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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feller et al. (US 2018/0304526 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Feller et al. teach a method of creating additive manufactured parts (see abstract; Fig. 1; [0006]-[0103]), the method comprising:
selectively dispensing, in a shape area according to a layer of a part to be created by additive manufacturing, a second composition onto a top surface of a first composition in a vat ([0012]-[0016] discloses having a polymerizable material in the vat, and periodically delivering at least one or two reactants in the polymerizable material; additionally see [0024]-[0041] which describes use of reactive group [s] that can be dispensed onto the polymerizable vat of material; additionally see [0061]-[0088]) , wherein polymerization components for formation of the layer are kept separate from each other until the dispensing (materials are kept in tank), with at least one of the polymerization components being in the second composition ([0062]-[0064], [0077]-[0088] discloses using second composition/reactants); and illuminating the top surface to expose the first composition and the second composition to light having a polymerization wavelength, thereby causing polymerization of the layer of the part only in the shape area (Fig 1; polymerization of liquid by light as per [0063]-[0088]); wherein the dispensing comprises customizing a reaction variable of the polymerization to customize reaction kinetics in different portions of the shape area (see [0061] –[0064] states that a controller is used to control dispensing, irradiation, reactant type and delivery).
Regarding claim 11, Feller et al. teach a method of creating additive manufactured parts (see abstract; Fig. 1; [0006]-0103]), the method comprising:
selectively dispensing, in a shape area according to a layer of a part to be created by additive manufacturing, a second composition onto a top surface of a first composition in a vat ([0012]-[0016], [0024]-[0041], [0061]-[0088] discloses providing a first material composition in the vat, then dispensing either at least one reactant onto the polymerizable composition); wherein a first polymerization component for formation of the layer is in the first composition ([0024]-[0046] lists that first polymerizable component in the first composition may be of monomer/prepolymer/reactants),
and a second polymerization component for the formation of the layer is in the second composition ([0024]-[00446] states second composition/reactants maybe prepolymer/monomer/reactants that reacts with the first composition; also see [0061]-[0088]); and illuminating the top surface to expose the first composition and the second composition to light having a polymerization wavelength, thereby causing polymerization of the layer of the part only in the shape area (Fig 1; [0012]-[0066]); wherein the dispensing comprises customizing a reaction variable of the polymerization to customize reaction kinetics in different portions of the shape area ([0061]-[0064] discloses use of controller to control the delivery of materials, reactants, irradiations, etc).
As for claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 12, 14, 15, and 19-20, Feller et al. teach wherein the customizing of the reaction variable comprises varying a dispensing parameter within the layer or in different layers of the part including choosing amounts of reactants A and B and dispensing time (indirectly chemical affinity between first and second composition as claimed) (Figs 1 shows various reactants are used including 43A, 43B, and inhibitor supply 46 which are dispensed at specific ratio, time, within the layer for producing the part and are all computer controlled, see [0061], [0077]-[0088] discloses use of specific molar mass of reactants in the layer);
selectively dispensing a third composition onto the top surface of the first composition in the vat ([0012]-[0088] discloses use of first composition in the vat, then using variety of component including first reactant, second reactant, and/or inhibitor), in the shape area according to the layer of the part to be created; and customizing a time elapsed between the selectively dispensing the third composition and the selectively dispensing the second composition (controller is used to customizer when it is dispensed and time for irradiation; [0061]-[0088]); selectively dispensing a third composition onto the top surface of the first composition in the vat, in the shape area according to the layer of the part to be created; and customizing a dispensing sequence of the second composition and the third composition ([0061] uses controller which already uses specific algorithm and sequence for dispensing).
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 4-5, 9, 12, 14, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feller et al. (US 2018/0304526 A1).
As for claims 2, 4-5, 9, 12, 14-15, and 19-20, similar to the 102(a)(1), as provided above, Feller et al. teach wherein the customizing of the reaction variable comprises varying a dispensing parameter within the layer or in different layers of the part including choosing amounts of reactants A and B and dispensing time (indirectly chemical affinity between first and second composition as claimed) (Figs 1 shows various reactants are used including 43A, 43B, and inhibitor supply 46 which are dispensed at specific ratio, time, within the layer for producing the part and are all computer controlled, see [0061], [0077]-[0088] discloses use of specific molar mass of reactants in the layer);
selectively dispensing a third composition onto the top surface of the first composition in the vat ([0012]-[0088] discloses use of first composition in the vat, then using variety of component including first reactant, second reactant, and/or inhibitor), in the shape area according to the layer of the part to be created; and customizing a time elapsed between the selectively dispensing the third composition and the selectively dispensing the second composition (controller is used to customizer when it is dispensed and time for irradiation; [0061]-[0088]); selectively dispensing a third composition onto the top surface of the first composition in the vat, in the shape area according to the layer of the part to be created; and customizing a dispensing sequence of the second composition and the third composition ([0061] uses controller which already uses specific algorithm and sequence for dispensing), alternatively, even if one disagrees, there is sufficient suggestion provides by Feller et al. to optimize the parameters such as chemical affinity (which includes reaction between reactants A, B, photoinitiator), positional gradient, a solubility and elapsed time between irradiation and dispensing of different compositions as provided ([0012]-[0041]), for the benefit of efficiently producing a 3D printed structure.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feller et al. (US 2018/0304526 A1) in view of NAPADENSKY (CN 201710358660 A).
Regarding claims 7-8 and 17-18, Feller et al. teach all the limitation to the claim invention as discussed above, however, fail to teach the illuminating comprises using a scanning raster-type curing head or a scanning page-wide curing head; wherein the illuminating comprises customizing a scanning speed of the scanning raster-type curing head or the scanning page-wide curing head, to customize an elapsed time between the dispensing and the illuminating in the different portions of the shape area.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing and dispensing, NAPADENSKY teaches dispensing head including scanning mode (raster or vector scan) and selectively dispensing build material according to a predetermined configuration in the process including dispensing one or two more types of molding and support materials (see abstract; description Background 5th paragraph, Disclosure of Invention first paragrpah). NAPADENSKY further teaches optimizing the dispensing and illuminating using a controller (see Figure 1B).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention to have modified the process of dispensing materials of Feller et al., with using dispensing head including raster scanning mode, as taught by NAPADENSKY, for the benefit of efficiently dispensing different materials/compositions to manufacture an object with desired mechanical properties.
Claim(s) 3, 6,13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feller et al. (US 2018/0304526 A1) in view of ZYDEX PTY LTD (WO 2013/091003 A1).
Regarding claims 3, 6, 13, and 16, Feller et al. teach all the limitation except varying droplet size and concentration as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to dispensing and 3D shaping using functional monomers and photopolymers, ZYDEX PTY LTD teach variation of molar ratio can be achieved either by varying the amount of fabrication material by the application or varying the concentration of compound present in the fabrication material. Furthermore, ZYDEN PTY LTD also suggest using small droplet size to be used and the applicator may comprise an array of outlets, such as the nozzle array shown in Fig 12 (see page 41 lines 10 to page 42 lines 5). ZYDEX PTY LTD teaches a gradient of material properties in between cup and tip and programmable gradient in hardness in addition to color gradient (see page 53 lines 5-20).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s effective filing of the instant specification to have modified above further customizing the droplet size and/or concentration, as suggested ZYDEX PTY LTD, for the benefit of producing desired 3D printed object with necessary functional properties.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 2/10/2026 is claiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 11,110,650 and US 11,904,530 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feller et al. (US 2018/0304526 A1), the applicant argued that Feller ([0061]-[0064]) teaches that the controller is used to control dispensing, irradiation, reactant type and delivery, and delivers in a non-specific manner, not selectively dispensing, in a shape area according to a layer of a part to be created as recited in claim 1. It is further argued that Felly only teaches filling the build region with polymerization liquid in general manner, and fails to teach controlling any specific locations across the build area of where the reactant will be supplied, and especially not supplying the reactant according to print pattern.
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s arguments are considered, however, are not found persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive as reactants 43A, 43B are supplied via controller, it is selectively supplied via the controller to form desired shaped object. Feller discloses [0064] discloses “The method includes at least periodically delivering at least one reactant through the window into the polymerization liquid and into the three-dimensional object during the irradiating and advancing step (c). [0065] states “In some embodiments of the foregoing, the at least one reactant comprises a monomer or co-monomer of the light polymerization”. [0066] states that polymerization liquid comprises (i) photo-initiator, (ii) optionally polymerizable monomer or prepolymer, in some embodiment including pigment or dye. The Examiner notes that for polymerization reaction photo-initiator amount is controlled, the polymerizable monomer or prepolymer is controlled, thus these reactants are selectively controlled to continuously form a 3D object (see [0073]; see claims 1-5 and 9). Claim 9 of feller discloses wherein said step of at least periodically delivering at least one reactant is temporally modulated during said irradiating and advancing step. Therefore, based on the type and shaped object forming, there is controlled selectively applying desired materials as taught by Feller, for producing a 3D object. Applicant is suggested to specify in claim 1 the specific parameters that are controlled and maybe distinguished over Feller.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 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, 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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743