Detailed Office Action
Applicant’s amendments and arguments dated 5/26/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claim 1 is amended. Claim 3 is cancelled. New claim 21 is added. Claims 1-2 and 4-21 remain pending.
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 amendments and arguments
Applicant’s arguments that the amendment to claim 1 (previous claim 3, now cancelled) is not in conflict with claim 4 is not persuasive. Claim 1 positively recites that a single scan (and no more) is performed. Single scan cannot be interpreted as “one or more” scan. Claim 4 recites that plurality of scans (more than one) are performed. The Examiner submits that claim 4 is broadening the limitation of claim 1 and therefore has rejected this claim under 35 USC 112(d) as outlined below.
Applicant arguments that the double patenting rejection is overcome is persuasive. The Examiner withdraws this rejection. Claim 1 of US 12,070,897 positively recites that plurality of scans are performed. It cannot be modified to read on the limitation of “single scan” of instant claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments that the heaters of KALYANARAMAN are not capable of scanning, is not persuasive. Applicant refers to heaters 52 and 136 of KALYANARAMAN {[FIGs. 1&2]} to show that KALYANARAMAN does not disclose scanning. The Examiner notes that these heaters only refer to one embodiment of KALYANARAMAN as related to injection of hot gas or convention heating {[0043]}, since the heater can be placed on the side of the material bed layers 40. KALYANARAMAN also discloses laser heating and IR heating {[0043]}. These radiation types of heating need to face the bed of material to irradiate the surface and cannot be located where heaters 52 and 136 are. Therefore, IR and laser heaters of KALYANARAMAN is capable of being scanning heaters.
Applicant’s argument regarding “single scan” is persuasive. The previous rejection is withdrawn. A new rejection is made in this office action. As the result, this office action is a second non-final.
Applicant’s arguments regarding rejections of claims 6 and 9 as related to Examiner’s result-effective rationale, are not persuasive. Nowhere, in MPEP 2144.04(II)(B), it is stated that the prior art that provides the basis for result-effective rationale, also should teach the range of the parameters. Had the prior art presented the range, it would have been used to reject the claim and the Examiner did not need to present the result-effective rationale. Furthermore, the cited prior arts teach optimization of voltage pulses. It is well known that the parameters involved in voltage pulse are pulse width and pulse frequency. Therefore, optimization of voltage pulse, inherently indicates optimization of these parameters. The Examiner maintains the rejections of claims 6 and 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4 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, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 recites “plurality of scans”. The Examiner submits that plurality of scans does not further limit claim 1 “single scan” limitation; on the contrary, it perhaps broadens it. 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 § 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.
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 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KALYANARAMAN (WO-2016/193934-A1 of record), hereinafter KALYANARAMAN, in view of GOUZMAN (WO-2018011674-A1 of record), hereinafter GOUZMAN, and NGUYEN (US-2020/0062952), hereinafter NGUYEN. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claim 1, KALYANARAMAN discloses A method of additive manufacturing of a three- dimensional object {[abstract], [0001]}, the method comprising:
dispensing from a first array of nozzles a liquid modeling material formulation containing a polyimide precursor to form a layer in a configured pattern corresponding to a shape of a slice of the object {[abstract], [FIG. 2] 108/110 are the first array of nozzles, 120/122 are the modeling material formulation that are liquid droplets, note layers 146/148, [0001] note CAD modeling or slice of the object};
applying to said layer at least infrared radiation {[0043] note heating by infrared that is applying infrared to the printed layer};
and repeating said dispensing and said application of radiation to form a plurality of layers in configured patterns corresponding to shapes of other slices of the object {[FIG. 2] note repeating the layers 146/148}.
KALYANARAMAN, however, is silent on the polyimide precursor being bismaleimide and liquid modeling material being devoid of a bis-allyl-nadi-imide compound.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to polyimide resin for inkjet printing, GOUZMAN discloses wherein said polyimide precursor is bismaleimide and said liquid modeling material formulation is devoid of a bis-allyl-nadi-imide compound {[abstract] note that the formulation of GOUZMAN is devoid of a bis-allyl-nadi-imide compound}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the polyimide precursor of KALYANARAMAN with the known bismaleimide of GOUZMAN.
Note that it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable result are achieved {see MPEP 2143 (I)(B)}.
Since GOUZMAN discloses that its precursor is sutiable for inkjet printing and is also in the same class of precursors {[abstract] polyimide for inkjet printing}, one of ordinary skill in the art expects predictable and successful results by such substitution.
Combination of KALYANARAMAN and GOUZMAN, however, is silent on the last limitation of claim 1 reciting “wherein for at least one layer, said applying said infrared radiation is by performing a single scan of said infrared radiation over said layer”.
KALYANARAMAN discloses heating by IR heater or laser heater (IR lasers are known) {[0043] also note the argument section above}. KALYANARAMAN also discloses that heating can be done after one layer is printed {[0044] note step 156 can be performed after precursor droplets have been printed}. KALYANARAMAN, however, is silent on how IR laser heating is performed (or on the scanning method) and further on a single scan after the layer has been printed or formed.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to 3D printing using thermosetting polymer, NGUYEN discloses wherein for at least one layer, said applying said infrared radiation is by performing a single scan of said infrared radiation over said layer {[0062]-[0064] note the preference of one scan}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teaching of NGUYEN in the combination method of KALYANARAMAN and GOUZMAN and have used a single scan of the IR laser heater after the layer has been printed.
As discussed above, KALYANARAMAN is silent on how heating by an IR laser system is performed, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to prior art to determine an appropriate approach for laser heating. Such art is NGUYEN. The preference of NGUYEN for one single scan has the advantage of accelerating the process and as discussed by NGUYEN, sufficient heating can be done by selecting proper energy/energy density {[0063]}.
Regarding claim 2, KALYANARAMAN discloses comprising, for at least one layer, applying to said layer additional radiation other than said infrared radiation, for curing or solidifying said liquid modeling material formulation forming said layer {0100] note in the embodiments where the crosslinker is present the printed layer is exposed to UV light, thus the layer is exposed to another radiation than infrared}.
Regarding claim 4, NGUYEN discloses wherein for at least one layer, said applying said infrared radiation is by performing a plurality of scans of said infrared radiation over said layer after said formation of said layer and before dispensing a subsequent layer {[0062]-[0064] note plurality of scans}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to have incorporated the teaching of NGUYEN in the combination method of KALYANARAMAN, GOUZMAN, and NGUYEN and have used a plurality of scans of the IR laser heater after the layer has been printed.
As discussed above KALYANARAMAN is silent on how heating by an IR laser system is performed, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to prior art to determine an appropriate approach for laser heating. Such art is NGUYEN.
Furthermore, and as disclosed by NGUYEN, the advantage of this multiple scan is to achieve a higher degree of curing and thus a better mechanical property of the object {[0062]-[0063]}.
Regarding claim 7 limitation of “wherein a viscosity of said modeling material formulation containing said polyimide precursor is from about 12 cP to about 18 cP at a temperature of about 70 C”, KALYANARAMAN teaches that the solution viscosity can be adjusted based on the requirement of the inkjet process {[0013]}. Therefore, KALYANARAMAN recognizes the viscosity as a result-effective variable.
It is well established that determination of optimum values of result-effective variables (in this case solution viscosity on the optimum operation of the inkjet or nozzle) is within the skill of one practicing in the art see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B)}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the solution viscosity, through routine experimentation, so that an optimum ejection of solution droplets from the nozzle of the inkjet device can be obtained.
Regarding claim 8 limitation of “wherein said dispensing is executed to dispense said material formulation containing said polyimide precursor in droplets having a weight of from about 50 ng to about 90 ng”, KALYANARAMAN discloses that the volume of the droplets (or their weight) can be controlled, thus controlling the molar ratio of the mixture that affects the properties of the final structure such as final molecular weight and mechanical properties including flexural, tensile, and impact strengths {[0032]}. KALYANARAMAN further emphasizes that the volume of the polyimide precursor solution printed at a target location can be selected and controlled to provide for a selected relative concentrations of the mixture {[0051], [0056]}.
Therefore, KALYANARAMAN recognizes the weight or volume of the droplets as result-effective variable affecting the final properties of the 3D printed structure.
It is well established that determination of optimum values of result-effective variables (in this case droplet weight on the final properties of the 3D object) is within the skill of one practicing in the art {see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B)}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the droplet weight, through routine experimentation, so that a desired 3D object can be printed. In certain cases, this droplet weight fall within the claimed range of 50-90 ng.
Regarding claim 10, KALYANARAMAN discloses wherein said polyimide precursor has a molecular weight of from 500 to 1000 Daltons {[0101]}.
The Examiner notes that KALYANARAMAN teaches a molecular weight of greater than 1000 Daltons that touches the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness is established when a claimed narrow range touches a broader prior art range {see MPEP 2144.05 (I)}.
Regarding claim 11-13, GOUZMAN discloses wherein said polyimide precursor is represented by Formula I: wherein: L is a linking moiety; and R1-R4 are each independently selected from hydrogen, alkyl and cycloalkyl (claim 11), wherein R1-R4 are each hydrogen (claim 12), wherein said linking moiety L is or comprises a hydrocarbon (claim 13) {[abstract] note R1-R4 are hydrogen (not shown), note L is R and a hydrocarbon}. The Examiner notes that the obviousness rationale presented under claim 1 applies here as well.
Regarding claims 16-19, KALYANARAMAN discloses wherein said formulation containing said polyimide precursor further comprises an organic solvent (claim 16), wherein said organic solvent is a polar organic solvent (claim 17), wherein said organic solvent has a boiling temperature lower than 190 °C (claim 18) wherein said organic solvent has an evaporation rate less than 1 (claim 19) {[0085] note the teaching that the solvent can be butanol that according to the instant specification that teaches the same solvent, meets the above limitations}.
Regarding claim 20, KALYANARAMAN discloses wherein a weight ratio of said polyimide and said organic solvent in the formulation ranges from 50:50 to 90:10 {[0088]}.
The Examiner notes that KALYANARAMAN teaches a weight ratio range of 30:70 to 90:10 that encompasses the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness is established when a claimed narrow range is within a broad prior art range {see MPEP 2144.05 (I)}.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KALYANARAMAN, GOUZMAN, and NGUYEN as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CHEN (US-2019/0127599), hereinafter CHEN.
Regarding claim 5, combination of KALYANARAMAN, GOUZMAN, and NGUYEN discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. This combination, however, is silent on the required power of the infrared radiation.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to 3D printing using inkjet, CHEN discloses wherein said applying said infrared radiation is at a power of at least 750 watts {[0035]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of CHEN in the method of KALYANARAMAN, GOUZMAN, and NGUYEN, and have set an appropriate power for the IR radiation. Note that since KALYANARAMAN is silent on the required power for the IR radiation, an artisan would have been motivated to look to prior art for this information. Such prior art is CHEN.
The Examiner notes that CHEN teaches a power range of 100 to 3000W that partially overlaps the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness is established when a claimed range partially overlaps a prior art range {see MPEP 2144.05 (I)}.
Additionally, CHEN teaches that if the IR power is too low, it may lengthen the fusing period and if the IR power is too high it may degrade product quality {[0035]}. Therefore, CHEN recognizes IR power as a result-effective variable.
It is well established that determination of optimum values of result-effective variables (in this case solution effect of IR power on product quality) is within the skill of one practicing in the art {see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B)}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the IR power, through routine experimentation, so that an optimum 3D object can be printed.
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KALYANARAMAN, GOUZMAN, and NGUYEN as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of GOTHAIT (US-2006/0111807), hereinafter GOTHAIT or LUTOLF (US-2017/0319746), hereinafter LUTOLF.
Regarding claims 6 and 9, combination of KALYANARAMAN, GOUZMAN, and NGUYEN discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. This combination, however, is silent on application a voltage with certain pulse and frequency to the nozzle or inkjet printer.
In the same field of endeavor, and regarding the limitations of “wherein said dispensing from said first array of nozzles is by applying voltage pulses to said first array of nozzles, said voltage pulses being characterized by a pulse width of from about 6.0 µs to about 6.4 µs (claim 6), wherein said dispensing comprises applying voltage at a frequency of from about 15 kHz to about 25 kHz to said first array of nozzles dispensing said material formulation containing said polyimide precursor (claim 9)” GOTHAIT teaches that piezoelectric inkjet printer apply voltage {[0011]} and that 3D printer properties or 3D printed object properties can modified or adjusted by nozzle voltage pulse and frequency {[0073]}. Therefore, GOTHAIT recognizes nozzle voltage pulse and frequency as result-effective parameters.
Alternatively, and in the same field of endeavor, LUTOLF discloses that in inkjet dispensers {[0110]}, the ejection speed and droplet diameter can be adjusted by printing parameter tuning and the parameters that can be tuned include voltage, pulse length and frequency {[0103]}. Therefore, LUTOLF also recognizes nozzle voltage pulse and frequency as result-effective parameter.
It is well established that determination of optimum values of result-effective variables (in this case effect of voltage pulse and frequency on product quality and printing operation) is within the skill of one practicing in the art {see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B)}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the voltage pulse and frequency, through routine experimentation, so that an optimum 3D object can be printed with appropriate droplet sizes. In certain cases, this the pulse and frequency will fall within the claimed range above.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KALYANARAMAN, GOUZMAN, and NGUYEN as applied to claims 1, 11, and 13 above, and further in view of USHIKI (US-2007/0270568), hereinafter USHIKI.
Regarding claims 14-15, combination of KALYANARAMAN, GOUZMAN, and NGUYEN discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 11, and 13 as discussed above. This combination, however, is silent on the detailed hydrocarbon structure of linking moiety.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to curable resin for inkjet printing, USHIKI discloses wherein said hydrocarbon comprises two or more alkylene chains that are connected therebetween via a branching unit (claim 14), wherein said branching unit comprises or consists of a cycloalkyl (claim 15) {[abstract] note R2 is L or hydrocarbon, [0038] note L is a hydrocarbon, [0039] note different structures of L including a cycloalkyl as a branch and at least to alkylene chains}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the linking moiety of GOUZMAN of with the known linking moiety of USHIKI.
Note that it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable result are achieved {see MPEP 2143 (I)(B)}. Since USHIKI discloses the same bismaleimide structure as that of GOUZMAN one of ordinary skill in the art expects predictable and successful results by substitution on the linking moiety of GOUZMAN.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KALYANARAMAN, GOUZMAN, and NGUYEN as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ESHED (US-2007/0179656), hereinafter ESHED.
Regarding claim 21, combination of KALYANARAMAN, GOUZMAN, and NGUYEN discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. This combination, however, is silent on the limitation of claim 21 reciting “wherein said applying said at least infrared radiation is by a radiation source co-mounted with said first array of nozzles on a movable frame”.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to 3D printing using inkjet, ESHED discloses wherein said applying said at least infrared radiation is by a radiation source co-mounted with said first array of nozzles on a movable frame {[abstract] note shuttle can move back and forth thus movable frame, [0079] note the shuttle also carries the UV lamps that is the source of radiation, thus the radiation source is co-mounted and movable, [0089]/[FIG. 1] note the print head 50 and radiation source 120 are co-mounted and movable}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of ESHED in the method of KALYANARAMAN, GOUZMAN, and NGUYEN, and have co-mounted the radiation source and print head on a moveable frame as taught by ENSHED. This ensures that immediately after deposition of build material, and at the exact location, radiation energy is provided for curing, since both the print head and radiation source travel the same path.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI whose telephone number is (571)272-1373. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-(alt Fri) 7:30-5:00.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights