DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filing on 6/2/2025, claims 1, 2, 4, 6-14, and 16-27 are pending. Claims 3, 5, and 15 are cancelled and claims 25-27 are newly added. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-14, and 16-27 are considered in the current Office 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 Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “a storage container configured to hold a powdered source material comprising a fluorescent and/or phosphorescent taggant” which is interpreted as the intended use of a claimed apparatus. It’s noted that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP 2115. In this case, if a storage container is capable of holding a powdered material, then it meets the limitation of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by US 20220258236 (“Andrews”) in view of US 20180186074 (“Hull”), further in view of US 20210060837 (“Anegawa”) and US 20190210283 (“Rouse”).
Regarding claim 1, Andrews teaches an additive fabrication device ([0002], additive manufacturing apparatuses) configured to fabricate parts from a powdered source material in a build region ([0126], on build platform 120 deposit binder material to form a part), the additive fabrication device comprising:
a storage container ([0069], a supply receptacle 134) configured to hold a powdered source material (Fig. 1, supply receptacle 134 holds build material 400 which is in powder form);
a light source configured to direct light onto the powdered source material ([0200], expose of the binder-powder surface to UV or other electromagnetic radiation);
a light sensor configured to receive light produced from the powdered source material ([0199], A UV camera, a visible or other detection system can be used to detect the fluorescence of the binder of the powdered source material);
at least one processor ([0193], a processor 1002) and at least one computer readable medium comprising instructions ([0197], processor controlling the components of the additive manufacturing apparatus which comprises the light source and UV camera) that, when executed by the at least one processor and cause the at least one processor to:
control the light source to direct light onto the powdered source material ([0177], the printed layers is exposed to heat and light that polymerizes polymerizable monomers in the binder material);
and detect the fluorescent and/or phosphorescent taggant in the powdered source material based on the light received by the light sensor from the powdered source material ([0191], a camera to detect the fluorescence of the cleaning fluid; [0202], detector can measure an increase of fluorescence, therefore it also measures when the fluorescence is zero).
Andrews does not teach the powdered source material in the supply receptacle contains a taggant.
Hull teaches an additive manufacturing apparatus (Abstract), wherein the powdered source material in the supply receptacle contains a dye ([0034] & Claim 11 Additives to the powder, such as carbon black or other pigments and dyes are in the supply of powder; Fig. 1, supply of powder is contained in a receptacle 16).
Andrews and Hull are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of additive manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the powdered source material in the supply receptacle in Andrews to incorporate adding a dye as taught by Anegawa, in order to increase the absorption of radiation in the powder (Hull, [0034]).
Andrews does not teach the light source is configured to direct light onto the powdered source material in the storage container.
Anegawa teaches an additive manufacturing method (Abstract), wherein a light source is configured to direct light onto the powdered source material in the storage container ([0103], a laser directs radiation light onto the material in storage unit 500).
Andrews and Anegawa are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of additive manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the light source in Andrews to incorporate directing the light source towards the powdered source material storage unit as taught by Anegawa, in order to judge the state of powdered source material in the storage (Anegawa, [0103]).
Andrews does not teach identifying a characteristic wavelength associated with the fluorescence and/or phosphorescence taggant present in the light received by the light sensor from the powdered source material.
However, Rouse teaches identifying a characteristic wavelength associated with the fluorescence and/or phosphorescence taggant present in the light received by the light sensor from the powdered source material ([0032], a light sensor and a camera detect emitted light energy from the excited fluorescence)
Andrews and Rouse are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of additive manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the printing system in Andrews to incorporate a filter configured to detect wavelength of fluorescence and/or phosphorescence taggant as taught by Rouse as described above, in order to help with sample analysis (Rouse, [0032]).
Regarding claim 2, Andrews teaches the light source is further configured to direct light onto the powdered source material in the build region ([0177], the printed layers is exposed to heat and light that polymerizes the monomers in the binder material), and wherein the light sensor is configured to receive light produced from the powdered source material in the build region ([0199], A UV camera detect the fluorescence of the binder).
Regarding claim 9, Andrews teaches the light source is configured to emit only non-visible light ([0166], near IR or UV (including UVA, UVB, or UVC) light).
Regarding claim 26, modified Andrews teaches identifying the at least one characteristics wavelength associated with the fluorescence and/or phosphorescence taggant present in the light (Rouse, [0032]) comprises determining an intensity of light received at the characteristic wavelength of the at least one characteristic wavelength (Andrews, [0166] fluorescence dyes respond to specific light intensity which is relative to the concentration of the dye) is greater than a threshold value (Andrews, [0190] determining the range of the contaminant concentration based on intensity of fluorescence dyes) .
Claims 4, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220258236 (“Andrews”) in view of US 20180186074 (“Hull”), US 20210060837 (“Anegawa”), and US 20190210283 (“Rouse”), as applied in claim 1, further in view of US 20230047898 (“Yasuba”).
Regarding claim 4, Andrews does not teach directing light from a second light source different from the light source onto the powdered source material.
Yasuba teaches an additive manufacturing apparatus (Fig. 1), wherein the additive fabrication device is configured to fabricate parts from the powdered source material by directing light different from the light source onto the powdered source material ([0006], a processing apparatus that is configured to process an object by irradiating the object with an energy beam and with a second light in a wavelength range that is different from a wavelength range of a first light; [0004] the light is directed onto the powder supply).
Andrews and Yasuba are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of additive manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the printing system in Andrews to incorporate a second light source directing onto the source materail as taught by Yasuba, in order to perform observing the melt pool separately from irradiating the print material for updating the progression of the printing process (Yasuba, [0114]).
Regarding claim 12, Andrews does not teach the additive fabrication device further comprises a second light source configured to direct light onto the build region to sinter powdered source material within the build region.
Yasuba teaches the additive fabrication device further comprises a second light source configured to direct light onto the build region to sinter powdered source material within the build region ([0006], illuminate a part of the object at least with a second light in a wavelength range that is different from a wavelength range of a first light emitted from an irradiated part of the object; [0004] the light is directed onto the powder supply).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the printing system in Andrews to incorporate a second light source directing onto the source materail as taught by Yasuba, in order to perform observing the melt pool separately from irradiating the print material for updating the progression of the printing process (Yasuba, [0114]).
Regarding claim 13, Andrews does not teach the light sensor includes a filter configured to filter out light produced by the second light source.
Rouse teaches an additive manufacturing device (Abstract), comprising a light sensor includes a filter configured to filter out light produced by the second light source ([0036], a band pass filter blocks all light except the wavelength energy which is emitted by the excited spots).
Andrews and Rouse are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of additive manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the printing system in Andrews to incorporate a filter configured to filter out light produced by the second light source as taught by Rouse, in order to quantify the fluorescence abundance (Rouse, [0036]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220258236 (“Andrews”) in view of US 20180186074 (“Hull”), US 20210060837 (“Anegawa”), and US 20190210283 (“Rouse”), as applied in claim 1, further in view of US 20120105949 (“Cummings”).
Regarding claim 6, Andrews does not teach the at least one characteristic wavelength associated with the fluorescence and/or phosphorescence taggant is not present in the light directed by the light source onto the powdered source material.
However, Cummings teaches it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have fluorescent material emitting light with a different wavelength from the light source that excites the fluorescent material ([0001], In fluorescence, light of one wavelength is absorbed by molecules and re-emitted at a different wavelength). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a known technique, in this case a fluorescent material that emits light with a different wavelength from the light source that excites the fluorescent material, to incorporate into the printing device in Andrews in the same way allowing some light to be filtered from the desired signal to be detected (Cummings, [0001]).
Claims 7, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220258236 (“Andrews”) in view of US 20180186074 (“Hull”), US 20210060837 (“Anegawa”), and US 20190210283 (“Rouse”), as applied in claim 1, further in view of US 20210291460 (“Clark”).
Regarding claim 7, Andrews does not teach at least one characteristic wavelength associated with the fluorescence and/or phosphorescence taggant includes at least one wavelength of visible light.
Clark teaches an additive manufacturing device ([0008], systems for producing 3D objects), wherein at least one characteristic wavelength associated with the fluorescence and/or phosphorescence taggant is a wavelength of visible light ([0136], a material comprising substances which can emit visible light under localized fluorescence excitation).
Andrews and Clark are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of additive manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the printing system in Andrews to incorporate a fluorescent material having characteristic fluorescence wavelength as visible light as taught by Clark, in order to enable the 3D display to become visible (Clark, [0136]).
Regarding claim 10, Andrews does not teach the non-visible light is infrared light.
Clark further teaches a light source emitting the non-visible light is infrared light ([0042], a UV light emitter and a physical light (blue physical light) emitter, including infrared light).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the printing system in Andrews to incorporate a light emitting light as taught by Clark, in order to project in real time a complete 3d projection in the resin (Clark, [0043]).
Regarding claim 11, Andrews teaches the non-visible light is near infrared light ([0166], near IR or UV (including UVA, UVB, or UVC) light).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220258236 (“Andrews”) in view of US 20180186074 (“Hull”), US 20210060837 (“Anegawa”), and US 20190210283 (“Rouse”), as applied in claim 1, further in view of US 20120105949 (“Cummings”) and US 20180304549 (“Safai”).
Regarding claim 8, Andrews teaches the instructions when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor ([0197], the computer readable and executable instructions for controlling the additive manufacturing apparatus) to detect the fluorescence and/or phosphorescence taggant in the powdered source material at least in part by identifying the first characteristic wavelength associated with the fluorescence and/or phosphorescence taggant ([0191], camera to detect an initial fluorescence of the cleaning fluid, measures the fluorescence of the cleaning fluid, and transmits both the initial fluorescence and the subsequent fluorescence of the cleaning fluid to the control system 1000).
Andrews does not teach the at least one characteristic wavelength associated with the fluorescence and/or phosphorescence taggant includes a first characteristic wavelength and a second characteristic wavelength, different from the first characteristic wavelength.
However, Cummings teaches it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have fluorescent material emitting light with a different wavelength from the light source that excites the fluorescent material ([0001], In fluorescence, light of one wavelength is absorbed by molecules and re-emitted at a different wavelength). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a known technique, in this case a fluorescent material that has two characteristic wavelengths with the second characteristic wavelength being the characteristic wavelength emitted by the material and different from the first characteristic wavelength, to incorporate into the printing device in Andrews in the same way allowing the light with a different characteristic wavelength to be filtered from the desired signal being detected (Cummings, [0001]).
Andrews does not teach the second characteristic fluorescence and/or phosphorescence property within the light received by the light sensor is the wavelength of fluorescence. However, Safai teaches a light sensor detecting fluorescence in the powdered source material by wavelength and the light sensor is capable of receiving a range of wavelength ([0045], detection device 120 may include a wavelength or wavelength range of the emitted signal and a position/orientation of the detection device).
Andrews and Safai are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of additive manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the printing system in Andrews to incorporate a detector for detecting a second characteristic fluorescence wavelength as taught by Safai, as it provides a known way of determining whether a manufacturing characteristic has been satisfied (Safai, [0006]).
Claims 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220258236 (“Andrews”) in view of US 20180186074 (“Hull”), further in view of US 20190126536 (“Thompson”).
Regarding claim 14, Andrews teaches a method of operating an additive fabrication device ([0002], additive manufacturing apparatuses) configured to fabricate parts in a build region from a powdered source material ([0126], on build platform 120 deposit binder material to form a part) to detect one or more taggants within the powdered source material ([0199], A UV camera, a visible or other detection system can be used to detect the fluorescence of the binder of the powdered source material), the method comprising:
transferring a powdered source material comprising one or more fluorescent and/or phosphorescent taggants into the build region ([0204], exposing at least one layer comprising the fluorescent binder [0200], layerwise jetting deposition into the powder and any subsequent thermal treatment, the subsequent exposure of the binder-powder surface to UV or other electromagnetic radiation);
controlling a light source to direct light onto the powdered source material ([0177], the printed layers is exposed to light polymerizes the monomers in the binder material from radiation source) comprising the one or more fluorescent and/or phosphorescent taggants in the build region ([0204], comprising the fluorescent binder within the powder material);
detecting light, using a light sensor, produced from the powdered source material ([0199], A UV camera, a visible or other detection system can be used to detect the fluorescence of the binder of the powdered source material) in response to directing the light onto the powdered source material ([0204], exposing at least one layer to electromagnetic radiation);
determining, using at least one processor ([0193], a processor 1002), whether or not a fluorescent and/or phosphorescent taggant is present in the powdered source material based on the light detected by the light sensor from the powdered source material ([0191], a camera to detect presence of fluorescence of the cleaning fluid based on an increase in the fluorescence; [0202], a detector measures an increase of fluorescence, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have obviously used the detector to measure the presence of fluorescence).
Andrews does not teach the powdered source material contains a taggant.
Hull teaches an additive manufacturing apparatus (Abstract), wherein the powdered source material contains a dye ([0034] & claim 11, Additives to the powder, such as carbon black or other pigments and dyes).
Andrews and Hull are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of additive manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the powdered source material in Andrews to incorporate adding a dye as taught by Anegawa, in order to increase the absorption of radiation in the powder (Hull, [0034]).
Andres does not teach the detection process is to detect whether an approved powdered source material is present.
Thompson teaches an additive fabrication device ([0001]), comprising a sensor to detect whether an approved powdered source material is present ([0058], a sensor 75 detects the presence or quantity of particulates or debris, opacity, viscosity, density, or other physical, thermal, chemical, or electrical properties could be measured)
Andrews and Thompson are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of additive manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the detection device in Andrews to incorporate detecting the presence of approved powdered material as taught by Thompson, in order to ensure suitability of the resin for continued use (Thompson, [0058]).
Regarding claim 21, Andrews teaches the light source emits only non-visible light ([0166], near IR or UV (including UVA, UVB, or UVC) light).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220258236 (“Andrews”) in view of US 20180186074 (“Hull”) and US 20190126536 (“Thompson”), as applied in claim 14, further in view of US 20210060837 (“Anegawa”).
Regarding claim 16, Andrews does not teach the light source further directs the light onto the powdered source material in a storage container that holds the powdered source material, and wherein the light sensor receives light produced from the powdered source material in the storage container.
Anegawa teaches the light source directs the light onto the powdered source material in a storage container that holds the powdered source material, and wherein the light sensor receives light produced from the powdered source material in the storage container ([0103], a laser directs radiation light onto the material in storage unit 500).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the light source in Andrews to incorporate directing the light source towards the powdered source material storage unit as taught by Anegawa, in order to judge the state of powdered source material in the storage (Anegawa, [0103]).
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220258236 (“Andrews”) in view of US 20180186074 (“Hull”) and US 20190126536 (“Thompson”), as applied in claim 14, further in view of US 20210291460 (“Clark”).
Regarding claim 22, Andrews does not teach the non-visible light is infrared light.
Clark further teaches a light source emitting the non-visible light is infrared light ([0042], a UV light emitter and a physical light (blue physical light) emitter, including infrared light).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the printing system in Andrews to incorporate a light emitting light as taught by Clark, in order to project in real time a complete 3d projection in the resin (Clark, [0043]).
Regarding claim 23, Andrews teaches the non-visible light is near infrared light ([0166], near IR or UV (including UVA, UVB, or UVC) light).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220258236 (“Andrews”) in view of US 20180186074 (“Hull”) and US 20190126536 (“Thompson”), as applied in claim 14, further in view of US 20190210283 (“Rouse”).
Regarding claim 17, Andrews does not teach detecting whether or not the particular fluorescent and/or phosphorescent taggant is present in the powdered source material comprises detecting a characteristic fluorescence and/or phosphorescence wavelength of the light received by the light sensor from the powdered source material.
Rouse teaches detecting whether or not the particular fluorescent and/or phosphorescent taggant is present in the powdered source material comprises detecting a characteristic fluorescence and/or phosphorescence wavelength of the light received by the light sensor from the powdered source material ([0032], a light sensor and a camera detect emitted light energy from the excited fluorescence and therefore the presence of fluorescence material).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the printing system in Andrews to incorporate a light sensor that detects only light energy from the excited fluorescence as taught by Rouse, in order to quantify the fluorescence abundance (Rouse, [0036]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220258236 (“Andrews”) in view of US 20180186074 (“Hull”), US 20190126536 (“Thompson”), and US 20190210283 (“Rouse”), as applied in claim 17, further in view of US 20120105949 (“Cummings”).
Regarding claim 18, Andrews does not teach the characteristic fluorescence and/or phosphorescence wavelength is not present in the light directed by the light source onto the powdered source material.
However, Cummings teaches it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have fluorescent material emitting light with a different wavelength from the light source that excites the fluorescent material ([0001], In fluorescence, light of one wavelength is absorbed by molecules and re-emitted at a different wavelength). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a known technique, in this case a fluorescent material that emits light with a different wavelength from the light source that excites the fluorescent material, to incorporate into the printing device in Andrews in the same way allowing some light to be filtered from the desired signal to be detected (Cummings, [0001]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220258236 (“Andrews”) in view of US 20180186074 (“Hull”), US 20190126536 (“Thompson”), and US 20190210283 (“Rouse”), as applied in claim 17, further in view of US 20210291460 (“Clark”).
Regarding claim 19, Andrews does not teach the characteristic fluorescence and/or phosphorescence wavelength is a wavelength of visible light.
Clark teaches an additive manufacturing device ([0008], systems for producing 3D objects), wherein at least one characteristic wavelength associated with the fluorescence and/or phosphorescence taggant is a wavelength of visible light ([0136], a material comprising substances which can emit visible light under localized fluorescence excitation).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the printing system in Andrews to incorporate a fluorescent material having characteristic fluorescence wavelength as visible light as taught by Clark, in order to enable the 3D display to become visible (Clark, [0136]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220258236 (“Andrews”) in view of US 20180186074 (“Hull”), US 20190126536 (“Thompson”), and US 20190210283 (“Rouse”), as applied in claim 17, further in view of US 20180304549 (“Safai”).
Regarding claim 20, Andrews teaches detecting the characteristic fluorescence and/or phosphorescence wavelength, and detecting whether or not the fluorescent and/or phosphorescent taggant is present in the powdered source material further comprises detecting a second characteristic fluorescence and/or phosphorescence property within the light received by the light sensor, the first characteristic fluorescence and/or phosphorescence property being different from the second characteristic fluorescence and/or phosphorescence property ([0191], camera measures the fluorescence of the cleaning fluid being the first characteristic fluorescence property and estimates an amount of contaminant in the cleaning fluid based on the change in fluorescence being the second characteristic fluorescence property).
Andrews does not teach the second characteristic fluorescence and/or phosphorescence property within the light received by the light sensor is the wavelength of fluorescence. However, Safai teaches a light sensor detecting fluorescence in the powdered source material by wavelength and the light sensor is capable of receiving a range of wavelength ([0045], the initial parameter values for the detection device 120 may include a wavelength or wavelength range of the emitted signal from the nanostructures (e.g., from quantum dots and/or shells) and a position/orientation of the detection device 120 relative to the deposited material).
Andrews and Safai are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of additive manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the printing system in Andrews to incorporate a detector for detecting a second characteristic fluorescence wavelength as taught by Safai, as it provides a known way of determining whether a manufacturing characteristic has been satisfied (Safai, [0006]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by US 20220258236 (“Andrews”) in view of US 20180186074 (“Hull”), US 20210060837 (“Anegawa”), and US 20190210283 (“Rouse”), as applied in claim 1, further in view of US 20190126536 (“Thompson”).
Regarding claim 24, Andrews does not teach wherein the at least one non-transitory computer readable medium further comprises instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, inhibit fabrication by the additive fabrication device and/or provide a warning to a user in response to detecting that the powdered source material is from an unapproved source.
Thompson teaches a controller that provides a warning to a user in response to detecting that the powdered source material is from an unapproved source ([0058], using a threshold value to determine whether the source material meets certain criteria to be qualified for an approved source)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the detection device in Andrews to incorporate detecting the presence of approved powdered material as taught by Thompson, in order to ensure suitability of the resin for continued use (Thompson, [0058]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220258236 (“Andrews”) in view of US 20180186074 (“Hull”), US 20210060837 (“Anegawa), and US 20190210283 (“Rouse”), as applied in claim 1, further in view of US 20120105949 (“Cummings”) and US 20180304549 (“Safai”).
Regarding claim 25, Andrews teaches identifying the at least one characteristics wavelength associated with the fluorescence and/or phosphorescence taggant present in the light comprises determining relative intensity of light received at the characteristic wavelength of the at least one characteristic wavelength ([0166] fluorescence dyes respond to specific light intensity which is relative to the concentration of the dye).
Andrews does not teach the at least one characteristic wavelength associated with the fluorescence and/or phosphorescence taggant includes a first characteristic wavelength and a second characteristic wavelength, different from the first characteristic wavelength.
However, Cummings teaches it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have fluorescent material emitting light with a different wavelength from the light source that excites the fluorescent material ([0001], In fluorescence, light of one wavelength is absorbed by molecules and re-emitted at a different wavelength). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a known technique, in this case a fluorescent material that has two characteristic wavelengths with the second characteristic wavelength being the characteristic wavelength emitted by the material and different from the first characteristic wavelength, to incorporate into the printing device in Andrews in the same way allowing the light with a different characteristic wavelength to be filtered from the desired signal being detected (Cummings, [0001]).
Andrews does not teach the second characteristic wavelength of fluorescence. However, Safai teaches a light sensor detecting fluorescence in the powdered source material by wavelength and the light sensor is capable of receiving a range of wavelength ([0045], detection device 120 may include a wavelength or wavelength range of the emitted signal and a position/orientation of the detection device).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the printing system in Andrews to incorporate a detector for detecting a second characteristic fluorescence wavelength as taught by Safai, as it provides a known way of determining whether a manufacturing characteristic has been satisfied (Safai, [0006]).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220258236 (“Andrews”) in view of US 20180186074 (“Hull”), and US 20190126536 (“Thompson”), as applied in claim 14, further in view of US 20120105949 (“Cummings”) and US 20180304549 (“Safai”).
Regarding claim 27, Andrews teaches identifying the at least one characteristics wavelength associated with the fluorescence and/or phosphorescence taggant present in the light comprises determining relative intensity of light received at the characteristic wavelength of the at least one characteristic wavelength ([0166] fluorescence dyes respond to specific light intensity which is relative to the concentration of the dye, and detecting the fluorescence dye is essentially determining the concentration of the fluorescence within the material).
Andrews does not teach the at least one characteristic wavelength associated with the fluorescence and/or phosphorescence taggant includes a first characteristic wavelength and a second characteristic wavelength, different from the first characteristic wavelength.
However, Cummings teaches it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have fluorescent material emitting light with a different wavelength from the light source that excites the fluorescent material ([0001], In fluorescence, light of one wavelength is absorbed by molecules and re-emitted at a different wavelength). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a known technique, in this case a fluorescent material that has two characteristic wavelengths with the second characteristic wavelength being the characteristic wavelength emitted by the material and different from the first characteristic wavelength, to incorporate into the printing device in Andrews in the same way allowing the light with a different characteristic wavelength to be filtered from the desired signal being detected (Cummings, [0001]).
Andrews does not teach the second characteristic wavelength of fluorescence. However, Safai teaches a light sensor detecting fluorescence in the powdered source material by wavelength and the light sensor is capable of receiving a range of wavelength ([0045], detection device 120 may include a wavelength or wavelength range of the emitted signal and a position/orientation of the detection device).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the printing system in Andrews to incorporate a detector for detecting a second characteristic fluorescence wavelength as taught by Safai, as it provides a known way of determining whether a manufacturing characteristic has been satisfied (Safai, [0006]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument on claim 1, applicant argues that prior arts Andrews, Hull and Anegawa do not teach fluorescent dye on the supply platform and/or in the build material hopper because Andrews the only place the powder and fluorescent dye on the build platform and the powder in the storage receptacle is not mixed with fluorescent dye. Additionally, applicant argues that Hull and Anegawa do not cure the deficiency of Andrews. Specicially, Hull teaches the taggant mixed with the powder material is carbon black additive and Anegawa does not mention fluorescent material.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Andrews teaches detecting light reflected from the source material ([0191], using a camera to detect the fluorescence of the cleaning fluid; [0202], a detector can measure an increase of fluorescence, therefore it also measures when the fluorescence is zero), but does not teach the light source is configured to direct light onto the powdered source material in the storage container. Hull teaches the powder material in the storage container contains taggant ([0034]), as described in the rejection of claim 1 above. Andrews in view of Hull would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the powdered source material in the supply receptacle in Andrews to incorporate adding a dye as taught by Anegawa, in order to increase the absorption of radiation in the powder (Hull, [0034]).
Anegawa teaches direct light onto the powdered source material in the storage container ([0103], a laser directs radiation light onto the material in storage unit 500). Andrew in view of Hull and Anegawa would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the light source in Andrews to incorporate directing the light source towards the powdered source material storage unit as taught by Anegawa, in order to judge the state of powdered source material in the storage (Anegawa, [0103]).
Furthermore, applicant argues that amended claim 1 contains additional structure for the storage container. However, the additional structure including “a storage container configured to hold a powdered source material comprising a fluorescent and/or phosphorescent taggant” is interpreted as intended use. Furthermore, applicant’s argument that the directing of light to the storage container is telling of the structure of the light source, instead of the structure of the storage container. The non-transitory instructions that cause the processor to detect the taggant in the powdered source material within the storage container is also related only to the light detector and irrelevant to the structure of the storage container. Thus, the interpretation of the recited portion in claim 1 as intended use is maintained.
Similarly, applicant’s argument regarding claim 14 is not persuasive for similar reason addressed in claim 1 above.
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 TIFFANY YU HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2643. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
TIFFANY YU. HUANG
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754