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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 46-52 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claims 46-52 are directed to unelected species D outlined in the restriction filed on 09/25/2025
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 49 and 52 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 19 and 55 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 19 and 55 recites “the at least two higher power lasers remain unmixed.” This should be –the at least two high power lasers remain unmixed--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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:
Phase patterning unit recited in claims 19 and 55. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: paragraph 18 states “the phase patterning system can be based at least in part on a light valve system, with phase patterning by the light valve system.”
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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 19, 39-40, 43, 53 and 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi (US 20200156362 A1) in view of DeMuth (US 20180326664 A1).
Claim 19. Adachi discloses an additive manufacturing system (stereolithographic apparatus which can be used for additive manufacturing, par. 31) that recycles laser power, comprising:
at least
a phase patterning unit (phase of L1 is modified by area setters 16 of spatial light modulators, par. 19) to receive and alter phase of at least one beam generated by at least one of the two high power lasers to generate at least one phase-patterned beam (phase of L1 is modified by area setters 16 of spatial light modulators, par. 19, where the SLM convert the light into pattern light, par. 24);
wherein the at least one phase-patterned beam is mixed as a convolution of patterns with another beam generated by the at least two high power lasers at a print bed (constructive interference between L1 and L2 are formed at the position P in the liquid tank 2, par. 18 and 29, Fig. 1),
Adachi does not disclose two high power lasers and wherein at least some beams generated by the at least two higher power lasers remain unmixed and are recycled to provide further beam patterning.
DeMuth discloses an additive manufacturing apparatus using patterned light wherein multiple laser sources (par. 68) are transformed into patterned light and wherein at least some beams generated by the at least two higher power lasers remain unmixed and are recycled to provide further beam patterning (par. 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Adachi to incorporate the teachings of DeMuth and have two high power lasers and recycle the unmixed lasers. Doing so would have the benefit of allowing all the energy to be used to maintain high printing rates (par. 35, DeMuth).
Claim 39. Adachi in view of DeMuth discloses the additive manufacturing system of claim 19, wherein the two high power lasers are mutually coherent (L1 and L2 cause interference so it can be said that they are coherent with each other, par. 29).
Claim 40. Adachi in view of DeMuth discloses the additive manufacturing system of claim 19, wherein more than two lasers are used to generate beams (laser array, DeMuth).
Claim 43. Adachi in view of DeMuth discloses the additive manufacturing system of claim 19, wherein phase alteration occurs on each beam by adjusting the angle at which it overlaps with other beams at the print bed, producing patterns related to number and set of angles made with the other beams at the print bed (L1 and L2 linearly intersect at an angle, par. 32, Fig. 3).
Claim 53. Adachi in view of DeMuth does not disclose the additive manufacturing system of claim 19, wherein beams are moved with respect to the print bed by changes in phase patterns from the phase patterning unit.
DeMuth further discloses wherein the light pattern can be steered through by applying a voltage to the liquid crystals in the light valve 602 which changes the refractive index seen by the incoming light (par. 103, wherein it is understood that changes in the refractive index affect the phase of the pattern).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Adachi in view of DeMuth to incorporate the teachings of DeMuth and adjust the refractive index of a spatial angular light valve to steer the light pattern. Doing so would have the benefit of displacing the light pattern in the resin (par. 103, DeMuth).
Claim 55. Adachi discloses an additive manufacturing system (stereolithographic apparatus which can be used for additive manufacturing, par. 31) that recycles laser power, comprising:
at least
a phase patterning unit (phase of L1 is modified by area setters 16 of spatial light modulators, par. 19) to receive and alter phase of at least one beam generated by at least one of the two high power lasers to generate at least one phase-patterned beam (SLM convert the light into patterned light, par. 24),
wherein the at least one phase-patterned beam is coherently mixed with another beam generated by the at least two high power lasers at a print bed (constructive interference between L1 and L2 are formed at the potion P in the liquid tank 2, par. 18 and 29, Fig. 1),
Adachi does not disclose two high power lasers and wherein at least some beams generated by the at least two higher power lasers remain unmixed and are recycled to provide further beam patterning.
DeMuth discloses an additive manufacturing apparatus using patterned light wherein multiple laser sources (par. 68) are transformed into patterned light and wherein at least some beams generated by the at least two higher power lasers remain unmixed and are recycled to provide further beam patterning (par. 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Adachi to incorporate the teachings of DeMuth and have two high power lasers and recycle the unmixed lasers. Doing so would have the benefit of allowing all the energy to be used to maintain high printing rates (par. 35, DeMuth).
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi in view of DeMuth as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Zhao (US 2022/0143906 A1).
Claim 41. Adachi in view of DeMuth does not disclose the additive manufacturing system of claim 19, wherein phase alteration occurs over the entire beam of each laser.
Zhao discloses a volumetric additive manufacturing apparatus wherein the spatial light modulator (SLM) may be directly downstream of the light source (Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Adachi in view of DeMuth to incorporate the teachings of Zhao and place the SLM directly downstream of the light source. Zhao demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of placing the SLM directly downstream of the laser source to adjust the phase of the beam based on design consideration.
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi in view of DeMuth as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Vorontsov (US 20200180066 A1).
Claim 44. Adachi in view of DeMuth does not disclose the additive manufacturing system of claim 19, wherein the two high power lasers are coupled to each other through a master oscillator optical amplifier (MOPA) optical circuit to enhance mutual coherency.
Vorontsov discloses an additive manufacturing device with multiple lasers where the phase is modulated (par. 52) and the lasers are coupled to a coherent MOPA fiber system (par. 93).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Adachi in view of DeMuth to incorporate the teachings of Vorontsov and couple the laser to a MOPA fiber system. Doing so would have the benefit of reduction of focal size and increased power density (par. 93, Vorontsov).
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi in view of DeMuth as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Muenz (US 20060209310 A1).
Claim 45. Adachi in view of DeMuth does not disclose the additive manufacturing system of claim 19, wherein phase patterning on each beam is broken into a multitude of separate beams, conveyed to the bed using lenslet or plenoptic imaging at which point the array of beamlets coherently mix to form a desired pattern on the print bed.
Muenz US 2006/0209310 A1 laser beams pass through the lenslet array 2 and 10 prior to forming interference patterns at the field plane (par. 140, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Adachi in view of DeMuth to incorporate the teachings of Muenz and to pass the multiple laser beams through a lenslet prior art to form interference patterns at the field plane. Muenz demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to use lenslet in the optical structure based on design considerations.
Claim(s) 42 and 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi in view of DeMuth as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Shusteff (US 2020/0156362 A1).
Claim 42. Adachi in view of DeMuth does not disclose the additive manufacturing system of claim 19, wherein phase alteration occurs as a pixelated image impressed on to each beam.
Shusteff discloses using spatial light modulators which impress a phase profile onto at least two sub-image beams, wherein the phase altered beam is deconvolved into an intensity-distributed image which is pixelated (par. 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Adachi in view of DeMuth to incorporate the teachings of Shusteff and impress the pixelated image onto the beam. Doing so would have the benefit of performing volume-at-once curing of an object (par. 20, Shusteff).
Claim 54. Adachi in view of DeMuth does not disclose the additive manufacturing system of claim 19, wherein the phase patterns from the phase patterning unit result in simultaneous printing of multiple layers.
Shusteff discloses using spatial light modulators which impress a phase profile onto at least two sub-image beams which intersect orthogonally to each other in the resin to simultaneously cure select volumetric regions (par. 12, Shusteff).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Adachi in view of DeMuth to incorporate the teachings of Shusteff and provide the beams with phase profile that allows for curing volumetric regions. Doing so would have the benefit of increasing fabrication speed (par. 13, Shusteff).
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 SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights