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 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.
Claim(s) 33, 38-40, 43-44 and 51-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Loterie et al. (US 2020/0384682).
As to claims 33 and 47: Loterie discloses the claimed method and system for fabricating a three-dimensional object from a build volume by tomographic vat photopolymerization (Loterie at Title, [0001], [0125]), the method and system comprising:
a processing unit configured for computing a number of primary projections describing the three-dimensional object to be formed from different orientation angles of the object, the primary projections comprise positive and negative intensity values (Loterie at [0045], [0147], [0168], FIG. 9);
deriving, from each primary projection, a positive projection, corresponding to the positive intensity values, and a negative projection, corresponding to the negative intensity values (Loterie at [0147], [0168], FIG. 9);
a projection system configured for irradiating the build volume at the respective corresponding orientations (Loterie at [0140], [0143], [0159], [0160]) with: light of a first wavelength in a first series of patterns of light, as defined by the negative projections (Loterie at [0140], [0143], [0147], [0161], [0168], FIG. 9); and light of a second wavelength in a second series of patterns of light, as defined by the positive projections (Loterie at [0140], [0143], [0147], [0161], [0168], FIG. 9); and
a build volume comprising: a monomer; a precursor of a stable radical scavenger, the stable radical scavenger is inducible by light of the first wavelength, and the stable radical scavenger is sensitive to light of the second wavelength (Loterie at [0046]-[0049], [0065]-[0066], [0141]-[0142]); and
a photosensitive component capable of initiating polymerization of the monomer upon receiving light of the second wavelength (Loterie at [0140], [0143], [0147], [0161], [0168], FIG. 9).
As to claims 38 and 51: Loterie discloses the method and system of claim 33 and claim 47. Loterie further discloses the claimed wherein the positive projection comprises the positive pixel values and the negative projection comprises the negative pixel values, of each corresponding primary projection; or wherein each primary projection comprises the intensity values of the corresponding positive and negative projections (Loterie at [0147], [0168], FIG. 9).
As to claim 39: Loterie discloses the method and system of claim 33. Loterie further discloses the claimed wherein: the stable radical scavenger is inducible by photolysis of the precursor, by light of the first wavelength; the stable radical scavenger absorbs light of the second wavelength; or the concentration of the stable radical scavenger is decreased by providing light of the second wavelength (Loterie at [0066], [0065]).
As to claim 40: Loterie discloses the method and system of claim 33. Loterie further discloses the claimed wherein a rate of polymerization is a function of the ratio between the intensity of the light of the first wavelength and the light of the second wavelength (Loterie at [0066], [0065], [0161]-[0164]).
As to claim 43: Loterie discloses the method and system of claim 33. Loterie further discloses the claimed wherein the stable radical scavenger is configured such that it is stable in the build volume for at least 1 s, or at least 3 s, or at least 5 s, or at least 10 s, in the absence of light of the secondary wavelength (Loterie at [0125]).
As to claims 44 and 52: Loterie discloses the method and system of claim 33. Loterie further discloses the claimed wherein the build volume is illuminated simultaneously, at the respective corresponding orientations, with: light of the first wavelength in the first series of patterns of light, as defined by the negative projections; and light of the second wavelength in the second series of patterns of light, as defined by the positive projections (Loterie at [0147], [0161]-[0164], [0168], FIG. 9).
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.
Claim(s) 37 and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loterie as applied to claims 33 and 47 above, and further in view of Martinez Fraiz et al. (US 2023/0347580).
As to claims 37 and 50: Loterie discloses the method and system of claim 33 and claim 47. Loterie fails to disclose the claimed wherein the primary projection, the negative projections or the positive projections are sinograms.
However, Martinez Fraiz teaches a method for stereolithographic three dimensional printing. During this method, the container containing the photopolymerizable polymer can be rotated or moved linearly during the irradiating of the light sheets. By rotating and/or moving the container, this method allows performing perform a volumetric bioprinting or tomographic bioprinting based on tomographic back-projections, in which a 3D polymerized shape is generated by illuminating with tomographic back-projections generated by the modulated laser beams, which depending on the properties of the container and the polymer, results in a faster or more efficient method (Martinez Fraiz at [0077]).
Martinez Fraiz further teaches creating an drawing of the 3D structure to be printed in a stereolithography format in any known computer-aided design (CAD) or modelling software, converting it to a stack of binary masks (“slicing”), creating an drawing of the 3D structure to be printed in a stereolithography format in any known computer-aided design (CAD) or modelling software, converting it to a stack of binary masks (“slicing”), calculating a sinogram or Radon transformation of each slice, and using sinograms to generate a spatial and intensity modulation of the light sheet illumination for each slice to further perform the gel polymerization within a container placed on a rotating platform so that at each angular step, the gel is illuminated by the light sheet patterned accordingly to the sinograms (Martinez Fraiz at [0078]).
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 the sinograms to generate a spatial and intensity modulation of the light sheet illumination for each slice as such is known in the art of tomographic back projections given the discussion of Martinez Fraiz above presenting a reasonable expectation of success and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 41-42 and 45-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loterie as applied to claims 33, and further in view of Shusteff et al. (US 2020/0361152).
As to claim 41: Loterie discloses the method of claim 33. Loterie fails to disclose the claimed wherein the build volume comprises a secondary radical scavenger that is sensitive to light of the second wavelength.
However, Shusteff teaches photocurable resins for use in a volumetric additive manufacturing process comprising: a photocurable resin prepolymer; a photoinitiator; and a curing inhibitor (Shusteff at [0011]) Shusteff further teaches combinations of inhibitors being included, specifically dissolved molecular oxygen (Shusteff at [0027], [0028]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the build volume comprising additional materials as such is known in the art of photocurable resins for volumetric additive manufacturing given the discussion of Shusteff above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As to claim 42: Loterie and Shusteff disclose the claimed method of claim 41. Shusteff further discloses the claimed wherein: the secondary radical scavenger is configured to absorb light of the second wavelength; the secondary radical scavenger is arranged to suppress or prevent polymerization of the monomer; or the secondary radical scavenger is selected from the list including oxygen or 2,2,6,6- tetramethylpiperdinoxyl (Shusteff at [0027], [0028]).
As to claim 45: Loterie discloses the method of claim 33. Loterie fails to disclose the claimed wherein one of the first and second wavelengths is in the UV range, with a wavelength range from 10 nm to 400 nm, and wherein the other of the wavelengths is in the visible light range with a wavelength range from 400 nm to 700 nm.
However, Shusteff remains as introduced and applied in the rejection of claim 41 above, and Shusteff further teaches the claimed wherein one of the first and second wavelengths is in the UV range, with a wavelength range from 10 nm to 400 nm, and wherein the other of the wavelengths is in the visible light range with a wavelength range from 400 nm to 700 nm (Shusteff at [0022]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 41.
As to claim 46: Loterie discloses the method of claim 33. Loterie fails to disclose the claimed wherein: the precursor of the stable radical scavenger is o-Cl-HABI; the stable radical scavenger is selected from the group including lophyl radical or tetraethylthiuram disulfide; the monomer is selected from the group including TEGDMA or bisGMA; or the build volume comprises a photoinitiator selected from the group including camphorquinone or ethyl 4-(dimethylamino) benzoate.
However, Shusteff remains as introduced and applied in the rejection of claim 41 above, and Shusteff further teaches the claimed wherein: the precursor of the stable radical scavenger is o-Cl-HABI; the stable radical scavenger is selected from the group including lophyl radical or tetraethylthiuram disulfide; the monomer is selected from the group including TEGDMA or bisGMA; or the build volume comprises a photoinitiator selected from the group including camphorquinone or ethyl 4-(dimethylamino) benzoate (Shusteff at [0028], [0052]-[0056]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 41.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34 and 48-49 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or suggest the claimed wherein the build volume is irradiated with light of the first wavelength, in the first series of patterns of light and at the respective corresponding orientations, such that a first energy distribution is provided to the build volume, wherein the energy provided to unpolymerizing voxels is higher than the energy provided to polymerizing voxels; and wherein the polymerizing voxels and the unpolymerizing voxels are voxels of the build volume that are to polymerize and remain unpolymerized, respectively, in order to accurately reproduce the three-dimensional object. Claims 35-36 are indicated as allowable due to their dependency on claim 34.
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
