DETAILED ACTION
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
In response to the amendment filed 6/12/2025, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been adjusted and maintained, and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 150 has been withdrawn from the previous office action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 144 and 146 recite “a first means for providing light” and “a second means for providing light” which are disclosed in paragraph [0172] of the present specification to be light sources 128.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 144 recites “said vacuum unit is configured to provide a vacuum between said base and said back surface”, in 7th line, which includes a structural generic placeholder of “vacuum unit” in association with the functional limitation of “is configured to provide a vacuum between said base and said back surface”. For the purposes of examination, this vacuum unit will be considered to be a vacuum pump as is disclosed in [0211] of the present specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 144, 146,148-149, and 151-157 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US20180071977A1, hereafter Tumbleston in view of Published Application US20160067921A1, hereafter Willis.
Regarding claim 144, Tumbleston discloses a system for three-dimensional (3D) printing (Fig 2), comprising:
a platform (414) comprising (i) a surface (Fig 23, top side of 414) configured to hold a film of a mixture for printing a 3D object (17), the mixture comprising a photoreactive resin ([0097] photocurable silicone), the thickness of the film ranging between about 100 nm to about 1000 µm ([0223] slices ranging from 2 to 600 µm); and (ii) a back surface (Fig 23, bottom side of 414) opposite from said surface;
a base (412) disposed adjacent to said platform (Fig 23, 412 adjacent to 414), wherein said base (412) comprises one or more channels (channels shown in Fig 22) in fluid communication with said back surface, wherein said one or more channels are disposed opposite from at least a portion of said surface (Fig 22, Fig 23, [0238] channels are apertures cut through base layer 412);
a vacuum unit (Fig 22, not shown, but must exist to produce the vacuum for the chamber 420) operatively coupled to said one or more channels (Fig 22), wherein said vacuum unit is configured to provide a vacuum between said base and said back surface (Fig 22, [0238] region of reduced pressure in the chamber 420 is in fluid communication with the lower surface of the flexible layer 414); and
a controller ([0136] pressure controller) operatively coupled to said vacuum unit, wherein said controller is configured to direct said vacuum unit to provide said vacuum between said base and said back surface (Fig 22, [0238] region of reduced pressure in the chamber 420 is in fluid communication with the lower surface of the flexible layer 414; [0242] vacuum may be increased or decreased or positive pressure applied asymmetrically to move the flexible sheet 414 down or up in wave motion); and
a first means for providing light (11) through at least said one or more channels and towards said surface ([0113] radiation source 11) at a first wavelength or wavelength range that is sufficient to cure said mixture ([0277]);
the system further comprising a build head (carrier 18) configured to move relative to the platform (414) and comprising a surface (Fig 2, Fig 24A lower surface of carrier 18) onto which at least a portion of the 3D object is to be printed (Fig 24A, Fig 2, [0122], [0113], carrier 18 driven in vertical direction by linear stage 19).
Tumbleston further discloses the use of polymerization inhibitors in addition to initiators ([0110]) and notes that the specific inhibitor will depend on the monomer being polymerized and the polymerization reaction ([0110]).
Tumbleston is silent on a second means for providing light at a second wavelength or wavelength range that is not sufficient to cure said mixture.
In the analogous art of stereolithography, Willis discloses two means for providing light (185 and 180), the second means for providing light (180) at a second wavelength or wavelength range that is not sufficient to cure said mixture ([0029] first light 180 at first wavelength to produce photoinhibition layer 170), making use of a photoinhibitor to stop polymerization in order to allow parts to be rapidly printed without adhesion between the printed part and the window ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the invention of Tumbleston with the photoinhibitor and additional photoinhibiting light source disclosed by Willis in order to allow parts to be rapidly printed without excess adhesion between the printed part and the window, as suggested by Willis.
Regarding claim 146, Tumbleston further discloses wherein said first means for providing light (11) is configured to provide said light through said at least said one or more channels, through said back surface, and towards said surface (Fig 2, Fig 22, Fig 23, light from light source 11 reflects on mirror 13 and moves up through transparent bottom wall 422 and through channels in base 412 to reach top surface of 414).
Regarding claim 148, Tumbleston further discloses the system further comprising a housing (i) (build plate unit 400) operatively coupled to said vacuum unit (Fig 22 vacuum chamber 420 is within build plate unit 400) and (ii) configured to seal at least said back surface from an ambient environment ([0236] vacuum chamber for changing pressure of region below the build plate – this must be sealed from the ambient environment in order for a vacuum to be effective, [0251] gas impermeable base layer on lower side of flexible sheet opposite the build region, which would seal the back surface of the flexible sheet 414).
Regarding claim 149, Tumbleston further discloses wherein said housing (400) comprises a vacuum port (Fig 22, vacuum chamber 420), wherein said vacuum unit is in fluid communication with said one or more channels via said vacuum port (Fig 22, vacuum chamber 420 just below build plate with channels).
Regarding claim 151, Tumbleston further discloses wherein said base has a stiffness of at least about 5 gigapascal (GPa) ([0251] base layer has Young’s modulus of 70-80 GPa).
Regarding claim 152, Tumbleston further discloses the channels through the base layer cover 0.1%-20% of the area of the base ([0239]), and the appearance of the base layer in Figure 1 of Tumbleston appears to show more than 1% porosity but less than 30% porosity.
Further, Tumbleston discloses the use of a less porous base layer 412 to reduce or minimize the maximum upward force on the build plate ([0242]).
Where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 (I))
Regarding claim 153, Tumbleston further discloses wherein said one or more channels (channels shown in Fig 22) comprise a plurality of pores, wherein a pore of said plurality of pores has a diameter ranging between about 5 micrometers (µm) to about 500 µm ([0252] porous base layer has 10-50 micron holes).
Regarding claim 154, Tumbleston further discloses wherein the build head (18) is moveable by an actuator (19) operatively coupled to the build head (18) ([0113], carrier 18 driven in vertical direction by linear stage 19; [0114] linear stage 19 includes drive/actuator).
Regarding claim 155, Tumbleston further discloses wherein the actuator (19) is a linear actuator ([0113], carrier 18 driven in vertical direction by linear stage 19; [0114] linear stage 19 includes drive/actuator).
Regarding claim 156, Tumbleston further discloses wherein the platform comprises one or more actuators to move the platform (414) relative to the build head (18) ([0127] carrier may instead be stationary with build plate mounted on elevator to advance away from the carrier).
Regarding claim 157, Tumbleston further discloses one or more sensors configured to detect thickness or volume of the film of the mixture ([0114] liquid level sensor for replenishing liquid resin in build chamber).
Claim(s) 150 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US20180071977A1, hereafter Tumbleston in view of Published Application US20160067921A1, hereafter Willis as applied to claim 148 above, and further in view of Published Application US20200282657A1, hereafter Wighton.
Regarding claim 150, Tumbleston discloses the first optical source is sealed from the ambient environment (Fig 2, radiation source 11 is enclosed).
Tumbleston is silent on the vacuum housing also sealing the means for providing light from the ambient environment.
In the analogous art of stereolithography, Wighton discloses a movable stage (1102) containing the light source (106) and sealed from the outside environment in order to keep out any debris ([0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to further modify the combination of Tumbleston and Willis to move the radiation sources into the vacuum pressure controlled housing of Tumbleston, in order to avoid a decreased quality of printing radiation that may result from, for example, dust in the ambient environment, as suggested by Wighton ([0063]), and further because the rearrangement of parts has been held to be an obvious matter of design choice, absent evidence of unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 VI C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument regarding amended claim 1 on page 6 of applicant's remarks that Tumbleston and Willis do not teach or suggest the platform comprising "a film of a mixture for printing a 3D object, the mixture comprising a photoreactive resin, the thickness of the film ranging between about 100 nm to about 1000 μm", the examiner disagrees, and notes, as stated in the new rejection of claim 1, that the thicknesses expressed in Tumbleston ([0223]) are within this broad range, and the resin of Tumbleston is further disclosed to be a photopolymerizable resin ([0097] photocurable silicone).
In response to applicant's argument regarding amended claim 1 on page 6 of applicant's remarks that Tumbleston and Willis do not teach or suggest "a build head configured to move relative to the platform and comprising a surface onto which at least a portion of the 3D object is to be printed", the examiner disagrees. As stated in the new rejection of claim 1, this feature is met by the carrier 18 of Tumbleston (Fig 2, [0113]).
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 TIMOTHY HEMINGWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0235. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6-4.
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.
/T.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754