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
Claims 27-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (product), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 25 July 2025.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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.
Claim 15 is 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 15 recites the limitation “are selected such that a standalone cured 1 mm thick film formed from a layer-forming composition comprising the same exhibits an elongation factor of at least 5%.” The limitation is indefinite as ambiguous, because it is not clear a) whether the limitation requires the recited steps of curing a 1 mm thick film formed from a layer-forming composition comprising a gelling agent and/ or the non-coagulating film forming agent so that the layer-forming composition comprising the same exhibits an elongation factor of at least 5%; b) whether the limitation is intended to imply properties either 1) of the recited agent(s) or 2) of a composition comprising the agent(s) without requiring the recited steps, which rather recite steps of a test, itself NOT required in Claim 15, for measuring the properties; or c) whether or not the limitation “a layer-forming composition” is meant to refer to the “layer-forming composition” of Claim 1, since it does not recite the limitation “the layer-forming composition.” It is not clear what relationship the recited “layer-forming composition” comprising an agent has to compositions used in the claimed process, since the “layer-forming composition” is not defined, other than its comprising a recited agent. In addition, the claim does not state any testing conditions for determining the elongation factor. Examiner considers the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation to include an implication of properties of a gelling and/ or film-forming agent when tested in the recited way, wherein the undefined “layer-forming composition” can be any composition, including the agent itself absent any other component. The elongation factor can be determined by any method.
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) 1-2, 4, 6, 11-12, 14-15, 19, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chretien et al. (US 20120282448) (DISPERBYK-2001 Data Sheet is cited as evidence of properties of gelling agent).
Regarding Claim 1, Chretien et al. (US’448) teach a process of forming a three-dimensional fSi4} object on a surface of a substrate, comprising: (a) inkjet printing a pattern on an area of the surface using a layer-forming composition and a jellification composition, thereby forming a first gelatinous layer (Abstract; Claims 1-2,8); (b) repeating step (a) on said first gelatinous layer, thereby forming a second gelatinous layer on said first gelatinous layer (Claim 20); (c) repeating step (b) n-times so as to form an n* gelatinous layer on said second gelatinous layer, thereby forming a three-dimensional gelatinous object wherein n is an integer equal or greater than 1, since the final object can be up to 10,000 microns in height with a maximum individual layer thickness of about 100 microns each (Claim 20; [0164-0165]), (e.g. 100 layers, or 10,000/100 layers), and (d) curing said three-dimensional gelatinous object, thereby forming the three- dimensional object (Abstract).
US’448 does not expressly teach the negative limitation “wherein each of said layer-forming composition and said jellification composition is devoid of a UV-curable agent.” However, US’448 teaches that curing can be performed by light other than UV [0062,0150]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a jellification composition that cures or jellifies under conditions other than by UV light, because US’448 suggests that photoinitators other than those that absorb UV may be used and that curing may be performed with radiation outside of the UV range.
Regarding Claim 2, US’448 teaches that each individual layer can have a thickness of about 1-50 microns or between 0.1 and 100 micron or about 0.5 to about 50 microns [0165]. US’448 fails to teach that each first, second, and nth layer independently have a thickness of at least 10 microns. However, because US’448 teaches a range which includes the claimed range, it would have been obvious to choose a thickness within the range that is common between the ranges of both US’448 and the present claim. Additionally, it would have been obvious to optimize the thickness of each individual layer in order to more precisely control a total thickness of multiple layers.
NOTE: Claim 2 does NOT require EVERY layer after the second to be at least 10 microns thick, ONLY the first, second, and last, since Claim 1 is written to require repeating n-times to form an nth gelatinous layer; thus, if it is repeated once, the first gelatinous layer after the second – the third of three total layers – is the nth layer, which must be at least 10 micron, and if it is repeated 10 times, the 10th layer after the second is the nth layer, for a total of 12 layers, the first, second, and 12th layer must be at least 10 micron. No layers between the second and last must be at least 10 micron by the terms of the claims.
Regarding Claim 4, US’448 teaches that the combination of teachings that an individual layer thickness of about 100 microns (maximum individual layer thickness taught) and that the final object can be up to 10,000 microns in height [0164-0165] is equivalent to teaching that n is greater than 2, since any individual layer thickness LESS than 100 micron will require MORE layers (i.e., n > 98, after 2 layers are already deposited) to achieve a total thickness of 10,000 microns.
Regarding Claim 6, US’448 teaches that the layer-forming composition can comprise a pigment [0140-0141].
Regarding Claim 11, US’448 teaches that the layer-forming composition comprises a gelling agent that congeals upon contacting a cation [0153].
Regarding Claim 12, US’448 teaches a DISPERBYK-2001 gelling agent [0142]. Applicant’s written description defines an “alkali-soluble gelling agent” as including “alkali-soluble surfactants” and defines “alkali-soluble surfactants” as including “cationic surfactants,” including those in BYK’s DISPERBYK family (p. 15). The DISPERBYK-2001 Data Sheet provides evidence that it is a pH-sensitive alkali-soluble polyacrylate copolymer (See acid and amine numbers and solvents).
Regarding Claim 14, US’448 teaches a layer-forming composition comprising 0% film-forming agent (Table I; [0171]).
Regarding Claim 15, US’448 teaches a DISPERBYK-2001 gelling agent [0142]. Applicant’s written description defines an “alkali-soluble gelling agent” as including “alkali-soluble surfactants” and defines “alkali-soluble surfactants” as including “cationic surfactants,” including those in BYK’s DISPERBYK family (p. 15). Also, the DISPERBYK-2001 Data Sheet provides evidence that it is a pH-sensitive alkali-soluble polyacrylate copolymer (See acid and amine numbers and solvents). NOTE: Claim 15 only recites a gelling agent or non-coagulating agent with properties as measured by a test and does not positively recite any steps required by the claimed process. The test is performed on some undefined layer-forming composition, including the gelling agent, for selection of the gelling agent (or non-coagulating agent, which can be 0% present, Claim 14).
Regarding Claim 19, US’448 teaches that the jellification composition comprises a gelling initiator, including an acid [0153].
Regarding Claim 22, the layer-forming composition is necessarily applied before, together, or after applying the jellification composition, since there is no other possibility.
Regarding Claim 23, US’448 teaches the process effected on an absorptive surface (e.g. plain paper, fabric, textile products, wood) (Claim 10) and an n ≥98 (see rejection of Claim 4 above), layer 1 can be considered “the base jelling composition,” since it comprises a jellification composition (i.e. n=0) and the next layer can be considered n=1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 21, and 25 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:
Regarding Claim 16, US’448 teaches a viscosity of 10-15 cP at elevated temperatures and a viscosity of 105-106 cP at room temperature [0152]. Neither US’448 nor other identified prior art teaches or fairly suggests the claimed viscosity at the recited temperature.
Regarding Claim 21, neither US’448 nor any other prior art has been identified, which teaches a transitory acid (e.g. lactic, glycolic acids). Although such acids are known coagulants, prior art teaching them fails to include them as gellants in the claimed process.
Regarding Claim 25, neither US’448 nor any other prior art has been identified, which teaches a step of heating to within the recited temperature to effect curing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to the claims, filed 7 October 2025, with respect to the objection to Claim 1 and the rejection of Claim 14 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and is persuasive. The objection to Claim 1 and the rejection of Claim 14 under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 11-12, 14-15, 19, 22, and 23 under 35 USC 102 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims, filed 7 October 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 11-12, 14-15, 19, 22, and 23 under 35 USC 102 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 the amendment to Claim 1, which raises issues under 35 USC 103.
Applicant's arguments, filed 7 October 2025, with respect to the rejections of Claim 15 under 35 USC 112(b) and of Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 11-12, 14-15, 19, 22, and 23 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant fails to address the particular rejection of Claim 15 maintained in the present Office Action.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the limitation “devoid of a UV-curable agent,” added by amendment to Claim 1 (Remarks, p. 7), Chretien et al. suggests forms of radiation other than UV can be used to cure the compositions and that compositions that use forms of radiation other than UV can be included. Therefore, it would have been obvious to include a layer-forming composition and jellification composition that are devoid of a UV-curable agent by using agents that use other forms of radiation to cure/ jellify.
In response to Applicant’s argument that optimization of layer thickness must be understood in the context of a UV-curable system (Remarks, p. 9), Applicant has provided no reason to think that thickness must be considered primarily in terms of the curing mechanism.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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 M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712