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 Group I and Species Ib, claims 10-16, 20 and 21, in the reply filed on July 14, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 and 17-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 14, 2025.
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 12-16, 20 and 21 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "wherein step a)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "steps c) and d)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "each digital image". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because parent claim 10 only disclose “a digital image”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "step d)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "repeating steps c) and d)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "wherein step c)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "step c)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Interpretation
In the response filed July 14, 2025, claim 10 lists step f through j, which differs from the claims as originally filed on June 21, 2023 wherein claim 10 listed steps a through e. For the purpose of this examination steps f through j of claim 10 will be considered the same as steps a through e, respectively.
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.
Claims 10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mojdeh et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0086553) in view of Celik (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0332038).
In the case of claim 10, Mojdeh teaches a method for fabricating a synthetic resin article by three dimensional (3D) printing a photo-curable material extruded/jetted from a nozzle followed by curing to form the article/object (Abstract and Page 2 Paragraph 0018). The method of Mojdeh comprised a step a) of providing a flatbed digital inkjet printer in the form of a hybrid 3D printer 200 comprising a flatbed/platform 250 on which the article/object 222 is formed (Pages 5-6 Paragraphs 0058 and 0060 and Figure 2). The printer 200 was provided with a curable synthetic resin ink in the form of a viscous photo-curable material (Page 6 Paragraphs 0064 and 0067) which was curable with UV light (Page 7 Paragraphs 0079 and 0081). Furthermore, Mojdeh teaches that the printer 200 was provided with a digital image file for printing (Abstract and Page 8 Paragraph 0089).
The method of Mojdeh comprised a step c) of printing a layer of the material/ink onto the platform according to the digital image file followed by a step d) of UV curing the printed layer (Abstract and Page 10 Paragraphs 0102 and 0103). After the object/article is complete Mojdeh teaches a step e) of having removed printed and cured layer/object from the printer to form an article free from any substrate supporting the layer/object (Page 9 Paragraph 0097).
Though Mojdeh taught providing a flatbed/platform with the printer Mojdeh did not specifically teach that the flatbed/platform had a non-stick surface.
Celik teaches a method for forming an object by 3D printing through jetting/extruding a material (Abstract and Page 3 Paragraphs 0033 and 0036) wherein the printer comprised a platform onto which the material was printed and comprised a non-stick surface in the form of Teflon tape which prevented adhesion between the platform 240 and the deposited material/samples 250 and allowed for easy removal of the cured samples (Page 4 Paragraph 0044).
Based on the teachings of Celik, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the flatbed/platform of Mojdeh with a non-stick surface in order to prevent adhesion between the platform and the printed material and allow for easy removal of the formed layer/object after curing.
As for claims 12 and 13, Mojdeh teaches that multiple digital image files for printing were provided (Page 12 Paragraph 0120 and Claim 1) and that the steps of extruding/printing step and curing step were performed multiple times (Page 10 Paragraphs 0104 and 0106 and Figure 4) and that the digital files specified the number of operations were to be performed for forming the object (Page 12 Paragraph 0120).
As for claims 14-16, as was discussed previously, Mojdeh taught performing the deposition/printing and curing steps multiple times. Mojdeh further teaches having deposited multiple materials including pigments and curable material comprising pigments/colorants onto the object being formed (Page 6 Paragraph 0068 and Page 11 Paragraph 0110). Therefore, Mojdeh teaches having formed at least one decorative layer using colored inks/curable material when forming the article/object.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mojdeh et al in view of Celik as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Friel (U.S. Patent # 8,303,746).
The teachings of Mojdeh in view of Celik as they apply to claim 10 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claim 11, neither Mojdeh nor Celik specifically teach having obtained the digital image files by 3D scanning an existing article to be replicated in the synthetic resin article. However, Mojdeh teaches that the disclosed process was form forming medical devices/implants (Page 3 Paragraph 0026) and that the digital image files used include CAM files (Page 8 Paragraph 0089).
Friel teaches a method for manufacturing medical implant in the form of a ocular prosthesis (Abstract) wherein an existing ocular prosthesis was 3D scanned to form a digital image file in the form of a CADCAM file which was used to manufacture the prosthesis by 3D printing (Column 12 Lines 44-65).
Based on the teachings of Friel, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have 3D scanned and existing article for generate the digital image files of Mojdeh in view of Celik because this was a known process in the art for forming image files used in the additive manufacturing of medical implants.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mojdeh et al in view of Celik as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Miller et al U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0120527).
The teachings of Mojdeh in view of Celik as they apply to claim 10 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claim 21, neither Mojdeh nor Celik teach that the digital image file for printing the resin ink/material comprised a grayscale image.
Miller teaches a method for printing a three-dimensional structure using an image file (Abstract). Miller teaches that the image films used for forming each layer of the structure included grayscale images and wherein the grayscale intensity affected the intensity/thickness of the layer being deposited (Page 5 Paragraph 0053).
Based on the teachings of Miller, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used grayscale images as the digital image files for Mojdeh in view of Celik because grayscale images were a known image in the art for 3D printing an object and were used to provide thickness information for the deposited layers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
As was discussed previously, Mojdeh taught a process for forming a three-dimensional object/article on a flatbed/platform of a digital printer using image files. However, Mojdeh does not fairly teach or suggest that the flatbed/platform had a non-stick surface contoured according to a design of the synthetic resin article to be fabricated and that the UV-curable synthetic resin ink was printed onto the contoured part.
Conclusion
Claims 10 through 16, 20 and 21 have been rejected. Claims 1 through 9 and 17 through 19 have been withdrawn. No claims were allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P WIECZOREK whose telephone number is (571)270-5341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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.
/MICHAEL P WIECZOREK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712