1.Claims 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant has support for generically curing to different rates and thicknesses as set forth in instant claims 8 and 9. However, there does not appear to be any support for the precise language of instant claims 31-33. Applicant needs to point out exactly where in the specification as originally filed where support exists for these claims or cancel them.
2.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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PCT Publication WO 98/06560 for reasons of record as set forth in the previous action.
3.Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PCT Publication WO 98/06560 in view of Van Esbroeck et al 2015/0137476 for reasons of record as set forth in the previous action.
4.Claim(s) 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PCT Publication WO 98/06560 in view of Van Esbroeck et al 2015/0137476 and further in view of Smoot et al 2016/0107380 (see paragraphs 0010-0012, 0028, 0031, 0035).
PCT -560 and Van Esbroeck et al are applied for reasons of record, the references essentially failing to teach the use of light sources that emit multiple wavelengths that would be projected through different filters to cause either different curing depths in a single exposure (claim 31) or be matched to a photoinitiator to enable polymerization across multiple depths (claim 32) or a light source that emits two or more wavelengths that activate two or more photoinitiators to result in a polymerization at different depths in a single exposure (claim 33). First of all, it is submitted that these recitations constitute new matter since there is no direct disclosure of such devices. However, Smoot et al discloses a 3D printer that forms an object in a single exposure and thereby circumvents the traditional layer-by-layer approach—see paragraph 0010. Clearly, the formation of the object by curing at different depths in a single exposure cycle is taught in Smoot et al using a wavelength of light that would be absorbed by photoinitiators within the polymerizable material contained in a vat—see paragraph 0028 and Figures 3 and 4. It would have been obvious to employ different filters to provide a desired wavelength of light dependent on the exact photoinitiators used in the resin in Smoot et al. It is further submitted that such a structure would have been an obvious modification to the device of PCT -560 dependent on the exact method of polymerizing desired. Clearly, 3D printing using layer-by-layer methods as in PCT -560 and volumetric curing as taught in Smoot et al are each known in the art and one of ordinary skill would have been able to employ the known printing components—ie, including light sources and filters—in either mode of operation. It is noted that applicant is claiming a printer, not a method of printing.
5.Applicant's arguments filed August 27, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s comments concerning the operation of PCT -560 and Van Esbroeck et al are noted but are not persuasive. The instant claims—excepting the newly added claims 31-33—are directed to a general/generic 3D printer or light apparatus for 3D printing. The structure contained in these claims can be used for any mode of 3D printing, be it layer-by-layer or volumetric printing. Hence, applicant’s comments directed to PCT -560 and Van Esbroeck et al concerning these issues are simply not in point. The newly added claims 31-33 recite structure and function that would limit the apparatus to volumetric printing. However, as shown in Smoots et al, such volumetric printing is known in the art. At this point in the prosecution, it is respectfully submitted that the instant claims are obvious over the applied art. Certainly, the use of filters to selectively irradiate an area—and modify the irradiation—are known in the art and one of ordinary skill in this art would know how to employ them in a volumetric 3D printing.
6.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHIEU D VARGOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1211. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 9 to 6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christina A Johnson, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/MATHIEU D VARGOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742