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
It is noted that the present application has at least two (2) related foreign filings or publications in other countries. Applicant is reminded of the duty under 37 CFR 1.56(a) to disclose information material to patentability, such as (a) Office Actions and prior art related to the claimed invention which have been cited during prosecution of related filings, (b) prior foreign or domestic filings by Applicant(s) which are related to the claimed or disclosed invention and which constitute prior art, (c) related brochures, dissertations, or other research publications, including that authored by one or more inventors listed under this application or by other individuals under or along which one or more inventors may have been working, and (d) any other relevant prior art Applicant may be aware of, including since the filing of any previous information disclosure statement (IDS).
Election/Restrictions
The election of Group I, claims 1-11, 14-17, 21, 23, and 25, in the reply filed 16 January 2026 is acknowledged. Because supposed errors in the restriction were not distinctly and specifically pointed out, the election has been treated as without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)), thereby leaving claims 27-28 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11, 14-17, 21, 23, and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At line 4 of claim 1, it is believed that terms such as “made of a modeling material” should be added after “layers”, and that “and being made of a modeling material” extending from lines 4-5 should be deleted.
In the 3rd to last line of claim 1, “each layer” should be changed, for example, to “each of said layers”.
This same or similar corresponding change should be made to “each layer” as recited in claim 10, and also to “each slice” in claims 16-17.
In the 2nd to last line of claim 1, “each pillar” should be changed, for example, to “each of said pillars”.
At line 5 of claim 23, a term such as “said” should be added prior to “radiological”.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment is required.
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.
Claims 1-11, 14-17, 21, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In particular:
It is unclear at line 2 of claim 1 to what and from where the recited data is being “received”.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear at line 3 of claim 1 whether “said digital data” necessarily refers back to the data in a state after the line 2 “receiving”, or whether this may be construed as a prior form thereof.
The claim 1 line 4-5 recitation of “and being made of a modeling material” is confusing, in particular since it is unclear, since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, exactly what this recitation is stated in addition to. If this intends to refer back to the dispensed and solidified layers, then a correction to this effect appears under objection (a) above.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear in the 4th to last line of claim 1 whether the recited “building material” pillars necessarily refer back to the “modeling material” recited previously in the claim, or whether this may be construed as distinct therefrom.
The claim 1 recitation, in the final three lines thereof, wherein “for each layer” a cross-section of each pillar at “said layer” forms a shape having a size gradually increasing with a vertical position of “said layer”, is confusing. In particular, since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear exactly which of “each layer” is being referenced by the subsequent recitations of “said layer”, and/or whether the recitations of “said layer” are intended to refer back to each of said layers. If the latter of these interpretations is intended, then in addition to the correction outlined under objection (b) above, this issue might be addressed by deleting each instance of “said layer” (in the 2nd to last and last line of the claim), or this issue could be addressed by some other fully supported amendment.
This same corresponding issue exists also for the recitation of “said layer” in claim 10.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear if or exactly how the claim 10 “concave shapes” correspond to the concave shape first recited in claim 1.
This same corresponding issue exists also for the recitation of “concave shapes” in claim 16.
The claim 11 use of the term “described” is confusing, as it is unclear exactly what performs such describing. If this term is intended, for example, as “characterized”, then a fully supported amendment should be made to this effect.
The claim 16 line 4-5 recitation of “each slice of said portion” lacks antecedent basis, in particular since while “a portion of said slices” is recited previously, no previous recitation is made of the slice portions, themselves being comprised of slices (i.e. slice portion slices).
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear whether the recitation of “said slice” ending claim 16, in addition to the recitation of “each slice” in claim 17, refer back to a respective one of the claim 16 line 2 slices, or back to a respective one of the claim 16 line 4-5 slices of a slice portion.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear in claim 21 exactly what the line 2 “input” is for.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Dekel et al. (WO 2020/003312), or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Dekel, and further in view of Leyden et al. (WO 97/11837).
As to claim 1, Dekel teaches an additive manufacturing method in which digital shape data is utilized for sequentially dispensing and solidifying layers in the manner claimed (1:14-18, 5:7-8, 9:14-26, 13:24-14:26, etc.), wherein a portion of formed layers forms a stack encompassing non-solid substance 240 trapped between a plurality of building material pillars 215 oriented in the manner claimed (figs. 5, 7A-13B), with a cross-section of each pillar 215 forming a closed concave shape (figs. 5-6C, 13A-B) having a size gradually increasing with a vertical position (figs. 5, 6A, 7B-10B). See also 3:8-10, 7:11-12, and the corresponding description of at least the above figures as relevant.
The above interpretation of Dekel construes numeral 215 as coinciding with the claimed pillars, which numeral 215 is described explicitly in Dekel as a top portion 215 of a larger pillar structure 200 which also comprises column 210 which, despite also having a closed concave shape, does not gradually increase in size with a vertical position. In the event that it is ultimately determined that top 215 alone cannot be reasonably construed as the claimed pillar as such due to Dekel’s above-cited greater disclosure, in particular since each layer of Dekel’s pillar 200, as a whole, does not gradually increase in size vertically on account of column 210, then Leyden is recognized for a similar, prior disclosure, whereby such pillars are likewise disclosed, including for example with one or more of a variety of shapes such as that represented in fig. 37 as gradually increasing in size vertically, disclosed as an explicit alternative to a fig. 21a-b configuration closely corresponding to that of Dekel as set forth above. Leyden states explicitly that hybrid configurations such as those of fig. 37 may be tailored based on the most appropriate structure for the object being manufactured (51:29-52:10), and that dimensions, shapes, cross-sections, etc., including cross-like structures (i.e. closed concave shapes) may be selected based on the required height and ease of subsequent post-processing (46:4-12, etc.), in turn providing motivation for one skilled in the art to reach the claimed cross-section via routine optimization, if not already via at least the fig. 37 embodiment (see MPEP § 2144.05(II) regarding routine optimization in this regard). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Leyden into Dekel as providing an art-recognized suitable, interchangeable, and/or improved pillar configuration (i.e. gradually increasing vertically along the entire length thereof as in Leyden’s fig. 37, as opposed to merely at a top portion thereof as in Dekel), and/or to optimize such configuration so as to reach what is claimed, including for example based on the impact thereof on parameters such as the degree of support provided thereby in addition to ease of subsequent post-processing.
Dekel’s above method is believed to also provide the claim 2 rounded corners (see at least the schematic top and bottom fig. 6B-C views showing what may be construed as rounded corners provided by elements 220), the claim 3 lack of non-rounded corners in view also of elements 220, the claim 4 lobes provided again by elements 220, the claim 5-8 interconnection at upper portions of tops 215 with the claim 9 lack thereof at a lower portion of tops 215 (figs 5, 7A-10B, 12, abstract adjoining), the claim 10 array believed to be characterizable in the manner specified by claim 11 (fig. 13A, etc.), and the claim 14-16 specifics regarding data which is believed to include the claim 17 erosion (see at least the above citations, in addition for example to 5:8-14 and fig. 12 steps 540-550 as relevant). In addition/alternative with respect to these dependent claim features, Leyden is again recognized for the above disclosure as pertaining to pillar shape, dimensions, cross-section, etc., with interconnection represented in at least figs. 28a and 37 and also described for example at 50:17-23, and with data modification including erosion disclosed explicitly for example at 28:31-29:39. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Leyden into Dekel, again as providing an art-recognized suitable, interchangeable, and/or improved pillar configuration, shape, interconnection, and/or spacing, and/or to optimize such variables based for example on the impact thereof on parameters such as the degree of support provided thereby, ease of subsequent post-processing, etc. It would further have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the above teachings from Leyden into Dekel as pertaining to data modification, in particular for the same or similar above-cited tailoring and/or improvements associated therewith.
Claims 21, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dekel (optionally in view of Leyden) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Butcher et al. (US 10,084,668).
Neither Dekel nor Leyden is believed to disclose the claim 21, 23, or 25 use of radiodensity and/or radiological data. However, Butcher provides a similar disclosure in which an object is likewise formed via additive manufacturing with use of support structures (abstract, 5:29-31, etc.), whereby radiodensity and radiological data are utilized in the manner claimed, in particular as pertaining to tissue engineering applications (3:54-62, 16:57, 55:22-25, 12:32-67, etc.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Butcher into (modified) Dekel, in particular for improving or increasing industrial applicability of the Dekel disclosure to include tissue engineering applications.
Related Prior Art
See at least the abstract and figures of the additional prior art hereby made of record, which additional prior art is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be relied upon in subsequent rejections against claimed subject matter. Note, for example:
US 11,752,689 discloses fig. 8B, 11 support pillars provided with a cross-section gradually increasing in size in a vertical direction.
EP 3480001 discloses support structures formable from modeling material and providable in a variety of forms such as columns or pillars which may be joined with one another.
US 2002/0171177 discloses [0019] connected pillars for supporting a 3D printed object.
US 5,595,703 discloses various support structure embodiments, including for example that of fig. 15 comprising a gradually increasing vertical taper with trapped openings 19.
The manner in which such prior art might apply to the claimed and/or disclosed invention should be considered prior to a formal response being filed to this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atul P. Khare whose telephone number is (571)270-7608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Christina A. Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/Atul P. Khare/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights