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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 8/26/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 21-30 are withdrawn herein.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the “second surface” of claim 2 and dependents thereof; the structural relationship of the blade and surfaces in claim 9; “third surface” of claim 10 and dependents thereof; and the structural relationship of the build platform and the surfaces in claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-20 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. Dependent claims not rejected separately are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim 2 is vague an indefinite since it is unclear as to what constitutes “a second surface”, since the only surface disclosed is an endless carrier film around rollers, which is the first surface since it is in physical contact with the composition. It appears that the Applicant might be trying to be claiming zones (as in the withdrawn method claim 21), but even this is not entirely clear. Since the metes and bounds of the second surface are unknown, then all dependent claims that rely on the second surface are also vague and indefinite. For examination purposes, based on the disclosure, the first surface and the second surface will be treated as first zone and second zone. Since, based on the disclosure there is no actual second surface to move the material from a first surface to a second surface.
Claim 10 is seen as vague and indefinite since it is unclear if the light source of (ii) is the previously claimed curing mechanism in claim 1. Does set forth two curing mechanisms or is it a further limitation of the curing mechanism of claim 1? For purposes of examination it will be treated as a further limitation of the one or more curing mechanisms of claim 1.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Greenhall et al (3D Printing Macroscale Engineered Materials Using Ultrasound Directed Self-Assembly and Stereolithography), as evidenced by Brown (US PGPub 2016/0271875). Regarding claim 1:
Greenhall teaches a additive manufacturing device in Figures 1a and 1b. Greenhall teaches a first surface in physical contact with a curable composition with particles; an array of ultrasound transducers to control the particles, and a projector to cure the composition.
Greenhall does not explicitly disclose a heating element. However, as evidenced by Brown, the use of acoustic energy creates heat (paragraph 0027). Therefore one of the ultrasonic transducers is seen as the claimed heating element.
Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gmeiner et al (US PGPub 2021/0187859; herein Gmeiner). Regarding claim 1, Gmeiner teaches:
A first surface configured to be in physical contact with a curable composition comprising a plurality of particles (Figure 2, carrier film 4. The curable composition comprising particles is seen as the material worked upon, see MPEP 2112.01 I, 2114, and 2115)
One or more heating elements operative to heat at least a portion of the curable composition during an additive manufacturing process (Figure 2, support plate 27 can have a heating element (paragraph 0099), pre-heating plate 24, and/or infrared lamps 30)
One or more curing mechanisms operative to cure the at least a portion of the curable composition into a three-dimensionally printed object during the additive manufacturing process (Figure 2, light engine 28)
A first agitator located in proximity to the first surface of the additive manufacturing device and configured to emit energy having a first frequency toward the curable composition during the additive manufacturing process so that at least a fraction of the energy having the first frequency is absorbed by the plurality of particles in the curable composition (Since the support plate 27 and pre-heating plate 24 supply heat, then the particles in such a composition would be capable of being agitated due to the wavelength and frequency of the radiation from the heaters. See MPEP 2112.01 I, 2114, and 2115)
Regarding claim 2, Gmeiner teaches:
Further comprising a material transport unit configured to move the curable composition from the first surface to a second surface of the additive manufacturing device (Figure 2, rollers 16 move the material from a first zone at support plate 27 to a second zone at support plate 26 or pre-heating plate 24)
Regarding claim 3:
As discussed with regards to claim 2, Gmeiner uses rollers 16 in Figure 2.
Regarding claim 4, Gmeiner teaches:
Further comprising a second agitator in proximity to the second [zone] of the additive manufacturing device, wherein the second agitator is configured to emit energy having a second frequency toward the curable composition when located on the second [zone] (The pre-heating plate 24 is the second zone and as previously discussed emits radiation which would agitate particles)
Regarding claim 5, Gmeiner teaches:
Wherein the first agitator is located on an opposite side of the first surface as the curable composition, the second agitator is located on an opposite side of the second surface as the curable composition, or both (As seen in Figure 2, the plates 24 and 27 are on opposite sides as claimed)
Regarding claim 7, Gmeiner teaches:
Wherein the material transport unit is configured to act as a node and (i) shield the curable composition, when located on the first surface, from the energy emitted by the second agitator, (ii) shield the curable composition, when located on the second surface, from the energy emitted by the first agitator, or (iii) a combination thereof (As seen in Figure 2, the rollers 16 would act as claimed, since they are placed in such a way that radiation from 27 would be blocked as the film rotates around the roller)
Regarding claim 8, Gmeiner teaches:
Further comprising a recoating blade configured to control a dimension, an area, or a volume of the curable composition which passes therethrough (Figure 2, coating blade 21)
Regarding claim 9, Gmeiner teaches:
Wherein the recoating blade is positioned after the first or the second surface in a direction of movement of the curable composition (As seen in Figure 2, the blade 21 is positioned after as claimed)
Regarding claim 10, Gmeiner teaches:
Further comprising a build platform positioned after the first surface, the second surface, or the recoating blade in the direction of movement of the curable composition, wherein the build platform is configured to facilitate building of the three- dimensionally printed object resulting from the additive manufacturing process (Figure 2, guiding plate 29)
And comprises one or more of: (i) a third surface; and (ii) a light source in proximity to the third surface, wherein the light source is configured to emit electromagnetic radiation of one or more wavelengths to photo-cure at least the portion of the curable composition (Figure 2, light engine 28)
Regarding claim 11, Gmeiner teaches:
Wherein the build platform comprises the one or more heating elements (Figure 2, IR heaters 30 are seen as part of the plate 29, since they are the heaters for the plate, paragraph 0102)
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 6 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gmeiner, in view of Greenhall. Regarding claims 6, 12, and 14:
Gmeiner is silent to using sonic transducers or piezoelectric transducers as the agitators or using ultrasonic wavers.
In the same field of using agitators in 3D printing, Greenhall teaches using ultrasonic transducers to control the dispersion of particles in a curable composition (as previously discussed), due to the absorption of energy from the transducers.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the transducers of Greenhall in the Gmeiner printer, since it allows for custom particle patterning (Greenhall: Abstract).
Regarding claims 13 and 16-20:
Claims 13 and 16-20 are seen as the intended use of the apparatus (see MPEP 2114), since the combination teaches the claimed structure, then they are capable of being used in the claimed manners.
Regarding claim 15:
As seen in Figure 2 of Gmeiner, a film is formed due to the blade 21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743