DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 12/30/2025, claims 1-2 and 5-13 are pending. Clams 1-2 are currently amended. Claims 3-4 are canceled, and no claim is newly added. Claims 5-9 and 11-13 are withdrawn. Claims 1-2 and 10 are considered in this Office 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/30/2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-2 recite the limitation “a/the photothermally active material.” The limitation would be interpreted as “a material that acts as a light absorber and transfers light energy into heat,”1 and such interpretation is consistent with Instant Specification ([0024]: “photothermally active materials … include those that generate heat upon exposure to actinic radiation,” as published).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the reactive functional groups of the compound” in line 11. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these underlined limitations in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as “polysiloxane having one or more vinyl groups” (claim 1 line 10).
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent from claim 1.
Appropriate clarification or correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolland (US 20160137838 A1) in view of Buskens (US 20160115253 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rolland teaches a method of forming a 3D object (abstract), the method comprising:
depositing a thermosetting formulation (a polymerizable liquid including thermosetting materials) onto a target (build surface) and applying actinic radiation (light) to the deposited thermosetting formulation to cure the thermosetting formulation to form a first layer of a cured formulation (abstract, [0003]: in conventional additive or three-dimensional fabrication techniques, construction of a three-dimensional object is performed in a step-wise or layer-by-layer manner, in particular, layer formation is performed through solidification of photo-curable resin under the action of visible or UV light irradiation; [0017], also see [0162-0165]: top-down 3D fabrication; [0167-0170]: bottom-up 3D fabrication; [0174]: 3D fabrication in a layer-by-layer manner; [0177-0178]: continuous liquid interface production (CLIP); [0011]: the polymerizable liquid comprising a mixture of: (i) a light polymerizable liquid first component, and (ii) a second solidifiable (or second reactive) component different from the first component; [0273]: a 3D product of the foregoing methods comprises (i) a linear thermoplastic polyurethane, polyurea, or copolymer thereof (e.g., poly(urethane-urea)), (ii) a cross-linked thermoset polyurethane, polyurea, or copolymer thereof (e.g., poly(urethane-urea)), or (iii) combinations thereof; [0339-0340]: a silicone rubber 3D object may be formed in use of silicone polyurethanes, polyureas, or poly(urethane-urea)); and
repeating the deposition of the thermosetting formulation with the application of the actinic radiation to the first layer to cure additional formulation on the first layer including the cured thermosetting formulation (abstract, [0003]: conventional additive or three-dimensional fabrication techniques; [0162-0165]: top-down 3D fabrication; [0167-0170]: bottom-up 3D fabrication; [0174]: 3D fabrication in a layer-by-layer manner; [0177]- [0178]: continuous liquid interface production (CLIP)).
wherein the thermosetting formulation comprises:
(a) polysiloxane having one or more vinyl groups (e.g., Sylgard 194 Part A) ([0349], [0602]; TABLE 33: in particular, Sylgard 184 is used; of note, the Instant Application ([0039], as published) discloses that the PDMS polymer system employed was Sylgard 184 (DOW Corning, Midland, Mich.), a two component system in which the elastomer contains vinyl-terminated siloxane oligomers, while the curing agent possesses Si—H moieties along a siloxane backbone, and the Sylgard 184 of Instant Application is the same as the one of Rolland).,
(b) a curing agent having functional groups reactive with the reactive functional groups of the compound (e.g., Sylgard 194 Part B) (id.), and
(c) a photothermally active material, wherein the photothermally active material is carbon black and is present at [a concentration of 0.001-0.02 percent by weight of the thermosetting formulation] ([0129, 0130]: a non-reactive pigment or dye that absorbs light, particularly UV light, and suitable examples of such light absorbers include, but are not limited to: carbon black (e.g., included in an amount of from 0.05 or 0.1 to 1 or 5 percent by weight); of note, here, the carbon black, which is the same material as recited, is intrinsically a photothermally active material).
Rolland does not specifically teach the bracketed limitation(s) as presented above, i.e., “a concentration of 0.001-0.02 percent by weight of the thermosetting formulation”, but Buskens teaches the limitation(s) as follows:
Buskens teaches a chemical conversion process comprising plasmonic heating of a reaction mixture, by exposing the reaction mixture having at least one component and plasmonic particles to light comprising one or more wavelengths absorbed by the plasmonic particles, thereby controlling the reaction rate of one or more chemical reactions (abstract). Buskens discloses the term “plasmonic heating” means the release of heat from “a plasmonic particle” due to the absorption of light through plasmonic resonance ([0010], [0015], [0016]). Of note, here, the “plasmonic particle,” which absorbs light and release light energy to heat, satisfies the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “photothermally active material” (see above the section of Claim Interpretation; see also, Instant Specification, as published: [0004, 0018]: “plasmonic heating by photothermally active materials”). The plasmonic particles can comprise carbon nanoparticles, for example carbon black N115 ([0028-0030]; claim 7). The reaction mixture comprises 0.01 wt. % or more of plasmonic particles, based on the weight of the reaction mixture ([0051]). Although the disclosed wt. % range of Buskens does not anticipate the recited range, the disclosed range overlaps with the recited range at the range of 0.01 – 0.02 wt. %. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
The polymerizable liquid of Rolland is curable by ultraviolet curing and thermal curing (Rolland: [0349], [0602]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the content of the photothermally active material (e.g., carbon black) in the polymerizable liquid of Rolland with the another known content of the photothermally active material (i.e., plasmonic particles such as carbon black) as taught by Buskens in order to yield known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of properly controlling the thermosetting polymerization reaction of a polymerizable formulation not only by actinic radiation but also by fast, and/or local heating of the polymerizable formulation due to plasmonic heating of the plasmonic particles to form a 3D object (Buskens: derived from [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Rolland teaches that the thermosetting formulation comprises a polysiloxane having one or more Si-H groups as the curing agent (Rolland: [0349], [0602], TABLE 33; Sylgard 184 Part B).
Regarding claim 10, modified Rolland teaches that the actinic radiation is applied at an intensity at a range of 1 to 108 W/cm2 (Buskens: [0055]: light intensity (irradiation) is preferably 102 W/m2 (i.e., 0.01 W/cm2) or more, such as 102-109 W/m2 (i.e., 0.01 -105 W/cm2)). Although the disclosed intensity of Buskens does not anticipate the recited range, the disclosed range overlaps with the recited range at the range of 1 to 105 W/cm2. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the intensity of the actinic radiation of modified Rolland with the known range of the radiation intensity to induce plasmonic heating from the plasmonic particles as taught by Buskens in order to yield known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of properly controlling the polymerization reaction of the polymerizable liquid not only by actinic radiation directly but also by fast, and/or local heating of the polymerizable liquid due to plasmonic heating of the plasmonic particles to form a 3D object (Buskens: derived [0003]).
Alternatively, claims 1-2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolland (US 20160137838 A1) in view of Walters (US 20160333220 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rolland teaches a method of forming a 3D object as recited in claim 1 (see above, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection), but does not specifically teach that the photothermally active material (i.e., carbon black) is present at “a concentration of 0.001-0.02 percent by weight of the thermosetting formulation.” Walters teaches the limitation as follows:
Walters teaches a UV curable thermosetting formulation for forming a cured film ([0006-0007, 0025-0026]), and the formulation comprises (a) polysiloxane having one or more vinyl groups ([0052]), (b) a polysilane (i.e., compound having one or more Si-H groups) as a curing agent ([0006]), (c) a photothermally active material , wherein the photothermally active material is carbon and is present at a concentration of 0.001-0.02 percent by weight of the thermosetting formulation ([0079]: carbon; [0084]: 0.001 to 10 percent by weight). Although the disclosed wt. % range of Walters does not anticipate the recited range, the disclosed range overlaps with the recited range at the range of 0.001 – 0.02 wt. %. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Therefore, in the same field of endeavor of curing a UV curable thermosetting formulation for making a cured object in use of a photothermally active material (Rolland: [0129-0130, 0349, 0602]; Walters: [0005-0008, 0025-0026]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the content of the photothermally active material (e.g., carbon black) in the polymerizable liquid of Rolland with the another known content of the photothermally active material as taught by Walters in order to yield known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of properly controlling the thermosetting polymerization reaction of a UV curable thermosetting formulation not only by actinic radiation but also by fast, and/or local heating of the formulation upon the activation of the photothermally active material to form a cured object (Walters: derived from [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Rolland teaches that the thermosetting formulation comprises a polysiloxane having one or more Si-H groups as the curing agent (Rolland: [0349], [0602], TABLE 33; Sylgard 184 Part B).
Regarding claim 10, modified Rolland teaches that the actinic radiation is applied at an intensity at a range of 1 to 108 W/cm2 (Walters: [0124]: intensity of actinic radiation is from 1 to 108 W/cm2). Here, the disclosed range of Walters anticipates the recites range.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the intensity of the actinic radiation of modified Rolland with the known range of the radiation intensity activating photothermally active material as taught by Walters in order to yield known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of properly activate the photothermally active material so as to maximize heat emission for the given photothermally active material so as to control the polymerization reaction of the UV curable thermosetting liquid not only by actinic radiation directly but also by fast, and/or local heating of the polymerizable liquid due to heat to form a cured object (Walters: derived from [0111]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is noted that the applicant has modified the claims with the latest amendment dated 12/30/2025.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Thereby, after reconsideration, claims 1, 2 and 10 remain rejected.
Of note, alternatively, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims over Rolland in view of Walters are made in addition to the prior 103 rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
AzoNano ("Titanium Oxide (Titania, TiO2) Nanoparticles - properties, Applications," https://www.azonano.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3357, available in public on 07/09/2013) teaches properties and applications of titanium oxide nanoparticles, and the titanium oxide nanoparticles are commercially available by DuPont.
Cullen (US 20200055233 A1) teaches a method and system for 3D printing of electronically conductive polymer structure (abstract) including a reference citation of “In situ synthesis of polymer embedded silver nanoparticles via photopolymerization” Macromolecular Materials and Engineering, 300(2), 226-233 ([0180]).
Park (US 20100323298 A1) teaches a photosensitive composition and a microfabrication method using the composition (abstract), and in the composition, nanoparticles may be simultaneously formed and crosslinked with a photosensitive resin ([0076]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INJA SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1605. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached on (571)270-5343. 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.
/INJA SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
1 See page 6892, I. Introduction, 1st paragraph of Cui et. al. “Photothermal Nanomaterials: A Powerful Light-to-Heat Converter”, Chem Rev. 2023 May 3; 123(11):6891–6952. Available at https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10273250/pdf/cr3c00159.pdf.