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 Objections
Claims 4, 6-7, 9-13 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 4: the recitation “all of the at least one coloring suspensions” should be corrected to be consistent with the language presented in claim 1 such that the recitation reads “”; additionally, the recitation “the mixed coloring suspensions” should be corrected to be consistent with the language used in the preceding lines of the claim such that the recitation reads “the premixed ”;
Regarding claim 6: the recitation “the target color” in line 5 of the claim should read “the previously selected target color” as introduced in line 6 of claim 5, the claim from which claim 6 depends, and while one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably deduce “the target color” was intended to reference “the previously selected target color” and therefore does not result in ambiguous claim language – the Examiner recommends using consistent language throughout;
Regarding claim 7: the recitation "the three-dimensional structure" recited in lines 3-4 of the claim should read "the three-dimensional object" as introduced in line 1 of claim 1, the claim from which claim 7 depends, and while one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably deduce "the three-dimensional structure" was intended to reference "the three-dimensional object" and therefore does not result in ambiguous claim language – the Examiner recommends using consistent language throughout;
Regarding claim 9: the recitation “the color” in line 3 recites “the” to reference subject matter which is not previously recited/introduced, while this recitation is not ambiguous because there is inherent basis for such subject matter, the Examiner recommends introducing new limitation(s) with “a” or “an” to ensure consistent language throughout the claims is being used –therefore, the recitation above should read “a ” to overcome this objection;
Regarding claim 10: the recitation “A method according to claim 1” should be corrected such that the recitation reads “[[A]] The method according to claim 1”;
Regarding claim 11: the recitation “the color model” in lines 6-7 should read "the pre-determined color model" as introduced in line 12 of claim 10, the claim from which claim 11 depends, and while one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably deduce "the color model" was intended to reference "the pre-determined color model" and therefore does not result in ambiguous claim language – the Examiner recommends using consistent language throughout
Regarding claim 12: the recitation “a three-dimensional object” in line 3 should be corrected to be consistent with claim 10, which already introduced a three-dimensional object, such that the recitation reads “[[a]] the three-dimensional object”;
Regarding claim 13: the recitation “determined on the basis of a data model” in lines 2-3 recites “the” to reference subject matter which is not previously recited/introduced, while this recitation is not ambiguous, the Examiner recommends introducing new limitation(s) with “a” or “an” to ensure consistent language throughout the claims is being used; and
Regarding claim 15: the recitation “the chemical and/or physical properties” in line 2 recites “the” to reference subject matter which is not previously recited/introduced, while this recitation is not ambiguous because there is inherent basis for such subject matter, the Examiner recommends introducing new limitation(s) with “a” or “an” to ensure consistent language throughout the claims is being used –therefore, the recitation above should read “a ” to overcome this objection.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “additive manufacturing device having means adapted to execute the steps of the method of claim 1” in claim 16 (see paragraphs [0183]-[0193] and FIG. 1 in the published specification, US 2025/0128473 A1, for the corresponding structure for performing the claimed function).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2-3, 6, 8, 10-11 and 14-15 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.
Regarding claim 2: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation "the setting state" in lines 3-4. Claim 2 depends from claim 1, which does not include a setting state; therefore, the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a setting state making it unclear as to what element the limitation is making reference. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
For the purposes of prior art rejections, the recitation “the setting state” is being interpreted consistent with paragraph [0070] of the published specification (US 2025/0128473 A1) which recites “the expression ‘the curable binder composition in the setting state’ in particular means that the curable binder composition is in a condition in which the setting of the binder in the curable binder composition has started but is not yet complete.”
Regarding claim 3: the recitation “the curable binder compositions” renders the claim indefinite as there is insufficient antecedent basis for more than one curable binder composition as introduced in claim 1, the claim which claim 3 depends from. Furthermore, claim 3 introduces at least two coloring suspensions being added to “the curable binder compositions” making it unclear if each coloring suspension of the at least two coloring suspensions are added to the same curable binder composition or if each coloring suspension of the at least two coloring suspensions are added to their individual curable binder composition and therefore results in the curable binder compositions as claimed.
For the purposes of prior art rejections, the recitation “the curable binder compositions” is being interpreted such that each coloring suspension of the at least two coloring suspensions are added to the same curable binder composition consistent with introduction of the curable binder composition in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6: the recitation “the proportions” is indefinite as it is not consistent with the introduction of “a proportion” in claim 5, the claim which claim 6 depends from, and therefore it is unclear how there is more than one proportion from a single proportion being introduced.
Regarding claim 8: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation "the mineral binder composition" in line 2. Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and therefore also claim 1, neither of which includes a mineral binder composition; therefore, the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a mineral binder composition making it unclear as to what element the limitation is making reference. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
For the purposes of prior art rejections, the recitation “the mineral binder composition” is being interpreted consistent with paragraph [0068] of the published specification which states “The term ‘mineral binder composition’ stands in particular for a binder which reacts in the presence of water in a hydration reaction to form solid hydrates or hydrate phases. This can be , for example, a hydraulic binder (e.g. cement or hydraulic lime), a latent hydraulic binder (e.g. slag), a pozzolanic binder (e.g. fly ash) or a non-hydraulic binder (e.g. gypsum or white lime).”
Regarding claim 10: the recitation “a curable binder composition” in lines 3-4 renders the claim indefinite. Claim 10 depends from claim 1, which already introduced a curable binder composition; thus, it is not clear if the recitation “a curable binder composition” in lines 3-4 is referring to a different curable binder composition or the same curable binder composition introduced in claim 1.
Moreover, the recitation “the proportions” is indefinite as it is not consistent with the introduction of “a proportion” in line 9; therefore, it is unclear how there is more than one proportion from a single proportion being introduced.
Regarding claim 11: the recitation “the proportions” is indefinite as it is not consistent with the introduction of “a proportion” in line 9 of claim 10, the claim from which claim 11 depends; therefore, it is unclear how there is more than one proportion from a single proportion being introduced.
Regarding claim 14: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation "the previously selected target color" in lines 6-7 and the recitation “the selected target color” in line 12. Claim 14 depends from claim 10, which does not include a previously selected target color or a selected target color, but rather recites “at least one desired target color” in line 2 and “a target color” in lines 6-7; therefore, the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a previously selected target color or a selected target color making it unclear as to what element the limitations are making reference. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Regarding claim 15: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation "the setting state" in lines 3-4. Claim 2 depends from claim 1, which does not include a setting state; therefore, the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a setting state making it unclear as to what element the limitation is making reference. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
For the purposes of prior art rejections, the recitation “the setting state” is being interpreted consistent with paragraph [0070] of the published specification (US 2025/0128473 A1) which recites “the expression ‘the curable binder composition in the setting state’ in particular means that the curable binder composition is in a condition in which the setting of the binder in the curable binder composition has started but is not yet complete.”
Moreover, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation "the print head" in line 4. Claim 15 depends from claim 1, which does not include a print head; therefore, the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a print head making it unclear as to what element the limitation is making reference. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Furthermore, the recitation “the curable binder compositions” in line 5 renders the claim indefinite as there is insufficient antecedent basis for more than one curable binder composition as introduced in claim 1, the claim which claim 15 depends from. For the purposes of prior art rejections, the recitation “the curable binder compositions” is being interpreted in the singular consistent with introduction of the curable binder composition in claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 15-18 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lootens et al. (EP3708321A1; herein referred to as Lootens, citations drawn to the translated copy provided herewith).
As to claim 1: Lootens discloses the claimed method for producing a three-dimensional object from a curable binder composition with an additive manufacturing process (i.e., methods for generatively producing shaped bodies by applying a curable construction material) (Lootens at [0001], [0002]-[0003], [0010]-[0011], [0238], Fig. 4),
whereby before application of the curable binder composition (i.e., first component in container 11.1 is a dry mineral binder composition), at least one coloring suspension comprising a color pigment (i.e., the composition may also contain at least one further additive, such as a concrete additive and/or a mortar additive, the at least one further additive comprising a dye; container 11.4 is the additive reservoir and has an outlet connected to inlet nozzle 5 on print head 3 so as to join curable construction material from container 11.1 in the static mixer 6 within print head 3 prior to exiting the controllable outlet 4) and a solvent is added to the curable binder composition to color the curable binder composition (i.e., the second component of the building material is in liquid form and consists of water which is stored container 11.2) (Lootens at [0019], [0090], [0120], [0185], [0210], [0214], [0215], [0216], Fig. 1).
As to claim 2: Lootens discloses the method of claim 1. Lootens further discloses the claimed wherein before adding the at least one coloring suspension, the curable binder composition is produced in the setting state (i.e., a water-containing mineral binder composition which is optimum for the process is obtained in the setting state) (Lootens at [0020], [0190]).
As to claim 4: Lootens discloses the method of claim 1. Lootens further discloses the claimed whereby all of the at least one coloring suspensions are premixed before introducing the mixed coloring suspensions into the curable binder composition (i.e., the composition may also contain at least one further additive, such as a concrete additive and/or a mortar additive, the at least one further additive comprising a dye; container 11.4 is the additive reservoir and has an outlet connected to inlet nozzle 5 on print head 3 so as to join curable construction material from container 11.1 in the static mixer 6 within print head 3 prior to exiting the controllable outlet 4; the second component of the building material is in liquid form and consists of water which is stored container 11.2) (Lootens at [0120], [0185], [0210], [0214], [0215], [0216], Fig. 1).
As to claim 7: Lootens discloses the method of claim 1. Lootens further discloses the claimed whereby the curable binder composition is applied by means of a print head (i.e., print head 3) movable in at least one spatial direction to form the three-dimensional structure (i.e., print head 3 is movable in all three spatial dimensions by movable arm 2.1 and therefore print head 3 can be moved to any desired position in the working region of the movement device) (Lootens at [0208], Fig. 1).
As to claim 8: Lootens discloses the method of claim 7. Lootens further discloses the claimed whereby the at least one coloring suspension is added to the mineral binder composition in the print head and/or in a supply line upstream the print head (i.e., the composition may also contain at least one further additive, such as a concrete additive and/or a mortar additive, the at least one further additive comprising a dye; container 11.4 is the additive reservoir and has an outlet connected to inlet nozzle 5 on print head 3 so as to join curable construction material from container 11.1 in the static mixer 6 within print head 3 prior to exiting the controllable outlet 4) (Lootens at [0120], [0185], [0210], [0214], [0215], [0216], Fig. 1).
As to claim 15: Lootens discloses the method of claim 1. Lootens further discloses the claimed whereby an additive for controlling the chemical and/or physical properties of the curable binder composition in the setting state is added to the curable binder composition in the setting state in the print head (i.e., the development of the aqueous binder composition is advantageously determined before application thereof, this helps to adapt the binder composition, in particular the content of polycarboxylate ether in the dry and/or water containing binder composition), in a supply line upstream the print head and/or together with the coloring suspensions (i.e., through the inlet nozzle 5, an additive, such as the polycarboxylate ether, can be added if necessary to the curable construction material moving through the passage 3.1) (Lootens at [0192], [0195], [0210], Fig. 1), the additive being selected from an accelerator, a retarder, a rheological aid, a surfactant, and/or a superplasticizer (i.e., the additive is polycarboxylate ether, which the published specification describes the superplasticizer being in the form of a polycarboxylate ether in paragraph [0189]) (Lootens at [0192], Fig. 1).
As to claim 16: Lootens discloses the method of claim 1. Lootens further discloses the claimed additive manufacturing device having means adapted to execute the steps of the method of claim 1 (i.e., system 1 for carrying out a method for applying a curable construction material) (Lootens at [0207], [0208]-[0220], Fig. 1).
As to claim 17: Lootens discloses the method of claim 1. Lootens further discloses the claimed computer program comprising instructions to cause the device of claim 16 to execute the steps of the method (i.e., control unit 14 of the system 1 comprises a processor, a memory unit and a plurality of interfaces for receiving data and a plurality of interfaces for controlling the individual components of the system 1 such that the control unit 14 is programmed to control system 1 in carrying out the method of applying a curable construction material) (Lootens at [0207], [0220], [0226], Fig. 1).
As to claim 18: Lootens discloses the method of claim 1. Lootens further discloses the claimed liquid coloring suspension for coloring curable binder compositions, for use in a method according to claim 1 (i.e., see the rejection of claim 1 above), comprising: a) 5 – 70 wt% of a color pigment (i.e., the additive comprises a dye, wherein the additive is present in the binder composition of 0 up to 10% by weight) (Lootens at [0185], [0188]); b) 25 – 70 wt% of a solvent (i.e., mixing the dry mineral binder composition with 10 to 25% water) (Lootens at [0120], [0190]); and c) optionally, 0.001 – 30 wt% of a defoamer (i.e., the binder composition preferably also comprises at least one defoamer in the amount of 0.01 to 1% by weight) (Lootens at [0181], [0182], [0183], [0188]), whereby all proportions are given with respect to the overall weight of the coloring suspension (Lootens at [0188]).
As to claim 23: Lootens discloses the liquid coloring suspension of claim 18. Lootens further discloses the claimed whereby the defoamer is selected from water insoluble compounds (i.e., the binder composition preferably also comprises at least one defoamer, in particular selected from the group consisting of oil-based defoamers) (Lootens at [0181]).
As to claim 24: Lootens discloses the liquid coloring suspension of claim 18. Lootens further discloses the claimed whereby the defoamer is selected from kerosene, liquid paraffin, animal oil, vegetable oil, sesame oil, castor oil, alkylene oxide adducts thereof, oleic acid, stearic acid and alkylene oxide adducts thereof, diethylene glycol laurate, glycerin monorecinolate, alkenyl succinic acid derivatives, sorbitol monolaurate, sorbitol trioleate, polyoxyethylene monolaurate, polyoxyethylene sorbitol monolaurate, natural wax, linear or branched fatty alcohols and their alkoxylated derivatives, octyl alcohol, hexadecyl alcohol, acetylene alcohol, glycols, polyoxyalkylene glycol, polyoxyalkylene amide, acrylate polyamine, tributyl phosphate, sodium octyl phosphate; aluminum stearate, calcium oleate, silicone oil, silicone paste, silicone emulsion, organic modified polysiloxane, fluorosilicone oil; and polyoxyethylene polyoxypropylene adducts (i.e., the binder composition preferably also comprises at least one defoamer, in particular selected from the group consisting of oil-based defoamers, such as vegetable oil, wax, and silicone-based defoamers) (Lootens at [0181]).
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 3, 5-6, 9-14 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lootens as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hara et al. (US 2021/0237424; herein referred to as Hara).
As to claim 3: Lootens discloses the method of claim 1. Lootens fails to explicitly disclose the claimed whereby at least two coloring suspensions are added to the curable binder compositions simultaneously and/or in sequence, whereby each of the at least two coloring suspensions comprises a different color pigment.
However, Hara teaches a method and an apparatus for modeling a three-dimensional object configured to model a three-dimensional object (Hara at Title, [0013]). Hara further teaches the apparatus including a plurality of material resin supply units configured to supply a material resin, which is a resin to be used as a modeling material, respectively; a mixed resin ejection unit configured to eject a mixed resin, which is a resin obtained by mixing the material resins to be supplied from the plurality of material resin supply units, and a resin supply control unit configured to control amounts of the material resins to be supplied from each of the plurality of material resin supply units to the mixed resin ejection unit; and the plurality of material resin supply units is configured to supply the material resins of different colors to the mixed resin ejection unit, respectively (i.e., whereby at least two coloring suspensions are added to the curable binder compositions simultaneously and/or in sequence, whereby each of the at least two coloring suspensions comprises a different color pigment) (Hara at Title, [0013])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize at least two coloring suspensions added to the curable binder composition, the at least two coloring suspensions comprising a different color pigment as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing using colored materials given the discussion of Hara above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods with the added benefit of doing so allowing for a more appropriate expression of more diverse colors without deteriorating modeling precision due to the switching of the colors (as recognized by Hara at [0011], [0012]).
As to claim 5: Lootens discloses the method of claim 1. Lootens further discloses the claimed whereby a proportion of the at least one color suspension added to the curable binder composition is controlled with a control unit (i.e., a central control unit 14 for controlling individual components of the system 1; such that the control unit 14 is programmed control the addition rate of the additive as a function of a volume flow through the print head 3 and the object to be produced) (Lootens at [0220], [0226], [0252]). Though, Lootens fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein the control unit is configured for controlling the proportion of the at least one coloring suspension for obtaining a colored curable binder composition with a previously selected target color.
However, Hara remains as introduced and applied in the rejection of claim 3 above, and Hara further teaches mixing and adjusting resins of a plurality of colors to a desired color in advance (Hara at [0012]); wherein, a resin supply control unit configured to control amounts of the material resins to be supplied from each of the plurality of material resin supply units to the mixed resin ejection unit, making it possible to appropriately mix the material resins in the mixed resin ejection unit so that it is possible to appropriately model the three-dimensional object by the mixed resin having a desired color (i.e., wherein the control unit is configured for controlling the proportion of the at least one coloring suspension for obtaining a colored curable binder composition with a previously selected target color) (Hara at [0013], [0018]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 3.
As to claim 6: Lootens and Hara teach the method of claim 5. Hara further teaches the claimed whereby the proportion of the at least one coloring suspension is determined based on a previously established relation between the proportions of the at least one coloring suspension in the curable binder composition and coordinates in a color model representing the target color (i.e., the resin supply control unit is configured to acquire the color information on the basis of data representing a three-dimensional object to be modeled; it is possible to more appropriately model the colored three-dimensional object due to the resin supply control unit being configured to control the rotation numbers of the rollers of the respective resin extrusion devices, in accordance with color information indicating a color of the mixed resin to be ejected from the nozzle at each timing) (Hara at [0026]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 3.
As to claim 9: Lootens and Hara teach the method of claim 6. Hara further teaches the claimed whereby: a) the color of the colored curable binder composition is measured with a coloring measuring device before and/or during application in order to obtain a real color of the colored curable binder composition (i.e., the resin supply control unit is configured to control the rotation numbers of the rollers of the resin extrusion devices, taking into consideration a time difference between the timing at which the material resins are mixed and the timing at which the mixed resin is ejected from the nozzle, the time difference is a time difference that is to be determined depending on a capacity of the mixed resin ejection unit) (Hara at [0027], [0052]);
b) a color deviation between the measured real color and the previously selected target color is determined in the control unit (i.e., the mixed resin obtained by the mixing is ejected, so that it is possible to appropriately model the three-dimensional object by using the mixed resin adjusted to a desired color) (Hara at [0050]);
c) by considering the color deviation, the proportion of the at least one coloring suspension is adjusted in order to compensate for the color deviation, so that the real color of the colored curable binder composition is adjusted to correspond to the selected target color (i.e., the mixed resin obtained by the mixing is ejected, so that it is possible to appropriately model the three-dimensional object by using the mixed resin adjusted to a desired color) (Hara at [0050]);
whereby steps a)-c) are continuously repeated at least in selected periods during production of the three-dimensional object (Hara at [0057]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 3.
As to claim 10: Lootens discloses the method of claim 1. Lootens fails to explicitly disclose the claimed method of claim 1 for producing a three-dimensional object having at least one target color, whereby the three-dimensional object is produced from a curable binder composition with an additive manufacturing device, whereby the method comprises the steps of: a) receiving in a control unit of the additive manufacturing device a target color; b) with the control unit of the additive manufacturing device, determining a proportion of at least one color suspension in the curable binder composition required to obtain a colored curable binder composition having the desired target color, whereby the determination is based on a pre-determined color model stored in a memory unit of the additive manufacturing device; c) adding the at least one color suspension with the proportions determined in step b) to the curable binder composition, with one or more inlet device(s) that is/are controlled with the control unit; and d) applying the colored curable binder composition by means of a print head to form the three-dimensional object, whereby steps c)-d) are continuously repeated during production of the three-dimensional object.
However, Hara remains as introduced and applied in the rejections above, and Hara further teaches the claimed method of claim 1 for producing a three-dimensional object having at least one target color, whereby the three-dimensional object is produced from a curable binder composition with an additive manufacturing device (i.e., ) (Hara at []), whereby the method comprises the steps of:
a) receiving in a control unit of the additive manufacturing device a target color (i.e., the resin supply control unit is configured to acquire the color information on the basis of data representing a three-dimensional object to be modeled) (Hara at [0026]);
b) with the control unit of the additive manufacturing device, determining a proportion of at least one color suspension in the curable binder composition required to obtain a colored curable binder composition having the desired target color, whereby the determination is based on a pre-determined color model stored in a memory unit of the additive manufacturing device (i.e., the resin supply control unit is configured to acquire the color information on the basis of data representing a three-dimensional object to be modeled; it is possible to more appropriately model the colored three-dimensional object due to the resin supply control unit being configured to control the rotation numbers of the rollers of the respective resin extrusion devices, in accordance with color information indicating a color of the mixed resin to be ejected from the nozzle at each timing) (Hara at [0026], FIG. 1);
c) adding the at least one color suspension with the proportions determined in step b) to the curable binder composition, with one or more inlet device(s) that is/are controlled with the control unit (i.e., the resin supply control unit is configured to control the rotation numbers of the rollers of the respective resin extrusion devices, in accordance with color information indicating a color of the mixed resin to be ejected from the nozzle at each timing) (Hara at [0026]); and
d) applying the colored curable binder composition by means of a print head to form the three-dimensional object (i.e., mixed resin ejection unit 12) (Hara at [0033], FIG. 1),
whereby steps c)-d) are continuously repeated during production of the three-dimensional object (Hara at [0057]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 3.
As to claim 11: Lootens and Hara teach the method of claim 10. Hara further teaches the claimed whereby in step b) the determination of the proportion of the at least one color suspension in the curable binder composition required to obtain a colored curable binder composition having the desired target color, is based on a previously established relation between the proportions of the at least one coloring suspension in the curable binder composition and coordinates in the color model representing the target color (i.e., the resin supply control unit is configured to acquire the color information on the basis of data representing a three-dimensional object to be modeled; it is possible to more appropriately model the colored three-dimensional object due to the resin supply control unit being configured to control the rotation numbers of the rollers of the respective resin extrusion devices, in accordance with color information indicating a color of the mixed resin to be ejected from the nozzle at each timing) (Hara at [0026]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 3.
As to claim 12: Lootens and Hara teach the method of claim 10. Hara further teaches the claimed whereby at least two different target colors are received in the control unit for producing a three-dimensional object with at least two differently colored sections (i.e., the resin supply control unit is configured to acquire the color information on the basis of data representing a three-dimensional object to be modeled; it is possible to more appropriately model the colored three-dimensional object due to the resin supply control unit being configured to control the rotation numbers of the rollers of the respective resin extrusion devices, in accordance with color information indicating a color of the mixed resin to be ejected from the nozzle at each timing) (Hara at [0026]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 3.
As to claim 13: Lootens and Hara teach the method of claim 10. Hara further teaches the claimed whereby the target color received in the control unit in step a) is determined on the basis of a data model of the three-dimensional object describing the three-dimensional object in terms of structure and color (i.e., the resin supply control unit is configured to acquire the color information on the basis of data representing a three-dimensional object to be modeled) (Hara at [0026]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 3.
As to claim 14: Lootens and Hara teach the method of claim 10. Hara further teaches the claimed whereby: a) the color of the colored curable binder composition is measured with a color measuring device before and/or during application in order to obtain a real color of the colored curable binder composition (i.e., the resin supply control unit is configured to control the rotation numbers of the rollers of the resin extrusion devices, taking into consideration a time difference between the timing at which the material resins are mixed and the timing at which the mixed resin is ejected from the nozzle, the time difference is a time difference that is to be determined depending on a capacity of the mixed resin ejection unit) (Hara at [0027], [0052]); b) a color deviation between the measured real color and the previously selected target color is determined in the control unit (i.e., the mixed resin obtained by the mixing is ejected, so that it is possible to appropriately model the three-dimensional object by using the mixed resin adjusted to a desired color) (Hara at [0050]); c) by considering the color deviation, the proportion of the at least one coloring suspension is adjusted in order to compensate for the color deviation, so that the real color of the colored curable binder composition is adjusted to correspond to the selected target color (i.e., the mixed resin obtained by the mixing is ejected, so that it is possible to appropriately model the three-dimensional object by using the mixed resin adjusted to a desired color) (Hara at [0050]);
whereby steps a)-c) are continuously repeated at least in selected periods during production of the three-dimensional object (Hara at [0057]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 3.
As to claim 25: Lootens discloses the liquid coloring suspension of claim 18. Lootens fails to explicitly disclose the claimed kit comprising at least two coloring suspensions according to claim 18, whereby each of the at least two colorings suspensions comprises a different color pigment.
However, Hara teaches a method and an apparatus for modeling a three-dimensional object configured to model a three-dimensional object (Hara at Title, [0013]). Hara further teaches the apparatus including a plurality of material resin supply units configured to supply a material resin, which is a resin to be used as a modeling material, respectively; a mixed resin ejection unit configured to eject a mixed resin, which is a resin obtained by mixing the material resins to be supplied from the plurality of material resin supply units, and a resin supply control unit configured to control amounts of the material resins to be supplied from each of the plurality of material resin supply units to the mixed resin ejection unit; and the plurality of material resin supply units is configured to supply the material resins of different colors to the mixed resin ejection unit, respectively (i.e., kit comprising at least two coloring suspensions according to claim 18, whereby each of the at least two colorings suspensions comprises a different color pigment) (Hara at [0013], FIG. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize at least two coloring suspensions added to the curable binder composition, the at least two coloring suspensions comprising a different color pigment as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing using colored materials given the discussion of Hara above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods with the added benefit of doing so allowing for a more appropriate expression of more diverse colors without deteriorating modeling precision due to the switching of the colors (as recognized by Hara at [0011], [0012]).
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lootens as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tao et al. (CN 112723829 A; herein referred to as Tao; of record, citations taken from the translated version filed 06/12/2025).
As to claim 19: Lootens discloses the liquid coloring suspension of claim 18. Lootens fails to explicitly disclose the claimed whereby the color pigment is selected from organic pigments and carbon black, wherein the organic pigment is selected from red, blue, green, magenta and/or yellow pigments.
However, Tao teaches a colored 3D printing mortar (Tao at [0006], [0007], [0008]), where the colored 3D printing mortar comprises carbon black and organic pigments such as yellow and red (Tao at [0011], [0018], [0046]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize color pigments selected from organic pigments and carbon black as such is known in the additive manufacturing given the discussion of Tao above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known elements to yield predictable results.
As to claim 20: Lootens discloses the liquid coloring suspension of claim 18. Lootens fails to explicitly disclose the claimed whereby the color pigment is a mixture of an organic pigment and an inorganic pigment.
However, Tao remains as introduced and applied in the rejection of claim 19, and Tao further teaches the claimed the color pigment is a mixture of an organic pigment and an inorganic pigment (Tao at [0011], [0018], [0046]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 19.
As to claim 21: Lootens discloses the liquid coloring suspension of claim 18. Lootens fails to explicitly disclose the claimed whereby the organic pigment is a substance selected from phthalocyanine dyes, quinophthalone dyes, naphthol dyes, diketopyrrolopyrrole dyes, quinacridone dyes, dioxazine dyes, arylide dyes, and/or pyrazolo quinazolone dyes.
However, Tao remains as introduced and applied in the rejection of claim 19, and Tao further teaches the claimed whereby the organic pigment is a substance selected from phthalocyanine dyes, quinophthalone dyes, naphthol dyes, diketopyrrolopyrrole dyes, quinacridone dyes, dioxazine dyes, arylide dyes, and/or pyrazolo quinazolone dyes (Tao at [0011], [0018], [0046]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 19.
As to claim 22: Lootens discloses the liquid coloring suspension of claim 18. Lootens fails to explicitly disclose the claimed whereby with respect to overall weight of the coloring suspension, the suspension comprises less than 1 wt% of an inorganic pigments other than carbon black.
However, Tao remains as introduced and applied in the rejection of claim 19, and Tao further teaches the claimed whereby with respect to overall weight of the coloring suspension, the suspension comprises less than 1 wt% of an inorganic pigments other than carbon black (Tao at [0011], [0018], [0046]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILEIGH K. DARNELL whose telephone number is (469)295-9287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, MST.
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 H. 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.
/BAILEIGH KATE DARNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1743