly et al. (US 2018/0326666).
As to claim 19, the combination teaches the method set forth above. Mullins does not teach rotating the medium as claimed. However, Kelly et al. teach an analogous method wherein the medium is rotated (Abstract; Figure 3; paragraph [0010], [0017], and [0034] - [0038]).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Mullins and Kelly et al. and to have rotated the medium of Mullins, as suggested by Kelly et al., for the purpose, as suggested by Kelly et al. of producing the object more quickly and while further facilitating the production of difficult geometries and fragile components.
As to claims 27 and 28, the combination teaches the method set forth above. Mullins utilizes the projections to form the 3D object by addition as set forth above. Mullins does not further teach subtraction. However, Kelly teaches and analogous method wherein the process also utilizes subtraction to produce the 3D object (paragraphs [0032], [0038], [0042] and claim 1).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Mullins and Kelly et al. and to have utilized both an addition and subtraction technique as claimed in the method of Mullins, as suggested by Kelly, for the purpose, as suggested by Kelly of removing desired portions from the object in order to produce a part suitable for additional/other applications, such as tissue engineering, in an art recognized suitable manner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed April 15, 2025 have been fully considered. The amendment to the claims has overcome the previous double patenting rejections and the previous prior art rejections. It is agreed that the combination of limitations now set forth in independent claims 1 and 11 is not taught or suggested by the previously applied prior art. However, new grounds of rejection, necessitated by the amendment, are set forth above in view of the new combination of limitations.
The combination of references set forth above teach and suggest utilizing both a multi-photon light beam and a single-photon light beam substantially simultaneously as the light beams in either the method of Mullins or Matheu to produce three-dimensional objects having both high and low resolution features/fine and coarse structures within the object. It is noted that each of the newly applied secondary references provide an explicit reason to utilize both multi-photon and single-photon light beams substantially simultaneously. This reasoning would have motivated one having ordinary skill in the art to apply both multi-photon and single-photon light beams as claimed to the basic methods set forth by the primary references. In view of the teaching of the references themselves, it is clear that one having ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success when attempting to utilize both a multi-photon and single-photon light beam in the methods set forth by the primary references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tani (US 2003/0013047) teaches an analogous method utilizing multiple light beam sources.
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 Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights