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 amendment filed 01/30/2026 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1-4 and 6-19 remain pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
As defined in p 15 of applicant specification, “In the present specification, an "amount of a liquid droplet (liquid droplet amount)" represents the quantity by volume of each of the curable composition A and the curable composition B discharged to one voxel.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa (US2016/0229124 of record) in view of Wang et al. (US2022/0072836 of record) hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 1, Yoshikawa teaches:
A three-dimensional object producing method for producing a three-dimensional object (Fig 4) using a set of base curable compositions ([0072]) including a curable composition A (Fig 5-6: colored liquid Wh) and a curable composition B (Fig 5-6: transparent liquid Tm), and using a curable composition C (Fig 5-6: colored liquid Ku), the three-dimensional object producing method comprising:
discharging both of the curable composition A and the curable composition B by an inkjet method ([0072]) and curing both of the curable composition A and the curable composition B, to produce a base cured product ([0076]);
discharging the curable composition C containing a coloring material by an inkjet method (Fig 7a; [0072]) and curing the curable composition C, to produce a cured product C ([0076]),
repeating discharging both of the curable composition A and the curable composition B, curing both of the curable composition A and the curable composition B (Fig 8; [0081]), and
an absolute value of a difference between total light transmittance through a cured product A of the curable composition A and total light transmittance through a cured product B of the curable composition B is 10% or greater (Fig 6; [0070]).
Yoshikawa does not teach repeating discharging the curable composition C and curing the curable composition C, and wherein a deposited region C formed by deposition of a liquid droplet amount of the curable composition C discharged is smaller than a base deposited region formed by total deposition of a liquid droplet amount of the curable composition A and a liquid droplet amount of the curable composition B discharged, deposited region C and base deposited region being determined as seen in a plan view perspective in a discharging direction.
In the same field of endeavor regarding three-dimensional printing, Wang teaches 3D printing (Fig 4: [0060-0063) a shell component (Fig 4: shell component 420; [0084]) and a core component (Fig 4: core component 430; [0084]) comprising white and black voxels (Fig 4) for the motivation of improving the visual characteristics of the article ([0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Yoshikawa to produce the shell and core article as taught by Wang in order to improve the visual characteristics of the article.
Yoshikawa further teaches a deposited region C formed by deposition of a liquid droplet amount of the curable composition C and a base deposited region formed by total deposition of a liquid droplet amount of the curable composition A and a liquid droplet amount of the curable composition B discharged (Fig 5-6; [0072]).
Yoshikawa further teaches forming white voxels using colored liquid Wh transparent and liquid Tm (Fig 5-6; [0063]) and forming black voxels using colored liquid Ku (Fig 5-6; [0064]).
Wang further teaches forming multiple layers of having black voxels that solidifies upon deposition (Fig 4; [0067]), and a deposited region of the black voxels is smaller than a base deposited region of white voxels as seen in a plan view perspective in a discharging direction (Fig 4; [0084]).
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the prior art teaches repeating discharging the curable composition C and curing the curable composition C, and wherein a deposited region C formed by deposition of a liquid droplet amount of the curable composition C discharged is smaller than a base deposited region formed by total deposition of a liquid droplet amount of the curable composition A and a liquid droplet amount of the curable composition B discharged, deposited region C and base deposited region being determined as seen in a plan view perspective in a discharging direction.
Regarding claim 2, Yoshikawa in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 1.
Yoshikawa further teaches wherein a difference between total light transmittance through a portion, of the three-dimensional object, through which the total light transmittance is highest and total light transmittance through a portion, of the three-dimensional object, through which the total light transmittance is lowest is 10% or greater ([0082]).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshikawa in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 1.
Yoshikawa further teaches wherein a difference between total light transmittance through a portion, of the three-dimensional object, through which the total light transmittance is highest and total light transmittance through a portion, of the three- dimensional object, through which the total light transmittance is lowest is 30% or greater ([0082]).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshikawa in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 3.
Yoshikawa further teaches wherein the total light transmittance through the cured product A is 35% or lower, and the total light transmittance through the cured product B is 60% or higher (Fig 6; [0070]).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshikawa in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 1.
Wang further teaches wherein the deposited region C formed by the curable composition C being discharged by the inkjet method in a form of a liquid droplet and deposited and the base deposited region formed by the curable composition A and the curable composition B being discharged by the inkjet method in a form of a liquid droplet and deposited have an overlapping region (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 9, Yoshikawa in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 1.
Wang further teaches magenta voxels of the dark pink portion of the shell component that overlap above a black voxel (Fig 4).
Yoshikawa further teaches that non-black voxels contain colored liquid Wh and transparent liquid Tm to control the transparency ([0070]).
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill that the prior art teaches wherein the base deposited region formed by the curable composition A and the curable composition B being discharged by the inkjet method in a form of a liquid droplet and deposited overlies the deposited region C formed by the curable composition C being discharged by the inkjet method in a form of a liquid droplet and deposited, to have an overlapping region above the deposited region C.
Regarding claim 10, Yoshikawa in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 1.
Wang further teaches wherein an amount of a liquid droplet of the curable composition C discharged by the inkjet method in a form of a liquid droplet is lower than a total of an amount of a liquid droplet of the curable composition A discharged by the inkjet method in a form of a liquid droplet and an amount of a liquid droplet of the curable composition B discharged by the inkjet method in a form of a liquid droplet (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 11, Yoshikawa in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 10.
Wang further teaches further teaches wherein the amount of the liquid droplet of the curable composition C discharged by the inkjet method in a form of a liquid droplet is 70% by volume or less relative to the total of the amount of the liquid droplet of the curable composition A discharged by the inkjet method in a form of a liquid droplet and the amount of the liquid droplet of the curable composition B discharged by the inkjet method in a form of a liquid droplet (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshikawa in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 11.
Wang further teaches wherein the amount of the liquid droplet of the curable composition C discharged by the inkjet method in a form of a liquid droplet is 50% by volume or less relative to the total of the amount of the liquid droplet of the curable composition A discharged by the inkjet method in a form of a liquid droplet and the amount of the liquid droplet of the curable composition B discharged by the inkjet method in a form of a liquid droplet (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 13, Yoshikawa in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 1.
Wang further teaches wherein the curable composition C contains a pigment ([0025]).
Yoshikawa in view of Wang does not explicitly recite wherein the curable composition C contains a pigment having a volume mean particle diameter of 10 nm or greater and 1,000 nm or less.
However, Wang further teaches pigments having particle size that overlaps with the claimed range ([0025]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the particle size as taught by Wang that overlaps with the claimed range.
Yoshikawa in view of Wang does not explicitly recite a content of the pigment is 0.1% by mass or greater relative to a whole mass of the curable composition C.
However, Wang further teaches pigment weight composition that overlaps with the claimed range ([0023]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the pigment weight composition as taught by Wang that overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, Yoshikawa in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 1.
Wang further teaches wherein the curable composition C is substantially free of a hard solid component ([0025]; dyes are soluble).
Regarding claim 15, Yoshikawa in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 1.
Wang further teaches wherein the coloring material in the curable composition C contains a pigment ([0025])
Wang further teaches that the colorant can be a molecular dye and therefore the curable composition B can be substantially free of a pigment ([0025]).
Wang does not discuss curable composition A and Yoshikawa is silent as to any pigment contained in the curable composition A.
Regarding claim 16, Yoshikawa in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 1.
Wang further teaches discharging a curable composition D for support, which is for supporting the three-dimensional object, by an inkjet method and curing the curable composition D for support, to produce a cured product D for support ([0066-0069]).
Regarding claim 19, Yoshikawa in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 1.
Wang further teaches that the deposition material solidifies on deposition ([0067]) and that the black voxels are formed above, i.e., after, the white voxels (Fig 4).
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill that the prior art teaches wherein discharging of the curable composition C containing a coloring material by an inkjet method occurs after curing said curable composition A and said curable composition B.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kimura et al. (US2023/0131633 of record) hereinafter Kimura.
Regarding claim 6, Yoshikawa in view of Wang teaches the method of claim 1.
Yoshikawa in view of Wang does not teach wherein the curable composition A contains a hard solid component having a volume mean particle diameter of 10 nm or greater and 1,000 nm or less, and the curable composition B contains a hard solid component having a volume mean particle diameter of 10 nm or greater and 1,000 nm or less.
In the same field of endeavor regarding additive manufacturing, Kimura teaches curable compositions comprising filler having particle size that overlaps with the claimed range for the motivation of improving X-ray absorption coefficient ([0162, 0166-0170]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the curable compositions A and B as taught by Yoshikawa in view of Wang with the filler as taught by Kimura and to have chosen the portion of the particle size as taught by Kimura that overlaps with the claimed range in order to improve X-ray absorption coefficient.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa in view of Wang and Kimura as applied to claim 6 above, and further evidenced by Evonik and Chemical Book.
Regarding claim 7, Yoshikawa in view of Wang and Kimura teaches the method of claim 6.
Kimura further teaches wherein the curable composition A contains a hard solid component having a volume mean particle diameter of greater than 100 nm and 1,000 nm or less (see art rejection of claim 6), and the curable composition B contains a hard solid component having a volume mean particle diameter of 10 nm or greater and 100 nm or less (see art rejection of claim 6).
Kimura further teaches the curable composition comprising (Table 1, example 3):
35 parts AEROSIL #200: silica ([0198]); density: 2.2 g/cm3 (Evonik)
60 parts EBECRYL 4859: urethane dimethacrylate ([0190]); density: 1.11 g/mL (Chemical Book)
20 parts POBA: 3-phenoxybenzyl acrylate ([0191]); density: 1.133g/cm3 (Chemical Book)
20 parts M600A: 2-hydroxy-3-phenoxypropyl acrylate ([0192]); density: 1.16 g/mL (Chemical Book)
1 part TPO: 2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl-diphenyl-phosphine oxide ([0195]); density: 1.12 g/mL (Chemical Book).
As calculated from the above, Yoshikawa in view of Wang Kimura as evidenced by Evonik and Chemical Book teaches a volume composition for silica of approximately 15%, which falls within the claimed ranges for curable composition A and curable composition B.
Therefore the prior art teaches a content of the hard solid component in the curable composition A being 10% by volume or greater and a content of the hard solid component in the curable composition B being 60% by volume or less.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa in view of Kimura.
Regarding claim 18, Yoshikawa teaches:
A method for producing an object (Fig 4) using a set of base curable compositions ([0072]) including a curable composition A (colored liquid Wh) and a curable composition B (transparent liquid Tm), and using a curable composition C (colored liquids Cy, Ma, Ye, Ku), the object producing method comprising:
discharging both of the curable composition A and the curable composition B by an inkjet method ([0072]) and curing both of the curable composition A and the curable composition B, to produce a base cured product ([0076]); and
discharging the curable composition C containing a coloring material by an inkjet method ([0072]) and curing the curable composition C, to produce a cured product C ([0076]),
wherein a deposited region C formed by deposition of a liquid droplet amount of the curable composition C discharged is smaller than a base deposited region formed by total deposition of a liquid droplet amount of the curable composition A and a liquid droplet amount of the curable composition B discharged (Fig 5, 7a,b; [0063-0066, 0073]), and
an absolute value of a difference between total light transmittance through a cured product A of the curable composition A and total light transmittance through a cured product B of the curable composition B is 10% or greater (Fig 6; [0070]).
Yoshikawa does not teach an artificial tooth object producing method for producing an artificial tooth object.
In the same field of endeavor regarding additive manufacturing, Kimura teaches using additive manufacturing to produce dental products having excellent modeling accuracy ([0184-0185]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Yoshikawa to produce dental products as taught by Kimura in order to produce dental products having excellent modeling accuracy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 016 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner notes in the interview of 01/07/2026 that the discussion of the depositing, curing, and repeating sequence was directed to the process of Yoshikawa individually and contingent upon further search and consideration of the prior art as a whole.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is directed to a method where curable compositions A and B are discharged and cured then curable composition C containing a coloring material is discharged and cured. First, as a matter of record, the examiner notes that this limitation is not recited in either independent claims 1 or 18. The examiner note that the above subject matter is represented in dependent claim 19. Wang teaches that the deposition material solidifies on deposition ([0067]) and that the black voxels are formed above, i.e., after, the white voxels (Fig 4). Yoshikawa teaches a method of forming black voxels containing a block colorant, i.e., interpreted composition C and white voxels, i.e., interpreted base composition A and B (Fig 5-6; [0063-0064]). Applicant argues that Yoshikawa teaches the liquids mix and therefore teaches away from separately curing a colored liquid as a mixture is need to achieve the desired color. However, applicant mischaracterizes the deposition as requiring mixing. Yoshikawa [0084] recites “FIGS. 7A, 7B, and 8 show a state in which each liquid is laminated in the vertical direction Z without mixing the liquids in the voxels”. Furthermore, Yoshikawa teaches layer by layer curing by way of non-limiting example ([0018, 0067]) and does not teach away from the solidification upon deposition as taught by Wang ([0067]). Applicant argues that a process which separately cures the base composition A and B and the composition C is not obvious in light of Yoshikawa. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach a repeated ejection of the curable composition C and ejection of the curable compositions A and B. However, Yoshikawa teaches multiple layers having curable compositions A and B (Fig 8). Yoshikawa teaches repeating the steps of deposition and curing to form said layers ([0080]). Wang teaches forming a core layer comprising multiple layers of white opaque voxels (Fig 4; [0063]) and layers comprising black voxels (Fig 4). Yoshikawa teaches forming white opaque voxels (Fig 5-6; [0063]) and black voxels (Fig 5-6; [0064]). Using a combination of the teachings of Yoshikawa and Wang, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to deposit and cure each voxel upon deposition of each voxel by repeating the formation of each individual white and black voxel until the final article of Wang Fig 4 is complete. Wang also teaches forming multiple black voxels above the white voxels. Since the white opaque voxels are lower than the black voxels, and the article is formed layer by layer, logic dictates that the lower white voxels must be formed prior to the higher black voxels.
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
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 ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm EST.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights