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. Preliminary amendment filed 5/28/2023 is made of record. Claims 1-15 are cancelled; and claims 16-35 are added. Accordingly, claims 16-35 are currently pending in the application. Claim Objections Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 recites “selected from the group consisting of di(meth)acrylate bisphenol A … as well as … and mixtures thereof”. Proper Ma rkush grouping is listed as “selected from the group consisting of A, B, C and D” . A lternatively , it can be listed as “selected from A, B, C or D”. See MPEP 2173.05(h) . Appropriate correction and/or clarification are required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 21 recites “at least two (meth)acrylate groups in component c) are acryloxy unsaturated … end-capping with an aliphatic hydroxy-functional (meth)acrylate … or reacting … with an aliphatic hydroxy-functional (meth)acrylate”. The claim recites that (meth)acrylate groups in component c) are acryloxy , but the component used to form the (meth)acrylate groups include aliphatic hydroxy-functional (meth)acrylate (i.e., can be methacrylate and /or acrylate). Hence, metes and bounds of present claims cannot be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in art prior to the filing of present application. Examiner interprets it to be “aliphatic hydroxy-functional acrylate” and not (meth)acrylate. Claim 25 recites “at least two (meth)acrylate groups in component c) are acryloxy unsaturated … and obtained by … end-capping with an aliphatic hydroxy-functional (meth)acrylate … or reacting … with an aliphatic hydroxy-functional (meth)acrylate”. The claim recites that (meth)acrylate groups in component c) are acryloxy , but the component used to form the (meth)acrylate groups include aliphatic hydroxy-functional (meth)acrylate (i.e., can be methacrylate and /or acrylate). Hence, metes and bounds of present claims cannot be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in art prior to the filing of present application. Examiner interprets it to be “aliphatic hydroxy-functional acrylate” and not (meth)acrylate. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 20, 24 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 20 recites “component b) is obtained from the … reaction … with (meth)acrylic acid” (lines 2-15) and fails to further limit the scope of claim 18 on which it is dependent. Specifically, claim 20 recites “reaction … with (meth)acrylic acid (i.e., can be methacrylate and/or acrylate) , while claim 18 requires the (meth)acrylate groups to be acryloxy . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claims 24 and 28 recites “curable by techniques … heat curing” (lines 2-3) and fails to further limit the scope of claim 16 on which it is dependent indirectly, which requires the composition to be a “radiation curable composition” and is also not consistent with preamble in claims 24 and 28 . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements . 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . 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 16- 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2014/0239527 A1) in view of Furukawa et al (JP 2005-089694 A). It is noted that JP 2005-089694 A is i n Japanese. A copy of the machine translation into English is provided with this Office action. All line/paragraph citations below are to the English translation unless explicitly state d . Regarding claim s 16 and 17 , Lee discloses a light-curable viscous mixture that includes 5 to 40% by weight of aliphatic urethane (meth)acrylate oligomer (i.e., overlaps with the amount of component “c” in present claim 16), 25 to 65% by weight of at least one kind of difunctional bisphenol-A dimethacrylate (i.e., reads on monomeric component “a” with at least two aromatic (meth)acrylate groups in present claim 16 and 17, and overlaps with its amount in present claim 16) and 0.1 to 5% by weight of at least one kind of photoinitiator (abstract) which reads on photoiniiator “e” and its amount in present claim 16. The composition is a photocurable liquid composition (paragraph 0007) which reads on liquid radiation curable composition in present claim 16. Examples of urethane methacrylates include CN1963 (paragraph 0018). It is noted that CN1963 is a urethane dimethacrylate oligomer. It is noted that component “b” and “f” may be present in amounts of 0 weight percent and therefore is an optional component. Lee is silent with respect to monomeric component “d” with one (meth)acrylate group having at least one hydroxyl moiety ; and fails to disclose viscosity of composition at 25 0 C . However, regarding monomeric component “d” with one (meth)acrylate group having at least one hydroxyl moiety, Furukawa et al in the same filed of endeavor teach a radiation curable liquid resin composition comprising (A) urethane (meth)acrylate oligomer and (B) 1 to 30% by weight of hydroxy group-containing (meth)acrylate monomer (abstract) which reads on component “d” and overlaps with its amount in present claim 16 . By containing a predetermined amount of component B, a high curing rate can be obtained without containing a nitrogen containing vinyl monomer, and yellowing of the cured product can be suppressed. Specific examples of component B include hydroxypropyl (meth)acrylate (paragraph 032). Case law holds tha t when the range of instant claims and that disclosed in prior art overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore, in light of the teachings in Furukawa et al, it would have been obvious to one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application to include the monomeric hydroxy (meth)acrylate in overlapping amounts in the liquid curable resin composition, of Lee, for above mentioned advantages . Regarding viscosity of composition, see examples in Lee et al , wherein the compositions have a viscosity lower than 1500 cps at 70 0 C (Table 4). It is the Office’s position that one skilled in art would have a reasonable basis to expect the viscosity of composition to be lower than 1500 cps a 25 0 C. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments, the burden of proof is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). Regarding claims 18-20, component “b” may be present in amounts of 0 weight percent and is therefore an optional component. Regarding claim s 21 and 25 , Lee et al teach that urethane (meth)acrylate is prepared by reacting a diisocyan a te with polyester or polyether polyol to yield an isocyanate terminated urethane followed by reacting with a hydroxyl terminated (meth) a crylate. The urethane (meth)acrylates include aliphatic urethanes (paragraph 0017). Regarding claims 22 and 26, examples of component B, in Furukawa et al, include 2-hydroxypropyl (meth)acrylate (paragraph 032). Regarding claims 23-24 and 27-28, Lee et al teach that photoinitiator functions to generate radicals by UV/ Vis light to initiate crosslinking of unsaturated hydrocarbons (paragraph 0023) which reads on composition is curable through free radical curing in present claims 23 and 27; and actinic radiation curing in present claims 24 and 28. Regarding claim 29, Lee et al teach that light-curable viscous mixture includes 5 to 20% by weight of at least one kind of multifunctional aliphatic (meth)acrylate, 5 to 40% by weight of at least one kind of aliphatic urethane (meth)acrylate oligomer, 25 to 65% by weight of at least one kind of difunctional bisphenol A dimethacrylate (paragraph 0008). Additionally, Furukawa et al teach a radiation curable liquid resin composition comprising (A) urethane (meth)acrylate oligomer and (B) 1 to 30% by weight of hydroxy group-containing (meth)acrylate monomer (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in art prior to the filing to prepare a curable composition comprising aromatic monomers or oligomers to aliphatic monomers or oligomers in overlapping weight ratio of 5:95 to 50:50. Case law holds that when the range of instant claims and that disclosed in prior art overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05. Regarding claim 30, Lee et al teach that light-curable viscous mixture includes 5 to 20% by weight of at least one kind of multifunctional aliphatic (meth)acrylate, 5 to 40% by weight of at least one kind of aliphatic urethane (meth)acrylate oligomer, 25 to 65% by weight of at least one kind of difunctional bisphenol A dimethacrylate (paragraph 0008). Additionally, Furukawa et al teach a radiation curable liquid resin composition comprising (A) urethane (meth)acrylate oligomer and (B) 1 to 30% by weight of hydroxy group-containing (meth)acrylate monomer (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in art prior to the filing to prepare a curable composition comprising methacrylate monomers or oligomers to acrylic monomer or oligomers in overlapping weight ratio of 80:20 to 20:80. Case law holds that when the range of instant claims and that disclosed in prior art overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05 . Regarding claims 31-32, see examples in Lee et al wherein the compositions have a viscosity lower than 1500 cps at 70 0 C (Table 4). It is the Office’s position that one skilled in art would have a reasonable basis to expect the viscosity of composition to be in a range of 100 to 1500 cps a 25 0 C. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments, the burden of proof is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) . Regarding claim 33, Lee et al teach that composition is useful for 3 D printing (paragraph 0002). The process comprises stacking layers of the light curable mixture (i.e., reads on repeated steps of layering in present claim 33 and curing the stacked layer (see claim 14) which reads on irradiating the composition to form a 3D object in present claim 33. Regarding claims 34 and 35, given that liquid radiation curable comp os it i on of present claims is obvious based on the disclosure in Lee et al combined with the teachings in Furukawa et al, and 3D object is prepared from the composition, of Lee et al in view of Furukawa et al, by a substantially similar process as in present claims, one skilled in art prior to the filing of present application would have a reasonable basis to expect the cured 3D object, of Lee et al in view of Furukawa et al, to exhibit the present claimed properties (such as Young’s modulus of at least 2.5 GPa , an ultimate tensile strength of at least 70 MPa and a T g at onset of storage modulus of at least 90 0 C as in present claim 34, and retains at least 50% of its ultimate tensile strength after being subjected to aging according to ASTM G154 for 800 hours), absent evidence to the contrary. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments, the burden of proof is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KARUNA P REDDY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6566 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM M-F . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-7026 . 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. /KARUNA P REDDY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764