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 September 29, 2025 has been entered. Claims 26, 28, 31, 32 and 34 are currently amended. Claims 38-44 remain withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 23-37 are under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 23-25, 33 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ota et al. (WO 2018/116900).
Note: US 2021/0170669 is utilized as the English language equivalent of WO 2018/116900 in this Office Action.
Regarding claim 23, Oto et al. teach a method of manufacturing an object by stereolithographic 3D printing, the object being built on a building platform layer-by-layer to obtain a stack of structured layers (Abstract; paragraphs [0008]; Figures 3-7), each structured layer being obtained by: providing an unstructured layer of photosensitive resin (Figure 3 (13); Figure 4 (13M); paragraphs [0027] and [0028] – this model material is a photosensitive resin as described in the instant published application at paragraph [0011]; paragraph [0086]); and selectively projecting light onto the unstructured layer according to a desired pattern (Figures 3-5 (11c) and (15); paragraphs [0086], [0089]; the light is selected to be applied to the layer as desired), thereby curing the photosensitive resin to obtain the structured layer that is structured according to the pattern (Figures 3 and 5 (13PM); the layer is unstructured before curing and structured after curing); wherein the stack of structured layers comprises a first pair of adjoining structured layers (Figures 6 and 7), wherein at least a first film of removable material being different from the photosensitive resin is placed onto a first structured layer of said first pair of adjoining structured layers by ejecting drops of the removable material from an ejector (Figures 3-6 (11aS) (14) (14PS) (14S); paragraphs [0023], [0025], [0034]-[0037], [0089] and [0090]; the soluble support material is different than the insoluble build material and it is ejected and is reasonably understood to form a film/thin layer as claimed), whereafter a second structured layer of said first pair of adjoining structured layers is built on the first film of removable material, thereby arranging the first film of removable material between the first and the second structured layers of said first pair of adjoining structured layers (Figure 6; see annotated Figure below; paragraphs [0086]-[0090]), and wherein in a post-processing step said first film of removable material is subjected to at least one of a physical process and a chemical process that causes the first film of removable material to one of disintegrate and lose its stability, and the removable material is removed from the object (Figure 7; paragraphs [0008] and [0092]).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Ejected and Removable Film Layer)][AltContent: textbox (2nd Structured Layer)]
PNG
media_image1.png
362
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (1st Structured Layer)]
As to claim 24, Oto et al. teach the process is dissolving in a solvent/water (Figures 6 and 7; paragraphs [0008] and [0092]).
As to claim 25, Oto et al. teach a second pair of adjoining structured layers with a second film positioned as claimed and post-processing as claimed (Figure 6 – left side of the structure is similar to the right side of the structure labeled above and having a second pair of structured layers and removable film as claimed; Figure 7 – after post-processing).
As to claim 33, Oto et al. teach the post-processing is conducted after the layer-by-layer construction is terminated (Figures 6 and 7).
As to claim 35, Oto et al. teach pre-treating the structured layer by means of a surface conditioning process before ejecting drops of the removable material onto the structured layer (Figure 5 (11b) (11c) – layer is smoothed and cured) before the removable material is applied to it (Figure 6).
As to claim 36, Oto et al. teach the film of removable material is subjected to a light-curing step before a structured layer is built upon it (Figures 5 and 6).
As to claim 37, Oto et al. teach the structured layer has a cavity as claimed (see annotated Figure 6 above and the location where the support/removable material is applied).
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.
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.
Claims 26-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota et al. (WO 2018/116900), as applied to claims 23-25, 33 and 35-37 above, and further in view of any one of Gibson (US 2020/0101534), Morikawa et al. (US 2016/0215135) or Crump et al. (US 5,503,785).
As to claims 26-32, Ota et al. teach the method set forth above. Ota et al. do not teach a support structure is utilized and formed from the photosensitive resin and used in conjunction with the removable material as claimed. However, each of Crump et al (Figure 5 – uses the same resin (A) for the build and support material and utilizes a removable layer (D) between them; col. 7, lines 43-col. 8, line 26); Gibson (paragraphs [0087]-[0097]), and Morikawa et al. (Figures 1-2C; paragraphs [0128]-[0150]) teach and reasonably suggest analogous methods wherein a support structure and/or removable film/layer is utilized in a manner as claimed.
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 Ota et al. and any one of the secondary references and to have utilized the claimed support structures and/or removable layers as claimed in the method of Ota et al., as suggested by any one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references of facilitating building of the object and removal of the object from its supporting/building structures when complete. Determining the precise locations and/or configurations for removable and/or support materials as claimed is understood to be a routine expedient.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota et al. (WO 2018/116900), as applied to claims 23-25, 33 and 35-37 above, and further in view of Matusik et al. (US 2018/0056582).
As to claim 34, Ota et al. teach the method set forth above and the removable material consists of a polymerizable group (e.g., water soluble polymeric materials are formed as the removable material/support material). Ota et al. do not utilize a material having a melting point lower than the decomposition temperature of the photosensitive build/model material. However, Matusik et al. teach an analogous method wherein a support material that melts at a lower temperature relative to the heat resistant build/model material is employed (paragraph [0035]).
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 Ota et al. and Matusik et al. and to have utilized a removable material having a melting point as claimed in the method of Ota et al., as suggested by Matusik et al., for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of utilizing art recognized suitable means for facilitating removal/separation of the support/removable material from the build/model material. Ota et al. disclose differences in solubility. Matusik et al. make clear that either solubility differences and/or melt temperature differences are both known and effective manners for separating the materials.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed September 29, 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. As an initial matter, it is noted that the basis of the arguments is not immediately clear to the examiner. It is not unambiguously clear whether the arguments, at their root, are primarily arguing that the Ota et al. reference does not teach limitations that are not actually required by claim 23 (i.e. the arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim) or whether the arguments are against the relied upon reasonable interpretation of claim 23 or whether the arguments misunderstand the rejection. It appears most likely to the examiner that the arguments are requiring a particular scope for claim 23 that is based on reading limitations into the claim that are not actually required and that this reading of limitations into the scope of claim 23 then moves into arguments that sound like they are questioning what reasonable interpretation of the scope of the claim can be applied.
As such, the examiner begins by pointing out, for example, that while differences between Applicant’s Figures and Figure 6 of Ota et al. can be seen, these differences have not been claimed and the scope of the claims are not limited to these differences. While the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims and it is improper for an examiner to do so (see MPEP 2111 and 2111.01).
Applicant begins by characterizing the invention in the following manner on page 10 of the REMARKS, “The present invention relates to a method…in which support structures are made from the same material as the material for the production of the actual object, wherein a removable material for later removal of the support structures is applied only at the interfaces of the support structures with the actual object….Thus, the structured layers from the resin make up the desired object as well as the support structures” However, the examiner submits that several described limitations set forth in the quoted description above from the REMARKS are not found in claim 23. For example, there is nothing in claim 23 that requires a support structure be utilized in the described manner or that the support structure is made of the same material as the object actually produced. That is simply not found in claim 23. Therefore, when the arguments equate the above description with language that more closely resembles claimed language that “the first film of removable material is different from the photosensitive resin placed between a pair of adjoining structured layers, and that the structured layers are made from the photosensitive resin by irradiating the resin according to the desired pattern” this is understood to be arguing limitations that are not found in or required by the claim. In other words, the arguments are not commensurate in scope with the language set forth in the claims. The claim requires “adjoining structured layers”. These “adjoining structured layers” are made of the photosensitive resin and there is a “first film of removable material being different from the photosensitive resin” arranged “between the first and the second structured layers of said first pair of adjoining structured layers”.
In claim 23, the “adjoining structured layers” are not necessarily differentiated in their function (e.g. one of the layers being a layer of the object and one of the layers being a support structure that is not part of the object as described in the REMARKS). In claim 23, they can both be build materials. The requirement in claim 23 is that a first film of removable material, different than the photosensitive resin, is placed between adjoining structured layers. Further, there is nothing in the claim that states or requires that the film of removable material is applied ONLY between the adjoining structured layers as argued. The examiner maintains that when the scope of claim 23 as presented and interpreted under a reasonable interpretation is properly considered, the teaching of Ota et al. remains applicable. Figure 6 of Ota et al. annotated above shows first and second structured layers and an ejected and removable film layer between the first and second layer as claimed. This is further drawn below to make the point even more clearly by removing unnecessary portions of the Figure. Each of the layers in this arrangement is positioned where required by the claim (i.e. the removable film layer is “between” the layers as required) and each of the layers is made of a material as set forth in the claim (i.e. the first and second structured layers are formed of photosensitive resin and the removable film layer is made of a different material).
[AltContent: rect]
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect]
[AltContent: rect]
It does not matter, for example, that the “entire support structure is made from a removable material” in Ota et al., as argued. It is not a limitation set forth in claim 23 that the support structure is not made of removable material or that the removable material is only located at the interface between the support structure and the object. As such, since the arguments rely upon limitations not required by the claim, the teaching of Ota et al. is understood to remain applicable. Similarly, in view of the reasonable interpretation applied, it does not follow, nor is it clear, how the removable film arrangement that Ota et al. “is not arranged between the first and second structured layers, but is instead adjacent to the structured layers” is applicable against the relied upon teaching of Ota et al. As shown in the portion of Figure 6 relied upon from Ota et al., the layers are arranged as required by the claim.
As to the rejection of dependent claims in view of secondary references, applicant argues the secondary references don’t cure the deficiencies of Ota et al. However, as set forth above, Ota et al. is not deficient as argued. The secondary references remain applicable as set forth in the rejection.
As such, it is submitted that the claims would need to be further amended to overcome the rejection such that the scope of the claims is commensurate in scope with the arguments.
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.
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