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 § 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.
Claims 1 – 8 and 11 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0023775 to Poelma et al. (hereinafter Poelma) in view of US 2019/0374309 to Parkar et al. (hereinafter Parkar).
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 4, and 12. Poelma teaches a method for producing a resin product [0001]. The resin product is expanded due to the action of microspheres to provide a foam product [0033]. The resin product may have a lattice structure [0075], corresponding to a resin structure with an internal cavity communicating with an outer space and with a first exterior surface, second exterior surface opposite the first exterior surface, and a center between the first and second exterior surfaces.
The method comprises preparing a polymerizable liquid/composition comprising a dual cure additive manufacturing resin and heat expandable microspheres [0029] – [0035], i.e. a curable material and a thermally expandable foaming agent. The method further comprises curing the composition via additive manufacturing [0044], thereby forming a resin structure which may be in the form of a lattice as described above. After this curing step, the object may be cleaned or rinsed with a solvent [0049] – [0059]. As the resin structure has an internal cavity communicating with an outer space, cleaning such an object would necessarily include cleaning said internal cavity.
A heating step is subsequently performed in an inert liquid bath, optionally under elevated pressure in the range of 10 to 100 psi [0061] – [0067]. Per above, the lattice structure of the resin comprises an internal cavity communicating with an outer space and with multiple exterior surfaces. Thus, carrying out the heating step in Poelma in which the outer space is filled with a liquid will result in such fluid being blown through a first exterior surface into the resin structure. The instant specification as filed discloses the pressure for blowing the gas is in the range of 0.1 to 1.0 MPa (14 – 145 psi) [0046]. The elevated pressure taught by Poelma would then be reasonably expected to correspond to sufficient pressure such that the fluid reaches a second exterior surface of the structure on the opposite side of the resin structure. Poelma further teaches the application of heat causes the microspheres to expand [0033]. Thus, after further cleaning the resin structure by blowing liquid through the first exterior surface to reach the second exterior surface, the heating step in Poelma will result in fabrication of a resin foam product via the expansion of the microspheres within the resin structure having fluid blown therein.
Poelma does not expressly characterize the above described heating step functions to further clean the resin structure. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Poelma teaches a heating step employing all of the claimed steps and processing conditions, as well as the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. a heating step which functions to further clean the resin structure, would implicitly be achieved by a process employing all of the claimed steps and processing conditions, as well as the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts. See In Re Spada, 911, F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties using only the claimed process employing the claimed steps, processing conditions, and ingredients in the claimed amounts.
Poelma also does not expressly the above described, initial cleaning step with solvent involves the resin structure being immersed in the solvent as it is exposed to an ultrasonic treatment. However, Parkar teaches the concept of exposing a 3D printed article to ultrasonic treatment in a solvent. Parkar further teaches this step cleans the article by dissolving only the uncured printable composition/residue [0120]. Poelma and Parkar are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely methods of additive manufacturing. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform the cleaning step of Poelma by exposing the resin structure to an ultrasonic treatment in a solvent, as suggested by Parkar. The motivation would have been that it has been held that it is obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); and MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case, Poelma shows this is a known method of cleaning 3D articles after curing [0120]. The addition of ultrasonic waves would further be expected to enhance the efficacy of the cleaning step, as compared to a cleaning step in which the solvent is used alone.
Regarding Claim 2. Poelma teaches the method of Claim 2 wherein the curable material is a liquid which is light/photo-curable [0044]. Poelma further teaches the resin structure may be formed from the composition via stereolithography [0045]. Per [0072] of the PG-PUB of the instant application, stereolithography/SLA is a method in which a composition is irradiated with an active energy ray.
Regarding Claims 5 – 7 and 13 – 16. Poelma teaches the method of Claim 1, 2, 3, and 4 wherein the resin product may have a lattice structure [0075], corresponding to a resin foam product having the instantly claimed features.
Regarding Claim 8. Poelma teaches the method of Claim 1 in which the heating step may be performed in an oven containing an inert gas atmosphere, optionally under elevated pressure in the range of 10 to 100 psi [0061] – [0067]. The heating step may be performed in two phases [0062] – [0065]. Thus, the first heating phase may be reasonably considered to correspond to the instantly claimed step of blowing a fluid/gas to the resin structure, while the second heating phase may be reasonably considered to correspond to the instantly claimed step of blowing a fluid/gas to the resin foam product. Moreover, limitations directed to the step of blowing a fluid/gas to the resin foam product after it is produced are not considered to further limit the instant claims which are directed to a method of producing the resin foam product.
Regarding Claim 11. Poelma teaches the method of Claim 2 employs heat expandable microspheres [0029] – [0035], i.e. a thermally expandable foaming agent.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0023775 to Poelma et al. (hereinafter Poelma) in view of US 2019/0374309 to Parkar et al. (hereinafter Parkar).
Regarding Claim 17. Poelma teaches a resin product [0001]. The resin product is produced by a method in which a resin structure is expanded due to the action of microspheres to provide a foam product [0033]. The resin product may have a lattice structure [0075], corresponding to a resin structure with an internal cavity communicating with an outer space and with a first exterior surface, second exterior surface opposite the first exterior surface, and a center between the first and second exterior surfaces.
The method of preparing the resin foam product comprises preparing a polymerizable liquid/composition comprising a dual cure additive manufacturing resin and heat expandable microspheres [0029] – [0035], i.e. a curable material and a thermally expandable foaming agent. The method further comprises curing the composition via additive manufacturing [0044], thereby forming a resin structure which may be in the form of a lattice as described above. After this curing step, the object may be cleaned or rinsed with a solvent [0049] – [0059]. As the resin structure has an internal cavity communicating with an outer space, cleaning such an object would necessarily include cleaning said internal cavity.
A heating step is subsequently performed in an inert liquid bath, optionally under elevated pressure in the range of 10 to 100 psi [0061] – [0067]. Per above, the lattice structure of the resin comprises an internal cavity communicating with an outer space and with multiple exterior surfaces. Thus, carrying out the heating step in Poelma in which the outer space is filled with a liquid will result in such fluid being blown through a first exterior surface into the resin structure. The instant specification as filed discloses the pressure for blowing the gas is in the range of 0.1 to 1.0 MPa (14 – 145 psi) [0046]. The elevated pressure taught by Poelma would then be reasonably expected to correspond to sufficient pressure such that the fluid reaches a second exterior surface of the structure on the opposite side of the resin structure. Poelma further teaches the application of heat causes the microspheres to expand [0033]. Thus, after further cleaning the resin structure by blowing liquid through the first exterior surface to reach the second exterior surface, the heating step in Poelma will result in fabrication of a resin foam product via the expansion of the microspheres within the resin structure having fluid blown therein.
Poelma does not expressly characterize the above described heating step functions to further clean the resin structure. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Poelma teaches a heating step employing all of the claimed steps and processing conditions, as well as the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. a heating step which functions to further clean the resin structure, would implicitly be achieved by a process employing all of the claimed steps and processing conditions, as well as the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts. See In Re Spada, 911, F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties using only the claimed process employing the claimed steps, processing conditions, and ingredients in the claimed amounts.
Poelma also does not expressly the above described, initial cleaning step with solvent involves the resin structure being immersed in the solvent as it is exposed to an ultrasonic treatment. However, Parkar teaches the concept of exposing a 3D printed article to ultrasonic treatment in a solvent. Parkar further teaches this step cleans the article by dissolving only the uncured printable composition/residue [0120]. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform the cleaning step of Poelma by exposing the resin structure to an ultrasonic treatment in a solvent, as suggested by Parkar. The motivation would have been that it has been held that it is obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); and MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case, Poelma shows this is a known method of cleaning 3D articles after curing [0120]. The addition of ultrasonic waves would further be expected to enhance the efficacy of the cleaning step, as compared to a cleaning step in which the solvent is used alone.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 15, 2026 have been fully considered. The Office responds as follows:
Claim Objection
The Office agrees that the amendment to Claim 1 is sufficient to overcome the outstanding objection to the claim. Accordingly, this claim objection has been withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant argues that the applied references do not teach further cleaning a resin structure by blowing a liquid through the first exterior surface of the resin structure with sufficient pressure such that the liquid reaching the second exterior surface on the opposite side of the resin structure to further remove the uncured reside of the composition. However, Poelma teaches a heating step may be subsequently performed in an inert liquid bath, optionally under elevated pressure in the range of 10 to 100 psi [0061] – [0067]. As detailed in the rejection of Claims 1 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above, the lattice structure of the resin of Poelma necessarily comprises an internal cavity communicating with an outer space and with multiple exterior surfaces. Thus, carrying out the heating step in Poelma in which the outer space is filled with a liquid will result in such fluid being blown through a first exterior surface inside the resin structure. The instant specification as filed discloses the pressure for blowing the gas is in the range of 0.1 to 1.0 MPa (14 – 145 psi) [0046]. The elevated pressure taught by Poelma would then be reasonably expected to correspond to sufficient pressure such that the fluid reaches a second exterior surface of the structure on the opposite side of the resin structure.
Applicant additionally argues that there would have been no reason to combine Poelma and Parker in the manner proposed in the Office action, i.e. to perform the cleaning step of Poelma by exposing the resin structure to an ultrasonic treatment in a solvent as suggested by Parkar. Applicant notes that Parkar seeks to avoid introducing foamed regions into the shape article, as evidenced by [0124] of the reference. Applicant also cites [0180], [0180], [0233], [0234], and Claim 12 of the reference which teach the article having a low quantity of voids, corresponding to a low degree of foaming. Applicant further cites [0033] of Poelma which appears to describe heating the microspheres by ultrasound to cause expansion of the microspheres. It is then applicant’s position that adding the ultrasonic cleaning step in (b) of Poelma would be contrary to the process of Poelma, as Poelma does not describe expansion of the microspheres until heating in step (c).
However, after careful consideration, the Office maintains the position that the proposed combination of Poelma with Parkar is proper. The rejection proposes that, before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform the cleaning step of Poelma by exposing the resin structure to an ultrasonic treatment in a solvent, as suggested by Parkar.
Poelma already teaches the concept of cleaning or rinsing with a solvent after curing to form a resin structure [0049] – [0059]. While Office does note that [0033] of Poelma discusses the application of ultra-sound may cause action upon the microspheres, this paragraph goes onto state that it is “at a particular pairing of pressure and temperature” that “the microspheres undergo irreversible expansion and expand three-dimensionally” [emphasis added]. Thus, Poelma appears to teach that pressure and temperature must also be in a specific ranges to achieve expansion of the microspheres.
Additionally, the commercially available microspheres expressly described by Poelma as suitable for use in the disclosed method are EXPANCEL® DU. These microspheres are taught by the reference to have starting temperatures for expansion of 75 to 220°C [0034]. Further, both Poelma [0049] and Parkar [0120] is for the purposes of rinsing [0120], wherein rinsing would be readily envisioned by a person of ordinary skill in the art to correspond to a short period of time. Parkar also does not teach heating its ultrasound bath. A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that unheated ultrasound baths only generate marginal temperature increases (e.g. less than 10°C), resulting in temperatures that are far less than the initial 75 to 220°C expansion temperature required for expansion. The Office also respectfully submits that the instant specification also teaches the use of the same commercially available microspheres as Poelma (see [0031] of the PG-PUB of the instant specification), i.e. EXPANCEL® microspheres, which presumably also do not undergo expansion upon exposure to ultrasound. For these reasons, the Office maintains the position Poelma and Parkar are suitably combined in the manner proposed with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant additionally maintains that Parkar teaches away from foaming its resin structure. However, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The Office respectfully submits that Parkar is not relied upon to teach a step of foaming a 3D printed article but rather with respect to its teaching regarding ultrasound cleaning. Primary reference Poelma teaches its 3D printed articles can be cleaned in any suitable apparatus [0050]. Parkar teaches a suitable apparatus for performing the cleaning of 3D printed articles, namely an ultrasound apparatus. There is consequently a reasonable expectation of success in combining the two reference disclosures, as Poelma provides no particular limitation on the apparatus which may be used to clean the 3D printed article with a solvent and Parkar discloses 3D printed articles may suitably be cleaned with solvents using an ultrasonic treatment apparatus.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELISSA RIOJA whose telephone number is (571)270-3305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 pm 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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/MELISSA A RIOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights