DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 02/18/2026, claims 1-5 and 7-11 are pending. Claims 6 and 12-17 are cancelled. Claim 1 is currently amended. Claims 1-5 and 7-11 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 .
Status of Previous Objections/Rejections
Previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment.
Previous 35 USC 102 rejections are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment.
Previous 35 USC 103 rejections are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment.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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “without removing the latent image from the volume of at least one photocurable resin” fails to comply with the written description requirement. At most, the specification recites “At marked step "D", patterning is stopped just before gelation occurs, leaving a 3D latent image of polymer conversion that is higher in the desired print region than in the surrounding resin. At marked step "E", the latent image is developed across the gelation threshold via a diffuse curing system (e.g., diffuse, uniform LED illumination), driving only the desired region to gelation. The resultant print (marked "F") exhibits dramatically reduced striations, with a smooth surface and improved refractive index homogeneity (page 3, lines 12-17)”. Nothing in the specification recites the claimed negative limitation and any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure, the mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. See MPEP 2173.05(i). Thus, claim 1 is rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-5 and 7-11 are rejected by virtue of depended upon a rejected claim.
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) 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2022/0176636 (Batchelder) and CN210617324U (“Li et al” hereinafter Li), machine translation provided in Office Action dated 11/18/2025.
Regarding Claim 1, Batchelder teaches a method of three-dimensional (3D) printing (abstract), the method comprising:
i) irradiating a volume of at least one photocurable resin with at least one directional light projector for at least a portion of a pre-gelation duration to form a latent image (Figure 3, latent imaging system 130 includes an infrared or visible light source, [0032] and [0034]); and
ii) without removing the latent image from the volume of at least one photocurable resin (Batchelder does not disclose removing the latent image and Figure 3), delivering energy to the volume of the at least one photocurable resin with at least one curing system to cure the latent image and form a cured image ([0031]]),
Batchelder fails to teach at least one diffuse curing system and the diffuse curing system including at least one of an angularly diffuse light source, a spatially diffuse light source, an ultrasound curing system, a vibrational curing system, an electrical energy curing system, or an inductive energy curing system.
However, Li teaches at least one diffuse curing system and the diffuse curing system including at least one of an angularly diffuse light source (Figure 1, plurality of light sources 40, which might be UV lamp, page 2, line 24. The light exit surface of the side plate 32 and 56 the light exit surface of the bottom plate 31 are provided with a diffusion film, and the light refracted by the 57 light guide plate will be scattered when passing through the diffusion film, so that the surface brightness will be 58 more uniform, page 2, lines 56-59).
Batchelder and Li are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of vat polymerization comprises of a light curing device. Therefore, 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 of Rolland such that it teaches all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Li to achieve uniform surface brightness (page 2, lines 58-59).
Regarding Claim 2, the modified Batchelder teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one directional light projector comprises at least one of a photon source, a LED source, a lamp, or a laser radiation source (Batchelder, [0039], the latent imaging system include a single laser).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Batchelder teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one directional light projector comprises a photocuring 3D printer (Batchelder, Figure 3, latent imaging system 130 includes an infrared or visible light source, [0032] and [0034]).
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Batchelder teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the pre-gelation duration is a period sufficient to at least partially cure the photocurable resin with the directional light projector before gelation occurs (Batchelder, [0032], [0034], and [0036], information for the latent image are capture prior to fully solidification of the photocurable resin in order to provide feedback process for the next layer).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified Batchelder teaches the method of claim 4, wherein a plurality of angularly diffuse light sources are used to cure the latent image and form the cured image (Li, Figure 1, plurality of light sources 40, which might be UV lamp, page 2, line 24. The light exit surface of the side plate 32 and 56 the light exit surface of the bottom plate 31 are provided with a diffusion film, and the light refracted by the 57 light guide plate will be scattered when passing through the diffusion film, so that the surface brightness will be 58 more uniform, page 2, lines 56-59).
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Batchelder teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one diffuse curing system comprises at least one light diffuser (Li, page 1, lines 53-55, diffusion film).
Regarding Claim 8, the modified Batchelder teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one diffuse curing system comprises at least one of a LED source or a non-LED source (Li, Figure 1, plurality of light sources 40, which might be UV lamp, page 2, line 24. The light exit surface of the side plate 32 and 56 the light exit surface of the bottom plate 31 are provided with a diffusion film, and the light refracted by the 57 light guide plate will be scattered when passing through the diffusion film, so that the surface brightness will be 58 more uniform, page 2, lines 56-59).
Regarding Claim 9, the modified Batchelder teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising the step of: iii) stopping the irradiating of step i after the pre-gelation duration, wherein step iii occurs after step I (Batchelder, [0032], [0034], and [0036], information for the latent image are capture prior to fully solidification of the photocurable resin in order to provide feedback process for the next layer).
Regarding Claim 10, the modified Batchelder teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the cured image comprises a smooth surface (Batchelder, [0022] and [0038], refractive index are measured to allow for adjustments to the printing process parameters, which results in higher-quality printed parts which comprises smooth surface).
Regarding Claim 11, the modified Batchelder teaches 1he method of claim 1, wherein the cured image has a uniform refractive index (Batchelder, [0022] and [0038], refractive index are measured to allow for adjustments to the printing process parameters, which results in higher-quality printed parts which comprises uniform refractive index).
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US2024/0239039l; [0150]-[0152]; discloses 2 steps of generating latent image and curing of the image.
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
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754