0DETAILED 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 05/11/2026, the examiner has carefully considered the amendments. The examiner acknowledges the addition of claims 21-23. The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd paragraph for claims 10 and 13 have been overcome by the amendment and has hereby been withdrawn for consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant appears to rely on the amendment to the claims to overcome the rejection. Applicant argues the upper limit of 0.14 wt. % for the photoinitiator; however, it is not clear where and how applicant has arrived at this weight percentage. It is not clear if applicant intends for this wt. % to be the upper limit of the claimed molar concentration or if applicant is referring to the teachings of the cited preference. However, the calculations of for the 0.5 wt. % of TPO for table S1 (supplementary info Ahn) recalculated from the previous rejection and assuming the composition is 100g batch, the mmol of TPO1. photoinitiator calculates to 1.44 mmol, which is within the claimed mmol ration of 0.3 to 5 mM.
Assuming a total mass for the formulation—weight percent is defined relative to 100 parts by weight, so the usual convention is to take a 100 g batch.
Step 1: 0.5 wt.% of TPO = 0.5 g TPO in 100 g total
Step 2: TPO (diphenyl(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phosphine oxide) has molar mass:
MTPO=348.37 g/mol
Step 3: nTPO=0.5 g348.37 g/mol≈0.00144 mol
mmol TPO=0.00144 mol×1000 mmolmol≈1.44 mmol.
Therefore, the rejection still stands.
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(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ahn et al (Advanced Materials, 11/2021).
Ahn teaches the addition of a multifunctional thiol additive to known photocurable acrylic resin composition enables rapid high-resolution visible light 3D printing under ambient conditions (oxygen (O2) atmosphere)—see abstract, lines 12-15. Anh sets forth a major limitation of highly reactive visible-light-curable resins for 3D printing is the need for oxygen removal, both from the resin and surrounding atmosphere during printing because oxygen will quench propagating carbon centered radicals to form more stable peroxy radicals that do not reinitiate acrylate polymerizations. Ahn teaches the addition of thiol additives to simultaneously preclude oxygen inhibition and enhance photopolymerization rates under ambient conditions for visible-light photocuring and that the process is universal, enabling rapid high-resolution visible-light 3D printing for an array of acrylic resins—see introduction. Ahn teaches the addition of the thiol additive (PETMP, corresponding to applicant’s reducing agent) reduces oxygen inhibition through two mechanisms: 1) hydrogen abstraction from thiols by peroxy radicals formed when propagating carbon centered radicals react with molecular oxygen—see page 3, left col., 2nd full paragraph, lines 1-4.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, and 7-10, Ahn explicitly sets forth irradiation of a photocurable resin compositions comprising an aliphatic urethane diacrylate (claim 10) and tripropylene glycol diacrylate (claim 9) in a 1:1 ratio; 0.5 wt. % (1.19 mM) of phenylbis(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phosphine oxide (BAPO--photoinitiator) [claims 7-8]; and 1 wt. % (2.04 mM) of pentaerythritol tetrakis(3-mercaptopropionate) (PETMP, corresponding to applicants reducing agent) [claims 2-4 and 8--17 carbon atoms] under ambient conditions (O2 atmosphere). This is deemed to anticipate instant claim 1, wherein it is deemed the composition under ambient conditions has both atmospheric oxygen and oxygen dissolved in the resin composition—see Introduction, page 1, right col. 2nd full paragraph, lines 10-13. The tripropylene glycol diacrylate is deemed to anticipate the acrylate monomer, the ambient conditions anticipates the inhibitor comprising molecular oxygen; the BAPO anticipates the photoinitiator, and the PETMP anticipates the reducing agent reactive with a peroxyl radical formed from the polymerization inhibitor—claim 1.
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 5-6: Ahn explicitly sets forth irradiating a photocurable composition comprising an aliphatic urethane diacrylate and tripropylene glycol diacrylate in a 1:1 ratio; 0.5 wt. % (1.19 mM) of photoinitiator system: 0.05 mol% ZnTPP, 0.05 mol% Borate V, 0.35 mol% HNu-254; and 1 wt. % (2.04 mM) of triphenylphosphine (claims 3 and 5-6) under ambient conditions (O2 atmosphere)—claim 1, see supplemental table S9.
Regarding claims 1 and 9-10: Ahn explicitly sets forth irradiating a photocurable composition comprising resins comprising either BR952:HEMA:PETMP (in 70/29/1 wt.% ratio) or BR-345:HEA:PETMP (in 50/49/1 wt.% ratio) with 0.3 wt.% ZnTPP, 0.2 wt.% Borate V, 2 wt.% HNu-254, 0.01 wt.% TEMPO were added as photoinitiating components under ambient conditions (O2 atmosphere), HEA is hydroxyethyl acrylate and HEMA is hydroxyethyl methacrylate (claims 9-10) and PETMP is pentaerythritol tetrakis(3-mercaptopropionate) corresponding to applicant’s reducing agent—claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (cited above).
Ahn is set forth above as explicitly anticipating the formulation of claims 1-10.
Ahn does not expressly set forth the addition of a solvent; however, Ahn does not expressly set forth the viscosity of the resin compositions as outlined the teachings; however; it is known all liquids have a viscosity and Ahn sets forth heating the resin compositions to 70 deg. C to lower the viscosity, as well as, adding reactive diluents (viscosity reducing reactive solvent). Thus, the compositions of Ahn inherently has a viscosity and since the Patent and Trademark Office is not equipped to conduct experimentation in order to determine whether Applicant’s composition differs and, if so, to what extent, from the discussed reference. Therefore, with the showing of the reference, the burden of establishing non-obviousness by objective evidence is shifted to the Applicants.
Claim(s) 2-6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn as applied to claims 1-10 above, and further in view of Ligon et al (Chem. Rev, 2014).
Ahn is set forth above as anticipating the photo resin formulation of claims 1-10. Ahn does not expressly set forth silane, amine, stannane, or borane reducing agents. However, it is known in the art reducing agents, such as amines, thiols, and silanes, a number of hydrogen donors, triphenyl derivatives of group 14 elements silicon, stannane, organic boron compound; and organic phosphorus compounds are suggested for use as peroxyl radical reducing agents are useable in processes, such as additive manufacturing using acrylic compositions, as set forth by Ligon. Ligon sets forth strategies to reduce oxygen inhibition in photoinduced polymerization in processes, such as additive manufacturing—see section 3.4, 3.4.1-3.5.2 (pages 569-573) and section 5.4 (page 581). Ligon sets forth N-methyl diethanolamine, 2-(N-methyl-N-phenylamino)1-phenylethanol, and triethanolamine; mercaptopropylmethylsiloxane mercaptobenzoxazole, mercaptobenzamidazole and mercaptobenzothiazole; AND borane−amine complexes—see 3.4, 3.4.1-3.5.2 (pages 569-573) and section 5.4 (page 581).
Ahn and Ligon are analogous art because they are concerned with the same problem, i.e., oxygen inhibition in photocurable formulations. Therefore, it would have been within the skill level of an ordinary artisan to use other known reducing agents, as set forth by Ligon, in formulations as set forth by Ahn with a reasonable expectation of inhibiting the oxygen in said composition and obtaining a faster cure, as suggested by Ahn in the absence of evidence to the contrary/or unexpected results. It is prima facie obvious to add a known ingredient for its known function—see In re Linder 173 USPQ 356 and In re Dial et al 140 USPQ 244.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 and 14-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited art above (closest prior art) while setting forth additive manufacturing methods, fails to expressly teach and/or render obvious a volumetric additive manufacturing process, as well as, the use of organic solvents in the photocurable resin composition. Additionally, secondary reference to Ligon sets forth the principal advantage of photocuring is the ability to cure solvent-free formulations within a fraction of a second with high temporal and spatial control.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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