DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 03/30/2026, 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 Claims 17, 23-25, and 28-35 are withdrawn based on the restriction requirement.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 are currently amended. 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Previous Objections/Rejections
Previous claims objections are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendments.
Previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment.
Previous 35 USC 103 rejections are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment. However, new rejections have been established.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/30/2026 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 16, 18, 21-22, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2023/0111682 (Lazarovits) and US2021/0362264 (“Ashmore et al” hereinafter Ashmore).
Regarding Claim 16, Lazarovits teaches a method for fabricating a structure having at least one dimension ([0017]) and made of highly aligned structural micro-filaments (due to lack of specific definition to the term “highly aligned structural micro-filaments”, the Examiner is interpreting any protein polymer, [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)
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 fabricated structure having at least one dimension and made of highly aligned structural micro-filaments ([0017]).
Lazarovits fails to teach a)providing a photoresponsive material in an extrusion unit.
However, in the same field of using material through photopolymerization to form 3D object, Ashmore teaches providing a photoresponsive material in an extrusion unit (Figure 1 and [0022]-[0024], the first heat source 116 is a primary heat source used to generate a melt pool 118 of a feed material 110 and the feed system 112 includes one or more motors, one or more rollers, one or more feed material guides 113 , one or more feed material spools 111).
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 it teaches all of the above mentioned limitations the as taught by Ashmore because the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known way to providing feed materials. See MPEP 2143.
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 a 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 US2021/0362264 (“Ashmore et al” hereinafter Ashmore) 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 US2021/0362264 (“Ashmore et al” hereinafter Ashmore) 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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Applicant argues Lazarovits does not discloses that one of the light sources disclosed in the reference would be capable of generating an optical modulation instability in the used photo-responsive material.
The Examiner respectfully disagreed. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification into the claim. In this case, optical modulation instability, under BRI, is interpreted as a phenomenon where a modulated optical signal develops spatial or temporal instabilities. Lazarovits discloses the use of digital light projector which utilizes a liquid crystal panel or digital micromirror array to create a digital photomask ([0061]). In this case, digital micromirror array operate in two discrete states, which can create abrupt phase or amplitude changes in the optical field. These discontinuities can excite higher-order spatial harmonics or coherence effects which creates optical modulation instability. Therefore, Lazarovits does teach the claimed limitations of claim 16.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights