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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 06/17/2026 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panzer et al. (US2023/0150189 of record) hereinafter Panzer in view of DeSimone et al. (US2015/0072293) hereinafter DeSimone.
Regarding claim 1, Panzer teaches:
A method for producing an additively manufactured part, the method comprising:
contacting a cast layer with a build plate (Fig 2a, 4: resin 12a, carrier platform 16a/stage 25; [0021-0022, 0053-0057]), wherein the cast layer is disposed on a first side of a foil sheet and has a surface height spaced vertically above the foil sheet along a first axis and wherein the build plate is vertically spaced above the foil sheet along the first axis (Fig 2a, 4; translatable substrate 15a/film 22);
moving the build plate along the first axis to position a build surface plate at a cure depth below the surface height of the cast layer and to form a segment of a printed part on the build surface (Fig 2a, 4; [0021-0031, 0053-0057]); and
moving the build plate along the first axis to position the segment of the printed part above the cure depth and translating the foil sheet along a second axis (Fig 2a, 4; [0021-0031, 0053-0057]).
Panzer does not explicitly recite cleaning the segment of the printed part within the cast layer. However, applicant specification discloses that cleaning occurs when dragging a printed part within the cast layer. Panzer teaches dragging a printed part within the cast layer (Fig 2a; [0023, 0028]). Since the prior art method teaches the enabling step of the claimed method, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect the prior art method to produce the claimed results.
Panzer does not teach moving the build plate along the first axis to position the segment of the printed part above the cure depth to a height within the cast layer at which further segments of the printed part are unable to be formed.
Panzer teaches a shear induced polymerization zone forming a gradient of polymerization for curing the resin ([0028]). However, Panzer is silent as to the details of said gradient of polymerization. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated look to other gradient of polymerization in the art for details of the gradient of polymerization.
In the same field of endeavor regarding additive manufacturing, DeSimone teaches moving the build plate along the first axis to position the segment of the printed part above the cure depth to a height within the cast layer at which further segments of the printed part are unable to be formed using a zone having a gradient of polymerization for curing the resin to form the object of Fig 1 ([0008-0011]; Fig 1 shows a clearly defined zone having a gradient of polymerization. Since the previously formed layer has portions with no segments formed directly above, polymerization must be prevented above the height of the layer being formed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried the gradient of polymerization for forming specific geometries as taught by DeSimone and there would be a reasonable expectation of success since the prior art teaches using gradients of polymerization to cure resin for forming objects.
Regarding claim 2, Panzer in view of DeSimone teaches the method of claim 1.
Panzer in view of DeSimone further teaches wherein the cleaning the printed part comprises cleaning via a solvent-free process (Panzer does not disclose any solvents; DeSimone teaches using solvents in certain embodiments, but does not require solvent in all cases).
Regarding claim 3, Panzer in view of DeSimone teaches the method of claim 1.
Panzer further teaches repeating the moving the build plate along the first axis to iteratively form two or more segments of the printed part ([0022, 0054-0057]).
Regarding claim 4, Panzer in view of DeSimone teaches the method of claim 3.
Panzer further teaches forming each of the two or more segments of the printed part prior to translating the foil sheet along the second axis to clean each of the two or more segments of the printed part, respectively (Fig 2a, 4; [0021-0031, 0053-0057]; see art rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Panzer in view of DeSimone teaches the method of claim 3.
Panzer further teaches translating the foil sheet along the second axis to clean each of the two or more segments of the printed part after forming each segment of the two or more segments of the printed part (Fig 2a, 4; [0021-0031, 0053-0057]; see art rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Panzer in view of DeSimone teaches the method of claim 5.
Panzer further teaches removing the printed part from the cast layer following cleaning the printed part after forming each segment of the two or more segments (while not explicitly recited, removal from the cast layer is implied for production of further articles).
Regarding claim 7, Panzer in view of DeSimone teaches the method of claim 1.
Panzer further teaches oscillating a height of the build plate to vary the position of the printed part above the cure depth and below the surface height of the cast layer ([0022-0028]).
Regarding claim 9, Panzer in view of DeSimone teaches the method of claim 1.
Panzer does not explicitly recite wherein the surface height of the cast layer is from 1.5 to 3 times greater than a height of the cure depth.
However, Fig 2a of Panzer shows the claimed relationship. While drawings are not to scale, since Panzer is silent as to the relative height of the cast layer and cure depth, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to try the relative heights of the cast layer and cure depth as shown in Fig 2a.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried the relative height of the cast layer and cure depth as taught by Fig 2a of Panzer and there would be a reasonable expectation of success since Panzer teaches a method using a cast layer having a cure depth that is less than the cast layer.
Regarding claim 10, Panzer in view of DeSimone teaches the method of claim 1.
Panzer does not teach wherein translating the foil sheet along the second axis comprises laterally moving the foil sheet at a speed that is greater than or equal to 25 mm/s and less than or equal to 150 mm/s relative to the build plate.
However, Panzer teaches that it is desirable to provide enough velocity to create a velocity induced-dead zone ([0006]).
A skilled artisan would know how to manipulate known process parameters, in this instance the velocity of the foil sheet. It has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the velocity of the foil sheet as taught by Panzer to move the foil sheet at a speed that is greater than or equal to 25 mm/s and less than or equal to 150 mm/s relative to the build plate since it is obvious to manipulate known process parameters.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panzer in view of DeSimone as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Costabeber (US2024/0351283 of record).
Regarding claim 8, Panzer in view of DeSimone teaches the method of claim 1.
Panzer in view of DeSimone does not teach wherein translating the foil sheet along the second axis to clean the segment of the printed part further comprises alternating a direction of translation of the foil sheet such that the foil sheet moves from a first end toward a second end and moves from the second end toward the first end.
In the same field of endeavor regarding additive manufacturing, Costabeber teaches translating a substrate along a horizontal axis comprises alternating a direction of translation of the substrate such that the substrate moves from a first end toward a second end and moves from the second end toward the first end for the motivation of removing the residual material from the film (Fig 3a-b: film F; [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the translating as taught by Panzer in view of DeSimone with the alternating translation as taught by Costabeber in order to remove the residual material from the film.
Claim(s) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costabeber in view of Panzer and DeSimone.
Regarding claim 11, Costabeber teaches:
A method for forming an additively manufactured two-phase material, the method comprising:
contacting a first cast layer and a second cast layer with a build plate (Fig 3a-b: plate 5; [0069-0080]), wherein the first cast layer is disposed on a first side of a foil sheet (Fig 3a-b: film F) and has a first surface height spaced vertically above the foil sheet along a first axis (Fig 3a-b), wherein the second cast layer is disposed on the first side of the foil sheet and has a second surface height spaced vertically above the foil sheet along the first axis (Fig 3a-b), and wherein the build plate is vertically spaced above the foil sheet along the first axis (Fig 3a-b);
moving the build plate along the first axis to position a build surface and forming a first segment of a printed part on the build surface (Fig 3a-b; [0069-0074]);
moving the build plate along the first axis to position the first segment of the printed part and translating the foil sheet along a second axis (Fig 3a-b; [0069-0074]);
moving the build plate along the first axis to position the build surface and forming a second segment of the printed part on the build surface (Fig 3a-b; [0075-0079]); and
moving the build plate along the first axis to position the second segment of the printed part and translating the foil sheet along the second axis (Fig 3a-b; [0075-0079]).
Costabeber does not teach moving the build plate along the first axis to position a build surface at a first cure depth below the first surface height of the first cast layer and forming a first segment of a printed part on the build surface;
moving the build plate along the first axis to position the first segment of the printed part above the first cure depth and translating the foil sheet along a second axis to clean the first segment of the printed part within the first cast layer;
moving the build plate along the first axis to position the build surface at a second cure depth below the second surface height of the second cast layer and forming a second segment of the printed part on the build surface; and
moving the build plate along the first axis to position the second segment of the printed part above the second cure depth and translating the foil sheet along the second axis to clean the second segment of the printed part within the second cast layer.
In the same field of endeavor regarding additive manufacturing, Panzer teaches creating a velocity-induced dead zone by moving a build plate along the first axis to position a build surface plate at a cure depth below the surface height of the cast layer and to form a segment of a printed part on the build surface (Fig 2a, 4; [0021-0031, 0053-0057]); and
moving the build plate along the first axis to position the segment of the printed part above the cure depth and translating the foil sheet along a second axis (Fig 2a, 4; [0021-0031, 0053-0057]) for the motivation of preventing sticking ([0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Costabeber to create an velocity-induced dead zone as taught by Panzer in order to prevent sticking.
Costabeber in view of Panzer does not explicitly recite cleaning the segment of the printed part within the cast layer. However, applicant specification discloses that cleaning occurs when dragging a printed part within the cast layer. Panzer teaches dragging a printed part within the cast layer (Fig 2a; [0023, 0028]). Since the prior art method teaches the enabling step of the claimed method, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect the prior art method to produce the claimed results.
Costabeber in view of Panzer does not teach moving the build plate along the first axis to position the first segment of the printed part above the first cure depth to a first height within the cast layer at which further segments of the printed part are unable to be formed and
moving the build plate along the first axis to position the second segment of the printed part above the second cure depth to a second height within the cast layer at which further segments of the printed part are unable to be formed.
Panzer teaches a shear induced polymerization zone forming a gradient of polymerization for curing the resin ([0028]). However, Panzer is silent as to the details of said gradient of polymerization. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated look to other gradient of polymerization in the art for details of the gradient of polymerization.
In the same field of endeavor regarding additive manufacturing, DeSimone teaches moving the build plate along the first axis to position the segment of the printed part above the cure depth to a height within the cast layer at which further segments of the printed part are unable to be formed using a zone having a gradient of polymerization for curing the resin to form the object of Fig 1 ([0008-0011]; Fig 1 shows a clearly defined zone having a gradient of polymerization. Since the previously formed layer has portions with no segments formed directly above, polymerization must be prevented above the height of the layer being formed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried the gradient of polymerization for forming specific geometries as taught by DeSimone and there would be a reasonable expectation of success since the prior art teaches using gradients of polymerization to cure resin for forming objects.
Regarding claim 12, Costabeber in view of Panzer and DeSimone teaches the method of claim 11.
Costabeber in view of Panzer further teaches wherein the translating the foil sheet along the second axis to clean the printed part includes cleaning via a solvent-free process (Neither Costabeber nor Panzer discloses any solvents; DeSimone teaches using solvents in certain embodiments, but does not require solvent in all cases).
Regarding claim 13, Costabeber in view of Panzer and DeSimone teaches the method of claim 11.
Costabeber further teaches repeating the moving the build plate along the first axis to iteratively form two or more first segments of the printed part and two or more second segments of the printed part ([0080]).
Regarding claim 14, Costabeber in view of Panzer and DeSimone teaches the method of claim 13.
Panzer further teaches forming segments prior to the translating the foil sheet along the second axis to clean the printed part in the cast layer (Fig 2a, 4; [0021-0031, 0053-0057]; see art rejection of claim 1).
Costabeber teaches forming the two or more first segments in the first cast layer prior to the translating the foil sheet along the second axis and forming the two or more first segments in the second cast layer prior to the translating the foil sheet along the second axis (Fig 3a-b; [0070-0079]).
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the prior art teaches forming the two or more first segments of the printed part prior to the translating the foil sheet along the second axis to clean the printed part in the first cast layer and forming the two or more second segments of the printed part prior to the translating the foil sheet along the second axis to clean the printed part in the second cast layer.
Regarding claim 15, Costabeber in view of Panzer and DeSimone teaches the method of claim 13.
Costabeber further teaches removing the printed part from the first cast layer following the translating after forming each first segment and removing the printed part from the second cast layer following the translating the printed part after forming each second segment (Fig 3a-b; [0070-0079]).
Panzer teaches cleaning by translating in the cast layer (see art rejection of claim 1).
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the prior art teaches removing the printed part from the first cast layer following the cleaning the printed part after forming each first segment and removing the printed part from the second cast layer following the cleaning the printed part after forming each second segment.
Regarding claim 16, Costabeber in view of Panzer and DeSimone teaches the method of claim 13.
Costabeber further teaches translating the printed part in the first cast layer after forming each first segment and cleaning the printed part in the second cast layer after forming each second segment (Fig 3a-b; [0070-0079]).
Panzer teaches cleaning by translating in the cast layer (see art rejection of claim 1).
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the prior art teaches cleaning the printed part in the first cast layer after forming each first segment and cleaning the printed part in the second cast layer after forming each second segment.
Regarding claim 17, Costabeber in view of Panzer and DeSimone teaches the method of claim 11.
Costabeber teaches the first and second cast layers.
Panzer further teaches oscillating a height of the build plate to vary the position of the printed part above the cure depth and below the surface height of the cast layer ([0022-0028]).
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the prior art teaches oscillating a height of the build plate to vary a vertical position of the printed part above the first cure depth but below the first surface height of the first cast layer and above the second cure depth but below the second surface height of the second cast layer.
Regarding claim 18, Costabeber in view of Panzer and DeSimone teaches the method of claim 11.
Costabeber further teaches wherein translating the foil sheet along the second axis further comprises alternating a direction of translation of the foil sheet such that the foil sheet moves from a first end toward a second end and moves from the second end toward the first end (Fig 3a-b; [0070-0079]).
Regarding claim 19, Costabeber in view of Panzer and DeSimone teaches the method of claim 11.
Costabeber in view of Panzer and DeSimone does not explicitly recite wherein the first surface height of the first cast layer is from 1.5 to 3 times greater than a height of the first cure depth and the second surface height of the second cast layer is from 1.5 to 3 times greater than a height of the second cure depth.
However, Fig 2a of Panzer shows the claimed relationship between a surface height of the cast layer and a height of the cure depth. While drawings are not to scale, since Costabeber in view of Panzer and DeSimone is silent as to the relative height of the cast layer and cure depth, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to try the relative heights of the cast layer and cure depth as shown in Fig 2a.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried the relative height of the cast layer and cure depth as taught by Fig 2a of Panzer and there would be a reasonable expectation of success since Panzer teaches a method using a cast layer having a cure depth that is less than the cast layer.
Regarding claim 20, Costabeber in view of Panzer and DeSimone teaches the method of claim 11.
Costabeber in view of Panzer and DeSimone does not teach wherein translating the foil sheet along the second axis comprises laterally moving the foil sheet at a speed that is greater than or equal to 25 mm/s and less than or equal to 150 mm/s relative to the build plate.
However, Panzer teaches that it is desirable to provide enough velocity to create a velocity induced-dead zone ([0006]).
A skilled artisan would know how to manipulate known process parameters, in this instance the velocity of the foil sheet. It has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the velocity of the foil sheet as taught by Costabeber in view of Panzer and DeSimone to move the foil sheet at a speed that is greater than or equal to 25 mm/s and less than or equal to 150 mm/s relative to the build plate since it is obvious to manipulate known process parameters.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/17/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
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 ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm EST.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights