DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 05/11/2026, claims 1-21 are pending. Claims 1-9, 12, and 17-20 are withdrawn based on the restriction requirement. Claim 21 is newly added. Claim 10 is currently amended. Claims 10-11, 13-16, and 21 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Previous 35 USC 102 rejections are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment. However, new 102/103 rejections have been established.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 10. 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2020/126154 (“Hahn et al” hereinafter Hahn), machine translation provided in Office Action dated 02/20/2026.
Regarding Claim 21, Hahn teaches a method for producing a three-dimensional structure ([0004]), wherein the method comprises the following steps:
providing a photoresist composition comprising a polymerizable monomer and a photoinitiator ([0011], a liquid photoresist comprising at least one monomer and at least one photoinitiator system),
wherein the photoinitiator has at least the following electronic quantum mechanical energy states:(i) a ground state,(ii) a substantially optically excitable first intermediate state, and(iii) an optically excitable polymerization-inducing state ([0042]; furthermore, all photoinitiator inherently have above-mentioned electronic quantum mechanical energy state),
wherein the first intermediate state is energetically located above the ground state and below the polymerization-inducing state and has a lifetime of about 100ps to 10s ([0036]), and
wherein the polymerization-inducing state is optically excitable from the first intermediate state by a single-photon excitation of a predetermined wavelength ([0033], [0076], and [0086]); and
exciting the polymerization-inducing state of the photoinitiator by at least two sequential single-photon excitations ([0088], present invention excitation can be achieved by means of stepwise single photon absorption) of substantially the same predetermined wavelength to cause polymerization ([0017], the liquid photoresist, represented as a grey striped area, is irradiated with a first light source at a first wavelength Ai and with a second light source at a second wavelength hz. [0024], the wavelength of the first light source and the second light source is in a range between 190 nm and 900 nm) in at least a partial volume of the photoresist composition by irradiating the at least partial volume by means of at least one continuous-wave light source emitting radiation of a single wavelength ([0025] and Figure 3, continuous wave laser 3 for emitting first wavelength Ai [0017]).
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) 10-11, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO2020/126154 (“Hahn et al” hereinafter Hahn), machine translation provided in Office Action dated 02/20/2026.
Regarding Claim 10, Hahn teaches a method for producing a three-dimensional structure ([0004]), wherein the method comprises the following steps:
providing a photoresist composition comprising a polymerizable monomer and a photoinitiator ([0011], a liquid photoresist comprising at least one monomer and at least one photoinitiator system),
wherein the photoinitiator has at least the following electronic quantum mechanical energy states:(i) a ground state,(ii) a substantially optically excitable first intermediate state, and(iii) an optically excitable polymerization-inducing state ([0042]; furthermore, all photoinitiator inherently have above-mentioned electronic quantum mechanical energy state),
wherein the first intermediate state is energetically located above the ground state and below the polymerization-inducing state and has a lifetime of about 100ps to 10s ([0036]), and
wherein the polymerization-inducing state is optically excitable from the first intermediate state by a single-photon excitation of a predetermined wavelength ([0033], [0076], and [0086]); and
exciting the polymerization-inducing state of the photoinitiator by at least two sequential single-photon excitations ([0088], present invention excitation can be achieved by means of stepwise single photon absorption) of substantially the same predetermined wavelength to cause polymerization ([0017], the liquid photoresist, represented as a grey striped area, is irradiated with a first light source at a first wavelength Ai and with a second light source at a second wavelength hz. [0024], the wavelength of the first light source and the second light source is in a range between 190 nm and 900 nm) in at least a partial volume of the photoresist composition by irradiating the at least partial volume by means of a single continuous-wave light sources ([0025] and Figure 3, continuous wave laser 3).
Alternatively, Hahn discloses the claimed invention except for a single continuous-wave light source. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to modified the continuous wave laser as a one-piece component, since it has been held that making in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in multiple pieces involves only routine skill in the art. The use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(B).
Regarding Claim 11, Hahn teaches the method according to claim 10, wherein the method further comprises:
removing an unpolymerized and/or incompletely polymerized remaining volume of the photoresist composition (Hahn, [0078], a washing step is carried out in which uncured parts of the photoresist are removed),
wherein the polymerized at least partial volume of the photoresist composition corresponds to the three-dimensional structure ([0013] and [0016], materials are cured to polymerized to build corresponding three-dimensional structure).
Regarding Claim 14, Hahn teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the content of the photoinitiator is 0.1% to 10% by weight based on the photoresist composition (Hahn, [0030], preferably 1 wt.% to 5 wt.%, of the at least one photoinitiator system).
Regarding Claim 16, Hahn teaches the method according to claim 10, wherein the photoinitiator is selected from the group consisting of alpha-diketones ([0044], the photoinitiator system comprises at least one component of a group consisting of an α-diketone), beta-diketones, gamma-diketones, spiropyrans, merocyanines, carbazoles, thiophenes, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, triketones, photoenoles, (di-)acylgermanes, bis(germyl)ketones, and thioxanthones.
Claim(s) 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020/126154 (“Hahn et al” hereinafter Hahn), machine translation provided in Office Action dated 02/20/2026, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US2020/0317870 (“Liang et al” hereinafter Liang).
Regarding Claim 13, Hahn teaches the method according to claim 10, but fails to teach wherein the photoresist composition further comprises a polymerization inhibitor.
However, Liang teaches the photoresist composition further comprises a polymerization inhibitor ([0051], the mixture includes monomer, polymerization initiator, and a polymerization inhibitor).
Hahn and Liang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of manufacturing a 3D structure using lithography to polymerize the materials. 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 discloses by Hahn such that the photoresist composition further comprises a polymerization inhibitor as taught by Liang to stop the photopolymerization of the mixture ([0073]) and forming porosity within the 3D structure ([0081]).
Regarding Claim 15, the modified Hahn teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the polymerization inhibitor is selected from the group consisting of 2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4- piperidyl-1-oxyl (TEMPO) and derivatives thereof, bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidyl-1-oxyl) sebacate (BTPOS) and derivatives thereof, other hindered amine light stabilizers (HALS), 1,4-diazabicyclo[2.2.2]octane (DABCO), n-propyl gallate (NPG), p- phenylenediamine (PPD), cyclodextrines, phenothiazines (Liang, [0069], polymerization inhibitor might be phenothiazine), hydroxylamines, quinones, mequinol, 4-tert-butylcatechol (TBC), butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), nitrobenzenes, phenol, p-nitrophenol, stilbenes, galvinoxyl, and azulene.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are
moot because they pertain to new limitations and have been rejected as stated above.
The Applicant argues Hahn teaches away from the subject matter of claim 10 since it relies upon multiple light sources.
The Examiner respectfully disagreed. Firstly, claim 10 uses the transitional phrase “comprising” which is inclusive or opened ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps (See MPEP 2111.03(I)). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification into the claim. In this case, claim 10 does not discloses limit the claimed subject matter to only have one light source. Thus, Hahn does not teach away from the claimed subject matter and still anticipated the limitations of claim 10.
The Applicant argues there would be no reason to combine Hahn with Liang since Liang solves a completely different technical problem.
The Examiner respectfully disagreed. Hahn and Liang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of manufacturing a 3D structure using lithography to polymerize the materials and the combination is proper. The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (MPEP 2144. IV).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights