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 .
Status of Application and Claims
This non-final action on the merits is in response to the election of invention received by the office on 10 June 2026. Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 10-15 are withdrawn as non-elected.
Important Note
Examiner notes there is a discrepancy in the spelling of Inventor Ravi’s first name in the filing receipt dated 1/22/25, ADS dated 7/31/24, declaration dated 7/31/24 and form PCT/RO/101 dated 7/31/24. It appears it should be spelled “Prashanth” instead of “Prashant” and was misspelled on the ADS. Applicant is directed to MPEP 601.05(a)(II) for information on correcting an ADS or information otherwise of record.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of group I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 10 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10 June 2026.
Drawings
Figures 1A, 1B 1C and 1D should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0029296 to Van Esbroeck et al. (‘296 hereafter).
Regarding claim 1 ‘296 teaches a method of inverted stereolithography (SLA) 3D printing with a printing device wherein the device comprises: (a.) a build platform (Fig. 1 item 40); (b.) a printed part (Fig. 8 item 51); c. a current layer (Fig. 5 item 51); (d.) a thin elastic membrane (Fig. 5 item 11); (e.) a resin filled vat, wherein the resin has a surface with a horizontal plane (Fig. 5 items 20 and 50); and (f.) an optical module comprising a rounded top (Fig. 5 item 30); wherein the thin elastic membrane forms at least a portion of the bottom of the resin filled vat and the optical module is located below the resin filled vat (Fig. 5 items 20, 11 and 30); the method comprising: (i) lifting the thin elastic membrane to an elevated position within the resin filled vat via vertical movement of the optical module, the resin filled vat, or both (paragraph 0045), (ii) allowing resin on the thin elastic membrane to cure as a current layer, said layer being attached to the printed part (paragraph 0051), iii) peeling the thin elastic membrane from the current layer by lowering the optical module, raising the resin filled vat, or both (paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 2 ‘296 teaches the method wherein the angle of the thin elastic membrane when it is peeled from the current layer is greater than about 5 degrees from the horizontal plane (Fig. 6 items 11 and 51).
Regarding claim 3, ‘296 teaches the method wherein the angle of the thin elastic membrane when it is peeled from the current layer is greater than about 10 degrees from the horizontal plane (Fig. 6 items 11 and 51).
Regarding claim 4 ‘296 teaches the method wherein the angle of the thin elastic membrane when it is peeled from the current layer is about 15 to about 25 degrees from the horizontal plane (Fig 4 items 11 and 51).
Regarding claim 5, ’296 teaches the method wherein the thin elastic membrane comprises a non-stick material (paragraphs 0047-0049).
Regarding claim 6, ‘296 teaches the method wherein the rounded top of the optical module is a separate structure having a top surface with rounded corners and edges that can be attached to the optical module (Fig. 1 item 30).
Regarding claim 7, ‘296 teaches the method wherein the optical module has a top surface with rounded corners and edges (Fig. 1 item 30).
Regarding claim 8, ‘296 teaches the method wherein the thin elastic membrane is lifted to an elevated position within the resin filled vat via vertical movement of the optical module (paragraph 0045).
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘296 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of case law rationale.
Regarding claim 9, ‘296 does not teach explicitly the vertical movement of the vat.
However, it would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to raise the vat rather than lower the curing unit since it has been held that a mere reversal of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to reverse the movement of the curing unit and the resin vat for the purpose of ensuring the alignment and focus of the precision optical components of the curing unit.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘296 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0089610 to El-Siblani et al. (‘610 hereafter).
Regarding claim 9, ‘296 does not teach explicitly the vertical movement of the vat.
‘610 teaches the method wherein the thin elastic membrane is lifted to an elevated position within the resin filled vat via vertical movement of the resin filled vat (paragraph 0061) for the benefit of providing increased separation facility between the most recently formed layer and the curing substrate. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘296 with those of ‘610 for the benefit of aiding separation of newly formed layers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0153640 to Hendrik John (‘640 hereafter) teaches the relation between separation force and peel angle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John P Robitaille whose telephone number is (571)270-7006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:00PM.
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, 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.
/JPR/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights