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 without traverse of claims 11-19 in the reply filed on 12/08/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/08/2025.
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 11-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “(selective solidification of) a resin-based construction material.” Claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter. A claim is indefinite if the scope of the claim is not clear to a hypothetical person possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. One cannot ascertain whether “a resin-based construction material” recited in line 5 is the same as or different than “(solidifying) construction material” previously recited in line 3. Claims 12-19 which depend from claim 11 are similarly rejected.
Claim 11-12 recite the limitation “the liquid construction material.” Claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter. A claim is indefinite if the scope of the claim is not clear to a hypothetical person possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. One cannot ascertain whether “the liquid construction material” recited in claims 11-12 is the same as or different than “construction material” previously recited in claim 11, “a resin-based construction material” previously recited in claim 11, or an entirely separate construction material. Claims 13-19 which depend from claim 11 are similarly rejected.
Claims 11-12 and 16-18 recite the limitation “the additive.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is unclear which of the different “at least one wall element” recited earlier in the claim(s) was intended. For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as --the at least one additive--.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “at least one enrichment mechanism, by sedimentation and/or centrifuging and/or a force field, and/or a magnetic field.” The limitation renders the claim indefinite because the examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim since it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as -- at least one enrichment mechanism --.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “at least one wall element via radiation, including at least UV radiation.” The limitation renders the claim indefinite because the examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim since it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as --at least one wall element via radiation--. Claims 14-15 which depend from claim 13 are similarly rejected.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “via thermal treatment, including at least heating.” The limitation renders the claim indefinite because the examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim since it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as -- via thermal treatment --. Claim 15 which depends from claim 14 is similarly rejected.
Claim 14-15 recite the limitation “the wall element.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is unclear which of the different “at least one wall element” recited earlier in the claim(s) was intended. For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as --the at least one wall element--.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “at least one mechanical parameter, including at least strength.” The limitation renders the claim indefinite because the examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim since it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as -- at least one mechanical parameter --.
Claims 15-17, and 19 recite the limitation “the internal space.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is unclear which of the different “at least one internal space” recited earlier in the claim(s) was intended. For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as --the at least one internal space --.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a shaped element…formed inside the [at least one] internal space.” Claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter. A claim is indefinite if the scope of the claim is not clear to a hypothetical person possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. One cannot ascertain whether “a shaped element” recited in claim 16 is the same as or different than “an item” previously recited in claim 11. Claim 17 which depends from claim 16 is similarly rejected.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a shaped element, including at least an electrical conductor.” The limitation renders the claim indefinite because the examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim since it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as -- a shaped element --. Claim 17 which depends from claim 16 is similarly rejected.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the additive, including at least accumulation of individual elements of the additive.” The limitation renders the claim indefinite because the examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim since it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as -- the at least one additive --. Claim 17 which depends from claim 16 is similarly rejected.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “at least one electrically conductive material, including at least particles and/or fibers.” The limitation renders the claim indefinite because the examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim since it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as -- at least one electrically conductive material --.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the shaped element.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no earlier recitation of the limitation. MPEP 2173.05(e). For compact prosecution, the limitation has been examined as if it read --a shaped element--.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “[a] shaped element.” Claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter. A claim is indefinite if the scope of the claim is not clear to a hypothetical person possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. One cannot ascertain whether “a shaped element” recited in claim 19 is the same as or different than “an item” previously recited in claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Obst (DE102021117806A1 - translation provided) in view of Wynne (US 2022/0105677 A1).
Regarding claims 11-12, Obst teaches a method for the additive production of three-dimensional objects (method for the additive manufacturing of an item) in which hardenable building material is exposed in layers by means of energy radiation in order to thereby achieve at least partial solidification of the hardenable building material (Obst, Translation Pg 2). The at least partial solidification of the curable building material allows in particular an adjustment of the solidification, for example the crosslinking of a curable plastic, so that it can be specifically adjusted to what extent the building material is cured in order to form the three-dimensional object or at least a region of the three-dimensional object (Obst, Translation Pg 2). By selecting the degree of hardening, it is possible in particular to prevent an object area from being made too hard or too brittle (Obst, Translation Pg 2).
Obst teaches that during the method, in addition to the at least one three-dimensional object, at least one auxiliary element is produced, which at least temporarily changes a distribution of the energy radiation in at least one area of the object to be produced (Obst, Translation Pg 2). The invention thus proposes specifically adapting, setting or changing a distribution of the energy radiation in the at least one region of the object to be produced (Obst, Translation Pg 2). It can thereby be effectively prevented that energy radiation can continue to fall in an already hardened area of the object to be produced, which can result in further hardening of the object beyond the desired degree of hardening or degree of hardening (Obst, Translation Pg 2). Instead, the auxiliary element can change the distribution of the energy radiation in such a way that the desired degree of curing of the region of the object to be produced is maintained or is maintained by adapting the distribution (Obst, Translation Pg 2). The method thus allows several options for influencing the distribution of the energy radiation in the additive production of the three-dimensional object (Obst, Translation Pg 2). Ultimately, the auxiliary element can be used to specifically set which area of the object to be produced receives which proportion of radiation or into which part of the construction volume the energy radiation can reach (solidifying construction material in order to form at least one wall element which delimits at least one internal space, wherein the item is a three-dimensional object formed by selective solidification of a resin-based construction material) (Obst, Translation Pg 2). Thus, the amount of energy that is absorbed by the hardenable building material in the at least one area of the object to be manufactured can be adjusted (solidifying the construction material in the at least one internal space) (Obst, Translation Pg 2).
Obst does not explicitly teach a method wherein [the] construction material comprises at least one additive.
However, in the same field of endeavor, construction materials in additive manufacturing, Wynne teaches a method wherein a first composition 115 held in a vat 110 is a resin base material, wherein fibers may be included in the vat material (a resin-based construction material comprises at least one additive) (¶0024,0070).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Obst by applying the known technique wherein fibers may be included in the vat material (a resin-based construction material comprises at least one additive) disclosed in Wynne to the hardenable building material (a resin-based construction material) disclosed in Obst with predictable results and resulting in an improved method. MPEP 2143(D).
Obst in view of Wynne does not specify a method comprising modifying the distribution [of the at least one additive] by locally increasing the concentration of the [at least one] additive in the liquid construction material in the at least one delimited internal space nor wherein the distribution of the additive in the liquid construction material inside the at least one delimited internal space is modified via of at least one enrichment mechanism.
However, Wynne further teaches a method wherein in embodiments fibers, a system for additive manufacturing can be combined with an electric field system to control the orientation of the fibers during print (¶0070). The generated electric field is used to influence the orientation of fibers 1184, 1185 with respect to the vat, where the fibers include an electrically conductive or magnetic material (¶0070).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Obst in view of Wynne such that modifying the distribution [of the at least one additive] by locally increasing the concentration of the [at least one] additive in the liquid construction material in the at least one delimited internal space wherein the distribution of the additive in the liquid construction material inside the at least one delimited internal space is modified via of at least one enrichment mechanism with an expectation of success in order to control the orientation of the fibers during print (Wynne, ¶0070).
Regarding claim 13, as applied to claim 11, Obst in view of Wynne teaches a method wherein the construction material is solidified in order to form the at least one wall element via radiation (UV radiation; Obst, Translation Pg 2).
Regarding claim 14, as applied to claim 13, Obst in view of Wynne teaches a method wherein the construction material is solidified inside the at least one internal space via radiation differing in at least one radiation parameter from the radiation for forming the wall element (radiation incident on the at least one region of the object is attenuated, in particular shielded, by means of the at least one auxiliary element; any adjustment or adjustment or change in the distribution of the energy radiation in the at least one area of the object to be produced is possible in principle; the energy radiation should be weakened in a targeted manner, for example to prevent an already hardened or hardened area of the object to be produced from being produced too brittle or too hard as a result of excessive energy radiation; Obst, Translation Pg 2).
Regarding claim 15, as applied to claim 14, Obst in view of Wynne teaches a method wherein the construction material solidified as the wall element and the solidified construction material inside the internal space differ in at least one mechanical parameter (the generated electric field is used to influence the orientation of fibers 1184, 1185 with respect to the vat, where the fibers include an electrically conductive or magnetic material; customizing properties such as color, flexural modulus, strength (e.g., tensile strength), and/or stability (e.g., thermal, aging) in specific voxels of the printed part; Wynne, ¶0070-0073).
Regarding claim 16, as applied to claim 11, Obst in view of Wynne teaches a method wherein a shaped element is formed inside the internal space by the modification of the distribution of the additive (the amount of energy that is absorbed by the hardenable building material in the at least one area of the object to be manufactured can be adjusted; Obst, Translation Pg 2; the generated electric field is used to influence the orientation of fibers 1184, 1185 with respect to the vat; Wynne, ¶0070-0073).
Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 16, Obst in view of Wynne does not explicitly teach a method wherein there is a higher electrical conductivity in the region of the shaped element than in the rest of the internal space.
However, Wynne teaches a system for additive manufacturing can be combined with an electric field system to control the orientation of the fibers during print (¶0070). The generated electric field is used to influence the orientation of fibers 1184, 1185 with respect to the vat, where the fibers include an electrically conductive or magnetic material (¶0070). The polarity and intensity of the electric field can also be changed as the electric field apparatus moves across the vat, to create varying properties in the layer of the formed part due to varying orientations of the fibers (¶0071).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Obst in view of Wynne to control the electric field used to influence the orientation of fibers with respect to the vat as disclosed in Wynne with respect to the concentration of additive (fibers) disclosed in Obst in view of Wynne such that there is a higher electrical conductivity in the region of the shaped element than in the rest of the internal space with a reasonable expectation of success in order to varying properties in the layer of the formed part due to varying orientations of the fibers (Wynne, ¶0071).
Regarding claims 18-19, as applied to claim 11, Obst in view of Wynne teaches a method wherein the additive comprises at least one electrically conductive material, including at least particles and/or fibers and wherein the shaped element forms a local stiffening of the internal space (fibers 1184, 1185; Wynne, ¶0070).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Schaffner (US 2022/0184885 A1) teaches that the additive manufacturing composition may optionally comprise one or more further additives to modify properties such as flowability, mechanical properties, storage properties: an electrically or thermally conductive material, a reinforcing fiber, coloring agent, surfactant, preservative stabilizer, plasticizer, lubricant, defoamer, leveling agent (¶0096).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JaMel M Nelson whose telephone number is (571)272-8174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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 on (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.
/JAMEL M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743