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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the first instance of the abbreviations “FDM”, “SLS” and “MJF” should be spelled out. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 5-10, 13, 14 and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Goldberg WO-2022072555-A1 (hereinafter “Goldberg”).
Regarding claims 5, 21 and 22, Goldberg discloses a method for designing an integrated mold, comprising:(a) creating a digital representation (e.g. CAD model) of the integrated mold (e.g. ¶40, 42 and 143); (b) deconstructing the integrated mold into an architecture (e.g. ¶136; Fig. 9), wherein the architecture includes the following components: a drainage channel (e.g. fluid flow channel) (e.g. ¶73-74), a porous mesh (e.g. porous mold screen) (e.g. ¶72-78; Fig. 2A-3, 8-12, 19A and 19B), optionally, a fixation base (e.g. ¶72-78; Fig. 2A-3, 8-12, 19A and 19B), and optionally, a sealing wall (e.g. ¶72-78; Fig. 2A-3, 8-12, 19A and 19B); (c) designing the porous mesh (e.g. ¶72-78; Fig. 2A-3, 8-12, 19A and 19B); (d) printing the components (e.g. ¶72-78; Fig. 2A-3, 8-12, 19A and 19B); and (e) assembling the components into the integrated mold (e.g. ¶72-78; Fig. 2A-3, 8-12, 19A and 19B).
Regarding claim 6, Goldberg discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the porous mesh is designed based on input parameters selected from lattice cellular structure (e.g. layer pattern), unit cell distribution, and lattice thickness (e.g. layer thickness) (e.g. ¶8, 34; Fig. 1-3, 8-12, 19A and 19B).
Regarding claim 7, Goldberg discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising using one or more additive manufacturing methods for making the components before assembling the components into the integrated mold (e.g. ¶72-78 and 136; Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 8, Goldberg discloses a method of manufacturing a 3D printed mesh (e.g. porous mold screen) for filtering fibers from a slurry (e.g. abstract; ¶8 and 72-78), the method comprising: selecting a mesh with a lattice cellular structure based on one or more input parameters (e.g. ¶8, 34; Fig. 1-3, 8-12, 19A and 19B); and optionally, using one or more additive manufacturing methods for making the mesh (e.g. ¶72-78; Fig. 2A-3, 8-12, 19A and 19B), wherein the one or more input parameters comprise unit cell topology (e.g. ¶8, 34; Fig. 1-3, 8-12, 19A and 19B), unit cell size, strut diameter, mesh resolution, blend distance, or combinations thereof (e.g. ¶8, 34; Fig. 1-3, 8-12, 19A and 19B).
Regarding claim 9, Goldberg discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the one or more additive manufacturing methods comprise stereolithography (SLA), FDM, SLS and MJF (e.g. ¶40-45 and 109).
Regarding claim 10, Goldberg discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the additive manufacturing method is SLA (e.g. ¶40-45 and 109).
Regarding claim 13, Goldberg discloses a 3D printed mesh for filtering fibers from a slurry, the 3D printed mesh comprising a polymer having a lattice topology (e.g. ¶8, 34 and 72-78).
Regarding claim 14, Goldberg discloses the 3D printed mesh of claim 13, wherein the lattice topology comprises a Kelvin topology, a grid topology (e.g. ¶40-45 and 109), a vin tiles topology, an isotruss topology, or a body centered cubic (BCC) topology (e.g. ¶40-45 and 109).
Regarding claim 18, Goldberg discloses the 3D printed mesh of claim 13, wherein the polymer is acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) or polyamides (e.g. ¶43).
Regarding claim 19, Goldberg discloses the 3D printed mesh of claim 13, wherein the polymer further comprises glass (e.g. ¶42).
Regarding claim 20, Goldberg discloses a molded fiber product formed using the 3D printed mesh of claim 13 (e.g. ¶72-78; Fig. 2A-3, 8-12, 19A and 19B).
Regarding claim 21, Goldberg 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. ¶72-78; Fig. 2A-3, 8-12, 19A and 19B); a drainage channel (e.g. ¶73-74); optionally, a fixation base (e.g. ¶72-78; Fig. 2A-3, 8-12, 19A and 19B); and optionally, a sealing wall (e.g. ¶72-78; Fig. 2A-3, 8-12, 19A and 19B).
Regarding claim 22, Goldberg discloses a molded fiber product 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. ¶72-78; Fig. 2A-3, 8-12, 19A and 19B); a drainage channel (e.g. ¶73-74); optionally, a fixation base (e.g. ¶72-78; Fig. 2A-3, 8-12, 19A and 19B); and optionally, a sealing wall (e.g. ¶72-78; Fig. 2A-3, 8-12, 19A and 19B).
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 Goldberg as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Bredemeyer et al. U.S. PGPub 2019/0030808 (hereinafter “Bredemeyer”).
Goldberg 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 Goldberg with Bredemeyer to obtain the invention as specified in claims 11 and 12.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Jones et al. U.S. PGPub 2020/0000595 (hereinafter “Jones”).
Goldberg discloses a grid topology, but does not explicitly disclose the unit cell size being from about 2.0 mm to about 3.0 mm. Jones does not explicitly disclose the 3D printed mesh comprising struts, wherein the struts are from about 0.3 mm to about 0.5 mm in diameter.
Jones discloses a 3D printed mesh, wherein the lattice topology has a unit cell size of from about 2.0 mm to about 3.0 mm (e.g. ¶125-126). Jones discloses a 3D printed mesh, further comprising struts, wherein the struts are from about 0.3 mm to about 0.5 mm in diameter (e.g. ¶164).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art implement a grid topology with various dimensions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this in order to provide various desired characteristics for the 3D printer product.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Goldberg with Jones to obtain the invention as specified in claims 15-17.
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
December 16, 2025
/CHARLES R KASENGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116