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 .
Claim Interpretation
Under broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1, component (b) may connote a polymer featuring (meth)acrylic groups.
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.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. US 5,002,854.
Regarding claims 1-4, Fan teaches formation of a three dimensional object by exposing a photohardenable composition to an actinic radiation (Fan, claim 1). Fan discloses (col 7, lines 50-52) that photohardenable composition comprises an ethylenically unsaturated monomer (corresponding to component (c)), a photoinitator (corresponding to component (d)) , and core or core-shell polymer. Fan provides (col 14, Table Core Compositions, 3A and 3M) compositions of both core particles (with no shell) and core-shell particles. Fan’s composition (3A) where the core is a copolymer of butyl acrylate, butylene glycol diacrylate and allyl methacrylate and a shell which is polymethyl methacrylate generated by a multistage process (col 13, lines 1-40), corresponds to applicant’s component (a). Fan’s 3M core particle composition is a copolymer of styrene and trimethylol propane triacrylate, which is different from the core-shell composition of 3A, and meets applicant’s limitations of component (b) an acrylic polymer (P1). Fan recognizes the core and core-shell polymers as equivalents and combining equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined both core and core-shell polymers (such as Fan’s 3A and 3M) along with an ethylenically unsaturated monomer and a photoinitiator as taught by Fan for the same application of creating a three dimensional object from a photocurable composition.
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Fan is silent on heating of the three-dimensional printed solidified object, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have heated the final printed object to completely consolidate the layers and to remove any unreacted residual monomers present in the final structure.
Regarding claims 6-9, as discussed when addressing claim 1, the required curable composition with components (a), (b) and (c) is made obvious by Fan’s disclosure. Fan teaches (Fan claims 1, 6 and 8, and col 1, lines 25-30) a method of fabricating an integral three dimension object from successive layers of a photohardenable liquid composition comprising the steps of
forming a layer of a photohardenable liquid where a movable table presents a surface to support the layer (Fig 1., 41 and 46; col 4, line 61-62);
photohardening at least a portion of the layer of photohardenable liquid by exposure to actinic radiation;
introducing a new layer of photohardenable liquid onto the layer previously exposed to actinic radiation; and
photohardening at least a portion of the new liquid layer by exposure to actinic radiation;
and the steps (c) and (d) are successively repeatedly to build the final integral structure.
Fan discusses (col 7, line 40) the use of interlayer adhesion promoters, thus noting the importance of layer adhesion between the successive layers. Fan controls the actinic radiation via modulators, mirrors and computer means and positioning of the layers to manage the imaging cross-section within each photohardenable layer (col 4, lines 11-51; col 5, lines1-5 and 20-34).
Regarding claim 10, Fan teaches (Fan Fig 1; col 4, lines 60-68; col 5, lines 1-10 and 19-42), the use of a movable table 41 which acts as a carrier for the curable composition and offers a transparent surface 46 which defines the build region for the filled thin layer of curable composition 48, which is then exposed to actinic radiation to form the cured composition. After the first layer exposure is completed, the table is lowered to a predetermined distance and the process is repeated for subsequent layers till the three dimensional printing is completed, which satisfies the requirements of intermittent irradiation and intermittent advancement of the carrier.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/12/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1-11 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.
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 Surbhi M Du whose telephone number is (571)272-9960. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 5:00pm.
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, Heidi (Riviere) Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.M.D./
Examiner
Art Unit 1765
/JOHN M COONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights