DETAILED ACTION
In Response to Election filed on 08/27/2025, claims 1-16 and 32-33 are pending. Claims 16 and 33 are withdrawn based on the restriction requirement. Claims 1-15 and 32 are considered in the current Office 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Claims 16 and 33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/27/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-15 and 32 in the reply filed on 08/27/2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/26/2024 and 01/06/2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-13, 15, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US5,573,721 (Gillette).
Regarding Claim 1, Gilette teaches a method for forming a three-dimensional workpiece (abstract), comprising:
(i) dispensing a resin in a liquid state into a container configured to house a support fluid (Figure 12, a reservoir contains both the reactive liquid medium and an underlying substantially immiscible non-reactive liquid medium for supporting the reactive liquid medium, Col. 3, lines 16-19) to form a fluid interface having (a) a resin layer above and in immediate contact with (b) the support fluid (Figure 12, the resin layer 202 is above and in immediate contact with a non-reactive support liquid medium 206, Col. 14, lines 16-22), wherein the resin is substantially immiscible with the support fluid (Figure 12 and Col. 3, lines 16-19);
(ii) irradiating at least a portion of the resin layer at the fluid interface with light to polymerize an irradiated portion of the resin layer as a current build layer of the three-dimensional workpiece at the fluid interface (Figure 12 and Col. 17, lines 32-36), wherein a portion of the three-dimensional workpiece is affixed to a build platform immersed in the support fluid (Figure 12, the object 204 is affixed to the platform 210 that is immersed in the non-reactive liquid medium 206); and
(iii) advancing the build platform to a next position in the support fluid to submerge the current build layer within the support fluid (Col. 14, lines 44-47),
wherein the process (i), (ii), and (iii) is repeated to successively build the workpiece in the support fluid (Col. 17, lines 40-43).
Regarding Claim 2, Gilette teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the support fluid has a density and/or viscosity greater than the resin (Figure 12, the resin flowed above the support fluid which implied that the density of the resin is lesser than the density of the support fluid).
Regarding Claim 9, Gilette teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: removing a portion of the support fluid from the container to maintain the fluid interface or a height level of the support fluid at a pre-defined position (Col. 20, lines 13-20 and Figure 26).
Regarding Claim 10, Gilette teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each resin layer above and in immediate contact with the support fluid has a pre-defined thickness (Col. 3, lines 28-42).
Regarding Claim 11, Gilette teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising: adjusting a controller parameter when dispensing the resin into the container to maintain the pre-defined thickness (Col. 15, lines 11-44).
Regarding Claim 12, Gilette teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: varying a property of the resin or selecting from different resins to vary the successive layers of the workpiece (Col. 3, lines 62-65).
Regarding Claim 13, Gilette teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: varying the density of the resin or selecting from different resins between at least one successive layer to a next successive layer to form a gradient density in the workpiece (Col. 4, line 66- Col. 5, lines 3; alternating the composition of the overlying reactive liquid medium to produce a composite article and as a result of the alternation of the composition, the formed article will have a density gradient since different compositions have different density).
Regarding Claim 15, Gilette teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: monitoring, via an interferometry system, the current build layer to measure its thickness, degree of cure, or other property (Figure 3, level sensor 74 is preferably of a noncontact type which may be based, for example, on reflectance measurements of a laser beam (Col. 11, lines 16-18) that offers a great deal of control and flexibility to compensate for process-induced variations in height of the reactive liquid medium 24 (Col. 11, lines 5-7)).
Regarding Claim 32, Gilette teaches a three-dimensional workpiece formed (abstract and Figure 12, object 204) by the method of claim 1 (see rejection above for 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.
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) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US5,573,721 (Gillette) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US2017/0028618 (“Robeson et al” hereinafter Robeson).
Regarding Claim 3, Gilette teaches the method of claim 1. Gilette fails to explicitly teach wherein the support fluid comprises water, an aqueous solution, or a non-aqueous liquid.
However, Robeson, in the same field of endeavor, discloses dispending a polymerization liquid into a container configured to house an immiscible liquid pool (Figure 2), wherein the immiscible liquid is immiscible with the polymerizable liquid ([0007]-[0008]). Robeson further discloses the support fluid comprises an aqueous solution ([0083], aqueous liquids are preferred for the immiscible liquid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the immiscible non-reactive liquid medium disclosed by Gilette by aqueous liquids as the immiscible liquid as taught by Robeson because utilizing one known immiscible support material in place of another immiscible support material also suitability in the field of vat polymerization is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 4, Gilette teaches the method of claim 1, Gilette fails to explicitly teach wherein the support fluid consists of water or an aqueous solution.
However, Robeson, in the same field of endeavor, discloses dispending a polymerization liquid into a container configured to house an immiscible liquid pool (Figure 2), wherein the immiscible liquid is immiscible with the polymerizable liquid ([0007]-[0008]). Robeson further discloses the support fluid consists of water or an aqueous solution ([0083], aqueous liquids are preferred for the immiscible liquid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the immiscible non-reactive liquid medium disclosed by Gilette by aqueous liquids as the immiscible liquid as taught by Robeson because utilizing one known immiscible support material in place of another immiscible support material also suitability in the field of vat polymerization is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US5,573,721 (Gillette) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US2020/0324466 (“Nishida et al” hereinafter Nishida).
Regarding Claim 5, Gilette teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the resin is irradiated through a build window located above or in contact with the support fluid.
However, Nishida, in the same field of endeavor, discloses dispending a liquid monomer 400 into a containment vessel 200 configured to house an immiscible liquid 230 (Figure 10). Nishida further discloses wherein the resin is irradiated through a build window located in contact with the support fluid (Figure 10, light source 510 emits polymerization light 500 through solid boundary 250 that is transparent [0068] such as glass [0106], which is equivalent to a build window, located in contact with the immiscible liquid 230)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method of Gilette such that the resin is irradiated through a build window located in contact with the support fluid as taught by Nishida to prevent stiction between the solid polymer and solid boundary ([0052]).
Regarding Claim 6, the modified Gilette teaches the method of claim 5, Nishida teaches wherein the build window comprises a build window material having reduced stiction with the current build layer thus formed (Nishida, [0052]).
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Gilette teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the build window material comprises an oxygen-permeable material (Nishida, [0130], the solid boundary 250 may be permeable to certain desired gasses, such as oxygen, air, etc.).
Regarding Claim 8, the modified Gilette teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the build window material comprises a fluoropolymer (Nishida, [0068], the solid boundary 250 may include glass and may be coated with TEFLON™. TEFLON is a well-known example of fluoropolymer material).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US5,573,721 (Gillette) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US2022/0305730 (“Castanon et al” hereinafter Castanon).
Regarding Claim 14, Gilette teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising: adjusting, via a heat exchanger, temperature of the support fluid, wherein the support fluid cools the three-dimensional workpiece during fabrication.
However, Castanon, in the same field of endeavor, discloses dispending a resin 268 into a chamber 264 configured to house an oxygenated fluid 284 (Figure 8). Nishida further discloses adjusting, via a heat exchanger, temperature of the support fluid ([0006], there may be a heat exchanger to heat and/or cool the oxygenated fluid), wherein the support fluid cools the three-dimensional workpiece during fabrication (as the oxygenated fluid is being cooled, the 3D workpiece will also be cooled).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method of Gilette such that adjusting, via a heat exchanger, temperature of the support fluid, wherein the support fluid cools the three-dimensional workpiece during fabrication as taught by Castanon to allow for a more controlled printing environment and reduced viscosity of the resin ([0019]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754