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 .
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 5-8, 10, and 11 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 5 recites the limitation "adjusting a height of the liquid-liquid interface further comprises". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in parent claim 3. It appears claim 5 should be dependent on claim 4, and will be examined as such.
Claims 6 and 7 recite the limitation "adjusting the position of the build plate further comprises". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in parent claim 4. It appears claims 6 and 7 should be dependent on claim 5, and will be examined as such.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the second film" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 never states that there is a second film. A second film can be found in claim 6 and 7, but it is not clear if claim 8 should depend on claim 6 or 7. For examination purposes claim 8 will depend on claim 1 and will be treated as if it said “a second film is added.”
The term “nature” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “nature” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What is the metes and bounds of “a nature of the two liquid phases”, in this context “nature” could mean anything, thus claim 10 is seen as vague and indefinite.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "a second liquid" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this the same “second liquid” from claim 1 or a new liquid? For examination purposes it will be treated as if it said “the second liquid”, thus further limiting claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 15-20 are objected to because of the following possible informalities:
Claims 13 and 15-20 depend from claim 11 and ultimately claim 1. It would seem since claim 12 is the second independent claim, that claims 13 and 15-20 would depend on claim 12, based on their location. However, all the antecedent basis is proper for the dependency as written. Thus for examination purposes claims 13 and 15-20 will be treated as written. If the dependency is correct as written, then the claims need to be reordered/renumbered per MPEP 608.01(i) section (g):
“The least restrictive claim should be presented as claim number 1, and all dependent claims should be grouped together with the claim or claims to which they refer to the extent practicable.”
Appropriate clarification and/or correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claims 1 and 12 be found allowable (as of the limitations of 3/6/2024), they would be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 1 and 12 currently claim the same process. There is no difference between object and layer, since a layer is an object.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishida et al (US PGPub 2020/0324466; herein Nishida, already of record). Regarding claim 1:
Nishida teaches an immiscible liquid-liquid interface in e.g. Figures 4, 6, and 12, where inert immiscible liquid 230 and liquid monomer 400 meets at the interface 460. The inert immiscible liquid 230 can contain a photoinitiator, paragraph 0100.
Polymerization light 500 from a light source 510 polymer causes polymerization of the monomer at the interface (e.g. paragraphs 0067, 0078, and 0080).
Regarding claim 2:
Nishida teaches that the monomer can be HDDA, as evidenced by Goswami (Study of Thermal Relaxation of Poly (HDDA-co-MMA) by Temperature Modulated DSC and Dielectric Spectroscopy), poly(HDDA) is a thermoset (page 2, lines 86-87).
Regarding claim 3:
As seen in e.g. Figures 4, 6, and 12 there is a substrate 300 located as claimed.
Regarding claims 4 and 5:
Nishida teaches that the materials can be removed and introduced into the containment vessel 200, thus the interface location can change, paragraphs 0117 and Figure 19. Nishida also teaches that the substrate 300 is raised in order to build the part, paragraph 0076 and 0112.
Regarding claims 6 and 7:
As seen in Figure 15, and paragraph 0112, the substrate 300 can be lowered in discrete intervals to clear the area for polymerization. From the position graph in Figure 15 the movement would be at changing velocities due to velocity being the derivative of position on such a graph.
Regarding claim 8:
As seen in Figure 6 a second film is attached to the first film.
Regarding claim 9:
Claim 9 is seen as the natural result of claimed polymerization mechanism, and since Nishida teaches such mechanism, Nishida would also anticipate claim 9.
Regarding claim 10:
Nishida teaches changing a nature of the two liquid phases (the previously discussed volumetric changes with regards to claims 4 and 5), and a shape of the image projected (Figure 6 the layers have different shapes).
Regarding claim 11:
Nishida teaches such processing in paragraph 0100.
Regarding claim 12:
See remarks regarding claim 1.
Regarding claims 13 and 14:
Nishida teaches using a mask to create differently shaped layers, per paragraphs 0073, 0075, and 0131.
Regarding claim 18:
The depth can be changed as claimed as seen in Figure 15 and paragraph 0112.
Regarding claim 19:
As seen in Figure 6 the location of the light is spatially adjusted relative to the interface, otherwise all the layers would be the same.
Regarding claim 20:
As previously discussed Nishida teaches adjusting the height of the substrate 300, this would naturally be in response to a controller controlling the light 500 to create each layer and shape of each layer (i.e. activation and position). Additionally, such connection would be true with the material displacement of Figure 19 and the creation of the layers.
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.
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.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida, in view of Robeson et al (US PGPub 2019/0193326; herein Robeson, already of record). Regarding claim 15:
Nishida teaches that any suitable monomer can be used, paragraph 0079, but is silent to the species of claim 15.
In the same field of interfacial 3D printing, Robeson teaches that one can use styrene as the monomer (paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the monomer of Robeson in the interfacial printing method of Nishida, since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 17:
Nishida is silent to the antisolvent species.
In the same field of interfacial 3D printing, Robeson teaches improving the wetting at the interface with the use of hexane (paragraphs 0075-0078).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the monomer of Robeson in the interfacial printing method of Nishida, since the hexane improves the interface properties for printing.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida. Regarding claim 16:
Nishida, as previously discussed, teaches adding a photoinitiator to the second liquid, but is silent it being in an aqueous solution. Nishida does teach in paragraph 0100:
“For example, a photoinitiator that is difficult to dissolve in the liquid monomer 400, but easier to dissolve in the inert immiscible liquid 230 may be added to the inert immiscible liquid 230. By introducing the photoinitiator through the inert immiscible liquid 230, a higher concentration of the photoinitiator may be delivered to the liquid monomer-inert immiscible liquid interface 460 where polymerization takes place. The objective of the photoinitiator may be to initiate and/or speed up polymerization in the liquid monomer.”
And in paragraph 0085:
“In some embodiments, the inert immiscible liquid 230 can be fully immiscible with the liquid monomer 400. For example, the two components cannot mix together and therefore, separate out (e.g., oil and water).”
From this disclosure, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, that since the photoinitiator of Nishida is in the non-monomer layer, and that it should be dissolved in the non-monomer layer, and that the monomer layer is very highly likely immiscible in water, that the nature of the photoinitiator being in an aqueous solution is highly likely and obvious. It has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm..
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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743