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 and Species A1 (i.e., claim(s) 1-6) with traverse in the reply filed on 02/17/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the basis that:
Group I (system claims 1-12) and Group II (method claim 13) are directed to a single general inventive concept because Claim 13 is directed to a method that is specifically implemented by and designed for use with the system of claim 1. According to Applicant, the method claim inherently incorporates all the structural and functional features of the system claim, as the method cannot be practiced without the corresponding system components.
Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive because method claim 13 fails to recite ALL the structural and functional features/limitations of the system claims 1-12. If the method cannot be practiced without the corresponding system components, then why method claim 13 fails to recite ALL the structural and functional features/limitations of the system. Applicant fails to provide convincing evidence that the missing limitations of the system are inherently incorporated/required by method claim 13. For instance, Claim 1 requires mobile barriers and scrapers whereas Claim 13 does not. Claim 13 requires a second feeder whereas claim 1 does not. Thus, the method of claim 13 is not is specifically implemented with the system of claim 1 as Applicant alleges.
Applicant further argues that both claims share the same technical features that define their contribution over the prior art, including the use of two material feeders for dispensing two different photocurable materials, the translating film configuration, and the coordinated interaction between material dispensing and layer formation.
Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive because elected system claims (claims 1-6) do not even require two material feeders for dispensing two different photocurable materials. Thus, the two material feeders for dispensing two different photocurable materials cannot even considered a shared special technical feature. Examiner respectfully submits that prior art as cited in CTRS dated 12/18/2028 discloses two material feeders for dispensing two different photocurable materials and a translating film configuration. Thus, Applicant fails to specially point out a specific feature that is shared by Group I and Group II and that is special/inventive over the prior art. Last but not last, Applicant’s argument is also moot in view of the art rejections presented in this Office action.
Applicant argues that the determination of unity of invention should focus on whether the claimed inventions share a common inventive concept, not merely whether individual features appear in the prior art. According to Applicant, the system and method claims represent different statutory categories of the same underlaying invention – the innovative stereolithographic printing approach disclosed in the application.
In response, Examiner properly made the determination of lack of unity of invention based on
a common inventive concept (also known as the shared special technical features) of the claimed inventions I and II in the CTRS dated 02/18/2025. Applicant fails to specifically point out the alleged common inventive concept or a shared special technical feature that makes a contribution over the prior art. The common inventive concept needs to be claimed not disclosed, shared by both claimed inventions, and be specifically pointed out by Applicant especially when Applicant disagrees with Examiner’s determination of the shared special technical feature.
Applicant argues that claim 13 recites a process, and claims 1-12 recite a system/apparatus specifically designed for carrying out that process.
In response, Examiner respectfully submits that method claim 13 fails to recite ALL the structural and functional features/limitations of the system claims 1-12. For instance, Claim 1 requires mobile barriers and scrapers whereas Claim 13 does not. Furthermore, elected system claims 1-6 do not require a second feeder and the order and details of steps of method claim 13. Thus, the elected system claims 1-6 are NOT specifically and necessarily designed for carrying out the method of claim 13 as applicant alleges.
Applicant argues that examination of the method claim would necessarily involve analysis of the same system features already examined in connection with the system claims.
In response, Examiner respectfully submits that method claim 13 fails to recite ALL the structural and functional features/limitations of the system claims 1-12. For instance, Claim 1 requires mobile barriers and scrapers whereas Claim 13 does not. In fact, elected system claims 1-6 do not require a second feeder and the order and details of steps of method claim 13. Thus, search and examination of claimed Inventions I and II are neither identical nor coextensive. Last but not least, Examiner respectfully submits that the examination on the merits for system claims is different from the method claims (See MPEP §§ 2114-2115 and 2173.05 (g) vs. MPEP 2103C).
With respect to the rejoinder request of method claims and species claims, Examiner is willing to rejoin the withdrawn claims when an independent claim is found allowable and if the withdrawn claims meet ALL the joinder requirements.
For at least the reasons set forth above, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-6 is/are examined herein.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
line 1 of claim 1, “printing comprising” should be changed to --printing comprising:--.
Claims 1, the reference numbers in parenthesis are not applied consistently throughout the
claims. For example, the recitations “such reference plane” and “said plane” lack reference number (3).
In claim 1, “perpendicular to such plane” should be changed to --perpendicular to the reference plane (3)--.
In claim 1, “the lower edge of the barrier” should be changed to --a lower edge of the barriers--.
In claim 1, “The movement of the barriers” should be changed to --a movement of the mobile barriers (7, 7’)--.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claim(s) 1-6 is/are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under the following conditions. The process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (See MPEP 2114 II and 2115 for further details). For instance, the “radiation-sensitive material” is merely the material worked upon by the system.
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) 1-6 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 1 recites the limitation “the bottom” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the bottom” in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the predefined radiation” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the predefined radiation” in the claim.
Claim 1 recites, in lines 2-6, the limitations “the predefined radiation”, “basic radiation”, and “irradiated by a radiation” which make the scope of the claim unclear. As currently written, the radiations are interpreted as being different; however, the radiation that passes thorough the bottom of the support structure and solidifies/cures the liquid or pasty material is the same in Applicant’s disclosure. Thus, the limitations are inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “generating such radiation in the direction of such reference plane” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the direction of such reference plane” in the claim. Furthermore, the limitation is inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure because the reference plane is disclosed as being an x-y plane and the radiation is disclosed as being generated/directed in a direction perpendicular to the reference plane.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the solidified layer” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the solidified layer” in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the last solidified layer” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the last solidified layer” in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “said film being translatable from one end (3a) to the other (3b) of said plane in both directions” which is indefinite because the claimed language states a translating function/result of the film without setting forth well-defined boundaries of the invention. The claimed language does not provide a clear cut indication of the structure in the claimed system that allows the claimed translating function/result of the film. Furthermore, the limitation is also indefinite because it is inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. The film is not disclosed as being translatable in both directions in the elected species system (Figs. 1-2f and accompanying text).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the movement of the barriers together with that of the film by adjusting the thickness of the layer of radiation-sensitive material placed on the film in the reference plane and also by adjusting the outflow of the non-solidified material itself from the printing step of one layer, to allow dispensing by the at least one first feeder (6) of a further layer of radiation-sensitive material to be printed” which is indefinite. The claimed language is unclear and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. Furthermore, there is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the movement of the barriers together with that of the film” in the claim. Applicant has not introduced a specific movement of the barriers or film because being vertically mobile or translatable is different from moving is a specific direction and position (upward or downward OR forward or backward) to achieve the claimed results. According to Applicant’s disclosure, the movement of the barriers and film need to be in a specific direction and timing to achieved the claimed results. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the outflow of the non-solidified material itself from the printing step of one layer” in the claim. It is unclear if the claimed “the layer” and “one layer” are same or different layers. It is also unclear if the claimed “radiation-sensitive material” and “the non-solidified material” are same or different materials. It is unclear how many feeders are required by claim 1 in view of the claimed language “the at least one first feeder (6)” and the fact that Applicant has introduced only the first feeder (6). It is also unclear how the movements of the barriers and film during printing of the/current layer is related and allows dispensing of a further/next layer. According to Applicant’s disclosure, the movement of the barriers and film need to be in a specific direction and different timing to achieved dispensing of different layers. Thus, the limitation is also inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. The limitation has been examined below as best understood.
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 1 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the radiation transparent film transparent” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the radiation transparent film transparent” in the claims. It is unclear if the “film (F)” and “the radiation transparent film” are same or different films.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 2 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the resin (61)” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the resin (61)” in the claims.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the feeder tank (61)” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the feeder tank (61)” in the claims.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “pulleys (10,10′) around which the film (F) runs and rotates by 90° so as to allow the rolling and unrolling from the vertical of the film itself on the rollers” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the rolling and unrolling” and “the vertical of the film” in the claims. Also, the claimed language “to allow the rolling and unrolling from the vertical of the film itself on the rollers” is unclear and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. The scope of the term “the vertical of the film” is also unclear. The claimed language “to allow the rolling and unrolling from the vertical of the film itself on the rollers” is also inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. A first pulley 10 allows unrolling of the film from a roller 10 in a first rotating direction while a second pulley 10’ allows rolling of the film to a roller 9’ in the first rotating direction (e.g., Fig. 2f of Applicant’s drawings).
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN 111633988A with English machine translation – FOR of record)
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a system (Abstract, Fig. 1) for stereolithographic printing (light-curing composite slurry additive manufacturing: P0005-0006, 0009-0010) comprising:
a support structure provided with at least a bottom portion (annotated Fig. 1) transparent to a predefined radiation (the entirety of the annotated support structure is implicitly disclosed as being transparent to a predefined radiation of radiation source 12 as radiation from 12 needs to pass through the annotated support structure to achieve the disclosed light-curing composite slurry additive manufacturing), which defines a reference plane (18) on which a three-dimensional object is formed (P0042, 0050, Fig. 3, annotated Fig. 1) starting from at least one liquid or pasty material (light-curing composite slurry/material) sensitive to the radiation, adapted to be solidified when irradiated by the radiation (P0009, 0043, 0051);
means (12) for generating and directing the radiation towards the reference plane (P0042-0043, 0050-0052, Fig. 1),
a modelling plate (15) which supports and to which the three-dimensional object being formed is constrained, which is able to move a solidified layer according to a direction substantially perpendicular to the reference plane, so as to allow the solidified layer of the three-dimensional object to be arranged in a position adjacent to said plane (P0033, 0052, Fig. 1),
means for forming at least one layer of such radiation-sensitive material on such reference plane including at least a portion of a film (6) that can be moved on said reference plane (18) from one end (18a) to the other (18b) of said reference plane and a first feeder (2) of a first radiation-sensitive material on said portion of film (P0040-0043, 0049-0050, Figs. 1-3), characterised in that
said forming means comprise at least a first pair of substantially vertically mobile barriers (19, 19’) each arranged in proximity to one of these ends of the reference plane (P0021-0023, 0044, annotated Fig. 1, Fig. 2), the distance between these elements determining the width of the reference plane (annotated Fig. 1 and Figs. 2-3), and said modelling plate (15) moving substantially vertically between the mobile barriers (P0052, Figs. 1-2),
said forming means further comprise, externally to the mobile barriers (19, 19’) with respect to the reference plane (18), a pair of scrapers (9, 9’) which strike the film with their tip (P0015, 0044, annotated Fig. 1),
said barriers (19, 19’) being movable at least between a first raised position at a height predetermined by the film and a second position in which the lower edge of the barrier is in contact with the film itself (19, 19’ are capable of vertically moving at any desired height with respect to 6 including a first raised position at a height predetermined with respect to 6 to define a slurry height/thickness and second position in which a lower edge of 19 and 19’ are contact with 6: P0044, Fig. 2),
said film (6) capable of being translatable from one end (18a) to the other end (18b) of said reference plane in both directions (P0040-0041), such first feeder (2) of such first material on the film being placed near one (19’) of the two barriers, in the space between it and the respective scraper (9: See annotated Fig. 1),
a vertical movement of the barriers (19, 19’) to the first/desired raised position together with the a translation of the film (6) in one of the directions are capable of adjusting the thickness/height of the layer of radiation-sensitive material placed on the film in the reference plane and adjusting an outflow/amount of radiation-sensitive material placed on the film in the reference plane (P0054, Fig. 1) while at least the first feeder (2) or a second feeder (2’) is capable of dispensing radiation-sensitive material for a further/next layer to be printed in a different portion of the film (Fig. 1). The systems or the components of Zhang are capable of operating in the claimed manner. See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115. Thus, Zhang discloses the system substantially as claimed by applicant.
PNG
media_image1.png
527
597
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Zhang further discloses wherein the forming means further comprise at least one pair of rollers (8, 8′) which can rotate in both rotation directions (P0040-0041, annotated Fig. 1) on which the film (6) is mutually/respectively wound (wrapped/rolled: P0049: claim 1, annotated Fig. 1), wherein the film (6) is a radiation transparent film (P0050, claim 1, Fig. 1), and wherein the pair of rollers (8, 8′) are arranged at opposite sides of said plane (18) and externally to said scrapers (Annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang further discloses wherein said first feeder (2) comprises a tank (10) for resin (the slurry comprises resin: P0005, Fig. 1), a pump (11) for pumping the resin (P0049, Fig. 1) into a dispensing channel (4) arranged between the barrier (19’) and the scraper (9: P0033, annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang further discloses recovery means (left raw material recovery device) of the material on the film not used for printing the layer, arranged on the opposite side (18b) of the reference plane to that (18a) which has the first feeder (P0011, 0015, annotated Fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Lenzen (US 20220332046).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang further discloses wherein said recovery means comprise a pump (11’), a recovery tank (10’) and a transfer channel (1’) which brings the recovered resin back into a feeder tank (2’: P0011, 0015, annotated Fig. 1). However, Zhang fails to disclose that the pump is a suction pump and recovery channel with a suction mouth arranged in proximity to the film.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing systems, Lenzen discloses the technique of providing a recovery channel (13/13a) whose suction mouth/inlet is arranged in proximity to a film (3) and a suction pump (not shown) as the suitable/desirable recovery means for recovering resin back into a feeder tank for the benefit(s) of facilitating/improving recovering of uncured material (P0079, P0082-0083, Fig. 1).
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 system of Zhang in view of Lenzen by using a suction pump as the pump and incorporating a recovery channel whose suction mouth/inlet is arranged in proximity to the film for yielding the predictable benefit(s) of facilitating/improving recovering of the uncured material.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hull (US 5192559).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang fails to disclose wherein said forming means comprise pulleys (10,10′) around which the film (F) runs and rotates by 90°.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing systems, Hull the technique of incorporating
to a forming means pulleys (8a, 8b) around which a film (7) runs and rotates by 90° before directing the film to winding/unwinding rolls for the benefit(s) of reducing distortion and/or improving positioning/parallelism of the film with respect to the building plane (C2, L120, Fig. 2A). Hull further discloses that a vertical movement of the barrier (6a) to a first/desired raised position together with a translation of the film (6) in one of the directions are capable of adjusting the thickness/height of the layer of radiation-sensitive material placed on the film in the reference plane and adjusting an outflow/amount of radiation-sensitive material placed on the film in the reference plane (C13, L27-50).
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 system of Zhang in view of Hull by incorporating to the forming means pulleys around which the film runs and rotates by 90° before directing the film to the winding and unwinding rollers for yielding the predictable benefit(s) of reducing distortion and/or improving positioning/parallelism/guidance of the film with respect to the building plane as suggested by Hull.
Conclusion
Additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered to be pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure.
Raventós (US 20230111118) discloses relevant system and relevant techniques (Figs. 1, 7-8, and accompanying text).
Yun (US 20180117790) discloses a relevant system (Fig. 4 and accompanying text).
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