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
Claims 55-58, 100-101, and 104-112 are pending.
In view of the amendment/response, filed 09/10/2025, prior art rejections under 103 over De Jager are withdrawn from the previous Office Action mailed 03/11/2025. New grounds of rejection are made over De Jager in view of Ishikawa et al.
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.
Claim(s) 55, 100-101, and 104-107 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Jager et al., WO 2017114659 A1 (of record), in view of Ishikawa et al., US 20030214571 A1.
Regarding claim 55, De Jager discloses a method for fabricating a 3d object (device manufacturing method, [0007]) comprising: delivering a build material to a build surface (depositing particles on a substrate, [0007], [00146]-[00147]); selectively irradiating the build material to form a layer of the object (applying a pattern to the deposited layer, [0007], [00147], the pattern being applied by exposure to radiation from plurality of individually addressable elements, [0036], [0041]), wherein irradiating the build material comprises linearly translating (scanning the individually addressable elements in X and/or Y directions, [0039]) an array of illumination sources (plurality of individually addressable elements 102, [0036], light emitters, [0037]) across a target area (substrate, [0041]), the array of illumination sources being configured to produce an array of images (imaging a pattern provided by the plurality of individually addressable elements, [0041]; array of spots S/SE, Fig. 6, [0086]) in a plurality of rows at a surface of the layer (R, Fig. 6), wherein a center-to-center distance between the array of images is larger than a width of each image (see one example in annotated Fig. 6), wherein each of the plurality of images is offset from an adjacent row by a distance greater than zero and no greater than the width of each image (Fig. 6, images of adjacent rows are offset by the width of one spot), and wherein the plurality of rows comprise a number of rows sufficient to be linearly translated across the target area to completely image the target area ([0086], [0088]).
PNG
media_image1.png
1256
1283
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the applied embodiment, De Jager does not specifically disclose each image has astigmatic characteristics such that the image is elongated along a direction perpendicular to the direction of the linearly translating. In the depicted example, the images are circles having a same size in each direction.
However, De Jager further discloses that the focusing elements of the projection system may be asymmetrical lenses converting a circular projected spot into an oval radiation output ([0046]), i.e., an elongated image. As such, De Jager discloses the spots can be shaped as ovals instead of circles, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the elongated oval images for the circular images as a simple substitution of one known element for another yielding predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(B). As De Jager discloses the scanning can occur in at least X and Y directions, it would have been reasonably expected that during a linear scanning process utilizing oval spots, the image would be elongated along a direction perpendicular to the scanning (x or y) direction. For example, with the circular shaped spots of Fig. 6 being instead oval, as disclosed by De Jager, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily envisioned the spots having an elongated dimension in the Y direction and a truncated one in the X direction, or vice versa.
Still, De Jager does not specifically require the image to be elongated along a direction perpendicular to a direction of the linearly translating.
In the analogous art, Ishikawa discloses a shaping method performed by rapid prototyping ([0052], [0268]) comprising selectively irradiating layers of build material (scanning by exposure head for exposing photo-curable resin surface to form a cured resin layer, [0052]) by linearly translating (linear scanning direction of scanner 162 indicated by horizontal arrow, Figs. 32-33, [0278]-[0279]) an array of illumination sources (matrix of exposure heads 166, Fig. 33, [0273]) across a target area, the array of illumination sources being configured to produce an array of images in a plurality of rows at a surface of the layer (configured to produce corresponding array of exposure areas 168, [0274]; further detail of the arrangement of exposure areas 168 can be seen in Fig. 3B), wherein each image has astigmatic characteristics (elongated images depicted as rectangles, [0274]) such that the image is elongated along a direction perpendicular to a direction of the linearly translating (Fig. 33, [0274], the short side of the rectangle is in the sub-scanning direction, i.e., the translating direction, such that the long side of the rectangle is in a direction perpendicular to that direction). Ishikawa teaches that configuring the images to be elongated specifically along the direction perpendicular to the linear translating direction enables the number of necessary exposure sources to be decreased ([0041], see also Figs. 3A-3B).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the image is elongated along a direction perpendicular to a direction of the linearly translating, as taught by Ishikawa, with the projection of elongated oval spots instead of circular spots, as disclosed by De Jager, in order to minimize the number of illumination sources required for the irradiating, as taught by Ishikawa.
Regarding claim 100, modified De Jager further discloses the width of each image is a size of the image perpendicularly to the direction of the linearly translating of the rows (per claim 55), and the width is the longest dimension of each image being elongated (claim 55, Ishikawa: the longest side of the elongated image is perpendicular to the translating direction, the shortest side is along the translating direction, [0041], [0274], Figs. 3B, 33).
Regarding claim 101, De Jager further discloses said selectively irradiating includes linearly translating the array of illumination sources in a direction perpendicular to the plurality of rows (scanning orthogonally to fill in gaps, [0088]).
Regarding claim 104, De Jager further discloses at least one of the illumination sources is astigmatic ([0046]).
Regarding claim 105, De Jager further discloses the array of illumination sources includes an array of microlenses for directing radiation towards the target area (plurality of focusing elements being micro-lens array, [0042]), and the array of microlenses includes at least one microlens that is astigmatic (focusing elements being asymmetrical, [0046]).
Regarding claim 106, De Jager further discloses the array of illumination sources comprising a digital micromirror device (DMD) chip configured to reflect radiation from an incident light source (patterning device including programmable micromirror array, [0005], [00200]), and the array of microlenses is configured to direct radiation from the DMD chip towards the target area (the array of microlenses is part of the projection system 108, positioned between the patterning device 104 and a substrate 114, Fig. 1, and thereby configured to direct radiation from the DMD chip of the patterning device towards the target area of the substrate).
Regarding claim 107, De Jager further discloses the array of illumination sources comprises a micro light emitting diode (microLED) array (patterning device including LEDs having emission cross-sectional width of about 2 micrometers or less, [0037]), and the array of microlenses is configured to direct radiation from the microLED array towards the target area (the array of microlenses is part of the projection system 108, positioned between the patterning device 104 and a substrate 114, Fig. 1, and thereby configured to direct radiation from the microLED array of the patterning device towards the target area of the substrate).
Claim(s) 56-58 and 109 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Jager et al., WO 2017114659 A1, in view of Ishikawa et al., US 20030214571 A1, as applied to claim 55 above, and further in view of Gibson et al., US 20180162047 A1 (of record).
Regarding claim 56, modified De Jager teaches the method of claim 55. De Jager discloses the deposited additive build material being particles ([0007], [00146]-[00147]) and the selectively irradiating the build material comprises binding together at least a portion of the powder material into the layer (sintering, [00147]-[00148]). De Jager is silent as to the build material comprising a blended composition of a powder material and a binder material.
However, the use of build material comprising a blended composition of a powder and a binder material was known in the art. In the analogous art, Gibson teaches using a build material comprising a blended composition of a powder material and a binder material which can be cured by light exposure and can assist in bonding to form target shapes ([0094], [0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the build material comprises a blended composition of a powder material and a binder material in order to employ a suitable build material which could be cured upon exposure to light and aid the shaping process, as taught by Gibson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a build material including a binder as common and useful for fusing in additive build processes.
Regarding claim 57, modified De Jager discloses the method of claim 56. The combination teaches the delivering the build material comprises depositing the powder material on the build surface (delivering to the build surface, see claim 55). In view of the specification, “infusing” is interpreted to encompass providing a mix of the powder material and the binder (instant specification [0147]). Gibson teaches dispersing the powder in the binder to form the build material ([0094]). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further specify the step of infusing the binder material into the powder material in order to provide an evenly dispersed mixture of the powder/binder build material used for aiding the bonding process, as taught by Gibson.
Regarding claim 58, modified De Jager discloses the method of claim 56. The combination as set forth above did not address providing the material in slurry form. Gibson further teaches providing the build material as a slurry containing the powder and the binder ([0094]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further specify the delivering the build material comprises depositing a slurry containing the blended composition of the powder material and the binder material on the build surface in order to provide the build material of the powder material and binder in a suitably mixed condition and in a known form appropriate for the application of forming 3D objects, as taught by Gibson.
Regarding claim 109, modified De Jager teaches the method of claim 55. De Jager discloses the deposited additive build material being particles ([0007], [00146]-[00147]). De Jager discloses the selectively irradiating includes selectively irradiating the build material to alter a physical state (e.g., sinter or ablate) a portion of the build material ([00147]-[00148]). De Jager is silent as to the build material comprising a solid blend of a powder and a binder material, and the method further includes changing a phase of the binder material.
In the analogous art, Gibson, introduced above, teaches build materials comprising a solid blend of a powder material and a binder material and teaches changing a phase of the binder material so that the binder material can be ultimately removed (melting binder [0101], binder flow at elevated temperature or gassing off [0109], being chemically decomposable or dissolvable in solvent, [0114]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use as the build material a solid blend of a powder material and a binder material and to specify the method further includes changing a phase of the binder material in order to realize the advantages of enhanced bonding and stability associated with using a binder in the additive process while also allowing for the removal or dissolution of the binder from the final part, as taught by Gibson.
Claim(s) 108 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Jager et al., WO 2017114659 A1, in view of Ishikawa et al., US 20030214571 A1, as applied to claim 105 above, evidenced by Kihara et al., US 20080169587 A1 (of record).
Regarding claim 108, De Jager further discloses the array of illumination sources comprises a liquid crystal display (LCD) mask (LCD array, [0005]), the array of microlenses is configured to direct radiation from the LCD mask towards the target area (the array of microlenses is part of the projection system 108, positioned between the patterning device 104 and a substrate 114, Fig. 1, and thereby configured to direct radiation from the LCD mask of the patterning device towards the target area of the substrate). De Jager does not explicitly recite that the LCD array is used in combination with a light source, however the LCD array is used as a type of programmable light modulator used to modulate the cross-section of a radiation beam for creating the pattern ([0005], [00200]) which one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as requiring a corresponding light source for providing the necessary radiation. Kihara evidences that a liquid crystal panel 38 is used in combination with a light source 31 for the same purpose of patterning light (Fig. 2). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the array of illumination sources including a LCD mask includes a corresponding light source in combination in order to successfully achieve the desired function of producing patterned light.
Claim(s) 110-112 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Jager et al., WO 2017114659 A1, in view of in view of Ishikawa et al., US 20030214571 A1, and Gibson et al., US 20180162047 A1, as applied to claim 109 above, and further in view of Boyd et al., US 20040224173 A1 (of record).
Regarding claim 110, modified De Jager discloses the method of claim 109. Gibson further teaches the build material including powder and binder can be provided as a feedstock in, for example, a cast, drawn, or otherwise shaped bulk form that can be packaged on a spool or other suitable carrier for attaching to an AM system ([0075]). The combination does not explicitly disclose the solid blend comprises a film containing the powder and binder.
In the analogous art, Boyd discloses materials for use in fabricating 3D objects and teaches providing the build material as a solid blend including a cast film containing the powder and binder materials ([0021], [0027]) which can be exposed to light for the patterning and fabrication process ([0035], [0040]-[0043]). Boyd describes that use of the film avoids safety hazards and cleanliness issues associated with powders and liquids normally processed, provides the ability to remove excess unbonded materials without the use of dangerous chemicals, and provides the option of forming full-color 3D objects ([0012], [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of De Jager in view of Gibson to specify the solid blend comprises a film containing the powder material and the binder material in order to provide the build material in a safer and cleaner form wherein excess material can be easily removed and the 3d object can be formed in full color, as taught by Boyd.
Regarding claim 111, the combination set forth above teaches the limitations of claim 110 but did not address the film comprising multiple layers including a non-reactive, translucent imaging window.
Boyd further teaches that depending on the nature of the film and the particulars of the fabrication process, the film can comprise multiple layers, including the build film 150 and a release film between the build film and the heating device ([0038]-[0039], [0042], Fig. 2). Boyd teaches the release film being coated with PTFE ([0038]), which is generally non-reactive, is non-stick, and is ultimately lifted from the fused layer ([0039]). Since the build film is imaged through the release film ([0042]-[0043]), it is translucent and serves as an imaging window.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further specify the film comprises multiple layers, wherein one layer comprises a non-reactive, translucent imaging window, in order to provide a thin, non-stick release film layer as part of the film, as taught by Boyd. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected advantages including additional protection between the build surface and the optical elements, providing benefits in terms of shielding both the optical elements and the build surface from contamination.
Regarding claim 112, the combination as set forth above teaches the limitations of claim 110 but did not address the changing the phase of the binder material comprises forming a melt pool from the film on the build surface, wherein the method further comprises levelling the melt pool. De Jager discloses sintering of the build material ([00147]). Gibson evidences the known fabrication technique of selective laser sintering or melting ([0076], [0084], [0100]-[0101]), and further teaches using the light source to melt and remove the binder material to improve the density of the part ([0100]-[0101]). Gibson teaches the use of mechanisms to flatten or otherwise work a liquified or softened layer in order to smooth the layers and/or improve bonding ([0066]-[0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specify the changing the phase of the binder material comprises forming a melt pool from the film on the build surface in the process of exposing the material to light for additively fusing layers to implement the known additive fabrication technique of selective laser melting and/or in order to remove binder material and improve the density of the part, as taught by Gibson. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further specify levelling the melt pool in order to form smooth layers with improved bonding, as taught by Gibson.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues (p. 6) that De Jager fails to teach or suggest each image having astigmatic characteristics “such that the image is elongated along a direction perpendicular to a direction of the linearly translating” as recited in amended independent claim 55. Applicant argues (p. 6) that De Jager fails to teach or suggest how the elongation should be oriented relative to the scanning direction.
These arguments are sufficiently persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over De Jager in view of Ishikawa. De Jager discloses the images being elongated but does not require the elongation to be along a specific direction relative to the translating. As applied above, Ishikawa provides a teaching as to how an elongated image of an array of images should be oriented relative to the scanning direction, meeting the claim limitation, in order to reduce the number of necessary illumination sources.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm ET.
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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights