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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 17-24 are objected to because of the following informalities: independent claim 17 is dependent on a withdrawn claim. Appropriate correction is required. As such, dependent claims 18-24 are also objected to.
Claim 24 is objected because the claim ends with a “)” in stead of a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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(s) 17-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kostenko (US Serial No. 2021/0394449), in view of Matzner et al. (US Serial No. 2019/0039321).
Regarding claim 17; Kostenko teaches a method of controlled polymerization of a target zone in a photopolymerizable medium for forming 3D objects [abs]. Specifically, Kostenko teaches a method of controlled polymerization of a target zone in a photopolymerizable medium comprising: a processor connectable to an exposure system for illuminating a target zone in a photopolymerizable medium receiving a data representation of a 3D model of an object and using the 3D model to determine volume elements of the target zone, the photopolymerizable medium including a photo-activation compound for activating polymerization of the medium based on a first illumination field of a first wavelength (first light) and a photo-deactivation compound for deactivating the polymerization in the medium based on a second illumination field of a second wavelength (second light) [0032], thus producing a 3D object. Kostenko teaches the illumination system exposes the photopolymerizable medium in a target zone in a reservoir (vat) [0137].
Kostenko teaches the photopolymerizable medium including a photo-activation compound for activating polymerization of the medium, however fails to explicitly teach ring-opening metathesis polymerization of a metathesis-active monomer.
Matzner et al. teaches digitally-controlled three-dimensional printing using ring-opening metathesis polymerization (ROMP), wherein the composition to be used in the present invention includes a ROMP monomer (e.g. unsaturated cyclic monomer; metathesis-active monomer) [0236-0241], a photolatent catalyst for initiating the ROMP reaction (photolatent metathesis catalyst) [0312-0333, 0547], a photosensitizer [0546-0547], and a ROMP inhibitor (slows down a ROMP reaction initiated by catalyst, i.e. deactivating species) [0232-0234]. Kostenko and Matzner et al. are analogous art because they are both directed to the same field of endeavor, namely controlled polymerization in three dimensional printing processes. At the time of filing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to employ the composition of Matzner et al., in the three dimensional printing method of Kostenko, and would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve three dimensional printed objects which exhibit good mechanical properties and combine both good toughness and high thermal resistance, as suggested by Matzner et al. [0013].
Regarding claims 18-21; Kostenko teaches the invention thus includes methods and systems for rapid three-dimensional fabrication, including a highly multidirectional illumination technique where a large number of illumination beams of variable intensity and are employed to concurrently initiate and/or inhibit a photopolymerization reaction in different parts of the volume of a photocurable resin allowing for an accurate confinement of the photopolymerization reaction within the boundaries of the target three-dimensional polymerization zone [0038]. The Examiner makes note that the context of “patterned” is not explicitly defined in the instant specification, thus light having a variable intensity is deemed to read on “patterned” light.
Regarding claims 22-24; Kostenko teaches continuous liquid interface printing (resin withdrawn from the vat continuously) [0003]. Kostenko teaches a large number of illumination beams of variable intensity and are employed to concurrently initiate and/or inhibit a photopolymerization reaction in different parts of the volume of a photocurable resin allowing for an accurate confinement of the photopolymerization reaction within the boundaries of the target three-dimensional polymerization zone [0038].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue Kostenko and Matzner doe not disclose or suggest all of the limitations recited in independent claim 17, thus do not render obvious Applicant’s invention. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
As such, Kostenko in view of Matzner are still relied upon for rendering obvious the basic claimed method, as required by the instant claim language.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA ROSWELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5453. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/JESSICA M ROSWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights