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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 5, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed March 5, 2026 has been entered. Claim 1 is currently amended. Claims 33-40 are new. Claims 1, 3, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 17-19, 22, 23, 26-28 and 33-40 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, 26-28 and 33-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matheu (WO 2018/165613) in view Krishnaswamy et al. (US 2019/0084241) and Shusteff et al. (One-step volumetric additive manufacturing of complex polymer structures) alone or further in view of Folch et al. (US 2020/0071525).
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, Krishnaswamy et al. (Abstract; paragraphs [0001], [0003], [0005]-[0008], [0023], [0024], [0027], [0030], [0041], [0042] and [0050]) teach an analogous method wherein a first light beam is a multi-photon light beam and a second light beam is a single-photon light beam and wherein both of these specific light beams are directed into the medium substantially simultaneously. Further, Shusteff et al. provide additional teaching wherein a single-photon light beam is utilized in a volumetric additive fabrication process using holographic patterning of light fields (Abstract; Introduction; Results and Discussion – first two paragraphs on pages 2 and 3 and all of page 5 – first paragraph of page 6; noting the last paragraph on page 5 – “this method is notable for relying on a single-photon absorption process” and the first full paragraph on page 3 which describes the resolution that can be achieved)
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 with Krishnaswamy et al. and Shusteff et al. 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 Krishnaswamy et al. and Shusteff et al., for the purpose, as suggested by the secondary references of effectively printing both high and low resolution features in an effective and productive/efficient manner.
Matheu makes clear that the method is applicable to the formation of other structures/portions that may or may not be linked to the biological material and that the produced structures (both biological and non-biological) can be produced over extended periods of time (e.g. up to 750 hours) and that they can have a broad range of large or small dimensions and required resolutions (paragraphs [0020], [0021], [0024], [0026], [0031], [0032], [0037], [0044]-[0047], [0139]-[0156], [0160], [0167], [0169], [0179]-[0184], [0233], [0234], [0239], [0247], [0253], [0260]-[0266], [0290], [0292], Table 1; claims 13-17 and 41). The secondary references suggest that both multi-photon and single-photon laser application is known in the 3D printing art and it is known from the art that each of the techniques provides advantages and disadvantages compared to the other, such as differences in resolution capability, the speed at which the technique can produce an article, and the cost of producing the article. Arriving at a point where the advantages and disadvantages from each technique are balanced out for a particular application is reasonably suggested by the combination of the art of record.
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.
Additionally, Folch et al. provide additional information to further demonstrate and suggest that it is known in the art that multi-photon optics can produce better resolution at a relative higher cost and that single-photon systems can produce lower resolution at a relatively lower cost (paragraph [0116]). If needed, this teaching provides an additional teaching, suggestion and motivation to select from either option, as may be needed, in the method of Mattheu, to produce an object having the required resolution while minimizing costs.
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, Krishnaswamy et al. (Abstract; paragraphs [0001], [0003], [0005]-[0008], [0023], [0024], [0027], [0030], [0041], [0042] and [0050]) teach an analogous method wherein a first light beam is a multi-photon light beam and a second light beam is a single-photon light beam and wherein both of these specific light beams are directed into the medium substantially simultaneously. Further, Shusteff et al. provide additional teaching wherein a single-photon light beam is utilized in a volumetric additive fabrication process using holographic patterning of light fields (Abstract; Introduction; Results and Discussion – first two paragraphs on pages 2 and 3 and all of page 5 – first paragraph of page 6; noting the last paragraph on page 5 – “this method is notable for relying on a single-photon absorption process” and the first full paragraph on page 3 which describes the resolution that can be achieved)
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 with Krishnaswamy et al. and Shusteff et al. 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 Krishnaswamy et al. and Shusteff et al., for the purpose, as suggested by the secondary references of effectively printing both high and low resolution features in an effective and productive/efficient manner.
Matheu makes clear that the method is applicable to the formation of other structures/portions that may or may not be linked to the biological material and that the produced structures (both biological and non-biological) can be produced over extended periods of time (e.g. up to 750 hours) and that they can have a broad range of large or small dimensions and required resolutions (paragraphs [0020], [0021], [0024], [0026], [0031], [0032], [0037], [0044]-[0047], [0139]-[0156], [0160], [0167], [0169], [0179]-[0184], [0233], [0234], [0239], [0247], [0253], [0260]-[0266], [0290], [0292], Table 1; claims 13-17 and 41). The secondary references suggest that both multi-photon and single-photon laser application is known in the 3D printing art and it is known from the art that each of the techniques provides advantages and disadvantages compared to the other, such as differences in resolution capability, the speed at which the technique can produce an article, and the cost of producing the article. Arriving at a point where the advantages and disadvantages from each technique are balanced out for a particular application is reasonably suggested by the combination of the art of record.
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.
Additionally, Folch et al. provide additional information to further demonstrate and suggest that it is known in the art that multi-photon optics can produce better resolution at a relative higher cost and that single-photon systems can produce lower resolution at a relatively lower cost (paragraph [0116]). If needed, this teaching provides an additional teaching, suggestion and motivation to select from either option, as may be needed, in the method of Mattheu, to produce an object having the required resolution while minimizing costs.
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).
As to claims 33 and 37, Mattheu teaches different wavelengths as claimed (paragraphs [0163], [0260], Table 1, claim 19).
As to claims 34 and 38, Mattheu teaches polymerizing first and second polymers with the light beams in forming the object (paragraphs [0019], [0026], [0031], [0039], [0045], [0127], [0156], [0172], [0244]). In forming different portions of the object with different polymers (e.g. biological and non-biological portions), the same rationale for selecting the different multi-photon and single-photon light beams is suggested as set forth above in the combination of claims 1 and 11.
As to claims 35, 36, 39 and 40, Mattheu teaches and suggests utilizing structured light beams (paragraphs [0028]-[0031], [0037], [0038], [0115], [0131], [0160], [0161], [0165], [0173], [0176], [0177], Table 1). Further, the light beams taught and suggested by the secondary references as set forth above are also understood to be structured light beams. The reason for combining the references is the same as that set forth above.
Claims 19, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matheu (WO 2018/165613) in view Krishnaswamy et al. (US 2019/0084241) and Shusteff et al. (One-step volumetric additive manufacturing of complex polymer structures) alone or further in view of Folch et al. (US 2020/0071525), as applied to claims 1, 3, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 22, 23, 26-28 and 33-40 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 5, 2026 have been fully considered. The alternative rejection based upon the teaching of Trautmann et al. has been withdrawn and the rejection based upon the teaching of Mullins has been withdrawn. To the extent the arguments in view of the amendment remain applicable regarding the teaching of Matheu and Krishnaswamy et al., they are not persuasive.
Applicant notes paragraph [0013] in Matheu and argues that single photon raster-scan printing “may be both significantly slower” and that “In some instances, it may be estimated that a structure that would take decades to create with single-photon raster scanning, and weeks in the case of 2D projection, may be created in a matter of 24 hours or fewer…”. From these citations, the argument emphasizes the difference between “decades” and “24 hours or fewer” to take the position that one would not choose such significantly slower speeds and that; in fact, this amounts to a teaching away from using single-photon printing in the method of Matheu. This argument is not persuasive.
As an initial matter, the examiner agrees that if the characterization of Matheu implied and suggested by the arguments is correct, one would not incorporate any usage of a single-photon light beam in any capacity in the method of Matheu because nobody would choose to get the same result in “decades” as they could get in “24 hours or fewer”. However, the examiner submits that this argument oversimplifies the discussion and the teaching of Matheu. To begin with, it is noted that the neither the previous rejection nor the current rejection suggests a wholesale replacement of all the multi-photon light beam exposure steps in Matheu with single-photon light beam exposure steps. The reference to “decades” in paragraph [0013] only refers to such a singular usage of a single-photon light beam and clearly has a particular scenario in mind that is being provided for emphasis.
While it is agreed that Matheu does not explicitly teach utilizing single-photon printing with multi-photon printing and that multi-photon printing is an important part of the disclosure, the examiner submits that Matheu does not teach away from single-photon usage in all of the reasonably disclosed and suggested scenarios found in the reference. As an initial observation in this regard, the examiner notes the language found in paragraphs [0013], [0025], [0031], [0047], [0252] and claim 41 to suggest that it is clear that Matheu is not exclusively limited to multi-photon light beam usage. For example, multi-photon usage as a requirement is not found as a limitation until claim 41; paragraph [0013] observes merely that it “may be significantly slower” and merely “In some instances” such extreme differences would exist; paragraph [0025] merely states that a multi-photon energy beam is utilized in “some embodiments”; paragraph [0047] multiphoton energy is utilized “in some cases”; and paragraph [0252] says that “The energy beam may be a multi-photon laser beam”. This is not the language of teaching away.
Further, along this same line of thinking, Matheu makes clear that the method is applicable to the formation of other structures/portions that my or may not be linked to the biological material and that the produced structures (both biological and non-biological) can be produced over extended periods of time (e.g. up to 750 hours) and that they can have a broad range of large or small dimensions and required resolutions (paragraphs [0020], [0021], [0024], [0026], [0031], [0032], [0037], [0044]-[0047], [0139]-[0156], [0160], [0167], [0169], [0179]-[0184], [0233], [0234], [0239], [0247], [0253], [0260]-[0266], [0290], [0292], Table 1; claims 13-17 and 41). From this teaching, and as set forth in the combination with the secondary references, it is submitted that one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious to have selected a simultaneous combination of both multi-photon and single-photon laser to produce a range of structures, as may be desired or needed. The utilization of both multi-photon and single-photon laser application is known in the 3D printing art and it is known that each of the techniques provides advantages and disadvantages compared to the other, such as differences in resolution capability, the speed at which the technique can produce an article, and the cost of producing the article. Arriving at a point where the advantages and disadvantages from each technique are balanced out for a particular application is reasonably suggested by the art of record. As such, it is submitted the claims would need to be further amended to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the usage of Krishnaswamy et al. have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. The argument appears to be against the teaching of the reference individually and not by what it suggests in combination with the teaching of Matheu. Krishnaswamy et al. teach an analogous method wherein multiple resolutions can be formed in a produced structure through the usage of multi-photon and single-photon light usage (e.g. paragraph [0003] and [0023]). This is applicable teaching to one having ordinary skill in the art as set forth in the rejection above. While it is agreed that Krishnaswamy et al. is not directed to 3D holographic projection, that is not what is being relied upon. 3D holographic or volumetric additive manufacturing is a more recent development than earlier additive manufacturing methods and is set forth in Matheu. Utilizing similar and more foundational teachings from the analogous additive manufacturing art is reasonably suggested when applicable. In this case, it is known that multi-photon and single-photon usage is able to produce different resolution levels when producing an additively manufactured article. This teaching remains applicable.
Further, the combination with Krishnaswamy et al. is not to replace the multi-photon 3D holographic projection of Matheu with the spot or layer-by-layer multiphoton projection of Krishnaswamy et al., it is to add an additional single-photon exposure to the multi-photon exposure of Matheu to produce different portions of the object with different resolutions. In combination, Krishnaswamy et al. 1) demonstrate that analogous methods that utilize both multi-photon and single photon light together in the same method are known and that 2) there is an advantage to do so because such an approach is able to produce different portions of the object with different resolutions. This teaching and suggestion from Krishnaswamy et al. is applicable to producing the other portions, for example, disclosed by Matheu. Matheu does not necessarily only utilize multi-photon and 3D holographic projection in the production of the object, as set forth above, and Krishnaswamy et al. provide a reason to add a single-photon projection to the method of Matheu.
Further still, for clarity, it is noted that the “additional projection” generated by the single-photon in the claim is not a 3D holographic projection, it can be a spot/dot or layer (see paragraph [0360] of the published application).
As such, it is submitted the claims would need to be further amended to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness.
Conclusion
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