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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 20, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed April 20, 2026 has been entered. Claim 23 is currently amended. Claims 38-44 remain withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 1-22 have been canceled. Claims 23-37 are 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.
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 23-25, 27 and 33-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hull et al. (US 4,999,143) in view of Giller (US 9,227,366).
Regarding claims 23-25, 27 and 33-37 Hull et al. teach the basic claimed 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; Figures 2, 3 and 4) each structured layer being obtained by: providing an unstructured layer of photosensitive resin (col. 2, lines 40-68; col. 3, line 60-col. 4, line 2); and selectively projecting light onto the unstructured layer according to a desired pattern, thereby curing the photosensitive resin to obtain the structured layer that is structured according to the pattern (Figure 4 (26) (27); col. 2, lines 40-68; col. 4 ,lines 16-41; col. 4, line 55-col. 5, line 26; col. 6, lines 10-46; col. 6, line 62-col. 7, line 2); wherein the stack of structured layers comprises a first pair of adjoining structured layers (col. 2, lines 40-68), and post-processing the produced object to separate the support, which has a layer corresponding with one of the claimed adjoining structured layers, from the object, which has another layer corresponding with the other of the claimed adjoining structured layers (col. 6, lines 46-51; col. 16, lines 38-45; Figures 7-9 and 11 – showing printed support structures and the printed object).
Hull et al. do not teach wherein 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, 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 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 to completely separate the first structured layer from the second structured layer.
However, Giller teaches an analogous method that is disclosed as being applicable to stereolithographic 3D printing processes (overview: col. 1, lines 48 col. 3, line – 46; col. 4, line 46-61 & col.6, lines 15-20 specifically referring to the applicability to an SLA process) wherein a first film of removable material/releasable ink layer, being different from the 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, 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 or 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 to completely separate the first structured layer from the second structured layer (claims 1, 4, 7 and 9; Figures 3 and 5; col. 2, lines 30-32; col. 2, lines 35-44: dissolving of ink layer; col. 7, lines 35-col. 8, line 14; col. 10, line 65-col. 11, line 6; col. 12, lines 44-52; placing a removable ink layer/film between the support and the object; pre-treating and drying/solidifying/light curing of ink is also disclosed in the reference which further teaches and suggests the additional dependent claim limitations).
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 Hull et al. and Giller and to have utilized a removable/releasable material as claimed and to have ejected it between the correspondingly claimed adjoining structural layers (e.g. layer of the object and a layer of the support between their interface) prior to a post-processing physical or chemical process that cause the film to disintegrate/lose its stability/dissolve/separate from the adjoining structure layers such that an object structured layer and a support structured layer are completely separated from each other as claimed in the method of Hull et al., as suggested by Giller, for the purpose, as suggested by Giller, of facilitating an improved and easy removal of the supports that were produced to facilitate production of the object from the object itself when the production process is complete.
In the combination, each and every limitation of the claims is taught and reasonably suggested. As one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize, Hull et al. disclose the basic claimed SLA process which provides the framework for the claimed invention. Analogously, Giller teaches and suggests the claimed incremental improvement of adding a removable/dissolvable/releasable layer of material between the last/first layer of a support structure produced by the resin and the first/last layer of the object produced by the resin in order to facilitate separation of the object from the support. Further, Giller makes clear the method is applicable to SLA processes.
Claims 26 and 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hull et al. (US 4,999,143) in view of Giller (US 9,227,366), as applied to claims 23-25, 27 and 33-37 above, and further in view of any one of Collins et al. (US 2005/0072113), Gibson (US 2020/0101534), Morikawa et al. (US 2016/0215135) or Crump et al. (US 5,503,785).
As to claims 26 and 28-32, the combination teaches and suggests the method as set forth above. Hull et al. do not teach further adding the removable material at the claimed location (e.g. between the build platform and the first layer of the support). However, each of Collins et al. (paragraphs [0020] and [0031]), 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 Hull 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 Hull 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. In combination, each and every limitation is taught and suggested.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hull et al. (US 4,999,143) in view of Giller (US 9,227,366), as applied to claims 23-25, 27 and 33-37 above, and further in view of Matusik et al. (US 2018/0056582). Note: this is an alternative rejection of claim 34.
As to claim 34, the combination teaches the method set forth above. Further, it is submitted that the releasable inks of Giller are reasonably understood to suggest the claimed compositions and properties and the reason to combine the references is the same as that set forth above. Alternatively, Hull et al. do not teach the removable material consists of at least polymerizable group and Giller does not explicitly recite utilizing a releasable ink with a polymerizable group and that is 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 the corresponding removable material is a material that includes a polymerizable groups and that melts at a lower temperature relative to the heat resistant build/model material that 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 Hull et al. and Matusik et al. and to have utilized a removable material having a polymerizable group and a melting point as claimed in the method of Hull 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 removable material from the build/model material. The combination with Giller discloses differences in solubility. Matusik et al. make it further clear that either solubility differences and/or melt temperature differences are both known and effective manners for separating the materials. In the combination of references, utilizing and separating the removable/releasable material suggested by either dissolving it or melting it to separate the printed support material from the object of Hull et al. is suggested. These are understood to be equivalent alternative means of separating materials in analogous art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed April 20, 2026 have been fully considered. The amendment to the claim has overcome the previous rejection based upon Ota et al. However, as set forth above, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references disclose analogous 3D printing methods.
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