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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/15/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 4 and 20 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.
Claims 4 and 20 recite the limitation “ the method of claim 1/18 wherein generating oxygen at the lithographical patterning region”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither claim 1 nor claim 18 describe generating oxygen at the lithographical patterning region. This limitation is recited by claims 3 and 19, respectively.
For the purposes of claim interpretation, claims 4 and 20 will be examined as if written as dependent claim claims 3 and 19, respectively.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9, 12-13, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdul Jabbar et al (US 20220063194 A1, published 03/03/2022) and Klare et al (US 20060264526 A1).
As a matter of claim interpretation – the claim preambles of claims 1 and 18 – “a method of forming nanoscale objects” and “a method of generating three-dimensional nanoscale objects in a lithographical patterning area” are being interpreted as intended use as there are no nanoscale requirements to the limitations present in the body of the claim – a method is distinguished by the steps and manipulations thereof, not the results of those steps.
Regarding Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-13, and 18-20, Abdul Jabbar discloses a 3D printer apparatus and a method of operating, wherein the printer comprises a tank defining a printing area above and spaced above a bottom structure, wherein the bottom structure comprises oxygen-releasing electrodes. The apparatus comprises two electrode arrays, one positive and one negative (Figure 2, 4). A resin curing device is configured to provide light to the printing area. An electronic controller operates areas of the oxygen-releasing electrodes in order to temporarily prevent polymerization of resin within predetermined locations of the printing area during the printing process (Abstract).
As per the claims of the reference, the tank is provided with a bottom structure, wherein the tank defines a printing area above and apart (adjacent to) from the bottom structure having the oxygen-releasing electrodes. A gas-permeable liquid is provided within the tank and along the bottom structure defining a dead zone below the printing area. A polymerizable resin is provided to the tank above the oxygen-inhibition liquid within the printing area.
During operation, controller controls the positioning of a lower surface of an object carrier, the lower surface initially being located within the polymerizable resin within the printing area; and controls operation of the oxygen releasing electrodes such that operation of a selected one or ones of the oxygen releasing electrodes produces oxygen that interferes with curing of the polymerizable resin above released oxygen, and controls operation of a resin curing device to provide light to the printing area - thereby polymerizing predetermined portions of the polymerizable resin that are not above the produced oxygen and thereby forming an object attached to the lower surface of the object carrier, then moving the carrier upwards and repeating the process (claim 19 and 20).
As such, the method described by the claims of the reference comprises the provision of a photocurable resin material, defining a patterning region (the printing area and pattern therein), directing a light beam towards the lithographical region patterning region to initiate polymerization (the controller, during operation, provides light to the printing area to polymerize portions of the resin that are not above the produced oxygen).
The reference is not explicit in stating that the oxygen is used to deplete initiator by inhibition, however the oxygen is referred to here explicitly as an inhibitor in calling the bottom portion of the tank as containing oxygen-inhibition liquid and in describing the operation of the electrodes so as to release oxygen to predetermined locations below the printing area to temporarily prevent the polymerization of resin in those locations (abstract). As such, a person having ordinary skill in the art would consider that the regions having oxygen directed there have a depleted concentration of active initiator species due to the oxygen generated and that the reduction in concentration of initiator species occurs gradually as oxygen moves from the bottom portion into the directed locations.
The polymerizable liquid provided to the tank during the method of operation is discussed from at table 1 and [0058], comprising materials for polymerization and initiators.
However, the reference does not explicitly state that the photocurable resin (the photopolymerizable liquid) comprises each of one or more organic monomers, a photoinitiator, and an inhibitor.
This limitation is met by Klare.
Klare describes a biocompatible, low-viscosity radiation curable formulation for us in stereolithography comprising 55-95% by weight of a bisphenol F or bisphenol A based dimethacrylic acid monomer/oligomer, 0-20% by weight of a urethane acrylate, 2-15% by weight of a monomeric aliphatic or cycloaliphatic dimethacrylate, 0-15% by weight of a monofunctional methacrylate, 0.5-5% of a photoinitiator or combination of photoinitiators whose absorption is within the wavelength range of the laser beam used, 0.0002-3% by weight of the inhibitor 2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidine-1-yloxy in conjunction with known inhibitors, 0-40% by weight of filters, 0-5% by weight of coloring pigments, 0-5% by weight of additives such as UV stabilizers – where the sum of compositional components is equal to 100% (Abstract).
Klare ascribes improved performance to the resin composition and increased stability ([0008]-[0016].
The monomeric dimethacrylate may be, for example triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA) as per the discussion at [0039] (claims 7 and 8, where the range of 2-15wt% encompasses the claimed 5% weight).
The photoinitiator may be any that forms radicals upon initiation, such as benzoins, phosphine oxides, and others. The reference describes bis-(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)phenyl phosphine oxide as a preferred embodiment of the photoinitiator (claim 9). As multiple initiators may be used and the total amount of initiators may range from 0.5 to 5 wt% of the composition, the amount of bis-(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)phenyl phosphine oxide used in the composition may range from 0 wt% to “less than 5wt%” when used in tandem, encompassing the claimed 0.008wt% (claim 11).
The photoinhibitor of the reference that is preferred is 2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidine-1-yloxy. Additional photoinhibitor compounds may be included. The reference includes hydroquinone monomethyl ether (MEHQ, also known as 4-methoxyphenol) as a nonpreferred embodiment at [0044]. The reference also states that mixtures of inhibitors may be used – a person having ordinary skill in the art would consider a mixture of the preferred 2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidine-1-yloxy inhibitor and MEHQ as part of the disclosure of the reference. The total amount of the inhibitor may range from 0.002 to 3 wt% of the composition – the range of MEHQ in the total composition may range from 0 to “less than” 3wt%, encompassing the claimed amount of 0.3 wt% (claims 12 and 13).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the filing date by modifying the stereolithographic processing of Abdul Jabbar by using the stereolithographic compositions of Klare, to arrive at printed articles having improved resolution and stability.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdul Jabbar et al (US 20220063194 A1, published 03/03/2022) and Klare et al (US 20060264526 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Walker et al (US 20220193988 A1)
Regarding claim 5, Abdul Jabbar and Klare teach the limitations of the claims as discussed above regarding claim 1.
However, neither reference teaches a 405 nm diode laser. Abdul Jabbar does teach that initiators with wavelengths of absorption ranging from 280-415nm may be used so it can be assumed that the apparatus emits a wavelength somewhere in this range, but a specific 405nm diode is not recited.
This limitation is met by Walker.
Walker discloses an apparatus and method of use concerning a three-dimensional printer and printing, wherein the resin used in the printed may comprise an initiator such as phenyl bis(2,4,6-trimethyl benzoyl) phosphine oxide (which is used in Klare’s composition) as described at [0085]-[0086]. When this initiator is used, a UV-blue LED centered at 405 nm may be used in polymerization.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date from the disclosure of Abud Jabbar, Walker, and Klare, by incorporating a UV-blue 405nm LED into the light emitting curing device of Abdul Jabbar so as to better facilitate the processing of the resin of Klare, which uses the phenyl bis(2,4,6-trimethyl benzoyl) phosphine oxide also taught by Walker and is sensitive in the 280-415 nm range..
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdul Jabbar et al (US 20220063194 A1, published 03/03/2022) and Klare et al (US 20060264526 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Regehly (US 2022022705 A1)
Regarding Claim 6, Abdul Jabbar and Klare teach the limitations of the claims as discussed above regarding claim 1.
However, neither reference teaches the adjustment of a position of an objective lens relative to the photocurable resin, where the objective lens includes a numerical aperture of 1.4 and 100X magnification. The operation of the apparatus of Abdul Jabbar includes the movement of cured resin away from the radiation source after curing so that uncured resin may flow beneath the lifted cured portion – the position of the uncured resin has changed and as such the position of the radiation curing device has changed relative to the uncured resin that has now moved. Neither Abdul Jabbar nor Klare teach the objective lens.
This limitation is met by Regehly.
Regehly discloses a method and device for producing a 3-dimensional object in an optically reactive starting material (Abstract), wherein the device comprises a radiation source that emits light through an opening of an entrance pupil upstream of an objective lens to focus the light into the optically active material. In describing the objective lens at [0064], a Plan-Aprochromat 100x/1.4 Oil DIC M27 lens by Zeiss AIG is described, where the aperture of this lens is 1.4 and the magnification is 100x. Further, an xyz positioning stage is used to move the focus in the starting material by changing the position of the material relative to the radiation source. Regehly ascribes high spatial resolution to the method using the objective lens described in the reference ([0014]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date by incorporating the objective lens of Regehly into the radiation curing device of Klare and Abdul Jabbar so as to improve the spatial resolution of objects fabricated.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdul Jabbar et al (US 20220063194 A1, published 03/03/2022) and Klare et al (US 20060264526 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al (US 200800043468 A1)
Regarding claim 11, Abdul Jabbar and Klare teach the limitations of the claims as discussed above regarding claim 1.
However, neither reference teaches the dilution of a solution having BAPO prior to introducing it to the resin compositions of the reference.
Wang teaches a block copolymer composition comprising a polypropylene ester and a polycaprolactone functionality (Abstract), wherein the composition of the copolymer is crosslinkable with the use of UV light.
In the experimental examples, a crosslinking test was performed using a UV light and a phosphine oxide photoinitiator ([0048], wherein a mold (analogous to the tank of Abdul Jabbar) was made by glass plates and a Teflon spacer, 75 microliters of initiator solution was added to 500 microliters of methylene chloride and added to 1.5 grams of copolymer and mixed, then poured into the mold – the reference asserts that the composition is stereolithographically crosslinkable.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date by incorporating the dissolution step and dilution step for handling an initiator so as to handle a small amount of initiator material in a precise manner as taught by Wang, and incorporating this dilution method into that of Abdul Jabbar so as to more precisely load initiator into the resin.
Claim(s) 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdul Jabbar et al (US 20220063194 A1, published 03/03/2022) and Klare et al (US 20060264526 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gupta et al (US 20210171760 A1)
Regarding Claims 14-16, Abdul Jabbar and Klare teach the limitations of the claims as discussed above regarding claim 1.
However, neither reference teaches a photoabsorber.
Gupta discloses a curable composition for use in an additive manufacturing context such as stereolithography ([0152]).
The composition of Gupta comprises polymeric components (a) and (b) as discussed from [0008]-[0099], such as methacrylic acid or methacrylate ester polymers. The component (a) may be present in 0.5 to 25 wt% of the composition’s total weight. The component (b) may be present in 5-80 wt% of the composition’s total weight.
A component (c) is a monomeric component that may be present in 10 to 95wt% ([0142]). This component may be made of multiple instances of monomers used in admixture as per [0100]-[0124], where preferred monomers include triethylene glycol dimethyl ether, among others described at [0116[.
A component (d) included in the composition is a photoinitiator ([0125]-[0131]– such as phenyl bis(2,4,6-trimethyl benzoyl) phosphine oxide ([0127]), wherein the photoinitiator is present in 0.05-5 wt% of the composition ([0129]).
Additional compounds are discussed from [0132]-[0141], such as a light blocker (photoabsorber) such as Sudan I, hydroxy benzophenone, or other compound mentioned in [0138] (Claim 14 and 15). The composition comprises the light blocker in a concentration ranging from 0.001 to 10 by weight of the composition, encompassing the claimed inclusion amount of claim 16. The reference states it may be suitable to use a light blocker in a three-dimensional printing context.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention at the time of filing by modifying the processes rendered obvious by the combination of Klare and Abdul Jabbar by adding known components from the sterolithographic composition of Gupta, such as the monomers and the photoabsorber/ light blocker. It is prima facie obvious to combine to compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose in order to form a third composition to be used for the same purpose – both Gupta and Klare are directed to curable resins for stereolithography and share ingredients such as the TEGDMA monomer and BAPO photoinitiator, and as such a person having ordinary skill would naturally consider that an ingredient from one reference could be used in the composition of the other with the expectation that the resultant composition would still be useful for the same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06.I).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The claim indicated as allowable subject matter is directed to the method of claim 1, wherein the photocurable resin of claim 1 is further formed to include 10 wt% of a water solution including potassium hydroxide.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is as follows:
Abdul Jabbar et al (US 20220063194 A1, published 03/03/2022)
Klare et al (US 20060264526 A1
Gupta et al (US 20210171760 A1)
Kiyosada (US 20180291219 A1)
Isaki et al (US 20220063185 A1, published 03/03/2022)
Pawloski et al (US 20170087774 A1)
Kojima et al (US 20160160021 A1)
Nick (US 20220168808 A1)
All of the above art are directed to additive manufacturing compositions and methods using such. Abdul Jabbar, Klare, and Gupta teach the limitations of claim 1 and claim 18 and claims dependent therefrom as set forth in the body of the rejection above. However, none of these three references make use of potassium hydroxide in their respective photosensitive compositions. Kiyosada is directed to an energy ray curable composition, but only uses potassium hydroxide in a developer for removing unwanted material from a part.
Isaki, Pawloski, Kojima, and Nick all teach the use of potassium hydroxide in their resin formulations – however, these resins are not for stereolithography and as such are embodied in form factors that render them unsuitable for combination with any and all of the three aforementioned references used in the rejection above. Kojima and Nick are directed to binders and hardeners for powder-based additive manufacturing processes – a field of endeavor that is not linked to the liquid-based/vat stereolithography of the references other than by being additively manufacturing. Isaki and Pawlowski are directed to filament 3d printing, where the potassium hydroxide is not incorporated into a photocurable resin composition.
The subject matter of the claim and claim 1 from which it depends appears to be free of the art, and the art contains no teaching or locus to suggest that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed subject matter through the combination of prior art references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW PRESTON TRAYWICK whose telephone number is (571)272-2982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
/A.P.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/MARTIN J ANGEBRANNDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 July 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights