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 December 19, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 5, 7, and 16 are currently amended. Claims 18-28 have been canceled. Claims 1-17 and 29-31 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.
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 1-17 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima (WO 2014/007399, IDS document) alone or in view of any one of Grover et al. (US 2022/0145019), Monnier (US 2021/0340296), Su (US 2021/0101331), Saitoh et al. (US 2020/0157258), Menyo (US 2020/0070407), or Wada et al. (US 2019/0177469). Note: citations for WO 2014/007399 are provided by the machine translation of equivalent document JP 2014008765.
Regarding claim 1, Kojima teaches a method of treating an object fabricated from a modeling material by additive manufacturing/three-dimensional printing (paragraphs [0001] -[0004]) comprising exposing the object to visible light paragraphs [0009], [0012], [0027]-[0032], [0056], [0097], [0099]; also see, lines 1703, 1784, and 1848 of the translation with wavelengths of 470 +/-5 nm, which is within or overlaps the claimed range as “about” 470 nm also includes wavelengths somewhat above 470 nm) and to a temperature that is understood to include or at least overlap with a heat deflection temperature (HDT) of the modeling material (paragraphs [0056], [0058], lines 1083-1085; 15-50 °C and wherein the temperature is optimized to reduce discoloration and “prevent deformation…due to heat” (i.e. the temperature of treatment would be below the heat deflection/deformation temperature of the material that is utilized); the temperature is disclosed as a result effective variable for these parameters and would have been readily optimized, including to appropriate values below the HDT), wherein it is suggested that at any time interval of said exposing at least 50% of the spectral energy of the visible light is withing a range spanning from about 430 nm to about 470 nm (paragraphs [0009], [0012], [0027]-[0032], [0056], [0097], [0099]; also see, lines 1703, 1784, and 1848 of the translation with the value of the wavelength set at 470 nm +/- 5 nm; further, paragraphs [0027] and [0028] describing the energy profiles/intensity peak that can be used, which suggest amounts up to substantially all of the energy – including at least 50%, 70%, 90%, and 95%, - being at a wavelength within the claimed range; e.g. “energy intensity peaks” at values within the claimed range, including “a pointed mountain shape” at values within the claimed range – this type of distribution is understood to overlap and render prima facie obvious the claimed range; e.g. a “pointed mountain shape” centered at 450 nm is fairly suggested by the disclosure and this configuration would include the amount of spectral energy as claimed. Similarly, peaks at other locations within the claimed range and with different shapes than a pointed mountain shape would also include/overlap the claimed spectral energy being at least 50%, etc.).
As set forth above, Kojima is understood to render prima facie obvious the limitation directed to the method being performed at a temperature within the claimed range. The temperature of the treating is between 15-50°C and is at a temperature to “prevent deformation…due to heat”, which suggests the selected temperature would be selected and optimized as a result effective variable to ensure the treating temperature does not result in heat deformation of the object. Further, Kojima discloses a range of materials that may be utilized in the additive manufactured object. The resins formed from these materials, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized, have heat deflection/distortion temperatures, that would generally be expected to overlap the claimed range of 15-50°C and/or be outright higher than the range of 15-50°C (e.g. paragraphs [0060]-[0091] disclose suitable materials for forming the resins). Kojima does not explicitly recite the heat deflection/deformation temperature of the materials.
However, each of Grover et al. (paragraph [0067]), Monnier (Abstract; paragraph [0004]; Table 3), Su (Table), Saitoh et al. (Abstract), Menyo (Figure 1), or Wada et al. (paragraph [0002], Figure 2) disclose analogous additive manufacturing processes wherein the heat deflection temperature (HDT) of the material is above the range of 15-50 °C. These references provide a teaching and suggestion to select their materials for implementation in the process of Kojima as the disclosed materials provide desired and suitable properties for particular applications. In combination, each and every limitation of the claimed invention is met.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to have combined the teaching of Kojima and any one of the secondary references and to have utilized the resin materials of any one of the secondary references as the resin material in the method of Kojima, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of producing an object having desired physical properties. When treating the objects produced by the specific materials set forth in the secondary references by the method of Kojima, the treatment temperature is at a temperature of less than a heat deflection temperature of the modeling material and the exposure is at the required spectral energy and wavelength.
As to the limitation directed to the process resulting in an increase of at least one of a flexural modulus and a flexural strength of the solidified modeling material, it is noted that the teaching of Kojima alone or in view of the secondary references is understood to perform the same claimed steps on the same claimed materials in a manner that renders the claims prima facie obvious (e.g. through substantially overlapping ranges). Further, the instant specification (e.g. paragraphs [0175] and Table 5 of the published application) suggests that the result of performing the claimed and disclosed process is some degree of increase in the flexural modulus and flexural strength. As such, it follows from a technical and rational basis that the same claimed results are achieved by the method suggested by the prior art to the required extent. It is further noted that the claim does not require any particular amount of increase or even that both properties are increased. It follows that the weight of the evidence further supports a conclusion that the required increase is realized by the method suggested by the prior art either in all instances or through a substantially overlapping range. Further still, it is noted that recognition of another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
As to claim 2, Kojima teaches a temperature range of 15-50 °C and wherein the temperature is optimized to reduce discoloration and “prevent deformation…due to heat”; the temperature is disclosed as a result effective variable for these parameters and would have been readily optimized, including to values below the HDT within the claimed range (paragraph [0058]).
As to claim 3, Kojima suggests a range of building/modeling materials may be utilized and further suggested maintaining/optimizing the temperature to prevent deformation (paragraphs [0058]). While Kojima does not explicitly exemplify an embodiment with multiple build/model materials, utilizing a plurality of the materials disclosed by Kojima is reasonably suggested. In such a scenario, the reasonable suggestion from the teaching of Kojima would be to utilize a temperature below the lowest HDT to prevent deformation of the article formed of multiple materials. Combining equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.06). In this case, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the use of multiple build materials from the materials disclosed by Kojima to produce an object having a range of desired properties and functionality. This composite article would be treated in a manner to ensure the article does not deform (i.e., treated at a temperature below the HDT).
As to claims 4 and 5, the exposure in Kojima is to reduce yellowing and maintain a desired color (paragraphs [0001]-[0004], [0054]-[0056]) such that the duration of exposure would be readily selected to achieve the desired result (paragraphs [0018] and [0057].
As to claim 6, Kojima disclose a plurality of light irradiation means (paragraphs [0015] and [0033]) and the location of treatment is a treatment chamber/housing (paragraphs [0015]-[0017], [0020] and [0021])
As to claims 7-14, Kojima reasonably suggests and renders prima facie obvious a range of photoinitiators within the scope of the claims in order to facilitate product curing and treatment of the cured product to remove yellowing (paragraphs [0060]-[0090], [0096], [0100])
As to claim 15, Kojima disclose a transparent material (paragraph [0001]
As to claims 16 and 17, Kojima suggests receiving parameters as claimed from an additive manufacturing system and selecting parameters, as required, to produce the treated article as cited above, making clear that the properties of the article are considered when determining the time and temperature needed to produce the article. The required temperatures and exposure times are suggested as cited such that, based on a given object, made from certain materials, the time and duration of exposure and temperature would be determined and to get the desired color result.
As to claims 29-31, Kojima is understood to suggest the amount of spectral energy in the amounts as claimed (paragraphs [0027] and [0028]; describing the energy profiles/intensity peak that can be used, which suggest amounts up to substantially all of the energy – including at least 50%, 70%, 90%, and 95%, - being at a wavelength within the claimed range).
Claims 1-17 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onaga et al. (JP 2010-260230) in view of any one of Bae et al. (US 2020/0040179), Pawloski et al. (US 2018/0370120), Sanner et al. (US 2018/0265655), or Mohanty et al. (US 2018/0022921).
Regarding claims 1 and 29-31, Onaga et al. teach a method of treating an object fabricated from a solidified modeling material by additive manufacturing (paragraphs [0011]-[0021]) comprising: exposing the object to visible light (paragraphs [0011]-[0021]) and to a temperature of less than a heat deflection/deformation temperature (HDT) of the modeling material (paragraphs [0032] – treatment temperature of 15-50°C, particularly 20-40°C, [0078] – HDT tester, [0084] – HDT of 50°C, [0101] – HDT of 47°C, [0104] – HDT of 35°C; overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious; “prevention of deformation…due to heat” at paragraph [0032] discloses the temperature is a result effective variable and would be controlled/selected/optimized to prevent deformation), wherein at any time interval of said exposing, is disclosed in amounts that overlap at least 50 % of spectral energy of said visible light is within a spectral range spanning from about 430 nm to about 470 nm (paragraph [0022] – a single pointed mountain shape at a value ranging from 430 to 500 nm suggests an amount of spectral energy that is within or overlaps the claimed ranges of at least 50%, 70%, 90% and 95%; paragraph [0023]).
As set forth above Onaga et al. disclose the heat deformation temperature of the material. To the extent it may be considered necessary, each of Bae et al. (paragraph [0058]), Pawloski et al. (paragraph [0020]), Sanner et al. (paragraph [0144]), Mohanty et al. (paragraphs [0062] and [0119]), provide additional evidence to demonstrate the terms “heat deformation temperature” and “heat deflection temperature” are interchangeable and represent the same property. As such, when Onaga et al. recite “heat deformation temperature” it is understood to be saying the same thing as the claimed “heat deflection temperature (HDT)”.
As to the limitation directed to the process resulting in an increase of at least one of a flexural modulus and a flexural strength of the solidified modeling material, it is noted that the teaching of Onaga et al. as set forth above is understood to perform the same claimed steps on the same claimed materials in a manner that renders the claims prima facie obvious (e.g. through substantially overlapping ranges). Further, the instant specification (e.g. paragraphs [0175] and Table 5 of the published application) suggests that the result of performing the claimed and disclosed process is some degree of increase in the flexural modulus and flexural strength. As such, it follows from a technical and rational basis that the same claimed results are achieved by the method suggested by the prior art to the required extent. It is further noted that the claim does not require any particular amount of increase or even that both properties are increased. It follows that the weight of the evidence further supports a conclusion that the required increase is realized by the method suggested by the prior art either in all instances or through a substantially overlapping range. Further still, it is noted that recognition of another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
As to claim 2, Onaga et al. teach temperatures that overlap the claimed range (paragraphs [0032] – treatment temperature of 15-50°C, particularly 20-40°C, [0078] – HDT tester, [0084] – HDT of 50°C, [0101] – HDT of 47°C, [0104] – HDT of 35°C; overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious; “prevention of deformation…due to heat” at paragraph [0032] discloses the temperature is a result effective variable and would be controlled/selected/optimized to prevent deformation).
As to claim 3, Onaga et al. suggest a range of building/modeling materials may be utilized (paragraphs [0037]-[0064]) and further suggested maintaining/optimizing the temperature to prevent deformation (paragraph [0032]). While Onaga et al. do not explicitly exemplify an embodiment with multiple build/model materials, utilizing a plurality of the materials disclosed by Onaga et al. is reasonably suggested. In such a scenario, the reasonable suggestion from the teaching of Onaga et al. would be to utilize a temperature below the lowest HDT to prevent deformation of the article formed of multiple materials. Combining equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.06). In this case, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the use of multiple build materials from the materials disclosed by Onaga et al. to produce an object having a range of desired properties and functionality. This composite article would be treated in a manner to ensure the article does not deform (i.e., treated at a temperature below the HDT).
As to claims 4 and 5, the exposure in Onaga et al. is to reduce yellowing and maintain a desired color (Abstract) such that the duration of exposure would be readily selected to achieve the desired result (paragraphs [0001], [0004]-[0006], [0012]-[0023], [0027]-[0029], [0069], [0078]-[0082], [0096]).
As to claim 6, Onaga et al. disclose and suggest a plurality of light irradiation means and the location of treatment is a treatment chamber/housing (paragraphs [0012]-[0032], [0078]-[0088]).
As to claims 7-14, Onaga et al. reasonably suggest and renders prima facie obvious a range of photoinitiators within the scope of the claims in order to facilitate product curing and treatment of the cured product to remove yellowing (paragraphs [0004]-[0006], [0012]-[0023], and [0037]-[0064]; Examples)
As to claim 15, Onaga et al. disclose a transparent material (paragraphs [0004]-[0006], [0118])
As to claims 16 and 17, as cited above, Onaga et al. teach and suggest receiving parameters as claimed from an additive manufacturing system and selecting parameters, as required, to produce the treated article as cited above, making clear that the properties of the article are considered when determining the time and temperature needed to produce the article. The required temperatures and exposure times are suggested such that, based on a given object, made from certain materials, the time and duration of exposure and temperature would be determined and to get the desired color result (paragraphs [0004]-[0006], [0012]-[0032] and [0037]-[0064], [0096]; Examples).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 19, 2025 been fully considered. The amendment has overcome the previous section 112 rejections. As such, the rejections have been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments regarding the Kojima and Onaga reference have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. As to the limitation that at least 50% of the spectral energy is within a range spanning from 430 nm to 470 nm, applicant argues that the rejection is improper because the terms in the references don’t make clear that substantially all or at least half of the energy is within the claimed range. This argument is not persuasive. The ranges set forth in the prior art, at a minimum, disclose and suggest ranges that overlap the claimed and disclosed range. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. Further, the values disclosed in the references are understood to be accurate (e.g. emission wavelength of 470 +/- 5 nm in Kojima; a single pointed mountain shape at a value ranging from 430 to 500 nm suggests an amount of spectral energy that is within or overlaps the claimed ranges of at least 50%, 70%, 90% and 95% in Onaga; paragraphs [0022] and [0023]). It is further noted that the treatments performed in the prior art also achieve the same claimed and disclosed photobleaching result. The weight of the evidence of record supports a conclusion that the ranges suggested by the prior art at least overlap the claimed range.
More specifically, and as previously noted, Kojima is still understood to teach and suggest this limitation (see paragraphs [0009], [0012], [0027]-[0032], [0056], [0097], [0099]; also see, lines 1703, 1784, and 1848 of the translation with the value of the wavelength set at 470 nm +/- 5 nm;, which is understood to read on and/or overlap “about” 470 nm, as “about 470 nm” includes values somewhat above 470 nm). Further, paragraphs [0027] and [0028] describe the energy profiles/intensity peak that can be used, which suggest amounts up to substantially all of the energy – including at least 50%, 70%, 90%, and 95%, - being at a wavelength within the claimed range; e.g. “energy intensity peaks” at values within the claimed range, including “a pointed mountain shape” at values within the claimed range – this type of distribution is understood to overlap and render prima facie obvious the claimed range; e.g. a “pointed mountain shape” centered at 450 nm is fairly suggested by the disclosure and this configuration would include the amount of spectral energy as claimed. Similarly, peaks at other locations within the claimed range and with different shapes than a pointed mountain shape would also include/overlap the claimed spectral energy being at least 50%, etc.
Further still, the relied upon teaching of Onaga et al. as set forth above and in the body of the rejection itself, is understood to sufficiently address the limitation directed to the spectral energy.
As to the limitation directed to the process resulting in an increase of at least one of a flexural modulus and a flexural strength of the solidified modeling material, it is noted that the teaching set forth in the rejections above is understood to teach and suggest a method that performs the same claimed steps on the same claimed materials in the same claimed manner in a manner that renders the claims prima facie obvious (e.g. through substantially overlapping ranges). Further, the instant specification (e.g. paragraphs [0175] and Table 5 of the published application) suggests that the result of performing the claimed and disclosed process is some degree of increase in the flexural modulus and flexural strength. As such, it follows from a technical and rational basis that the same claimed results are achieved by the method suggested by the prior art to the required extent. It is further noted that the claim does not require any particular amount of increase or even that both properties are increased. It follows that the weight of the evidence supports a conclusion that the required increase is realized by the method suggested by the prior art either in all instances or through a substantially overlapping range. Further still, it is noted that recognition of another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). It is also noted that Onaga et al. disclose the treatment can last for hours (paragraph [0031]).
As to the argument that Onaga et al. suggest mechanical properties are preserved (paragraph [0019]), this does not mean or suggest that the method suggested by the rejection based upon Onaga et al. does not achieve the required degree of improvement in flexural modulus or flexural strength for the same reasons set forth above. The claim does not require any particular amount of increase of either of the properties and the specification appears to suggest this improvement naturally follows from performing the claimed and disclosed method.
Absent further specificity in the claim (e.g. a limitation requiring the treatment lasts 24 hours to achieve the desired amount of mechanical improvement whereas paragraph [0031] of Onaga et al. suggests a treatment of only up to 8 hours) or absent further evidence, the weight of the evidence of record supports a conclusion that the claims are properly rejected as being prima facie obvious over the applied references. Accordingly, it is submitted the claims would need to be further amended to overcome the art of record. The examiner further notes his availability to discuss the application via telephonic interview.
Conclusion
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