DETAILED ACTION
In Response to Election filed on 10/29/2025, claims 16-35 are pending. Claims 17, 23-25, and 28-35 are withdrawn based on the restriction requirement. Claims 16, 18-22, and 26-27 are considered in the current Office 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 with traverse of Group I and Species 1B in the reply filed on 10/29/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that 1) Group II claims are drawn to a system that can carry out the method of Group 1, so Group I and II have unity of invention and 2) Even if Qiu is found to be relevant to embodiments of the present disclosure where the irradiation takes place in an optically transparent container, Applicant argues that Qiu is not relevant for embodiments concerning irradiation in the extrusion unit, as Qiu does not teach or suggest irradiation of a material in an extrusion unit. Accordingly, Applicant disagrees with the assessment that Qiu would render unpatentable the common inventive concept over all embodiments that are shown in the figures of the present application. Applicant does not believe that Examiner’s identification of species 1 to 8 as allegedly distinct embodiments and inventions of the present application is justified. Irradiation in an optically transparent container takes place only in species 3 to 5. For the remaining species 1, 2, and 6 to 8, Qiu appears to be completely irrelevant. It is thus respectfully submitted that, after the required selection between the method and system claims, Applicant should only have to elect between species 3 to 5 and species 1,2, and 6 to 8 and 3) Applicant additionally submits that all species 1A to 1E are linked by a common inventive concept that is not taught or suggested in Qiu: the provision of an extrusion unit and irradiation being performed in the extrusion unit. Species 1A-1E also lack mutually exclusive characteristics. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the election requirement for species 1A to 1E.
This is not found persuasive. Firstly, the shared common technical features between Group I and Group II are anticipated by Qiu, see Office Action dated 08/01/2025, and unity of invention is lacking a posteriori since no shared technical feature defines a contribution over the prior art. Secondly, the shared common technical features between Species I-8 are anticipated by Qiu, see Office Action dated 08/01/2025, and unity of invention is lacking a posteriori since no shared technical feature defines a contribution over the prior art. Claims directed to more than one species of generic invention lack unity of invention when the generic claim is anticipated by or obvious over the prior art, or all technical features shared among the claimed species are not special technical features. Lastly, the shared common technical features between Species 1A-1E are anticipated by Qiu, see Office Action dated 08/01/2025, and unity of invention is lacking a posteriori since no shared technical feature defines a contribution over the prior art. Alternatively, claim 16, which further captured the shared technical features between Species 1A-1E are rejected under 35 USC 103, see rejection below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 17, 23-25, and 28-35 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group/Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. In particular, claim 17 is directed to nonelected species 1A, claims 23-25 are directed to nonelected species 2, and claims 28-25 are directed to nonelected Group 2. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/29/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/29/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed 12/28/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Currently, legible copy of the foreign patent document EP2969488 is currently missing.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 22, and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “said structure” should read as “said fabricated structure” for the purpose of consistency.
Claim 22 recites “d) Providing…e) Repeating” should read as “d) providing…e) repeating”.
Claim 24 recites “- Removing…” should read as “- removing…”.
. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 18-20, 22, and 26 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 18 recites the limitation "the group" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 19-20 are rejected by virtue of depending on a rejected claim 18.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "… the additional steps" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "said one or more projection units" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 26 recites the limitation "…modifying the size" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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) 16, 18, 21-22, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2023/0111682 (Lazarovits) and US2021/0260819 (“Lawless et al” hereinafter Lawless).
Regarding Claim 16, Lazarovits teaches a method for fabricating a structure having at least one dimension and made of highly aligned structural micro-filaments ([0017] and [0009], in some embodiments, the solution is a photopolymerizable material. In some embodiments, wherein the solution is a biological solution. In some embodiments, the biological solution comprises cells, cell media, particles, blood, synthetic blood, or a combination thereof), the method comprising:
a) providing a photoresponsive material ([0012] and [0015], the fluid reservoir comprises a plurality of subreservoirs, each of the subreservoirs comprises a different photopolymer material), said photoresponsive material being capable of altering its material phase upon illumination by light of one or more wavelengths ([0013], at least one of the first photopolymerizable material and the second photopolymerizable material comprises photoinitiator that triggers polymerization when illuminated by the light source), in an vessel (Figure 1, fluid reservoir 131);
b) irradiating said photoresponsive material with one or more light sources (Figure 1 and [0041], light projector 110 includes at least one light source configured to project patterned light towards the fluid reservoir 131) capable of emitting light of one or more wavelengths ([0042]), at least one of said one or more light sources having a capability to generate an optical modulation instability in said photoresponsive material ([0061], the light projector 110 , 210 , 510 is a digital light projector which utilizes a liquid crystal panel or digital micromirror array to create a digital photomask and all digital light projector are capability to generate an optical modulation instability in said photoresponsive material), thereby creating an optical modulation instability in said photoresponsive material ([0061], all digital light projector are creates an optical modulation instability in said photoresponsive material), thereby forming a micro-patterned filament ([0017]); and
c) forming from said formed micro-patterned filament said structure having at least one dimension and made of highly aligned structural micro-filaments ([0017]).
Lazarovits fails to teach the vessel is an optically transparent vessel.
However, in the analogous art of additive manufacturing using photopolymer materials to form 3D object, Lawless discloses the bottom side of the vessel is optically clear and UV transmissive in the desired wavelength ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method as taught by Lazarovits such that the vessel is an optically transparent vessel as taught by Lawless to allow electromagnetic radiation from the light source to passes through the vessel and cures the photopolymer in a desired pattern ([0028]).
Regarding Claim 18, the modified Lazarovits teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein said photoresponsive material is deposited onto or into a support (Lazarovits, Figure 1, movable stage 125 and [0044]), said support being selected from the group consisting of a print bed (Figure 1, movable stage 125 is structurally and functionally equivalent to a print bed) and a container.
Regarding Claim 21, the modified Lazarovits teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein said one or more light sources emit spatial patterns of light (Lazarovits, Figure 1 and [0041], light projector 110 includes at least one light source configured to project patterned light towards the fluid reservoir 131) with one or more wavelengths ([0042]), at least one of said spatial light patterns having a capability to generate an optical modulation instability in said photoresponsive material ([0061], the light projector 110 , 210 , 510 is a digital light projector which utilizes a liquid crystal panel or digital micromirror array to create a digital photomask and all digital light projector are capability to generate an optical modulation instability in said photoresponsive material), wherein said spatial light patterns have been generated by
computing a sequence of projections for at least one of said light sources ([0002]), said sequence of projections describing the micro-patterned filaments of said structure ([0063]), and
defining a sequence of light patterns using said sequences of projections ([0058]).
Regarding Claim 22, the modified Lazarovits teaches the method according to claim 16, said method comprising the additional steps of:
d) Providing another photoresponsive material (Lazarovits, [0013], some embodiments, at least one of the first photopolymerizable material and the second photopolymerizable material; a plurality of material are used) capable of altering its material phase upon irradiation with one or more wavelengths of light ([0013], at least one of the first photopolymerizable material and the second photopolymerizable material comprises photoinitiator that triggers polymerization when illuminated by the light source); and
e) Repeating steps (a) to (c) with said other photoresponsive material for producing a multi-material structure ([0020], repeating the process until the desired three-dimensional object is formed).
Regarding Claim 27, the modified Lazarovits teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein said photoresponsive material is seeded with cells (Lazarovits, [0056]).
Claim(s) 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2023/0111682 (Lazarovits) and US2021/0260819 (“Lawless et al” hereinafter Lawless) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of US2021/0387420 (“Greene et al” hereinafter Greene).
Regarding Claim 19, the modified Lazarovits teaches the method according to claim 18, but fails to teach wherein said container comprises a support material.
However, in the analogous art of additive manufacturing using photopolymer materials to form 3D object, Greene teaches wherein said container comprises a support material ([0123], the first layer of the 3D object may be a support layer for the 3D object that may be removed post-processing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method as taught by the modified Lazarovits such that it teaches all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Greene to adjust contact surface area and/or frictional force between the surface and the first layer of the 3D object ([0123]).
Regarding Claim 20, the modified Lazarovits teaches the method according to claim 19, wherein after complete deposition of said photoresponsive material said support material is removed from said fabricated structure (Greene, [0123], the first layer of the 3D object may be a support layer for the 3D object that may be removed post-processing).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2023/0111682 (Lazarovits) and US2021/0260819 (“Lawless et al” hereinafter Lawless) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US2021/0069964 (“Boyer et al” hereinafter Boyer).
Regarding Claim 26, the modified Lazarovits teaches the method according to claim 16, but fails to teach wherein the spatial coherence of at least one of said one or more light sources or said one or more projection unit scan be controlled and actuated concurrently to said irradiation, thereby modifying the size of said micro-patterns on said formed filament.
However, in the analogous art of additive manufacturing to print biological material using bioink resin, Boyer discloses wherein the spatial coherence of at least one of said one or more light sources can be controlled and actuated concurrently to said irradiation ([0005], one or more actuator capable of horizontal, vertical, and/or rotary movement of the one or more source of electromagnetic radiation, and a controller capable of sending commands to the one or more source of electromagnetic radiation and one or more actuator and [0085], the one or more DLP projectors can be stationary or can be moveable by one or more actuators), thereby modifying the size of said micro-patterns on said formed filament (as the light source moved, the size of the cured photopolymer and the 3D object are also modified).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method as taught by the modified Lazarovits such that it teaches all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Boyer to achieve curing at the desired location to form desired 3D object ([0085]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754