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 with traverse of Group I, claims 52-53 and 55-68 in the reply filed on April 7, 2026 is acknowledged. No arguments were presented.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of its length and language. The abstract must be as concise as the disclosure permits, preferably not exceeding 150 words in length. The current abstract is 220 words. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “said,” should be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because the specification is replete with spelling and grammatical errors. Examples include:
Page 18: “Non limiting examples of fluids which may be used in accordance with the invention include acetone, THF, methanol, ethanol, DMSO, glycols, toluene, benzene, water, basic aqueous solutions with a pH=8-14, or acidic aqueous solitons with a pH=1-6.”
Page 28: “In some embodiments, a resin used according to the invention may further comprise at least one filler. The filler is typically a material that is not reactive to radiation or ionic initiation and which is thus naïve or insert under the processing conditions. In some configurations, the filler may be selected based on the purpose it is intended to fulfill in the final object and may thus necessitate, in some cases, further post-treatment processing, such as thermal treatments.” Inert?
Page 30: “In some embodiments, the is unreactive under the processing conditions, e.g., unreactive to the initiators.” It is unclear what is unreactive.
Page 39: “. . . was added slowly, portion-wise to the monomer mixture using a high shear mixer (Silverson L5 Series, Silverson Ltd). After the mixing was completed 3 g of (sulfanediyldibenzene-4,1-diyl)bis(diphenylsulfonium)bis-(hexaflucr. antimonate) (SpeedCure 976S, Lambson Ltd.), 300 mg of 1-chloro-4-propoxythioxanthone (SpeedCure CPTX, Lambson Ltd.) and 500 mg of phenylbis(2,4,6 trimethylbenzoyl)phosphine oxide (SpeedCure BPO, Lambson Ltd.) were added and dissolved at 60°C under occasional steering.”
Page 41: “70 g of urethane diemthacrylate (UDMA, Visiomer HEMATMDI, Evonik AG) and 30 g of Triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (Bisomer TEGDMA, Geo Speciality Chemicals Inc.) were combined in a dark container with 500 mg of phenylbis(2,4,6 trimethylbenzoyl)phosphineoxide (SpeedCure BPO, Lambson Ltd.) and stirred for30 minutes at 50°C until the visible dissolution of all solids.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 53 is objected to because of the phrase “two or more or a plurality” is redundant.
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 52-53 and 55-68 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 52 recites the limitation "the fluid not present in the resin." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 55 recites the limitation "the multi-wavelength device." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 56 recites “the light-sensitive material” (singular). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 62 recites “the polymerizable material” (singular). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 65 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 52-53, 55, 59 and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Holt (US 2020/0282638).
Claim 52: Holt discloses a process for forming a 3D object having a plurality of material regions (abstract), one or more of the plurality of material regions is soluble in a fluid not capable of solubilizing another of the plurality of material regions (¶ 8). The process includes irradiating with a multi-wavelength light source or a plurality of light sources for generating radiation of different wavelengths (¶¶ 13-14, 20, 22, 118), a resin including two or more different types of polymerizable materials and two or more different types of light-sensitive materials (¶¶ 17-19, 29-32, 91, 94), at least two of the two or more light-sensitive materials are selected from radical and ionic initiators (¶¶ 19, 24, 27, 91), wherein each of the two or more different types of polymerizable materials is polymerized into a different polymeric material by a different initiator of the at least two initiators in response to irradiation by light generated from the light source and being of a predetermined wavelength (¶¶ 15-19, 24-25, 30-32, 118), wherein one or more of the two or more different types of polymerizable materials is polymerized into one or more soluble polymeric materials that are each fully or partially soluble in the fluid not present in the resin and in which each of the other polymeric materials are insoluble thereby forming the object (¶¶ 7-8, 14, 25-26, 81, 119-120).
Claim 53: Holt discloses irradiating with a multi-wavelength light source or a plurality of light sources for generating radiation of different wavelengths (¶¶ 13-14, 20, 22, 118), a resin including two or more different types of polymerizable materials and two or more different types of light-sensitive materials (¶¶ 17-19, 29-32, 91, 94), at least two of the two or more light-sensitive materials are selected from radical and ionic initiators (¶¶ 19, 24, 27, 91), wherein each of the two or more different types of polymerizable materials is polymerized into a different polymeric material, wherein one or more of the plurality of different types of polymerizable materials is polymerized into one or more soluble materials that are each fully soluble in the fluid not present in the resin and in which each of the other polymeric materials are insoluble, thereby forming the object (¶ 8).
Claim 55: Holt discloses DLPs (¶¶ 5-6, 77).
Claim 59: Holt discloses the resin include a polymerizable material and at least one light-sensitive material that is not polymerizable (¶¶ 69, 110-112, 120-122).
Claim 62: Holt discloses the polymerizable material includes monomers capable of undergoing radical photopolymerization (¶ 27).
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.
Claims 56-48, 60-61 and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (US 2020/0282638), as applied to claim 52 above, in view of Boydston (US 2020/0171740).
Claims 56-58, 60 and 68: Holt is silent as to a material capable of changing color upon irradiation. However, Boydston, in the same field of multi-wavelength vat photopolymerization, discloses a process for forming a 3D object having a plurality of material regions soluble in a fluid not capable of solubilizing another of the regions (abstract). The process includes irradiating with a multi-wavelength light source or a plurality of light sources for generating radiation of different wavelengths (¶ 30), a resin including two or more different types of polymerizable materials and two or more different types of light-sensitive materials (¶¶ 7, 29, 91), at least two of the light-sensitive materials are radical or ionic initiators (¶¶ 67, 91, 111-115), and a light-sensitive composition including Irgacure 819 as an initiator together with spiropyran that converts upon UV irradiation from the colorless closed form to the colored merocyanine form and reverts under ambient light, and nile red and methylene blue (¶¶ 64, 68, 94). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have included in the resin of Holt a light-sensitive material including an initiator together with a material that changes color upon irradiation in order to provide visual indication of cure and which regions were exposed to the UV/blue channel.
Claim 61: Boydston discloses the fluid being methanol (¶¶ 123-124).
Claims 63-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (US 2020/0282638), as applied to claim 52 above, in view of Bartolo (P.J. Bartolo, J. Gaspar, “Metal filled resin for stereolithography metal part,” CIRP Annals, Volume 57, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 235-238).
Claim 63: Holt is silent as to the limitations of claim 63. However, Bartolo teaches the conventional practice for loading a cationically photocured epoxy binder with metal powder including tungsten carbide and cobalt to fabricate a shaped polymer-metal composite by stereolithography, with the polymeric binder subsequently removed prior to sintering (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have included Holt’s ceramic, sand, or metal filler in the resin such that the cationically polymerized epoxy/oxetane regions of the object of Holt are provided as a polymer-filler composite material not soluble in water, in order to alter the thermal or mechanical properties of those regions and to fabricate filled or cermic/metal green regions as evidenced by Bartolo.
Claim 64: Holt discloses ceramic filler, sand and metal (¶ 29).
Claim 65: Holt discloses manufacturing an object including a polymer-filler composite (¶ 29).
Claims 66-67: Bartolo discloses the composite is decomposable in the fluid (p. 235).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY THROWER whose telephone number is (571)270-5517. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm MT M-F.
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.
/LARRY W THROWER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights