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 1-18 in the reply filed on 7/14/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 19-22 are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (pages 16 and 17) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: at the end of line 4 “and fillers” should be “and the filler” for proper antecedent basis, this does not rise to the level of indefiniteness. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3 “to orient fillers” should be “to orient the fillers” for proper antecedent basis, this does not rise to the level of indefiniteness. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, 5, 8, 11, 13, 17, and 18 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.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 4 is seen as vague and indefinite since it is unclear how the limitations of claim 4 are connected to the method of claim 1. There is nothing claimed that would account for the materials needed for the item to comprise what is claimed in claim 4; e.g. are they part of the fillers, part of the precursor, are they added after the item is made in claim 1?
Claim 5 is seen as vague and indefinite since it is claiming infinite possible choices using the phrase “or other materials”. No other material besides a fluorinated oil has been disclosed. Thus the possible choices are infinite, thus claim 5 is vague and indefinite.
The term “large format” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. How large is large? Since there is nothing disclosed in the specification regarding this issue, the phrase is seen as a relative limitation making claim 8 vague and indefinite.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "a mixture of carrier fluid and fillers" in line 1 crossing to line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this the same mixture of that of claim 1 or a different mixture?
The term “special additive” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What makes an additive special; otherwise it is just an additive? Since there is nothing disclosed in the specification regarding this issue, the phrase is seen as a relative limitation making claim 13 vague and indefinite.
Claim 17 is seen as vague and indefinite since it is unclear how the limitations of claim 17 are connected to the method of claim 1. Claim 17 states how a continuous filler or filament is produced, that is all, there is nothing that then says how these fibers or filaments are used in the method of claim 1.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "different fillers and/or carrier fluids”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Are these different fillers and/or fluids connected to the carrier fluid and/or fillers of claim 1? Is the claim trying to state that a plurality of carrier fluids and/or fillers can be used, at the same time or individually?
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 uses the phrase “a flowing stream or layer”. This phrase is being interpreted as “a flowing stream or a flowing layer”. Since it is a flow bed the layer would have to also be flowing, otherwise it would not be a flow bed based on the description of flow beds and FB-PAM in the specification.
Claim 1 as written allows for three possible options regarding the flow bed 1) that is comprises a carrier fluid, 2) that it comprises fillers, or 3) that it comprises both a carrier fluid and fillers. Since the fillers are an optional limitation any future limitation regarding the fillers is now also optional.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jau et al (U.S. PGPub 2021/0016505; herein Jau). Regarding claim 1, Jau teaches:
(a) forming a flow bed (FB) comprising a flowing stream or layer of a carrier fluid (Figures 3 and 7, a flow bed is created by a flow of isolation fluid 42) and/or fillers (fillers are optional)
(b) depositing a layer of a precursor matrix fluid on top of the FB or below the FB to create an interface layer (Figures 3 and 7, liquid material 41) comprising a mixture of the precursor matrix fluid and fillers (this limitation is optional per the previously discussed interpretation)
(c) delivering a light beam patterned to a current layer of the item being added through the FB and into the interface layer to cure a portion of the interface layer in a shape of the current layer of the item being added (lighting unit 33 cures the liquid material 41 to form 3D object 43, paragraph 0033)
(d) moving the current layer of the item above or below the interface layer (As seen in Figures 3 and 7 by the layers of the object 43); and
(e) repeating (c) and (d) for each successive layer of the item (As seen in Figures 3 and 7 by the layers of the object 43)
Regarding claims 2, 3, 6, 10, 11, 17, and 18:
As previously discussed claim 1 creates three options, thus any limitation dealing with the fillers also becomes optional, since the fillers are not a required limitation.
Regarding claim 5, Jau teaches:
Wherein the carrier fluid comprises a fluorinated oil or other materials (since the isolation fluid 42 exists it is thus made out of a material; thus it is an “or other material”)
Regarding claim 7, Jau teaches:
Wherein the FB flows over a light window through which the light beam passes (Figures 3 and 7, membrane 35) and wherein the FB provides an isolating zone that reduces or eliminates adhesion between the current layer of the item being added and the light window thereby enhancing a speed at which the item is produced (paragraph 0035)
Regarding claim 8, Jau teaches:
Wherein the FB serves as a cooling medium to dissipate exothermal heat from the curing of the current layer of the item being added thereby allowing large format 3D printing (since the isolation fluid 42 flows it would cool as claimed)
Regarding claim 9, Jau teaches:
Further comprising: replacing and/or replenishing the precursor matrix fluid after the current layer of the item being added is cured (there are two possible interpretations for claim 9: 1) by moving platform 32 down it allows the liquid 41 to refill the area between the membrane and part, or 2) Figure 7 shows a means to replace/replenish liquid 41)
Regarding claim 12:
Wherein the precursor matrix fluid comprises one or more of a preceramic polymer, a photopolymer, a photoinitiator, a binding monomer/oligomer, and precursor matrix material which may comprise a preceramic polymer for ceramic matrix, a matrix monomer/oligomer, and/or a metal-crosslinked hydrogel
Since Jau uses lighting unit 33 to cure the print material, it would be easily understood by a skilled artisan that such print material contains a photopolymer and/or contains a photoinitiator.
Regarding claim 14, Jau teaches:
Wherein the FB flows into and out of a materials chamber in which the method of additive manufacturing for creating an item is carried out (As seen by the motion of isolation fluid 42 in Figures 3 and 7)
Regarding claim 16, Jau teaches:
Wherein a density of the precursor matrix material is smaller or greater than that of the FB and the precursor matrix material is immiscible with the FB, so that the FB can settle beneath or above the interface layer (paragraphs 0034 and 0041)
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.
Claims 4, 5, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jau, in view of Zhao et al (U.S. PGPub 2022/0001612; herein Zhao). Regarding claim 4, Jau is silent to:
Wherein the item comprises a multi-material component, a hybrid material, a composite material, a functionally gradient material (FGM),a ceramic matrix composite (CMC), a polymer matrix composite (PMC), or a metal matrix composite (MMC)
In the same field of endeavor Zhao teaches using a copolymer as the polymerizable material (Table 1). A copolymer can be seen as a multi-material or a hybrid material since it is made of two different monomers.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the copolymer of Zhao in the printing process of Jau, since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is obvious, see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 5:
Jau is silent to the carrier fluid comprises a fluorinated oil, but does teach the require properties of such a carrier fluid, as previously discussed.
In the same field of endeavor Zhao teaches using a fluorinated oil in the same manner (paragraph 0053)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use oil of Zhao in the printing process of Jau, since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is obvious, see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 13, Jau is silent to:
Wherein the FB comprises one or more constituents selected from filler surfactants, functional groups, and/or special additives, to enhance the performance of the method of additive manufacturing for creating an item and/or the properties and functionalities of resulting products
In the same field of endeavor Zhao teaches adding additives to a barrier oil (paragraph 0054).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the additives of Zhao in the isolation fluid of Jau, since they help enhance oxygen permeability, since doing so helps separate the printing material from the apparatus (paragraph 0031).
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jau. Regarding claim 15:
Wherein an electric pump is used to move the flow of the FB into and out of the materials chamber and to continuously replenish the FB
Jau teaches using a pump 372, but does not state whether it is an electric pump.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that such pump would be electric, since It has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this instance there are only so many types of pumps, and electric is seen as a broad citatory of available pumps that a skilled artisan could choose from.
Conclusion
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-6pm. Direct Fax 571-270-8068.
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