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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 06/02/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Lin does not disclose wherein the deposited film is non-pattered at the time of deposition and the curing step is described broadly without disclosing selective light application to define specific geometric features (pg 10 last paragraph). Applicant further argues the use of “non-patterned” in paragraph 0209 of Lin refers only to the nature of the light projection rather than the structure of the deposited resin layer (pg 11 first paragraph). This is not found persuasive because Lin explicitly discloses using a “wiper” (para 0164) to flatten the film of viscous liquid to a desired thickness which can be adjusted to control a thickness of portion of the 3D object (para 0166). Lin further discloses directing the light to a selected portion of the viscous liquid to form the portion of the 3D object (para 0174). Claim 1 requires no more specificity of define specific geometric features post-deposition than disclosed in Lin. Additionally, as demonstrated below, Mojdeh (US20200086553) further teaches all of claim 1.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/02/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-9 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.
In reference to claims 1-9:
The term “high-viscosity” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-viscosity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-9 are rejected as depending from an indefinite claim and failing to provide sufficient clarification to overcome the rejection.
Additionally, claims 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9 also recite the term “high-viscosity” which renders those claims indefinite.
In reference to claim 6:
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the viscosity photoresin” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation and it is unclear whether this is intended to be the same photoresin as in claim 1 or a separate photoresin. For the purposes of examination the term “the viscosity photoresin” is interpreted as -the high-viscosity photoresin-.
In reference to claim 10:
Claim 10 is NOT rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b). While claim 10 recites the term “high-viscosity”, the claim further limits the photoresin to “one of an all-aromatic polyimide, a urethane acrylate elastomer, and an alumina photopolymer suspension” which, in light of the specification, appear to provide sufficient definition for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the meaning of “high-viscosity” as it applies to those specific resins.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mojdeh (US20200086553).
In reference to claim 1:
Mojdeh discloses method for fabricating an item using a high-viscosity photoresin (paras 0002, 0068), comprising:
providing tooling that comprises an extruder and a light source (paras 0061, 0088; Fig. 2);
depositing, by the extruder of the tooling, a first non-patterned layer of the high-viscosity photoresin (paras 0064, 0068, 0078);
selectively photocuring, by the light source of the tooling, the first non-patterned layer into a first predetermined layer shape (para 0088);
depositing, by the extruder of the tooling, a second non-patterned layer of the high-viscosity photoresin (paras 0028, 0038; Fig. 4); and
selectively photocuring, by the light source of the tooling, the second non-patterned layer into a second predetermined layer shape (Fig. 4).
In reference to claim 2:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Mojdeh further discloses wherein selectively photocuring the first non-patterned layer comprises:
depositing the high-viscosity photoresin to form a bounding box, and photocuring the high-viscosity photoresin of the bounding box to create a vat having a cured border and having uncured material within the cured boarder (para 0027, 0123); and
depositing an additional amount of the high-viscosity photoresin within the cured border and selectively curing the additional amount of the high-viscosity photoresin using an applied dynamic mask of the light source (paras 0027, 0030).
In reference to claim 4:
In addition to the discussion of claim 2, above, Mojdeh further discloses wherein:
the extruder is one of a plurality of extruders (paras 0019, 0065);
the high-viscosity photoresin is one of a plurality of high-viscosity photoresins (para 0027);
wherein the bounding box is formed of a first type of the plurality of high-viscosity photoresins and the additional amount of the high-viscosity photoresin is a second type of the plurality of high-viscosity photoresins, the first type and the second type being different from one another (para 0027).
In reference to claim 5:
In addition to the discussion of claim 2, above, Mojdeh further discloses wherein, after the additional amount of the high-viscosity photoresin is deposited within the cured border, and prior to the selectively curing of the additional amount, pausing the method (para 0093). Mojdeh does not explicitly disclose the pause is to allow the additional amount of uncured extruded photoresin to coalesce, permit a layer height of the first non-patterned layer to become even, and reduce non-homogeneity of discrete beads. However, as Mojdeh discloses cooling the layer, which would take some amount of time, the delay would result in allowing “the additional amount of uncured extruded photoresin to coalesce, permit a layer height of the first non-patterned layer to become even, and reduce non-homogeneity of discrete beads”.
In reference to claim 6:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Mojdeh further discloses:
identifying a current layer of the item to be formed (para 0019); and
adjusting a dynamic mask of the light source using an image associated with the current layer, wherein selectively photocuring the viscosity photoresin using the dynamic mask as adjusted (DLP, paras 0090-0091).
In reference to claim 7:
In addition to the discussion of claim 2, above, Mojdeh further discloses wherein depositing the additional amount of the high-viscosity photoresin within the cured border comprises:
performing, by the extruder, multiple parallel horizontal extrusions (para 0102 disclosing the nozzle is moved doing extrusion),
wherein, when the extruder reaches an end of a respective one of the horizontal extrusions, the depositing of the additional amount of the high-viscosity photoresin is stilled while the extruder continues to translate in a same direction until the extruder moves past the bounding box, thereby producing a homogenous infill (para 0046 disclosing moving the extruder outside of the vat to purge remaining material during a material change, para 0120).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mojdeh.
In addition to the discussion of claim 2, above, Mojdeh further discloses wherein the bounding box is sized larger than a desired part (para 0123) but does not disclose a spacing of approximately 1 mm existing between the desired part and the bounding box. However, this would have been obvious in view of Mojdeh. Mojdeh teaches that the size of the vat determines the amount of interior material dispensed per layer (paras 0038, 0043). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to minimize the size of the vat relative to the size of the desired part in order to minimize the amount of interior material required.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mojdeh as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Plott (US20210129443).
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Mojdeh does not disclose adjusting a flow rate from a nozzle of the extruder to match a translation speed of the extruder and a layer height. However, this would have been obvious in view of Plott. Plott discloses adjusting a flow rate from a nozzle of an extruder (adjust one or more printing parameters such as volumetric flow rate; para 0067) to match a translation speed of the extruder and a layer height (sensors, including those of nozzle speed and layer height, are arranged in a closed-loop feedback configuration capable of adjusting printing parameters such as volumetric flow rate; para 0067). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the method of HOLO to include the flow rate adjustment based on nozzle speed and layer height, as taught by Plott, in order to obtain a method that will allow better control of the process and reduce the deformation force applied on the substrate by the nozzle.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mojdeh as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Lee (Development of a 3D printer using scanning projection stereolithography).
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Mojdeh further discloses utilizing various computer files to determine the pattern for directing the light source to project the light according the layer being formed (para 0089). Mojdeh does not disclose generating a plurality of black-and-white image files, each of the black-and-white image files corresponding to a layer of the item to be fabricated using the high-viscosity resin; and directing the light source to project one of the black-and-white image files according to a current one of the layers being formed. However, this would have been obvious in view of Lee. LEE discloses generating a plurality of black-and-white image files (control software converts each slice into a black and white PNG image file; page 4, second column, second paragraph; figure 6), each of the black and white image files corresponding to a layer of the item to be fabricated using a resin (control software creates the exposure sequence with each slice corresponding to areas of structure and projecting onto a photopolymer; page 4, second column, second paragraph; figures 5-6); and directing the light source (the UV light; page 4, first column, fourth paragraph to second column, first paragraph) to project one of the black-and-white image files according to a current one of the layers being formed (light from a UV laser is used to project the image onto the photopolymer with the layer sequence controlled by software; figure 5; figure 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the method of HOLO to include black and white images as photo masks, as taught by LEE, because this process avoids the need for expensive masks and allows a scalable speedy technique capable of producing small feature sizes (Lee page 1 last 2 lines through pg 3 line 1).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mojdeh as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Lin (WO2018213356 – previously of record).
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Mojdeh does not disclose wherein the high-viscosity photoresin is an alumina photopolymer suspension. However, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). As applied to the instant application, Lin teaches a method for fabricating an item using a high-viscosity photoresin (paras 0005 and 0082) comprising extruding a resin layer and subjecting the resin layer to a photocuring step (para 0164). Lin further teaches using an alumina photopolymer suspension (para 0082-0083, 0097).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cruz-Uribe (US20050015171)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW L SWANSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1724. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0800-1900 and every other Friday 0800-1600.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/ANDREW L SWANSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 1745