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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group (i.e., claim(s) 1-19) in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not provide any statement/reasons indicating traversal of the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01). Accordingly, Claim(s) 20-36 is/are withdrawn as being drawn to nonelected groups II-V.
Applicant’s election of Species (i.e., a plurality of acrylates as the type of resin, Bis-EMA oligomer and HDDA monomer as the type of plurality of acrylates; phosphine oxide as the type of photoinitiator, and soda-lime glass powder as the type of silica-based powder) without traverse in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-19 read on the elected Species. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-19 is/are examined herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The term “about” has been interpreted below as described in [0047] of Applicant’s published application.
The term “monomer” has been interpreted below as described in [0049] of Applicant’s published application.
The term “oligomer” has been interpreted below as described in [0051] of Applicant’s published application.
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(s) 7, 11, 13, and 15-17 is/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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “acrylic acrylate” which is indefinite. The claimed language makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. Examiner did not find a description in Applicant’s specification or an ordinary definition.
Claim 7 recites a broad limitation (i.e., “polyester acrylate”) together with narrow limitations (“polyester triacrylate” and “polyester methacrylate”) that fall within the broad limitation in the same claim. Thus, claim 7 does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Claim 11 recites a broad limitation (i.e., “phosphine oxide”) together with the narrow limitation (“a phenylbis (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phosphine oxide (BAPO)”) that falls within the broad limitation in the same claim. Thus, claim 11 does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Claim 11 recites a broad limitation (i.e., “a benzophenone”) together with the narrow limitation (“a substituted a benzophenone”) that falls within the broad limitation in the same claim. Thus, claim 11 does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the powder material allows for light absorption by the binding polymer” which is indefinite. The claimed language makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. The claimed language merely recites a result/function obtained by the powder material without providing a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim. Can any powder achieve the claimed function/result by allowing transmission of light to the binding polymer through the spaces between the particles of the powder material? See MPEP §§ 2173.03 and 2173.05 (g). The limitation has been examined below as if transparent powder material(s) and/or all powder materials having spaces between the particles of the powder materials read on the claimed powder material in view of [0010, 0064, 0069, 0077-0078] of Applicant’s published application.
Claim 15 recites a broad limitation (i.e., “quartz”) together with narrow limitation (“fumed quartz”) that falls within the broad limitation in the same claim. Thus, claim 15 does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Claim 15 recites the limitation “silica oxide” which is indefinite. The claimed language makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. Examiner did not find a description in Applicant’s specification or an ordinary definition.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “silicon (IV) oxide, silicon dioxide” which is indefinite. The claimed language makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. Both terms define the same chemical composition and are synonyms of silica.
Claim 15 recites a broad limitation (i.e., “silicon dioxide” also known as silica) together with narrow limitations (“fumed silica”, “crystalline silica”, “pure silica” and “silica sand”) that fall within the broad limitation in the same claim. Thus, claim 15 does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 15 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “wherein the light comprises a wavelength ranging from about 200 nanometers (nm) to about 2,500 nm, optionally about 200 nm to about 800 nm, optionally about 300 nm to 500 nm, further optionally about 315 nm to about 400 nm, further optionally about 780 nm to 2,500 nm” which is indefinite. Claim 17 clearly recites a broad range (i.e., from about 200 nanometers (nm) to about 2,500 nm) together with narrow ranges that fall within the broad range in the same claim. Thus, claim 17 does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). For purposes of examination, the limitation has been examined below as if the narrower/optional ranges were not present in the claim.
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)(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) 1-7, 11-15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farr (US 20050218549).
Regarding claim 1, Farr discloses a method for additive manufacturing of an object (Abstract, 0024, claim 12), the method comprising:
depositing a binding polymer onto a powder material (dispensing a polar binder selectively onto SFF powder: P0016-0024; wherein the polar binder comprises a monoacrylate component which reads on the binding polymer: P0014, claim 12); and
photocuring the binding polymer and the powder material with light (P0029). Thus, Farr discloses the method substantially as claimed by Applicant. Furthermore, Farr’s method yields substantially similar advantages (P0031) as Applicant’s method ([0034], [0072] of Applicant’s published application).
Regarding claim 2, Farr further discloses wherein the binding polymer comprises a resin and a photoinitiating system (acrylate(s) and light sensitive initiator: P0029, claim 12).
Regarding claim 3, Farr further discloses wherein the resin comprises a plurality of resins (acrylates: P0029).
Regarding claims 4-5, Farr further discloses wherein the resin comprise an acrylate (one acrylate: P0029).
Regarding claim 6, Farr further discloses wherein the resin comprises a plurality of acrylates (acrylates: P0029).
Regarding claim 7, Farr further discloses wherein the acrylate is selected form the group consisting of urethane dimethacrylate, triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, and combinations thereof (P0029, 0052, 0054).
Regarding claim 11, Farr further discloses wherein the photoinitiating system comprises a component selected from the group consisting of a phosphine oxide, a benzophenone, a benzoin ether, a phenylbis (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phosphine oxide (BAPO), and combinations thereof (P0055-0056).
Regarding claim 12, Farr further discloses wherein the photoinitiating system comprises a phenylbis (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phosphine oxide (isacylphosphine oxides (BAPO's): P0055).
Regarding claim 13, Farr further discloses wherein the powder material allows for light absorption by the binding polymer (the SFF powder comprises aluminosilicate/glass material(s)/particles(s), the disclosed aluminosilicate/glass material(s)/particles(s) are transparent inherently and/or inherently have spaces/voids between them in the formed layer that allow light transmission to the binder, and therefore, light absorption by the binding polymer: P0014, 0023, 0045, 0049; additionally, since the taught and claimed powder materials are patentably indistinct in terms of composition, they are expected to have the same properties/functions. See MPEP §§ 2112 I, 2112 III, and 2112.01 II.
Regarding claim 14, Farr further discloses wherein the powder material comprises a silica-based powder (the aluminosilicate material/glass particles(s) are considered silica-based as they inherently comprise silica: P0014, 0023, 0045, 0049; additionally, since the taught and claimed powder materials are patentably indistinct in terms of composition, they are expected to have the same properties/functions. See MPEP §§ 2112 I, 2112 III, and 2112.01 II and rejection of claim 15 below).
Regarding claim 15, Farr further discloses wherein the silica-based powder comprises a component selected from the group consisting of silica gel, fiberglass, and combinations thereof (P0049, 0067).
Regarding claim 17, Farr further discloses wherein the light comprises a wavelength ranging from about 200 nanometers (nm) to about 2,500 nm (the light can be ultraviolet and/or visible light: P0016, 0029; wherein visible light inherently has a wavelength within the claimed wavelength range while ultraviolet light inherently has a wavelength overlapping the claimed wavelength range).
Regarding claim 18, Farr further discloses adding an additional layer of the powder material and the binding polymer to a cured polymer powder composite (P0001, 0003, 0016-0024, 0029).
Regarding claim 19, Farr further discloses wherein the additive manufacturing comprises binder jet additive manufacturing (P0001, 0003, 0016-0024, claim 14).
Claim(s) 1 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saito (US 20190111618).
Regarding claim 1, Saito discloses a method for additive manufacturing of an object (Abstract), the method comprising:
depositing a binding polymer (cross-linkable adhesive polymer or difunctional curable monomer) onto a powder material (Abstract, P0008-0009, P0017); and
photocuring the binding polymer and the powder material with light (curing the cross-linkable adhesive polymer or the difunctional curable monomer and the powder material with UV light: Abstract, P0017, 0026).
Regarding claim 18, Saito further discloses adding an additional layer of the powder material and the binding polymer to a cured polymer powder composite (Abstract, P0007, 0025-0026).
Regarding claim 19, Saito further discloses wherein the additive manufacturing comprises binder jet additive manufacturing (P0007).
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.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farr as applied to claims 2 and 5 above, and further in view of Kennedy (US 20130324309).
Regarding claims 7-10, Farr further teaches to use monomer of acrylates such as bisphenol A ethoxylate dimethacrylate (Bis-EMA) and polymer/oligomer of such monomer of acrylates as suitable acrylate(s) (P0052-0054), but Farr does not disclose bisphenol A ethoxylate dimethacrylate oligomer and/or hexanediol diacrylate monomer.
In an analogous art, photocurable and printable compositions, Kennedy discloses a photo-curable ink comprising bisphenol A ethoxylate dimethacrylate oligomer (P0028-0029) and hexanediol diacrylate monomer (P0049-0050) as a suitable photocurable printable composition (Abstract, P0001, 0011).
Since Farr does not limit the type of acrylates and envisions a combination of monomer acrylates polymer/oligomer acrylates (as applied above), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Farr in view of Kennedy by using Bisphenol A ethoxylate dimethacrylate oligomer and/or hexanediol diacrylate monomer as the binding polymer as this is known suitable photocurable and printable composition. See MPEP §§ 2143 I B and/or 2144.07.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farr as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Abbott (US 20180272560).
Regarding claim 16, Farr fails to disclose wherein the silica-based powder comprises soda-lime glass powder.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that soda-lime glass powder is the most common or accessible glass powder.
In the same field of endeavor, methods for additive manufacturing, Abbott discloses soda-lime glass powder as a suitable glass powder material with suitable melting point (P0013-0015, 0063, 0095, Figs. 1-C).
Since Farr teaches glass powder (as applied above), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that soda-lime glass powder is most common/accessible glass powder, and Abbott discloses soda-lime glass powder as a suitable glass powder material for additive manufacturing with suitable melting point, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Farr in view of Abbott by using soda-lime glass powder as the powder material as this is a known suitable/desirable glass powder material in the art. See MPEP §§ 2143 I B and/or 2144.07.
Conclusion
Additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered to be pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure:
Giller (US 20070241482) discloses a relevant method (P0011-0014, 0041, and Figs. 2a-f).
Hoggett (US 20190345351) discloses a relevant photocurable and printable composition (Abstract, P0036).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0625. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00-10:00 PM 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.
JERZI H. MORENO HERNANDEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743