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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 03, 2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 10 is 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.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "optionally but in some embodiments preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(h) (II).
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 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by either of Hughes et al. (US 2023/0158735 A1), or BRENT. JR. et al. (US 2020/0378067 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hughes et al. teaches a method of making a composite product by additive manufacturing [0001], [0052], comprising the steps of
providing an additive manufacturing apparatus (200) having a build platform (210) [0061], the build platform having a planar face on which the product is formed (see FIG. 2);
securing a fabric sheet to said planar face to provide a planar fabric surface (e.g., 1000, 1200, 1300, 1400) thereon (e.g., see [0106], [0137]-[0138], [0143], [0144]);
additively manufacturing an intermediate object (e.g., 1050, 1150, 1250, 1450) on said planar fabric surface in said apparatus by light polymerizing a dual cure resin (see [0044]-[0045], [0050], Table 1) to produce an intermediate object on said build platform [0098], the intermediate object comprising the fabric sheet having the three-dimensional object adhered thereto (see FIGs. 10 – 14); and
concurrently with or following said additively manufacturing step, further curing said intermediate object to produce a composite object (see [0098]-[0099] and [0100]-[0102]) comprised of said fabric sheet having said three-dimensional object adhered thereto (e.g., see FIGs. 10 – 12, 14).
Similarly, Brent, Jr. et al. (US 2020/0378067 A1) teaches a method of making a composite product by additive manufacturing ([0011], [0037], [0058]), comprising the steps of
providing an additive manufacturing apparatus (100, 200) having a build platform the build platform having a planar face on which the product is formed (see [0115] “a build plate adjacent to or in contact with the second surface of the reinforcing member that stops/reflects the radiation once it travels through the reinforcing member”, and [0116] “Reinforcing member 106 movement can be carried out through utilization of a reinforcing member support assembly such as a build plate (not shown)”);
securing a fabric sheet (e.g., “deflection member 2” [0040], and/or “reinforcing member/layer” 106, see [0043]-[0047]) to said planar face to provide a planar fabric surface thereon (e.g., see [0115]-[0118]);
additively manufacturing an intermediate object (e.g., “discrete cured resin elements” 10, see FIG. 1) on said planar fabric surface (2, 106) in said apparatus by light polymerizing a dual cure resin (see [0068]-[0069]) to produce an intermediate object on said build platform (see FIG. 1), the intermediate object comprising the fabric sheet having the three-dimensional object adhered thereto (see FIGs. 1 – 3, 3A-3D); and
concurrently with or following said additively manufacturing step, further curing said intermediate object to produce a composite object (see [0061], [0068], [0115]-0116], [0126]) comprised of said fabric sheet having said three-dimensional object adhered thereto (e.g., see FIGs. 1 – 3, 3A-3D).
Therefore, the claimed invention in anticipated by any of Hughes et al. or Brent, Jr. et al.
Regarding claim 2, Hughes/Brent teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: said dual cure resin comprises a mixture of (i) a light polymerizable liquid first component (e.g., see Hughes et al. TABLE 1 “Sartomer SR399”), and (ii) a second solidifiable component that is different from said first component (e.g., see Hughes et al. TABLE 1 “CPQ-based 3 part photoinitiator”) (see also Hughes et al. TABLE 2, and [0102], as well as Brent [0069]).
Regarding claim 3, Hughes/Brent teaches the method of claim 2, wherein said three-dimensional object comprises an interpenetrating polymer network, semi-interpenetrating polymer network, or sequential interpenetrating polymer network formed from said first component and said second solidifiable component (see Brent [0073] and [0103], and Hughes [0100]-[0102] and [0045]).
Regarding claim 4, Hughes/Brent teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said fabric sheet comprises a knit fabric (e.g., see Brent [0045], [0109], and Hughes [0035]), a woven fabric, a non-woven fabric (see Hughes [0077], and Brent [0044]-[0047]).
Regarding claim 5, Hughes/Brent teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said fabric sheet is comprised of natural fibers, synthetic fibers, or a combination thereof (see Brent [0108]).
Regarding claim 6, Hughes/Brent teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: said fabric sheet is comprised of threads and/or fibers that define voids (e.g., see Brent [0114]-[0120], and FIGs. 1 – 3, 3A-3D);
said dual cure resin penetrates into said voids during said additively manufacturing step (see Brent [0114]-[0120], and FIGs. 1 – 3, 3A-3D); and
said additively manufactured object comprises an interpenetrating portion formed in said voids by said light polymerizing and said further curing of said dual cure resin (see Brent [0069], [0114]-[0120], and FIGs. 1 – 3, 3A-3D).
Regarding claim 7, Hughes/Brent teaches the method of claim 6, wherein said additively manufacturing step is initiated by contacting said fabric sheet to said dual cure resin for a time sufficient for said dual cure resin to penetrate into said voids before initiating said light polymerizing (e.g., see Brent [0114]-[0120], and FIG. 7).
Regarding claim 8, Hughes/Brent teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said additively manufacturing step is carried out by bottom-up stereolithography (see Brent [0037], and FIGs. 7, 8A, 9A, Example 4 [0297]).
Regarding claim 9, Hughes/Brent teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising cleaning said intermediate object after said additively manufacturing step (e.g., see Hughes [0101] “After an article has been formed, it is typically removed from the additive manufacturing apparatus, and at least some composition containing uncured photocurable material is removed from the surface of the article, such as by using mass inertial force or washing, as described above.”, and [0104] “the article may undergo one or more steps of post-processing 930”, and Brent [0005], [0130]).
Regarding claim 10, Hughes/Brent teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said further curing step is carried out after said additively manufacturing step, and optionally after said cleaning step (see Hughes [0101]-[0102]).
Regarding claim 11, Hughes/Brent teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said three-dimensional object comprises a lattice (e.g., see Brent FIGs. 1 – 3, 3A-3D).
Regarding claim 12, Hughes/Brent teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said three-dimensional object comprises a cushion (e.g., Brent [0040] discloses “pillows” [which are analogous to the claimed “cushion”], “The elevated portions may be separated in the machine direction (MD) and/or the cross direction (CD), which is advantageous for creating knuckles and pillows in a fibrous sheet formed therefrom—the knuckles formed against the protuberances and the pillows formed between the protuberances.”).
Regarding claim 13, Hughes/Brent teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said three-dimensional object is flexible or elastic (e.g., see Brent [0045] and Example 1 [0294]).
Regarding claim 14. Hughes/Brent teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said three-dimensional object has a peripheral edge portion contacting said fabric sheet (e.g., see Brent FIG. 12, and Hughes FIGs. 10, 12 and 14), and said method further comprises the step of trimming said fabric sheet to form a composite object comprising said three-dimensional object having a fabric fastening tab connected thereto (e.g., see Hughes [0059] “cut off or pry apart” and FIGs. 10, 12 and 14, and see Brent [0321] and [0115] “radiation 135 is enough to create the entire lock-on layer. The term “lock-on layer” is used to describe the layer of at least partially cured photopolymer resin that surrounds the reinforcing member. Lock-on layer may include the at least partially cured resin that surrounds first surface 120, second surface 122, the sidewall surfaces 42 of any foramina 40 (as detailed in FIG. 5), the side surfaces 30 of any voids 18 of reinforcing member 106 (as detailed in FIGS. 1-4), and or any other surface of the reinforcing member, such as the outer edges of the overall member.”).
Regarding claim 15, Hughes/Brent teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said build platform has a circumferential edge portion surrounding said planar face, and said securing step is carried out by connecting said fabric sheet to said circumferential edge portion (e.g., see Brent [0297] “Using a Form 1+ SLA from Formlabs in a bottom up configuration (laser also beneath the vat), a reinforcing member was affixed to the build platform via black Gorilla tape. The tape was pressed against a PPS-reinforcing member and wrapped around the edges of the build platform.”).
Regarding claim 16, Hughes/Brent teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising the step of: further securing said planar fabric surface to said build platform planar face by initiating said additive manufacturing step with a first slice exposure comprising a plurality of tacking exposures surrounding the intermediate object image slice (e.g., Brent’s Abstract discloses that “A further step may be polymerizing the monomer to form a resinous framework comprising protuberance locked-on to the reinforcing member.”, [0067] “A dead zone may extend wholly or partially through a reinforcing member thereby controlling lock-on.”, see Brent [0119]-[0120] “radiation 135 may be repeated to create at least a portion of the lock-on layer or make-up the entire lock-on layer.” – this repeated radiation forming the “at least a portion of the lock-on layer” is given the broadest reasonable interpretation “BRI” as analogous to the claimed “a plurality of tacking exposures”).
Regarding claim 17, Hughes/Brent teaches a composite object produced by the method of claim 1 (see Hughes FIGs. 10 – 12, 14, and Brent FIGs. 1 – 3, 3A-3D).
Regarding claim 18, Hughes/Brent teaches a product comprising at least one structural portion and a cushioning portion, the cushioning portion comprising a composite object of claim 17 connected to said at least one structural portion by said fabric sheet or fastening tab (see the discussion of claim 12 above).
Regarding claim 19, Hughes/Brent teaches the product of claim 18, wherein said product comprises a wearable, body contact, or protective packaging product (e.g., see Brent [0002]-[0003]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US 2023/0158735 A1), or BRENT. JR. et al. (US 2020/0378067 A1), as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of XU et al. (CN 111216356 A).
Regarding claim 20, Hughes/Brent teaches the product of claim 19, except for explicitly disclosing, wherein said product comprises a glove, hat, helmet, footwear, garment, backpack, headrest, seat, seat cover, saddle, saddle cover, bed, bedcover, automotive or aerospace interior panel, electronic product package, or a fluid container package.
Brent, however, discloses at [0002]-[0003] that the deflection members (the product) is utilized for making soft, strong, textured and/or structured fibrous webs, such as, for example, paper products (e.g., toilet tissue and paper towels) and non-wovens (e.g., diaper top sheets).
XU et al. teaches a manufacturing method for 3D printing and garment of clothing fabric (Abstract, lines 22 – 26, lines 123 – 131), the garment comprising a front sheet, a rear sheet and lateral sheets, the front sheet and the rear sheet are printed 3-4 layer 3 D printing the garment material, the panels at the sewing site prints 3-4 layer 3 D printing the garment material. (XU lines 71 – 100).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the product in the method of Hughes/Brent to comprise e.g., a garment, as suggested by the prior art of XU, since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07:
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NPL “Using SLA to print on a Fabrics” (March 2018).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742