Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/561,663

STEREOLITHOGRAPHY APPARATUS AND STEREOLITHOGRAPHY METHOD

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 16, 2023
Examiner
MACHNESS, ARIELLA
Art Unit
1743
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
SK Fine Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
92 granted / 154 resolved
-5.3% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+30.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
197
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
50.3%
+10.3% vs TC avg
§102
21.4%
-18.6% vs TC avg
§112
22.1%
-17.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 154 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Response to Amendment In view of the amendment filed 02/18/2026: Claims 8 and 9 are pending. Claims 1-7 and 10-16 are withdrawn from further consideration. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of the method (Group II) in the reply filed on 02/18/2026 is acknowledged. Newly submitted claims 10-16 are directed towards the non-elected group of the apparatus (Group I) set forth in the restriction requirement mailed 11/21/2025. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). 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. Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US20220118692). Regarding claim 8, Chen teaches a stereolithography method ([0155] Coating, Curing, Cleaning, and Post-Curing 3D Printing Process (“CP3”)) including the steps of: supplying a first material which is a photocurable material ([0163] In the first step 901 of the process, a layer of photocurable material is coated onto the platform of the apparatus or onto a previously built layer of the part being 3D printed); forming a first pre-exposure material layer on a manufacturing surface or a cured composition layer formed on the manufacturing surface ([0163]) by drawing and spreading the first material layer ([0165] When the platform passes through the mesh screen from the above, the permeated liquid resin will be coated on the bottom of the previously printed layers and between the gaps. The layer thickness is controlled precisely by the linear Z stage, not by the amount of liquid resin permeated from the screen mesh. By controlling the pump pressure (by adjusting, for example) the speed of a stepper motor for the pump), about 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm resin is permeated through the mesh screen that is then coated on the previously built layers with a set layer thickness); forming a first post-exposure material layer including one or a plurality of exposed portions by exposing the first pre-exposure material layer ([0168]; see annotated Figure 9C below); causing the one or plurality of first exposed portions to remain as one or a plurality of first cured portions by removing one or a plurality of first unexposed portions from the first post- exposure material layer ([0174]; see annotated Figure 9C below); supplying a second material which is a photocurable material different from the first material ([0183]-[0185]); forming a second pre-exposure material layer that is in contact with the one or plurality of first cured portions by drawing and spreading the second material after the one or plurality of first unexposed portions are removed ([0184] a second printhead device is moved into position in step 905 to repeat the four steps, adding a second type of material to the same layer); forming a second post-exposure material layer including one or a plurality of second exposed portions by exposing the second pre-exposure material layer ([0184] a second printhead device is moved into position in step 905 to repeat the four steps, adding a second type of material to the same layer.; see annotated Figure 9C below); and causing the one or plurality of second exposed portions to remain as one or a plurality of second cured portions by removing one or a plurality of second unexposed portions from the second post-exposure material layer (see remaining second post-exposure material in annotated Figure 9C below), wherein with the stereolithography method, an object that includes the one or plurality of first cured portions and the one or plurality of second cured portions is manufactured (see printed part including first and second cured portions in Figure 9C). PNG media_image1.png 426 687 media_image1.png Greyscale 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. 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. Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US20220118692). Regarding claim 9, Chen teaches the stereolithography method according to claim 8, wherein the step of forming a first pre-exposure material layer includes forming the first pre- exposure material layer such that the first pre-exposure material layer has a first thickness, and the step of forming a second pre-exposure material layer includes forming the second pre-exposure material layer such that the second pre-exposure material layer has a second thickness ([0165] By controlling the pump pressure (by adjusting, for example) the speed of a stepper motor for the pump), about 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm resin is permeated through the mesh screen that is then coated on the previously built layers with a set layer thickness (e.g., 50 μm or 100 μm)). While Chen fails to explicitly teach the second thickness is larger than the first thickness, Chen does teach the layer thickness can be set to either 50 µm or 100 µm ([0165] that is then coated on the previously built layers with a set layer thickness (e.g., 50 μm or 100 μm)). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the second thickness of Chen be larger than the first thickness of Chen, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. It has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007)). In the instant case, Chen teaches layer thicknesses can be set to either 50 µm or 100 µm. The second thickness can then be either smaller, equal to, or larger than the first thickness. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLA MACHNESS whose telephone number is (408)918-7587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30-2:30 PT. 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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. /ARIELLA MACHNESS/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 16, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600084
Additive Manufacturing System
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600088
PRINTHEAD FOR A 3D PRINTER AND METHOD FOR OPERATING A PRINTHEAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594724
MODULE FOR SUPPLYING ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING POWDER ALLOWING DRYING OF THE POWDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594601
MODULE FOR SUPPLYING ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING POWDER ALLOWING THE TRANSFER OF POWDER INTO A CONTAINER UNDER AN INERT ATMOSPHERE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594713
THREE-DIMENSIONAL FREEZE EXTRUSION FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF HOMOGENEOUS AND GRADED RODS AND TUBES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+30.0%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 154 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month