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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/18/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Liu WO 2022/189785 (hereinafter “Liu”).
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)(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) 8-10, 13, 14, 18 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu WO 2022/189785 (hereinafter “Liu”).
Regarding claim 8, Liu discloses a method of manufacturing a 3D printed mesh for filtering fibers from a slurry, the method comprising: selecting a mesh with a lattice cellular structure comprising a unit cell size of from about 2.0 mm to about 3.0 mm and struts having diameter from about 0.3 mm to about 0.5 mm (e.g. ¶13-15 and 42-54); and optionally, using one or more additive manufacturing methods for making the mesh (e.g. ¶14-15, 106-107, 122, 136 and 202-203).
Regarding claim 9, Liu discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the one or more additive manufacturing methods comprise stereolithography (SLA), FDM, SLS and MJF (e.g. ¶106-107).
Regarding claim 10, Liu discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the additive manufacturing method is SLA (e.g. ¶106-107).
Regarding claim 13, Liu discloses a 3D printed mesh for filtering fibers from a slurry, the 3D printed mesh comprising a polymer having a lattice topology (e.g. ¶106-108), wherein the lattice topology has a unit cell size of from about 2.0 mm to about 3.0 mm and struts having diameters from about 0.3 mm to about 0.5 mm (e.g. ¶14-15, 106-107, 122, 136 and 202-203).
Regarding claim 14, Liu discloses the 3D printed mesh of claim 13, wherein the lattice topology comprises a Kelvin topology, a grid topology, a vin tiles topology, an isotruss topology, or a body centered cubic (BCC) topology (e.g. ¶35).
Regarding claim 18, Liu discloses the 3D printed mesh of claim 13, wherein the polymer is acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) or polyamides (e.g. ¶250).
Regarding claim 20, Liu discloses a molded fiber product (e.g. ¶119, 198 and 216) formed using the 3D printed mesh of claim 13 (e.g. ¶14-15, 106-107, 122, 136 and 202-203).
Regarding claim 21, Liu discloses an integrated mold architecture comprising at least two components that are attached to each other, wherein the at least two components comprise: the 3D printed mesh of claim 13 (e.g. ¶14-15, 106-107, 122, 136 and 202-203); a drainage channel (e.g. ¶79, 198 and 216-217); optionally, a fixation base (e.g. Fig. 4); and optionally, a sealing wall (e.g. ¶226).
Regarding claim 22, Liu discloses a molded fiber product (e.g. ¶119, 198 and 216) formed using an integrated mold architecture, wherein the integrated mold architecture comprises at least two components that are attached to each other, wherein the at least two components comprise: the 3D printed mesh of claim 13 (e.g. ¶14-15, 106-107, 122, 136 and 202-203); a drainage channel (e.g. ¶79, 198 and 216-217); optionally, a fixation base (e.g. Fig. 4); and optionally, a sealing wall (e.g. ¶226).
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Bredemeyer et al. U.S. PGPub 2019/0030808 (hereinafter “Bredemeyer”).
Liu discloses manufacturing a mesh via a 3D printer, but does not explicitly disclose curing or sanding the mesh.
Bredemeyer discloses curing a 3D printed product with UV light (e.g. ¶31) and sanding a 3D printed mesh (e.g. ¶50).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to cure and sand a 3D printed product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this in order to strengthen and smooth out a 3D printed product.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Liu with Bredemeyer to obtain the invention as specified in claims 11 and 12.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Frieder WO 2020/236930 (hereinafter “Frieder”).
Liu discloses a 3D printed mesh made of a polymer, but does not explicitly disclose the polymer further comprising glass.
Frieder discloses a 3D printed mesh wherein the polymer comprises glass (e.g. ¶13).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art produce a 3D printer polymer product comprising glass. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this in order to improve the structural performance of the 3D printed product.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Liu with Frieder to obtain the invention as specified in claim 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 23 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record does not disclose a method for designing an integrated mold, comprising: (a) creating a digital representation of the integrated mold; and (e) assembling the components into the integrated mold, wherein the porous mesh is designed based on input parameters for a lattice cellular structure comprising a unit cell size of from about 2.0 mm to about 3.0 mm and struts are from about 0.3 mm to about 0.5 mm in diameter. The allowability, at least in part, resides in these facts.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R KASENGE whose telephone number is (571)272-3743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am to 4pm EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
CK
August 29, 2026
/CHARLES R KASENGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights