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 group I (claims 14-26) in the reply filed on 09/17/2025 is acknowledged.
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) 14 – 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al. (US 11, 027, 487 B2) in view of Rolland et al. (US 9,453,142 B2).
Regarding claim 14, Price et al. teach a method for manufacturing a coated object in which a partially cured intermediate object made of a dual-curable material is formed using an additive manufacturing method (see “Provided is a method of making a coated object, which may include stereolithographically producing a green intermediate object from a dual cure polymerizable resin, the intermediate object containing uncured polymerizable material therein; then, optionally cleaning the green object; then, in any order: coating at least one surface portion of the object with a particulate material” see abstract) the method comprising:
coating at least some regions of the partially cured intermediate object coated with a pulverous coating material (“coating at least one surface portion of the object with a particulate material” see abstract; col 1 lines 55 to col 12 lines 15, claims 1-8); and completing curing the partially cured intermediate object in a curing step such that the object is formed (“heating the object sufficiently to further cure the object” see abstract, and col 1 liens 55 to col 3 lines 25), wherein a cyanate ester dual cure or epoxy dual cure resin is used as the printing material (see claims, and col 2 lines 10-15).
Price et al. fail to teach wherein polyurethane dual cure resin as claimed, however, it is noted that Price et al. provide suggestion for use of other dual-cure resin known (see col 4 lines 25-55). In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to additive manufacturing a part, Rolland et al. teach using dual-cure resin where the polymer includes a first curable system that is curable by actinic radiation (light, or UV) via 3D printing, and including a second component that is still uncured form which is cured after printing (see col 2 lines 40-65, col 22 lines 1-20; examples 36-45 discloses using dual-cure material from reactive blocked polyurethane prepolymer, see col 3 lines 1-20), for the benefit of forming a 3D printed object with interpenetrating polymer network in controlled manner, thereby having desired functional properties (see col 3 lines 1-65).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention was made to substitute dual-cure polyurethane polymer with dual-cure cyanate ester, for the benefit of producing a coated printed article with elastic properties, and other structural properties, as well as producing a materially different product (see col 3 lines 1-65, and examples 35-46). By doing so, the 3D printed object made of dual-cure polyurethane with thermoplastic coating as taught above, would have better surface bonding properties between thermoplastic powder coating material and the printed object, as taught by Price et al, thereby providing desired strength in the final article produced.
As for claim 15, Price et al. further teach comprising arranging the coating material in a residual layer formed from the uncured, dual-curable material on a surface of the partially cured intermediate object (see col 1 lines 60 to col 2 lines 15, claims).
As for claim 16, Price et al. further teach wherein the uncured, dual-curable material forming the residual layer is applied on the surface during the additive manufacturing method or remains on the surface after the additive manufacturing method (see col 3 lines 10-55 which uses epoxy dual cure resin for forming the article via stereolithography).
As for claim 17, the Examiner notes that Price et al. teach using uncured, dual-curable material for forming additively manufactured intermediate that is partially cured (see abstract; claim 1; and col1 lines 55 to col 10 lines 65), thus, applying dual-curable material forming the residual layer is applied on the surface after the additive manufacturing method would have been obvious for the purpose of non-continuous shaping process and coating thereafter for forming desired shaped article.
As for claim 18, Price et al. further teach cleaning the partially cured intermediate object prior to the coating of the partially cured intermediate object with the coating material such that the residual layer formed from the uncured, dual-curable material remains (see claims, and col 5 lines 60 to col 8 lines 65 that discloses cleaning and then coating, additionally see col 1 lines 50 and onward).
As for claim 19, Price et al. further teach wherein the cleaning of the partially cured intermediate object and/or the coating takes place after the additive manufacturing process and/or before the curing step so that the residual layer remains (see col 1 lines 55 to col 2 lines 65 discloses coating after additive manufacturing).
As for claim 20, Price et al. further teach wherein the curing step is carried out such that a bonded connection is formed between the coating material and the uncured, dual- curable material in the residual layer (“wherein the uncured polymerizable contacts the particulate material, polymerizes, and bonds the particulate material to the surface of the object during the coating and/or heating steps).
As for claim 21, Price et al. further teach wherein the additive manufacturing method is carried out using light input (abstract, where the object is produced via stereolithography which uses light).
As for claim 22, Price et al. further teach wherein the curing step is carried out by heating to at least one curing temperature (see col 9 lines 60 to col 10 lines 65 discloses further curing by heating).
As for claims 23-24, Price et al. further teach wherein a thermoplastic is used as the coating material (see col 9 lines 15 to col 10 lines 65), however, fails to explicitly teach thermoplastic has a melting temperature that is higher or less than the at least one curing temperature used during the curing step. It is noted that since Price et al. teach using different types of thermoplastic coating materials (see col 9 lines 15 – 45), it would have been obvious that at least one of the thermoplastic would have melting temperature than the curing temperature used (see col 10 lines 5-45). It is noted that Applicant’s claim is broad as such it does not specify the thermoplastic used, thus similarly rejected.
As for claim 25, Price et al. further teach wherein the additive manufacturing method, the coating, the curing step and/or the cleaning are/is carried out multiple times (see col 5 lines 60 to col 6 lines 10 discloses combination of washing steps can be used, thus includes cleaning multiple times).
As for claim 26, Price et al. further teach wherein the curing step is carried out such that the coating material is partially or completely integrally incorporated into an existing network of the polymerizing, uncured, dual-curable material partially or completely at the molecular level (see abstract; claim 1, and col 1 lines 50 to col 3 lines 40).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 11, 707, 893 B2 - A method of forming a three-dimensional object, wherein said three-dimensional object is an insert for use between a helmet and a human body, is described. The method may use a polymerizable liquid, or resin, useful for the production by additive manufacturing of a three-dimensional object, comprising a mixture of (i) a light polymerizable liquid first component, and (ii) a second solidifiable component that is different from said first component. Rolland suggest using dual-cure polyurethane.
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