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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-3,5,7-9,11,13,15-16,18,20,22-23,25,28-30,33 and 36) in the reply filed on 08/14/20296 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Group III is drawn to the same subject matter as Group I. This is not found persuasive because the restriction requirement mailed on 06/18/2026 was based on the two inventions do not share the same or corresponding technical features required for unity of invention under 35 U.S.C121. Invention I directed to a method for printing a 3D object using distinct parameter sets and optical properties to customize the printing of different portions of the object. In contrast, Group III’s invention is directed to a method for printing 3D object with uniform cure levels in overlapping portions of the object. These inventions solve different technical problems and use different technical features to achieve their respective goals.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 contain a duplicative use of the term “at least” which appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required to eliminate the redundant language.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3,5,7,13,15, 23 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2018/0339449) in view of Chen (US 2017/0307902).
Regarding claim 1, Chen’ 449 teaches a method for printing a three-dimensional (3D) object (Abstract), comprising:
(a) printing a first portion of said 3D object (i.e. printing partial physical slice model (344)) using a first parameter set and a first light beam (first light module (204)), wherein said first parameter set includes at least one first parameter corresponding to a first optical property of said first light beam (see Figs. 2A-2C; [0052-0054], [0059] and [0064]); and
(b) printing a second portion of said 3D object different from said first portion (i.e. printing partial physical slice model (342) which is distinct spatial portion of the same layer/slice of the 3D object) using a second parameter set and a second light beam (a second light module (206)), wherein said second parameter set includes at least one second parameter corresponding to a second optical property of said second light beam, wherein said second parameter set is different from said first parameter set (see Figs. 2A-2D; [0065-0067] and [0093]), and wherein using said first parameter set and said second parameter set reduces an overprinting or an over-curing of said 3D object (see [0063] and [0076]).
Chen’ 449 does not explicitly teach wherein said second optical property is different from said first optical property, to yield at least a portion of said 3D object comprising said first portion and said second portion.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing methods, Chen’ 902 teaches a method for printing a three-dimensional object using a stereolithography apparatus (10) (Abstract; Fig. 1), comprises using a light source for providing a first light beam with a first wavelength (first optical property) and a first beam dimension and a second light beam with a second wavelength (second optical property) and a second beam dimension (see [0056]; claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method as taught by Chen’449 with a second optical property is different from said first optical property, to yield at least at least a portion of said 3D object comprising said first portion and said second portion as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Chen’ 902 above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would further suppress the excessive-curing or incomplete-curing effect.
Regarding claim 2, Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 further teaches the method, wherein said first or second parameter set each comprise one or more parameters individually selected from the group consisting of voxel count, mod value, dwell time, illumination time, and optical power (see [0015],[0018] and [0086-0088] of Chen ’449 discussing irradiation ranges, off-set values and pixel/ light -spot-on -off control equivalent to mod value; and [0066], [0069] and [0073] of Chen’902 discloses beam diameter /dimension reads on the optical power/spot based parameter) .
Regarding claim 3, Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 further teaches the method, wherein said first portion and said second portion comprise different feature sizes or have different properties (i.e. the small diameter beam (405nm) build small features and the large diameter’s beam (445nm) fills large/bulk features of the same object (see Fig. 9; [0067] of Chen’902).
Regarding claim 5, Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 further teaches the method, wherein the first light beam and the second light beam are both generated by a same light source (i.e. a single light source configured to provide both beams; see claim 1 of Chen’902).
Regarding claim 7, Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 further teaches the method, further comprising printing a third portion of said 3D object different from said first portion or said second portion using a third parameter set and a third light beam (i.e. Chen’902 discloses three or more beams and three or more filters for providing wavelengths used to give laser spots sizes) (see [0056], [0067] and claim 1 of Chen’902).
Regarding claim 13, Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 further teaches the method, wherein said using said second parameter set for said printing said second portion reduces an overcuring of said second portion as compared to using said first parameter set to print said second portion (see [0063] and [0076] of Chen’449).
Regarding claim 15, Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 further teaches the method, wherein said first parameter set (340) is configured to achieve a first predetermined level of cure of said first portion, and wherein said second parameter (342) set is configured to achieve a second predetermined level of cure of said second portion (see Fig. 2C and Fig. 3;[0063], [0065-0067] and [0076] of Chen’449)
Regarding claim 23, Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 discloses the claimed invention except for the 3D object is printed in a time period of at most about 6 hours. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make said 3D object is printed in a time period of at most about 6 hours, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to make said 3D object is printed in a time period of at most about 6 hours in order to achieve fast printing and to reduce printing time.
Regarding claim 33, Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 further teaches the method, wherein said 3D object comprises a polymeric material, a metal (see [0002] and [0056] of Chen’449 and [0026] of Chen’ 902), a metal alloy, a composite material, one or more biopolymers, signaling molecules or proteins, or any combination thereof.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2018/0339449) in view of Chen (US 2017/0307902) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Bickel (US 2016/0096318).
Regarding claim 8, Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 teaches the method as discussed in claim 1 above.
Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 does not teach, wherein said third parameter set comprises a gradient of parameters between said first parameter set and said second parameter set.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing processes, Bickel teaches a method for printing 3D object (Abstract), comprises printing a 3d object with a first, a second and a third regions with distinct material parameters, whereby material parameters vary for the object elements of the formed 3D object (see [0017-0018]); using algorithm to select a compatible microstructure for neighboring object elements or regions so as to insure the microstructure in a transition region between neighboring object elements are compatible (i.e. a third, intermediate region whose parameter (microstructure/elasticity value) is selected to blend or interpolated between two neighboring regions/s differing parameter (see [0034], [0037], [0052] and [0063]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a third parameter set comprises a gradient of parameters between said first parameter set and said second parameter set as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Bickel above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known process ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allows for avoiding an abrupt boundary between different parameterized regions of a single continuously formed object can create a discontinuity at the interface.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2018/0339449) in view of Chen (US 2017/0307902)as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Adzima (US2018/0141278).
Regarding claim 9, Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 teaches the method as discussed in claim 1 above.
Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 does not teach the method further comprising printing a second 3D object configured to provide feedback on said printing said first portion and said printing said second portion.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing process, Adzima teaches an additive manufacturing process (Abstract; Fig. 3), comprises providing an additive-manufacturing apparatus; printing a calibration object separately from manufactured object; wherein variations in light projections of the additive-manufacturing apparatus result in variations in height for different parts of the calibration object that are nominally the same height (see Fig. 2; [0028-0030]). These height variations can be measured and used for creating an intensity map that represents the variations in light projection, and the intensity map corrects the light projections used to build the actual object (i.e. a second object printed specifically to provide feedback in the printing of the first object (see Fig. 2; [0030],[0037] and [0041]); and the intensity map can be used when printing future objects so that the effects of the variations are reduced or eliminated (see Fig.2; [0030]). Adzima further discloses in a second embedment printing a validation object for serving the identical feedback function (see Fig. 3; [0041-0042]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to print a second 3D object configured to provide feedback on said printing said first portion and said printing said second portion as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Adzima above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known process ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allows for control curing quality across different portions of an object printed via stereolithography and avoid light projection non-uniformity degrading print quality.
Claim(s) 11, 25, 30 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2018/0339449) in view of Chen (US 2017/0307902) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Mcgoogan (WO 2021/146466).
Regarding claim 11, Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 teaches the method as discussed in claim 3 above.
Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 does not teach, wherein said first portion and said second portion have different properties and wherein said properties are selected from the group consisting of feature size, tensile strength, porosity, Young's modulus, yield strength, degradation rate, swelling properties, protein composition, and polymer composition.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing process, Mcgoogan teaches a method for generating computer representations of three-dimensional (3D) biological or physiological objects (Abstract), comprises printing a first plurality of cells containing matrix; subsequently printing a second plurality of cells which is different properties from the first plurality of cells (see [0203]); and wherein said properties are selected from the group consisting of feature size, tensile strength, porosity, Young's modulus, yield strength, degradation rate, swelling properties, protein composition, and polymer composition (see [0104] and [0286]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date with said first portion and said second portion have different properties and wherein said properties are selected from the group consisting of feature size, tensile strength, porosity, Young's modulus, yield strength, degradation rate, swelling properties, protein composition, and polymer composition as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Mcgoogan above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known process ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allows for generating a computer representation using a biological/physiological parameter and a printing parameter to determine wavelength dependent, portion-specific print settings.
Regarding claim 25, Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 teaches the method as discussed in claim 1 above.
Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 does not teach, wherein said 3D object comprises at least one cell, and said at least one cell is:
of a subject; present in a media chamber prior to said directing; or introduced to said 3D object subsequent to generating said object.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing process, Mcgoogan teaches a method for generating computer representations of three-dimensional (3D) biological or physiological object (Abstract), comprises printing a first plurality of cells containing matrix; subsequently printing a second plurality of cells which is different properties from the first plurality of cells (see [0203]); wherein said 3D object comprises at least one cell, and said at least one cell is of a subject (see [0001], [0070] and [0237]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date with wherein said 3D object comprises at least one cell, and said at least one cell is of a subject as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Mcgoogan above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known process ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allows for cusmized 3D printing of biological structure using patient specific cells, improved biocompatibility and function integration of the printed object with the subject’s body.
Regarding claim 30, Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 teaches the method as discussed in claim 1 above.
Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 does not teach, wherein said 3D object corresponds to an organ or organoid selected from the group consisting of a two-dimensional organ or organoid, a three- dimensional organ or organoid, a lymph node, an islet of Langerhans, a hair follicle, a tumor or a tumor spheroid, a neural bundle and support cell(s), a nephron, a liver organoid, an intestinal crypt, a primary lymphoid organ, a secondary lymphoid organ, a spleen, a liver, a pancreas, a gallbladder, an appendix, a small intestine, a large intestine, a heart, a lung, a bladder, a kidney, a bone, a cochlea, an ovary, a thymus, a trachea, a cornea, a heart valve, skin, a ligament, a tendon, a muscle, a thyroid gland, a nerve, and a blood vessel.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing process, Mcgoogan teaches a method for generating computer representations of three-dimensional (3D) biological or physiological object (Abstract), comprises printing a first plurality of cells containing matrix; subsequently printing a second plurality of cells which is different properties from the first plurality of cells (see [0203]); wherein said 3D object corresponds to organ or organoid such as a kidney, a lung, a pancreas, a thyroid(see [0235], [0264] and [0268]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date with said 3D object corresponds to an organ or organoid selected from the group consisting of a three- dimensional organ or organoid, a lung, and a kidney as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Mcgoogan above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known process ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allows for customized 3D printing of biological structure using patient specific cells, improved biocompatibility and function integration of the printed object with the subject’s body.
Regarding claim 36, Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 teaches the method as discussed in claim 1 above.
Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 does not teach the method, further comprising, subsequent to (a), developing said 3D object into a biologically functional tissue.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing process, Mcgoogan teaches a method for generating computer representations of three-dimensional (3D) biological or physiological object (Abstract), comprises printing a first plurality of cells containing matrix; subsequently printing a second plurality of cells which is different properties from the first plurality of cells (see [0203]); wherein said 3D object corresponds to organ or organoid such as a kidney, a lung, a pancreas, a thyroid(see [0235], [0264] and [0268]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date with subsequent to (a), developing said 3D object into a biologically functional tissue as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Mcgoogan above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known process ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allows for customized 3D printing of biological structure using patient specific cells, improved biocompatibility and function integration of the printed object with the subject’s body.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2018/0339449) in view of Chen (US 2017/0307902) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deleon (US 2018/0169969).
Regarding claim 16, Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 teaches the method as discussed in claim 1 above.
Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 does not teach, wherein said second portion is at least partially disposed within said first portion, or vice versa.
In the same field or endeavor, additive manufacturing processes, Deleon teaches a process of additive manufacturing of an object, comprises utilizing DLP projector to irradiate and cures an outer perimeter of a cross section (first portion) of the object and a focused energy source for curing an inner hatch area nested within the outer perimeter (second portion) (see Fig. 7; [0005] and [0020]). Deleon further teaches that the hatch area is less than the projected area in each cross section of the object (i.e. the second portion is partially contained within the first portion (see Fig. 7;[0020]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date with wherein said second portion is at least partially disposed within said first portion, or vice versa as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Deleon above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known process ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allows to make various objects, including components having strong polymerized inner core portions and well defined outer surfaces, and processes utilizing these components (see [0001] of Deleon).
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2018/0339449) in view of Chen (US 2017/0307902)as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lewis (US 2017/0151733).
Regarding claim 18, Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 teaches the method as discussed in claim 1 above.
Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 does not teach, wherein said 3D object is printed at a smaller size than a size where said 3D object will be used.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing processes, Lewis teaches a method of 4D printing a hydrogel composite structure, comprises depositing a first layer (104) and a second layer (106) of filaments in a planar arrangement (110) (pre-hydration) configuration (i.e. printed structure before it reached its intended final configuration, occupies a smaller, less volumetric footprint than its final form) (see Figs. 2A-2B; [0005] ,[0028] and [0030]); transforming (pre-hydration) configuration into a curved three dimensional hydrogel composite structure (1120 after hydration after hydration, leading to the formation of a swollen 3D shape (112) (see Fig. 2B; [0030]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date with said 3D object is printed at a smaller size than a size where said 3D object will be used given the discussion of Lewis above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known process ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allows for improved control over printing process, improve efficiency in material usage by printing smaller and expanding later and enhance functionality by creating complex shapes that are difficult to print directly at full size.
Regarding claim 20, Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 and Lewis further teaches the method, wherein said 3D object is exposed to agents (water) configured to swell said 3D object to said size where said 3D object will be used (see Figs. 2A-2B; Fig. 3; [0028] and [0034] of Lewis).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2018/0339449) in view of Chen (US 2017/0307902) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Silverbrook (US 2010/0278952).
Regarding claim 22, Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 teaches the method as discussed in claim 1 above.
Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 does not teach, wherein said first portion and said second portion are printed at a substantially same time.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing processes, Silverbrook teaches a three dimensional printing process, comprises using a printer system for developing a three dimensional (3D) printed structure includes a plurality of spaced apart sets of printing devices is operable to print voxels simultaneously with a printhead of a second of the plurality of spaced apart sets, whereby multiple layers of voxel are formed at the same time (abstract; [0026]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date with making the first portion and the second portion are printed at a substantially same time given the discussion of Silverbrook above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known process ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allows for faster, simultaneous printing of multiple portions of a 3D object.
Claim(s) 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2018/0339449) in view of Chen (US 2017/0307902) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shusteff (US 2018/0015672).
Regarding claim 28, Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 teaches the method as discussed in claim 1 above.
Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 does not teach, wherein said first light beam comprises a holographic projection of said first portion or said second portion.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing processes, Shusteff teaches a multi-beam volumetric resin curing system and method for whole-volume additive manufacturing of an object (Abstract) includes a first light beam comprises a holographic projection of a first portion of the object (see Figs. 1-3;[0022], [0024-0026] and [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method as taught by Chen’449 and Chen’902 in view of Shusteff with the first light beam comprises a holographic projection of said first portion or said second portion as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Shusteff above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so allow for the recording and reconstruction of 3D geometric information and controlled delivery of light energy (see [0014] and [0024] of Shusteff).
Regarding claim 29, Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 teaches the method as discussed in claim 1 above.
Chen’449 in view of Chen’902 does not teach, wherein said light beam: comprises a plurality of energy beams; is phase modulated; or generated by least one laser source or a two-photon energy source.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing processes, Shusteff teaches a multi-beam volumetric resin curing system and method for whole-volume additive manufacturing of an object (Abstract) includes a plurality of energy beams; is phase modulated; or generated by least one laser source or a two-photon energy source (see Figs. 1-3;[0010-0012], [0024-0026] and [0028-0030]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method as taught by Chen’449 and Chen’902 in view of Shusteff with wherein said light beam: comprises a plurality of energy beams; is phase modulated; or generated by least one laser source or a two-photon energy source as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Shusteff above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so allow for controlled delivery of light energy (see [0014] and [0024] of Shusteff).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AHMED ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-0347. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM-7:30 PM.
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.
/MOHAMED K AHMED ALI/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights