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
In response to the Amendment received on 8/18/2026, the examiner has carefully considered the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks/Amendment, filed 08/, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ahn et al (Advanced Materials, 11/2021) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kelly et al (Science, 2019).
The rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ahn et al (Advanced Materials, 11/2021) has been withdrawn. Ahn fails to expressly teach and/or fairly suggest a photoinitiator present in an amount of 0.3 to 5 mM (mmol/L). The rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (cited above). Ahn fails to set forth and/or suggest a resin composition having a viscosity of 50 to 100,000 cP at room temperature. The rejection of claims 2-6 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn in view of Ligon et al (Chem. Rev, 2014). Secondary, reference to Ligon fails remedy the deficiencies of Ahn--a photoinitiator present in an amount of 0.3 to 5 mM (mmol/L) which provides sufficient optical penetration through a volume of a photoresin formulation while maintaining a non-linear gelation threshold that limits polymerization in unwanted (out-of-part) regions.
Newly found reference to Kelly sets forth a photoresin formulation for volumetric additive manufacturing that appears to read on the instantly claimed photoresin formulation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kelly et al (Science, 2019).
Kelly sets forth volumetric additive manufacturing via tomographic reconstruction. Kelly sets forth methods for obtaining 3D printed articles using a CAL manufacturing system which selectively solidifies a photosensitive liquid within a contained volume—see p. 5, rt col. 2nd par.
Kelly uses a digital video projector to output our computed intensity-modulated projections, which are time-sequenced to the rotation rate of an uncured photopolymer precursor material, where free radicals are generated by light activation and then rapidly quenched and deactivated by oxygen during an initial, inhibition phase of printing, such that said material begins to cross-link at a given position within the volume. The oxygen must be sufficiently depleted locally. A nonlinear response of the material is due to the oxygen inhibition process, which sets a critical dose threshold.
Kelly sets liquid photosensitive formulations comprising 75 wt. % of bisphenol A glycerolate diacrylate (BPAGDA) and 25 wt. % of poly (ethylene glycol) diacrylate (PEGDA), a 1:1 wt. ratio photoinitiator (camphorquinone) and ethyl-4-dimethylaminobenzoate (co-initiator/reducing agent)—see S1 in Kelly supplemental materials. The ethyl-4-dimethylaminobenzoate is a tertiary amine which reacts with a peroxy radical formed from the photoinitiator and molecular oxygen in the system. Kelly sets forth the camphorquinone is in a 5.2 mM concentration in the composition—see page 5, s1, 2nd paragraph in Kelly supplemental materials. Kelly explicitly sets forth the oxygen content in said formulations are allowed to equilibrate prior to processing by exposing to ambient air for several days, therefore the resin composition comprises molecular oxygen—see supplemental material page 3, s4, last line in last par.
Regarding claim 1 and 9-10: Kelly sets forth a photoresin composition comprising an acrylate monomer (BPAGDA and PEGDA); a polymerization inhibitor comprising molecular oxygen, a reducing agent reactive with a formed peroxy radical in the formulation; and a photoinitiator in an amount of 5.2 mM. It is deemed this anticipates the instantly claimed composition since the total molar amount difference is 0.2 mM (~4% increase) would be indistinguishable from the instantly claimed composition. This small difference would be statistically insignificant and falls within standard experimental or manufacturing error margins. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If applicants are of the position that the prior art does not, in fact, possess the same properties as the claimed composition, the claimed composition should be amended to distinguish itself from the prior art--In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2-3 and 5: The ethyl-4-dimethylaminobenzoate is a tertiary amine having at least 2 carbon atoms which reacts with a radical peroxy formed from the photoinitiator and molecular oxygen in the system.
Regarding claim 7: The photoinitiator in the composition is camphorquinone.
Regarding claim 8: The ethyl-4-dimethylaminobenzoate (EDAB) is found in a (concentration of 4.47 mM. The ratio of photoinitiator to sensitizer (reducing agent) is a 1:1 weigh-ratio, which means their physical masses (m) in the solution are equal mCQ = mEDAB, thus the mass and volume are the same. MEDAB = MCQ * (MWCQ/MWEDAB) ---MEDAB = 5.2 mM * (166.22/193.24) = MEDAB = 5.2 mM * 0.86018 = 47 mM.
Regarding claim 13: The resin composition has a viscosity at room temperature of 4700 cP—see supplemental material S1 on page 2.
Claim(s) 14-18, 20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kelly et al (cited above).
Kelly sets forth volumetric additive manufacturing via tomographic reconstruction. Kelly sets forth methods for obtaining 3D printed articles using a CAL manufacturing system which selectively solidifies a photosensitive liquid within a contained volume—see p. 5, rt col. 2nd par.
Kelly sets liquid photosensitive formulations comprising 75 wt. % of bisphenol A glycerolate diacrylate (BPAGDA) and 25 wt. % of poly (ethylene glycol) diacrylate (PEGDA), a 1:1 wt. ratio photoinitiator (camphorquinone) and ethyl-4-dimethylaminobenzoate (co-initiator/reducing agent)—see S1 in Kelly supplemental materials. The ethyl-4-dimethylaminobenzoate is a tertiary amine which reacts with a peroxy radical formed from the photoinitiator and molecular oxygen in the system. Kelly sets forth the camphorquinone is in a 5.2 mM concentration in the composition—see page 5, s1, 2nd paragraph in Kelly supplemental materials. Kelly explicitly sets forth the oxygen content in said formulations are allowed to equilibrate prior to processing by exposing to ambient air for several days, therefore the resin composition comprises molecular oxygen—see supplemental material page 3, s4, last line in last par.
Regarding claim 14-16: Kelly sets forth volumetric additive manufacturing via tomographic reconstruction abstract. Kelly teaches the method includes using a digital video projector to output computed intensity-modulated projections, which are time-sequenced to the rotation rate of the uncured liquid photosensitive formulation—see page 2, 1st col., 2nd par.
Regarding claim 18: Kelly sets forth using intensities of `0.1 to 2.0 mW/cm2—see page 2, middle col., 3rd paragraph.
Regarding claim 20: Kelly sets forth obtaining printed “Thinker” models using the method—see Figure. 1 (D-G) and Fig. 3 A, E and F.
Regarding claim 22: Kelly sets forth a photoresin composition comprising an acrylate monomer (BPAGDA and PEGDA); a polymerization inhibitor comprising molecular oxygen, a reducing agent reactive with a formed peroxy radical in the formulation; and a photoinitiator in an amount of 5.2 mM. It is deemed this anticipates the instantly claimed composition since the total molar amount difference is 0.2 mM (~4% increase) would be indistinguishable from the instantly claimed composition. This small difference would be statistically insignificant and fall within standard experimental or manufacturing error margins. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If applicants are of the position that the prior art does not, in fact, possess the same properties as the claimed composition, the claimed composition should be amended to distinguish itself from the prior art--In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding the properties of claim 17: Kelly does not expressly set forth the limitations set forth in claim 17; however, it is deemed inherent and expected to the process and formulation set forth in the overall teachings. A key mechanism in inhibition is oxygen reacts with free radicals generated by photoinitiators to form peroxy radicals, wherein said peroxy radicals participate in radical–radical termination or chain transfer reactions, which help control the rate of polymerization. It is also known in the art that reducing agents react with peroxy radicals which will inhibit further polymerization thus allowing for faster curing/polymerization. Thus, in absence of evidence to the contrary and/or unexpected results a skilled artisan would have expected an increase in curing time.
Claim(s) 14, 20-21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over de Beer et al (Science Advances, 2019).
Regarding claim 14, 21 and 23: De Beer sets forth rapid continuous additive manufacturing by volumetric polymerization patterning. De Beers set forth resin compositions comprising 50 wt. % of triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA); 50 wt. % of bisphenol A glycidyl methacrylate (BisGMA); 0.2 wt. % CQ (camphorquinone), 0.5 wt. % EDAB (ethyl-dimethyl aminobenzoate), and 3 wt. % o-Cl-HABI (2,2’-Bis(2-chlorophenyl)-4,4’,5,5’-tetraphenyl-1,2’-biimidazole). De Beer sets forth the o-Cl-HABI is dissolved in tetrahydrofurfuryl prior to addition to the composition; thus, the composition comprises an organic solvent. Additionally, it is deemed oxygen is inherently within the resin composition since DeBeer does not expressly set forth and/or suggest removing oxygen from the composition prior to using, thus it is deemed the composition inherently comprises diffused molecular oxygen from the surrounding atmosphere in absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 20: De Beers sets forth a printed object in figure 1F using the resin composition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 19 is 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 19 sets forth a printable box; however, the process of claim 14 is not required to comprise a printable box. The process of claim 14 requires a print volume. Applicants 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANZA L MCCLENDON whose telephone number is (571)272-1074. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, Heidi Riviere-Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/SANZA L. McCLENDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
SMc
Prosecution Insights