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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed May 18, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 7, 9, 18, 19, 34, 115 and 116 are currently amended. Claims 4, 5, 8, 10-17, 35-37, 39-58, 60-78, 80-84, 86-112, 117-123 and 125-218 have been canceled. Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 18, 19, 34, 38, 59, 79, 85, 113-116 and 124 are pending and under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 18, 19, 34, 38, 59, 79, 85 and 113-116 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishida et al. (US 2020/0276761).
Regarding claim 1, Nishida et al. teach an additive manufacturing method for adding a layer to a three-dimensional (3D) object that is formed by curing a light-cured resin fluid by a light source and that includes a vertical cavity that defines top and bottom openings and that serves as a pathway for a light-cured resin fluid (Abstract; Figures 3 and 9A (470); paragraphs [0081]-[0083], [0090]), comprising: obtaining a layer data that defines an area to be added onto the 3D object (paragraphs [0023] [0049], [0053]-[0055], [0062], [0068], [0069], [0071], [0072], [0078], [0080], [0081], [0083], [0086], [0087], [0103], [0104], [0113], [0145], [0155]-[0162] – layer-by-layer stereolithographic growth of the 3D object with selective exposure of the resin fluid to curing light to form the desired shape); dispensing, using a pump, the light-cured resin fluid to the bottom opening for outputting and spreading from the top opening (Figures 3 and 9A (470) (700) (710) (720) (730) (750); paragraphs [0005], [0066], [0081]-[0087], [0097] and [0098]); and curing, by a light beam generated by the light source, at least part of the output and spread light-cured resin fluid according to the area (Abstract; paragraphs [0002], [0006], [0008], [0012], [0049], [0052], [0069], [0081]-[0086]; Figure 3 (500) (510)), while keeping the top opening non-cured, so that resin can be passed via the cavity, so that the layer is added after the curing (Figures 3 and 9A (470); paragraphs [0066], [0081]-[0087], [0090], [0097], [0098]).
As to claim 2, Nishida et al. teach a stereolithographic system is utilized (paragraphs [0023] [0049], [0053]-[0055], [0062], [0068], [0069], [0071], [0072], [0078], [0080], [0081], [0083], [0086], [0103], [0104], [0113], [0145], [0155]-[0162]).
As to claim 3, Nishida et al. teach photopolymerization of the fluid (Abstract; paragraphs [0002], [0006], [0008], [0012], [0049], [0052], [0072], [0081]-[0086]; Figure 3 (500) (510); Figure 5).
As to claims 59 and 79, Nishida et al. teach curing with a light source as claimed (Abstract; paragraphs [0002], [0006], [0008], [0012], [0049], [0052], [0081]-[0086]; Figure 3 (500) (510); Figures 3 and 9A (470); paragraph [0090]).
As to claims 6, 7, 9, 18, 19, 38, and 113-116, Nishida et al. teach formation of multiple layers from multiple materials with the different materials being within the same layer in desired configurations or within different layers in desired configurations and feeding these materials through the same or different openings (470) in the object itself (Figures 3, 4A, 4B, and 6-9C; Figure 20; paragraphs [0003]-[0012], [0049], [0050], [0074], [0077]-[0083], [0090], [0097] and [0098]).
As to claim 34, the method of Nishida et al. is suitably “for use” with model data provided by a CAD system (paragraphs [0023] [0049], [0053]-[0055], [0062], [0068], [0069], [0071], [0072], [0078], [0080], [0081], [0083], [0086], [0087], [0103], [0104], [0113], [0145], [0155]-[0162]; see section 112b rejection set forth above. Further, even if the claim were explicitly limited to utilizing a CAD system, as one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize, this flows from the stereolithographic teaching of Nishida et al.).
As to claim 85, Nishida et al. teach the object is placed on an upper flat horizontal surface of a plate as claimed (Figures 3-4B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 124 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida et al. (US 2020/0276761), as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 18, 19, 34, 38, 59, 79, 85 and 113-116 above, and further in view of any one of Kojima (US 2019/0330483), Batoni (US 2019/0202123), or Rolland et al. (US 2018/0264719).
As to claim 124, Nishida et al. teach curing and polymerizing the material (paragraphs [0051], [0052]), but do not explicitly teach crosslinking. However, each of Kojima (Abstract; paragraphs [0044], [0045], [0093]), Batoni (paragraph [0017]), or Rolland et al. (paragraphs [0124], [0342], [0355], [0430]) teach analogous methods wherein the curing and polymerizing of the polymer includes crosslinking.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Nishida et al. and any one of the secondary references and to have crosslinked the polymer as claimed in the method of Nishida et al., as suggested by any one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of producing an additively manufactured object having desired properties for its desired application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 18, 2026 have been fully considered. The amendment to the claims has overcome the previous section 112 rejections. As such, the rejections have been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under sections 102 and 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there is no cavity in the cured object of Nishida through which the resin fluid is conveyed because (470) is not part of the cured object. This argument is not persuasive. The examiner submits that channel (470) is explicitly and unambiguously disclosed in the reference as being part of the cured object. (If applicant continues to disagree after reading this response, the examiner notes his availability to discuss the application via telephonic interview). This is most visibly clear in Figure 9a, as cited in the rejection, where channel (470) is part of the solid polymer object (450). This channel (470) is the channel through which resin flows in Nishida to reach the upper surface of the object in Figure 3. Applicant argues that the resin in Nishida is provided from the container (400) and not via the cured object. This argument is not persuasive. As shown in Figure 3, the liquid resin begins in reservoir (700), is pumped with pump (730), fed through tube (750), travels through porous substrate (310), and flows upward through channel(s) (470) formed in the solid polymer (450) to form a liquid resin layer (430) at the required locations prior to being cured itself with light (500) to form the next layer of the cured object. That channel (470) is part of the cured object is understood to be clearly set forth and described in the previously cited paragraphs [0081]-[0083] and [0095]. Paragraph [0081] states “During the layer-by-layer growth process, while an empty channel 470 in the solid polymer 450 provides a passage for the injected liquid monomer 400…” and paragraph [0095] states “FIG. 9(a) shows a cross section of the solid polymer 450…FIG. 9(a) also includes channel 470 where no solid polymer forms.” Further, applicant appears to suggest in the arguments that paragraph [0090] teaches channel 470 is not part of the cured object. This is not persuasive. Paragraph [0090] is understood to further support the examiner’s position by stating “liquid monomer 400 may also flow through channel 470 formed in the solid polymer 450”. In every instance, channel (470) is disclosed by Nishida as being formed in the solid polymer object 450 as a channel within the object itself. Further, the rejection previously cited paragraph [0066] when addressing the limitation directed to dispensing the resin to the bottom opening of the cavity for outputting and spreading from the top of the opening of the cavity. Paragraph [0066] teaches, “the injected liquid monomer may flow through any non-polymerized areas, including any channels in the solid polymer (if formed)”. In context, this is also a description of channel 470. The examiner further acknowledges that there are different channels described in Nishida beyond channel 470 and wonders if this is the source of disagreement. For example, there may be channels in substrate holder (350) of Nishida (e.g. see claim 2; and also shown in Figure 3 in connection with tube (750) where the resin is pumped by pump (730), through tube (750) and through a channel shown in substrate holder (350) to porous substrate (310)). However, the channels in substrate holder (350) are not the channels (470). Channels (470) are located “downstream” (i.e. downstream in the liquid resin flowing direction) of any channel formed in substrate holder (350). If applicant is still of the view that the examiner’s understanding is incorrect, the examiner notes his availability to discuss the application via telephonic interview.
Applicant further argues that Nishida uses mechanical movement, such as lowering substrate (350), while no mechanical movement is required in the claimed invention. This argument is not persuasive. There is nothing in the claim that excludes mechanical movement as argued. As such, the argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim. Nishida teaches each and every limitation set forth in claim 1 as set forth above.
Applicant further argues that the unexpected result of not needing mechanical movement supports the patentability of the claimed invention. This argument is not persuasive. Secondary considerations, such as unexpected results, are irrelevant to section 102 (see MPEP 2131.04). Further, arguments cannot take the place of evidence in the record and there is no evidence to suggest the invention as claimed has achieved unexpected results.
As to claims 7 and 113-116, applicant argues that channel 470 is a single channel and there is no disclosure of more than one channel. This argument is not persuasive. Paragraph [0081] makes clear that more than one channel 470 is in view when it recites “porous substrate 310 provides flow paths for the liquid monomer 400 to distribute along the substrate and enter any channels 470 disposed along the substrate…” The language “any channels 470” makes clear that more than one channel is in view. This is further shown graphically in Figure 3 where two channels (470) are shown (only one is labeled, but two are shown). Also, previously cited paragraph [0097] recites “a plurality of channels 470 may be present in the solid polymer 450”.
As to claim 124, applicant argues the rejection relies upon an improper rationale that is conclusory and unclear because the rejection recites “having desired properties for its desired application” and that this amounts to suggesting it is beneficial to have crosslinking for the sake of crosslinking without providing any objective reasoning. This argument is not persuasive. As set forth in the rejection, Nishida teaches polymerizing and curing the material into a solid polymer with light (paragraphs [0051] and [0052]). This general teaching does not articulate whether the polymerizing and curing of the material into a solidified polymer is utilized to produce a thermoplastic or thermoset/crosslinked plastic. It is noted here as an initial matter that those are the only two options. There are not a wide range of options to be considered; there are only two. The secondary references provide additional and analogous teaching in the polymeric additive manufacturing art wherein the polymerized and cured materials are formed into a crosslinked/thermoset plastic.
Each of the cited secondary references, as cited, make clear that the curing of the resin can be to crosslink the resin into a thermoset material and that crosslinking produces desired properties (e.g. Batoni, paragraph [0017] – “hardened” material as a result of the crosslinking; Kojima, Abstract – balancing of properties) and that such determinations regarding crosslinking are routine to one having ordinary skill in the art (e.g. Rolland and the “it will be appreciated” language in cited paragraphs [0342] and [0355]).
As such, rather than being unclear and conclusory, the rejection simply makes clear that one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious to have polymerized and cured the material of Nishida to a thermoset/crosslinked condition, as suggested by the secondary references, in order to produce articles having desired properties by the additive manufacturing method of Nishida. The argument appears to suggest that one having ordinary skill in the polymer art has very little understanding of the basic differences between thermoplastic and thermoset polymers and would not have read the references in the manner that the examiner has read them. The examiner submits that one having ordinary skill in the polymer art clearly understands that the different conditions produce different properties and that these different properties, which are attributable to the different conditions of the material, is clearly suggested in view of the prior art when the level of ordinary skill is properly resolved. The argument seems to imply that one having ordinary skill in the art would not have clearly understood when reading the references that there are two states/conditions for solidified polymers: thermoplastic and thermoset/crosslinked, that one having ordinary skill in the art would not have clearly understood and recognized that the different solidified conditions produce different properties and that in some instances thermoplastic properties are desired and that in other instances thermoset properties are desired. This is not persuasive. The examiner submits that the primary reason the secondary references are helpful and clarifying in this instance (i.e. the underlying premise for why are they even needed at all) is primarily to demonstrate that crosslinking the resin materials is known in the analogous additive manufacturing light curing art. With this capability clearly established by the secondary references, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious to have crosslinked the material of Nishida, if desired, to produce a desired object. The teaching of Nishida is directed to producing 3D objects via additive manufacturing. It is not primarily directed to producing any particular object. It is directed to a method of producing a range of objects by a particular technique. The technique includes polymerizing and curing resin with light. In regard to the limitation set forth in claim 124, the teaching of Nishida is generic because it doesn’t specify which one of the two solidified conditions (i.e. thermoplastic or crosslinked/thermoset) is in view. The secondary references analogously teach and disclose that similar additive manufacturing methods are known that polymerize and cure analogous resins to a crosslinked/thermoset condition.
The examiner notes his availability to discuss the application via telephonic interview.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights