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 Group I (claims 16-31) in the reply filed on 12/10/2025 is acknowledged.
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 17, 18, 20, 24, and 26 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 17 recites “previously formed support” in line 2. Claim 16 already recites having a “support” (see line 3). It is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether applicant intend to refer to (i) earlier said support, or additional support. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner considers that Applicant is referring to previously said support. Claim 18 also uses the term “a previously formed support comprising a previously printed support” and applicant is urged to clarify this also in the next action.
Claim 20 recites “forming a support” in line 3. Claim fails to clarify whether such support is earlier said support or a new support, as claim 16 already recites having “a support”.
Claim 24 recites “extra-polymerization” in line 3. Claim as written is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether “extra-polymerization” as claim is intended for applying (i) additional energy, or (ii) additional time, or specific type of chain of material. Applicant is urged to clarify this in the next action. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner considers that applicant possibly intend to claim additional energy or curing chain provided target.
Claim 26 recites “wherein the object is an orthodontic device or comprise the same” and it is unclear whether structures are defined by term “comprises the same”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 16-18, 20-21, 25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johannes (WO 01/40866 A2; herein after “Johannes”) in view of John (US 2020/0282640 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Johannes teaches a bottom-up type photo-curing 3D printing process (see abstract; Figs. 1 -13d item -7 as photopolymer plastic; page 1 – 11), comprising the following steps: forming an object to be printed on a support (8) (see Figs. 1-11, specifically, Figs. 13c, 13d, and 10c), on which support there is the imprint of at least a portion of the object to be printed (see specifically Fig. 13c showing lower surface of 8), by the photo-curing of a photopolymer material (page 5 lines 19 and onward), however, fails to teach detaching the obtained object from said support.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing, pertaining to bottom-up or top-down stereo-lithography very similar to Johannes, and applicant’s instant claim, John discloses bottom-up stereolithographic method in which the occlusal plate is coupled to a vertically moveable building platform such that the teeth are suspended therefrom with their basal end faces facing downwards (see [0008]; Figs. 5A – 8F, item 20 building platform 20, 34-support structures, 36-first building part-occlusal layer structure of the prosthetic tooth; [0076]); detaching (removing) the object (prosthetic tooth) from the support structures ([0089]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the applicant’s invention to combine above with having removable support structures as suggested by John, for the benefit of holding complex geometry, thereby preventing sagging, warping or even detaching during the additive manufacturing process, thereby to ensure structural integrity, stability, and high accuracy particularly for irregular shapes.
As for claim 17 – 18 and 20 – 21, Johannes further suggests that layers (10b-10d) (Figs. 13b-13d) can be interpreted as previously formed support and the component (8) as the extraction plate.
Similarly, John further teach applying on an extraction plate a previously formed/printed support (see [0075] discloses printing support structures 34 on the building platform 20, before forming the object); comprising the following preliminary steps: forming a support on an extraction plate, by the photo-curing of successive layers of a photopolymer material; and completing the curing of the photopolymer material of said support ([0075] discloses use of similar materials for support which includes photopolymer). It is noted since John teaches using photopolymer for forming the support which has strength to support the forming material, thus wherein said step of completing the curing of the photopolymer material of said support comprises closing the polymerization chains in a percentage higher than 95% in order to structurally support the formed object (see [0075]).
As for claim 25 and 28, Johannes fails to explicitly teach wherein the photopolymer material of the object is the same as the photopolymer material of said support. In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing, John teaches support structures (34) are typically build of same first material A that is also used for the first building part (36) (see [0075]-[0076]), and wherein the object is an orthodontic device (see [0008]; Figs. 5A – 8F, item 20 building platform 20, 34-support structures, 36-first building part-occlusal layer structure of the prosthetic tooth; [0076]).
Claim(s) 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johannes (WO 01/40866 A2; herein after “Johannes”) in view of John (US 2020/0282640 A1) in further view of Friedrich et al. (US 2020/0324479 A1).
As for claims 19 and 22, John further provides suggestion for wherein said step of completing the curing of the photopolymer material of said support comprises the following sub- steps: washing and subsequent drying of the support (see [0034] discloses lifting up the entire structure with the platform, optional cleaning, and [0081] discloses using cleaning bath and dried by air blowing using the blower 2), and provides suggestion for further process processing which can include claim subject matter ([0089]), however, fails to specifically teach post-curing of the support by exposing its entire surface to ultraviolet radiation and/or by heating.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing, Friedrich et al. teach additionally residual light hardenable resin is often post-cured to provide the object with a solid surface. According to another approach the object is cleaned mechanically or with aid of chemical solutions and optionally post-cured after (see 0003], [0023]-[0024]; Fig 1 item 6 support structures and item 4 printed part); in a further embodiment, Friedrich et al. teach the washing device is integrated in a production line that comprises at least one of a support removal device, a post curing device (that includes heating device) and a surface finishing device ([0023]; [0043]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the post-treatment process as taught by Johannes and John with further post-curing by heating, as suggested by Friedrich et al., for the benefit of efficiently forming a 3D object.
Claim(s) 23 - 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johannes (WO 01/40866 A2; herein after “Johannes”) in view of John (US 2020/0282640 A1) in further view of Arndt et al. (US 10,793,745 B2).
As for claim 23 -24, Johannes teach all the limitations to the claim invention as discussed above, however, fails to explicitly teach wherein said step of forming the object to be printed on said support includes two sub-steps: forming a first portion of the object to be printed by polymerization of the photopolymer material of the object within the imprint present on said support; forming the remaining portion of the object to be printed by the photo-curing of successive layers of said photopolymer material of the object, starting from said first portion; wherein said step of forming the object) to be printed on said support) includes two sub-steps: forming a first portion of the object) to be printed by extra-polymerization of the photopolymer material of the object within the imprint present on said support; forming the remaining portion of the object to be printed by the photo-curing of successive layers of said photopolymer material of the object, starting from said first portion.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing, Arndt et al. teach 3D printing including dual-cure resins that comprise a photo-curable component, configured to cure when subjected to an effective amount of actinic radiation, and a secondary component, which may comprise a first secondary precursor specific that cures upon heat, catalyst, or some other mechanism (see col 1 lines 60 to co 2 lines 60). The step of forming the article includes two step curing as claimed which would include extra-polymerization (see col 1 lines 60 to col 6 lines 65). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention to further combine above with application of dual-cure step such as using polymerization and photocuring, as suggested by Arndt et al. for the benefit of achieving high strength/quality product (see col 1 lines 35-50).
Claim(s) 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johannes (WO 01/40866 A2; herein after “Johannes”) in view of John (US 2020/0282640 A1) in further view of Demuth et al. (US 2018/0370121 A1).
Regarding claim 26-27, Johannes fails to explicitly teach wherein the photopolymer material of the object different from the support material
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing, John teaches support structures (34) are typically build of same first material A that is also used for the first building part (36) (see [0075]-[0076]), however, suggests using different materials for components (36,37,38) (see claims; [0004]), therefore, using different support material would have been obvious. Also, Demuth et al. teach the support material may also include one or more additives that include a rheology modifying additive, an impact modifier, an elastomer and the like. The polymeric matrix includes a thermoplastic polymer or copolymer derived from polymerization of monomers of vinyl pyrrolidone (see [0059]).
It would have been obvious to modify the 3D printing process as taught above with further using different material (elastomeric) for support, as suggested by Demuth et al., for the benefit of being able to support and withstand forces exerted on the support material and easy removal of the object at the same time (see [0059]).
Claim(s) 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johannes (WO 01/40866 A2; herein after “Johannes”) in view of John (US 2020/0282640 A1) in view of El-Siblani et al. (US 2012/0195994 A1; herein after “El-Siblani”).
Regarding claim 29-30, Johannes and John teach all the limitations to the claim invention as discussed above, however, fail to teach wherein forming a first portion of the object to be printed by polymerization of the photopolymer material of the object within the imprint present on said support comprises curing the photopolymer material with a curing depth of more than 150 micron; wherein the radiation data used for printing the first layer of the object, which radiation data is indicative of areas to be cured for creating the first layer of the object corresponds to areas which are not to be cured in the radiation data used for printing the support.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing, El-Siblani teach the depth of cure can be a function of at least the exposure time, the intensity of the electromagnetic radiation, and the properties of the solidifiable material (see [0079]); solidifiable material assembly is positioned with rigid or semi-rigid transparent solidification substrate in solidification region, thereby allowing projected energy pattern to contact and solidify solidifiable material. Object 28 (which comprises a removable support region at this point) is wholly or partially immersed in solidifiable material so that its lower exposed surface is spaced apart from rigid or semi-rigid transparent solidification substrate by the maximum curing depth in the x, y plane. In voxel-based systems, this depth will be the maximum voxel depth. This spacing ensures that the lower exposed solidified surface will contact the next solidified region and maintain the integrity of object 28 (Fig 4; [0102]). Thus, El-Siblani et al. provides motivation for accounting for support material when it comes to curing depth of a layer on top of it, and other material factors including material properties and intensity, therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s effective filing of the invention was made to modify above with further having specific curing depth and radiation data, as suggested by El-Siblani, for the benefit of effectively hardening the layer object, thereby providing desired quality in the object (see [0079]-[0080]).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johannes (WO 01/40866 A2; herein after “Johannes”) in view of John (US 2020/0282640 A1) in further view of Farnworth et al. (US 2005/0278056 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Johannes and John teach all the limitations to the claim invention as discussed above, however, fail to teach wherein the support is formed with at least one undercut section.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing, Farnworth et al. teach conventionally, 3-D printing systems, have been used to fabricate freestanding structures. Such structures have been formed directly on a platen or other support system of the 3-D printing system. Complicated geometries having overhangs and undercuts may be formed by employing a support material, which the structure is formed on, followed by removing the support material by dissolving the support material in water. As the freestanding structures are fabricated directly on the support system and have no physical relationship to other structures at the time they are formed, there is typically no need to precisely and accurately position features of the fabricated structure (see [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention was made to modify Johanne with having undercut section on the support, as suggested by Farnworth et al., for forming complex structure via 3D printing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2025/0178129 A1 - the internal support structure 704a may include an exposed region that extends outside of the footprint of the object 702, and/or the object 702 can include an undercut to allow access to the support structure 704a (e.g., similar to the undercut 690 in FIG. 6H).
US 20250143844 A1 - the registration element 108 can be coupled to a retention support (not shown) that engages another portion of the received tooth 104 (e.g., the lingual surface when the auxiliary is to be placed on the buccal side, the buccal surface when the auxiliary is to be placed on the lingual side, an interproximal region, and/or an undercut region) to produce a force that biases or maintains the auxiliary support 110 toward/against the tooth 104 to stabilize the positioner 102 and/or to facilitate positioning of the auxiliary 106 against the surface of the tooth 104.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 PM).
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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743