DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Any new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1-35 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-27, 30, 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2025/0207005).
Regarding claim 1: Suzuki is directed to a curable composition for additive manufacturing (stereolithographic article), the curable composition comprising:
A polymerization initiator to initiate the reaction;
A monomer selected from the group consisting of (a-1), (a-2), or (a-3), wherein a combination of two or more may be used ([0105]).
A monomer (a-1) including a urethanized (meth)acrylic acid of urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA) is disclosed ([0083] Suzuki), which is defined by the present invention as a crosslinker comprising a second plurality of polymerizable groups and an alkylene or heteroalkylene group disposed between at least two polymerizable functional groups of the second plurality of polymerizable functional groups.
A monomer of aromatic (meth)acrylic acid ester (a-2) including 2,2-bis[ 4-(2-hydroxy-3-methacryloyloxypropoxy) phenyl]propane, otherwise known as bisphenol A glycerolate dimethacrylate ([0086] and working examples)
A monomer (a-3) including those having an arylene or heterarylene group disposed between two polymerizable functional groups of the first plurality of polymerizable functional group. Specifically,
PNG
media_image1.png
108
315
media_image1.png
Greyscale
polymerizable monomers (a-3) are disclosed wherein Z includes optionally substituted aromatic groups ([0092] Suzuki).
Monomers (a-2) or (a-3) are equivalent to the claimed first crosslinker of the present invention. Monomer (a-1) is equivalent to the claimed second crosslinker.
While a specific curable composition simultaneously comprising (a-1) with either (a-2) or (a-3) is not specifically disclosed in a single curable composition, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have selected such a composition since Suzuki specifically discloses a combination can be used ([0105] Suzuki). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have selected monomers of Suzuki to arrive at the claimed first and second crosslinkers.
The composition is capable of being 3D printed at a printing temperature to fabricate a dental appliance. Specifically, the composition is used for stereolithography of dental articles (Abstract, [0008] Suzuki). The curable composition is a liquid at the printing temperature as demonstrated in Reference Example 1 ([0251] Suzuki). The first crosslinker is the same as those in the present invention and is therefore equivalent to a first crosslinker that imparts high strength to the dental appliance. For instance, monomer a-2 of Suzuki includes Bis-GMA, which is the same first monomer of the present invention. Likewise, the second monomer of a urethane (meth) acrylic acid ester taught in Suzuki would be expected to impart at least some toughness to the dental appliance, given the very broad scope of the presently claimed high toughness.
A viscosity of less than 50 Pa.S is not mentioned, although Suzuki teaches the composition can comprise a solvent and additives to adjust the properties ([0200] Suzuki). Hence, the amount of solvent and additives added to adjust properties including viscosity is a result effective variable. Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See MPEP 2144.05(II). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included an amount of solvent or additives such that the resulting curable composition liquid has a viscosity within the scope of the claims.
Regarding claim 2: Each of monomer (a-1) urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA), monomer a-2, and a-3 comprise ethylenically unsaturated functional groups.
Regarding claim 3: Each of monomers (a-1) urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA), monomer a-2, and a-3 comprise two polymerizable functional groups.
Regarding claim 4: The second crosslinker of UDMA comprises carbamate groups.
Regarding claims 5-6: The first and second polymerizable functional groups are acrylate groups.
Regarding claim 7: Bisphenol A glycerolate dimethacrylate comprises at least 14 carbon atoms spaced between unsaturated polymerizable functional groups.
Regarding claim 8: Urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA) comprises at least 14 carbon atoms spaced between polymerizable functional groups.
Regarding claim 9: Monomer (a-3) of the
PNG
media_image2.png
115
305
media_image2.png
Greyscale
has a molecular weight of about 182 and is equivalent to the claimed second crosslinker, while Bisphenol A glycerolate dimethacrylate has a molecular weight of 512.59.
Regarding claim 10: Urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA) comprises an alkyl group substituted with carbamate groups and alkyl groups.
Regarding claim 11: The alkylene backbone can be unsubstituted in monomer (a-2) formula (1) ([0093]).
Regarding claim 12: Selection of monomers (a-1) (a-2) and (a-3) results in a composition comprising a third crosslinker comprising an alkylene backbone connecting at least two polymerizable functional groups of the third plurality of polymerizable groups. Specifically, monomers (a-1) and (a-3) comprise alkylene backbones.
Regarding claim 13: The two functional groups in monomer (a-3) can be separated by an alkylene group of 1-8 carbon atoms ([0094] Suzuki).
Regarding claims 14-17: Monomer (a-3) comprises two polymerizable functional groups of ethylenically unsaturated groups of acrylate groups.
Regarding claim 18: The two functional groups in monomer (a-3) can be separated by an alkylene group of 1-8 carbon atoms ([0094] Suzuki).
Regarding claim 19: Monomer (a-3) of the
PNG
media_image2.png
115
305
media_image2.png
Greyscale
has a molecular weight of about 182 Da and is equivalent to the claimed second crosslinker, while Bisphenol A glycerolate dimethacrylate has a molecular weight of 512.59 Da. Finally, monomer a-1 can have a molecular weight of 1500 or more ([0070]).
Regarding claim 20: Selection of monomers (a-1) (a-2) and (a-3) results in 100% of polymerizable functional groups of the curable composition are disposed within crosslinkers.
Regarding claims 21-22: The curable composition is photocurable ([0251]).
Regarding claims 23-24: A filler material is disclosed, including silica, glass ([0196]).
Regarding claims 25-26: A filler additive is disclosed ([0195]-[0196]), although an amount is not mentioned.
While Suzuki does not specify any specific amount of filler, it is the Examiner’s position an amount of filler is a result-effective variable (MPEP 2144.05). Specifically, Suzuki teaches the filler is added in an amount to adjust the shade or paste properties ([0200] Suzuki). Therefore, an amount of filler is a matter of routine experimentation and would have been well within the skill level of, and thus obvious to, one of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.05) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected an amount of filler within the scope of claim 1.
Regarding claim 27: The amount of polyfunctional (meth)acrylic polymerizable monomer (A) is 5-95 mass % of the total composition ([0106]).
Regarding claim 30: The composition can comprise a pigment additive ([0200]).
Regarding claims 32-33: The composition comprises a photoinitiator ([0146]) including oligomers or a polymer [0146]-[0154].
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hara et al. (US 2024/0117081).
Regarding claims 28-29: Suzuki doesn’t mention a wetting agent.
Hara is directed to a polymerizable composition comprising (meth)acrylate polymers for use in dental applications ([0261] Hara). The composition can comprise a leveling agent of a polyether modified siloxane in an amount of 0.1 mass% or more ([0232] Hara), which is defined by the present invention as a wetting agent. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have included a wetting / leveling agent in the composition of Suzuki to improve storage stability of the polymerizable composition and help to prevent overtime sedimentation and improves curability of the polymerizable composition ([0233] Hara). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included at least 0.5 wt% or a wetting / leveling agent in the composition of Suzuki.
Claims 31, 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as applied to claims 1 and 30 above, and further in view of Hagenbuch et al. (US 2020/0054423).
Regarding claim 31: Suzuki mentions pigments, although does not elucidate any specific pigment.
Hagenbuch teaches the composition comprises an inorganic pigment, e.g. TiO2. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have selected an inorganic pigment in Suzuki as the pigment of choice since it is a white pigment used in dental applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have selected an inorganic pigment as the pigment of choice in Suzuki.
Regarding claims 34-35: Suzuki doesn’t mention a color defined by claims 34-35.
Hagenbuch is directed to a curable composition used for dental applications having specific fillers and colorants to adjust the L*a*b* properties, including values within the scope of claims as demonstrated in the working examples. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have selected the fillers and colorants of Hagenbuch in the composition of Suzuki to achieve a color as natural as possible appearance of dental restorations ([0027] Hagenbuch). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have selected fillers and colorants of Hagenbuch in the composition of Suzuki resulting in a L*a*b* values within the scope of claims 25-26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/2026 (herein “Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (p. 7-8 Remarks) Suzuki is directed to an adhesive composition for bonding or repairing previously fabricated stereolithography articles and not a curable composition used as feedstock for additive manufacturing.
This argument is not found persuasive since claim 1 does not require feedstock for additive manufacturing. Rather, claim 1 recites a curable composition for additive manufacturing. Stereolithography is an additive manufacturing or 3D printing process.
Applicant argues (p. 8-9 Remarks) Suzuki does not teach the presently claimed combination of two structurally different crosslinkers. The claimed viscosity is not taught as well.
This argument is not found persuasive since claim 1 does not require specific crosslinkers. Rather, claim 1 recites a crosslinker having high strength and high toughness, which are broad characterizations of a wide range of crosslinkers. Further, monomer a-2 of Suzuki includes Bis-GMA, which is the same first monomer of the present invention. Likewise, the second monomer of a urethane (meth) acrylic acid ester taught in Suzuki would be expected to impart at least some toughness to the dental appliance, given the very broad scope of high toughness. With regards to the claimed viscosity, while a viscosity of less than 50 Pa.S is not mentioned, Suzuki teaches the composition can comprise a solvent and additives to adjust the properties ([0200] Suzuki). Hence, the amount of solvent and additives added to adjust properties including viscosity is a result effective variable.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT T BUTCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3514. The examiner can normally be reached Telework M-F 9-5 Pacific Time Zone.
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, Lanee Reuther can be reached at (571) 270-7026. 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.
/ROBERT T BUTCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights