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 .
Election/Restrictions
Due to the amendments filed 5/18/2026 all claims are examined herein.
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 1-10 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. Dependent claims are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a 3D printer" in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this the same 3D printer from that of the preamble or a different 3D printer? There is inherently a 3D printer in the preamble otherwise the method would not be executable.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 recites the limitation "directly chemically bonded”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. There is no means, step, or composition claimed in claims 1, 3, 5, 7, or 9 that would allow for the layers to be "directly chemically bonded” to each other. Therefore, claims 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 are vague and indefinite due to the lack of antecedent basis for how the chemical bonding occurs via the limitations from the parent claim.
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.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US PGPub 2019/0232559; already of record), in view of Thompson (US PGPub 2019/0126536; already of record, herein Thompson ‘536). Regarding claim 1, Thompson teaches:
Applying, by a dispenser, a layer of a first raw material to a work surface, the dispenser moving laterally across the work surface, wherein a layer thickness of the first raw material corresponds at least to a desired layer thickness of a layer to be added to the component (Figures 4-7, resin R is applied to build surface 226 by lateral movement of supply container 36, the thickness is as shown in the Figures)
Bringing the layer of the first raw material into contact with a surface of the component to be coated on the work surface and structurally curing a portion of the first raw material to form a new structured layer of the component (paragraphs 0066-0071, the applying and curing steps are repeated as claimed)
Lifting the component comprising the new layer off the work surface (As seen in Figure 8, and the final part would have to be removed from the work surface when completed)
Removing, by a first recovering device, a remaining first raw material from the work surface, the first recovering device moving laterally across the work surface (scraper 44 is moved laterally to remove remaining material, paragraphs 0041 and 0067-0069)
Repeating the aforementioned method steps with a second raw material and a second dispenser (Figure 1 shows a second material container 78, paragraph 0035-0036 teaches the material depositor 16 comprises the container 36 and optionally another (as seen in Figure 1). Paragraph 0062 teaches using a second material, which would thus go in the second material container)
Thompson does not explicitly teach a second recovering device. In paragraph 0067 Thompson teaches using more than two sumps, and recovering and recycling more than one material in paragraph 0068, thus there would be a strong inclination to have a second scraper 44.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a second scraper, since Thompson teaches a desire to recycle different material, thus there would obviously be a second scraper. It has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, and doing such has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
Further regarding claim 1, Thompson does not teach returning the recovered material back to a first or second dispenser.
In the same field of endeavor Thompson ‘536 teaches returning unused material back to the depositor (Figure 1, filter 51 and recovered resin reservoir 57, and paragraph 0029).
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to return recovered material since it recycles the material, further Thompson already showed a desire to recycle the unused material for later use (paragraph 0068), thus showing a need for the explicit means to do so, as taught by Thompson ‘536.
Finally regarding claim 1:
Wherein the at least two dispensers and the at least two recovering devices are implanted in one single element of a 3D printer
As previously discussed the two dispenser and two recovering devices and their use are obvious over Thompson and Thompson ‘536. Therefore Thompson and Thompson ‘536 teach them as a single element in the process.
Regarding claim 3, Thompson teaches:
Wherein the work surface has a window permeable to radiation, the window has dimensions at least equal to layers to be added (Figure 1, floor 212 of build surface 226)
Wherein a building plate with the component is positioned above the window (Figure 1, stage 14)
Wherein the building plate is lowered normal to the window until a distance between the surface of the component and the work surface corresponds to a desired layer thickness of a new structured layer to be added to the component (As seen in Figure 7)
Wherein the first raw material is structured and cured into a new layer by irradiating the multilayer component through the window (As seen in Figure 7)
Wherein the building plate with the component and the new layer adhering to it is lifted off the work surface (As seen in Figure 8)
Regarding claims 2 and 4:
Since Thompson and Thompson ‘536 create layers via photoinitiators and monomers the layers would be chemically bonded to each other due to the nature of free radicals and unpolymerized monomer at the surface of the layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7-10 are allowed, since claim 7 contains the previously indicated allowable subject matter.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with; in this instance the current rejections under 112(b). See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Thompson and Thompson ‘536 do not teach:
“Wherein the at least two dispensers and the at least two recovering devices are implanted in one single element of a 3D printer”
The Examiner disagrees. The usage of the word element allows this be interpreted as a process step, therefore since Thompson and Thompson ‘536 teach the required dispenser, recovering devices, and step of using, they teach it as a single process element.
Even if the limitation was directed to a single structure the limitation would still be obvious since Thompson and Thompson ‘536 teach the required structure and usage, making the structure integral would still be obvious due to MPEP 2144.04 V B.
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 TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm..
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights