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 of Group I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 08/04/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 5-6 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 5, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 5 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
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) 1-4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (Incorporating Metal Precursors towards a Library of High-resolution Metal Parts by Stereolithography, 2022) in view of Chen (US 2016/0368210).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a method of fabricating a three-dimensional metallic object (Abstract), comprising:
mixing a photocurable resin with anhydrous metal salt powder or dissolving metal salt powder to form a metal salt resin, wherein the metal salt resin is a metal salt slurry or a metal salt liquid resin (see Page 7; material and method section);
dispensing metal salt resin into a light projection area (i.e. dispensing metal salt resin into a vat polymerization in SLA) (see Fig. 1; Page 2);
receiving a digital model of the metallic object (see Figs. 3-4; Pages 3-4). However, Li does not explicitly teach receiving a mask image video of the digital model, the mask image video comprised of a
collection of two-dimensional mask images that each represent a cross-sectional area of the
metallic object.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing methods, Chen teaches a method including medium-encoded computer program products for performing additive manufacturing (AM) using continuous resin flow based mask video projection stereolithography (Abstract), comprises providing a mask video projection based stereolithography (MVP-SLA) system (120) for receiving a mask image video of the digital model (see Fig. 1B; [0024-0026][), the mask image video comprised of a collection of two-dimensional mask images that each represent a cross-sectional area of the 3D printed object (see Figs. 1A-1B; [0004]).
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 of fabricating a three-dimensional metallic object as taught by Li in view of Chen with employing a mask image video of the digital model, the mask image video comprised of a collection of two-dimensional mask images that each represent a cross-sectional area of the metallic object as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Chen 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 increase fabrication speed, reduce recoating delays and improve the resin surface quality (see [0027 of Chen).
Li in view of Chen further teaches projecting the mask image video and a light beam into a tank (124) containing the metal salt resin; and printing the metallic object with the metal salt resin from the tank as a build platform (122,125) positioned above the tank moves upward, wherein each cross-sectional area of the metallic object is selectively cured with the light (see Fig. 1 and Pages 2-3 of Li ; Fig. 1B;[0026-0027] of Chen).
Regarding claim 2, Li in view of Chen further teaches the method, wherein the build platform (122,125) moves upward from the tank at a constant velocity (see [0036] of Chen).
Regarding claim 3, Li in view of Chen further teaches the method, wherein the constant velocity is between 10 µm s-1 and 300 µm S-1(see [0036] of Chen).
Regarding claim 4, Li in view of Chen discloses the claimed invention except for wherein printing the metallic object includes a printing speed of at least 10⁷ µm³ s-¹ for a feature size of 100 µm. However, since Chen teaches fabrication speed of over 10 mm/min (which is 1.67X10˄6 µm/min or 27800 µm/s in linear speed) (see [0036-0037]) and the method configured for providing a continuous resin flow based mask video projection can achieve ultra-high fabrication speed (see [0025]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the printing the metallic object includes a printing speed of at least 10⁷ µm³ s-¹ for a feature size of 100 µm, 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 the printing the metallic object includes a printing speed of at least 10⁷ µm³ s-¹ for a feature size of 100 µm for the purpose of increasing fabrication speed, reduce recoating delays and improve the resin surface quality (see [0027] of Chen).
Regarding claim 7, Li in view of Chen further teaches the method, wherein different types of metal salt resins are dispensed into the resin tank at a controllable deposition rate (see Page 7 of Li).
Regarding claim 8, Li in view of Chen further teaches the method, wherein printing the multi-metallic object includes the formation of alloys and gradient metal structures (i.e. fabrication of metallic and alloy structures using metal salt precursors in a photocurable resin) (see abstract; pages 1-2 of Li).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (Incorporating Metal Precursors towards a Library of High-resolution Metal Parts by Stereolithography, 2022) in view of Chen (US 2016/0368210) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Halloran (US 6,117,612).
Regarding claim 5, Li in view of Chen teaches the method as discussed in claim 1 above.
Li further teaches wherein the metal salt resin comprises such as CuSO4 and a dispersant (see Page 7, material and method section). However, Li does not explicitly teach the metal salt resin comprises 20% -65% (w/w) metal salt such as CuSO4.
In analogous art, Halloran teaches a photocurable resins suitable for use in rapid prototyping of green ceramic and green, sinter-able metal structures by stereolithography (Abstract), comprises a photocurable metal resins having solids loadings in excess of 40 volume percent (see column 4,lines 45-50). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the metal salt resin comprises 20% -65% (w/w) metal salt such as CuSO4, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. One would have been motivated to the metal salt resin comprises 20% -65% (w/w) metal salt in order to provide low viscosity photocurable resin systems containing in excess of forty volume percent of ceramic or metal particulates (see column 1, lines 13-20 of Halloran). (Please see MPEP 2144.07 for further details)
Regarding claim 6, Li in view of Chen and Halloran teaches the method, wherein the dispersant is an ionic copolymer dispersant (copper sulfate pentahydrate) (see Page 7 material section of li) and (ammonium polyacrylate salt) (see column 6, lines 66-67 and column 7, lines 10-15 of Halloran).
Conclusion
Tang (US 20240044031) discloses a relevant method and apparatus of fabricating a three-dimensional metallic object (Abstract, Figs. 8-9 and 20-21).
Yee (US 2020/0156035) discloses a relevant method of fabricating a three-dimensional metallic object (Abstract).
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