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 .
Examiner’s note
Claim 1 recites “a micro-stereolithography system capable…of generating the product by optically polymerizing successive layers of a curable resin at a build plane.” While the claim recites the term “micro-stereolithography” which refers to the manufacture of small product(s), the body of the claim does not recite any further structural features to the system to distinguish what allows the system to produce a small product. Examiner contends that the prior art systems below are capable of producing a small product depending on the design input.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 – 2 and 20 – 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shkolnik, et al. (US 7,845,930).
With respect to claim 1, Shkolnik, et al. teach a system for producing a product, comprising: a stereolithography system capable of generating the product by optically polymerizing successive layers of a curable resin at a build plane (figure 1); a layer leveling system including a flexible membrane positioned above the curable resin and configured to apply a downward force to flatten a non-flat portion of the curable resin in a vicinity of the build plane (item 3 – figure 1; column 3, lines 1 – 20; examiner notes that the film is in constant contact with the resin surface and thus, is configured to apply a downward force as claimed); wherein the membrane is optically transparent (column 3, lines 5 – 10).
While Shkolnik does not specifically recite that the system is a ‘micro-stereolithography’ system, the examiner contends that because the system of the prior art is capable of generating an object layerwise and the design of the object is dependent on what is desired, the examiner contends that the system is obviously capable of functioning as a microstereolithography system.
With respect to claim 2, the reference further teaches that there is a controller capable of directing the layer leveling system to flatten the non-flat portion of the curable resin in the vicinity of the build plane (column 5, lines 23 – 40; examiner notes that the film is held within a frame and may be controlled to move within the construction plane and thus, a controller is present).
With respect to claim 21, while Shkolnik does not teach the product volume nor the production time and/or voxel size, the examiner contends that these are features which the apparatus of Shkolnik is capable of meeting as the apparatus components are equivalent to that which applicant recites; a user inputs a design and the system thereupon builds the product.
With respect to claim 22, the system of Shkolnik further comprises a bath enclosure comprising a curable resin (item 7 – figure 1; column 4, lines 43 – 45); the bath enclosure has a depth and while not specifically recited as 10 cm or larger, the basin size is obvious and depends on the build product; and the membrane covers the bath enclosure (figure 1)
With respect to claim 20, Shkolnik teaches a method for producing a product, comprising: performing stereolithography to generate a product by optically polymerizing successive layers of curable resin at a build plane (figure 1; column 1, lines 10 – 15); and flattening a non-flat region of the curable resin in a vicinity of the build plane using a flexible membrane positioned above the curable resin (figure 1; column 3, lines 15 – 30); wherein the film is optically transparent (column 3, lines 5 – 10).
While not specifically reciting performing micro-stereolithography, the examiner contends that because the system of the prior art is capable of generating an object layerwise and the design of the object is dependent on what is desired, the examiner contends that the system is obviously capable of functioning as a microstereolithography system.
Claim(s) 1 – 7, 16, 18 and 20 – 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partanen, et al. (US 2006/0249884 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Partanen, et al. teach a system for producing a product, comprising: a stereolithography system capable of generating the product by optically polymerizing successive layers of a curable resin at a build plane (figure 1); a layer leveling system including a flexible membrane positioned above the curable resin and configured to apply a downward force to flatten a non-flat portion of the curable resin in a vicinity of the build plane (item 26 – figure 2; paragraph 0031; examiner notes that the film is in constant contact with the resin surface and thus, is configured to apply a downward force as claimed); wherein the membrane is optically transparent (paragraph 0031).
While Partanen, et al. do not specifically recite that the system is a ‘micro-stereolithography’ system, the examiner contends that because the system of the prior art is capable of generating an object layerwise and the design of the object is dependent on what is desired, the examiner contends that the system is obviously capable of functioning as a microstereolithography system.
With respect to claim 2, Partanen, et al. teach there is a controller capable of directing the layer leveling system to flatten the non-flat portion of the curable resin in the vicinity of the build plane (paragraph 0032 – 0033).
With respect to claim 3, Partanen, et al. teach that the layer leveling system comprises a dispenser capable of depositing a layer of liquid on top of the curable resin (paragraph 0031 – 0032; examiner notes that build material in cartridge 18 is deposited onto belt 11, as the belt moves over the build plane, membrane 26 expands and presses belt 11 on the opposite surface, causing the build material to contact the substrate surface [ see also paragraph 0033]).
With respect to claim 4, the dispenser is actuated (either manually or automatically).
With respect to claims 5 – 6, examiner notes that the claims recite the layer of liquid to be deposited on the build plane. This is the material worked upon and not a positively-recited element or component of the system and thus, the system of Partanen, et al. renders obvious these claims.
With respect to claim 7, the reference further teaches that the layer leveling system comprises a functionalized glass plate located in the vicinity of the build plane (paragraph 0032, examiner notes that the reference teaches the membrane affixed to frame 28; however, a plate of glass may be used instead of the plastic frame).
With respect to claim 16, the reference teaches that the layer leveling system has a gas pressure source (paragraph 0032 – 0033; examiner notes that gas is introduced into the space between the frame and the membrane to inflate the latter, thereby causing it to contact the belt 11, which transfers liquid build material onto the build plane).
With respect to claim 18, the gas pressure source in Partanen, et al. is a static pressure source (paragraph 0032; examiner notes that the reference teaches a source of gas pressure which is controlled and released to expand the membrane towards the build surface; the source considered a static pressure source.)
With respect to claim 21, while Partanen, et al. do not teach the product volume nor the production time and/or voxel size, the examiner contends that these are features which the apparatus of Shkolnik is capable of meeting as the apparatus components are equivalent to that which applicant recites; a user inputs a design and the system thereupon builds the product.
With respect to claim 22, the system of Partanen, et al. further comprises a bath enclosure comprising a curable resin (item 20 – figure 1; paragraph 0031); the bath enclosure has a depth and while not specifically recited as 10 cm or larger, the basin size is obvious and depends on the build product; and the membrane covers the bath enclosure (figure 1).
With respect to claim 20, Partanen, et al. teach a method for producing a product, comprising: performing stereolithography to generate a product by optically polymerizing successive layers of curable resin at a build plane (figure 1; paragraph 0027); and flattening a non-flat region of the curable resin in a vicinity of the build plane using a flexible membrane positioned above the curable resin (figure 1 – 2; paragraph 0031 – 0032); wherein the film is optically transparent (paragraph 0031).
While not specifically reciting performing micro-stereolithography, the examiner contends that because the system of the prior art is capable of generating an object layerwise and the design of the object is dependent on what is desired, the examiner contends that the system is obviously capable of functioning as a microstereolithography system.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partanen, et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xia (US 11,654,619, filing date of March 3, 2020).
Partanen, et al. teach the features as noted; however, fail to teach that the membrane comprises an oxygen-permeable membrane.
Xia teaches a stereolithography apparatus with a printhead, the printhead sealed with a transparent membrane, which may be gas permeable (column 2, lines 65 – 67). Gas is released to prevent deformation of the membrane and/or prevent it from sticking to the build material.
Therefore, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the membrane oxygen permeable.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partanen, et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sun (US 2019/0053883 A1).
Partanen, et al. teach the features as noted; however, fail to teach that the layer leveling system comprises a mechanical agitator.
Sun teaches a stereolithography or 3D printing system, where mechanical agitation in addition to a heated vat (paragraph 0116) is utilized to ensure that the resin material remains in a low viscosity state.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include mechanical agitation as part of the layer leveling system for the purpose of ensuring that the build material remains in a low viscosity state per the teachings of Sun.
Claim(s) 11 – 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partanen, et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sinha, et al. (US 11,648,729, filing date of June 3, 2019).
Partanen, et al. teach the features of the system as noted; however, fail to teach the presence of an acoustic agitator which is capable of generating the waves as noted and is coupled to the bath comprising the curable resin or the curable resin itself.
Sinha, et al. teach an additive manufacturing system which uses powder particles as the build material. Treatment/curing of the powder materials is via plasma radiation. To ensure flow and/or movement of the particles, any suitable agitator may be included (mechanical, fluid agitation, sonic, etc.) (column 6, lines 40 – 45).
While not specifically teaching acoustic agitation, the examiner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the teachings in Sinha, et al. can include acoustic agitation as a means to maintain movement of the particles. Therefore, it would be obvious to use acoustic agitation means to generate acoustic waves in the vicinity of the build plane in order to maintain the fluent state of the build material. It would also be obvious per the teachings in Sinha, et al. to include the acoustic agitator in the vat of resin or coupled to the air surrounding it, for the purpose of maintaining the fluent state of the build material.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partanen, et al. as applied to claim 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Buller, et al. (US 2017/0355147 A1).
Partanen, et al. teach the system as noted above with the elements as recited; however, fail teach that the gas pressure source comprises an air blade.
Buller, et al. teach a three-dimensional printing system with a material source, curing source, build platform and leveling mechanism. The leveling mechanism can comprise an air knife or blade (paragraph 0049).
Therefore, the examiner contends that because Partanen, et al. already teach a gas source to introduce gas between the frame and membrane, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the air knife of Buller, et al. as the gas pressure source for the purpose of exposing the membrane to the gas, which allows it to contact the belt, thereby transferring the build material onto the build surface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed August 29, 2025, with respect to the reference of Buller specifically, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection(s) have thus, been withdrawn.
The examiner has conducted a new search and applied the primary reference(s) of Partanen, et al. and Shkolnik, et al., both of which teach an additive manufacturing system with a resin source, curing source, and a layer leveling system comprised of a flexible membrane, which is optically transparent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA VERONICA EWALD whose telephone number is (571)272-8519. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri ~9am-5:30pm 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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at 571-270-7769. 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.
/MARIA V EWALD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights