DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 29 May 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 under 102(a)(2) by Kabaria et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kumar et al. (US 2021/0186152).
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites the limitations “comprised of”, “consists of”, and “consists essentially of”. It is not clear if these limitations are intended to assert different constraints or be narrowing in scope. Correction is necessary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kumar et al. (US 2021/0186152).
In Re claim 1, Kumar et al. disclose an additively manufactured product (par. 0003), comprising: a lattice (see figs. 4-6), including repeating unit cells of an interpolation of a first surface lattice (a cube with flat faces) and a second surface lattice (a sphere) having a characteristic tensile or mechanical property different from the first and second lattice (the combination lattice shape is inherently different from the two individual lattice shapes) and all formed of the same material (see pars. 0009-0011).
In Re claim 2, see par. 0053. Claim 2 is a product-by-process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
In Re claim 3, see par. 0047.
In Re claim 4, see figs. 5 and 6.
In Re claim 5, see pars. 0007.
In Re claim 7, see par. 0007 regarding materials that are at least somewhat rigid in nature (the examiner points out that the term “rigid” is broad).
In Re claim 8, see pars. 0007-0009 regarding materials that are at least somewhat flexible nature (the examiner points out that the term “flexible” is broad).
In Re claim 9, see par. 0047-0048.
In Re claim 10, see par. 0048.
In Re claim 11, Kumar et al. further discloses the use of a computer to interpolate said first and second surface lattice unit cells (11, 12) and form at least a third transition lattice unit cells (14), which is selected for it’s useful properties for the production of lattice-filled #d objects by additive manufacturing (see pars. 0024 and 0061-0071).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US 2021/0186152) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rolland et al. (US 2016/0137839).
In Re claim 6, Kumar et al. fails to specifically disclose the use of a dual cure polymer resin.
Rolland et al. is related to the art of three-dimensional additive manufacturing, as teaches forming an additively manufactured product with a dual cure resin (fig. 1). Parts achieve isotropic mechanical properties, high thermal stability, and robust elasticity that standard single-cure photopolymers cannot match. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a dual cure resin material, as it provides a high thermal stability, and robust elasticity. The examiner notes that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP2144.04).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US 2021/0186152) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kabaria et al. (US 2020/0384691).
In Re claim 11, Kumar et al. disclose an additive manufactured product, but fail to specifically disclose the method steps of production.
Kabaria et al. is related to the art of art of additive manufactured products, and teaches, with reference to fig. 2, a method of selecting a lattice structure; generating a shape and lattice infill; determining mechanical properties of said lattice; checking the mechanical properties of said lattice; and selecting the structure to additively manufacture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have produced the additive manufactured product with a computer program that creates and checks the lattice structure, as taught by Kabaria et al., simply to produce an optimal product that meets required mechanical, geometry, and material property specifications.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS W IRVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3095. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/THOMAS W IRVIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights