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
Acknowledgment is made to applicant’s amendment of claims 1-4 and 6-8 as well as the addition of claim 18. Currently claims 1-18 are pending with claims 9-17 withdrawn.
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) 1-8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelkar et al. (US 2019/0060998 A1) in view of Takakusa (US 2019/0299683).
With regards to claims 1 and 18, Kelkar teaches a method for determining a distance in a device for producing a three-dimensional object by layer-wise solidification of a building material in a working plane on a building base (Abstract, Fig. 1, ¶ 0046). Kelkar teaches that the device comprises at least one recoating element (Fig. 3A, 300) that can be moved in a recoating direction (301) across the working plane for applying a layer of building material. As seen in Figure 3A the recoating element is spaced apart from an article (302) placed on the building base thus forming a gap between the recoating element and the building base or article placed on the building base (¶ 0054 discusses the z-height difference between the recoater and the bed surface). Kelkar teaches utilizing sensors (316, 317) to determine the z-height of the recoating element in order to adjust the height of the recoater (¶ 0046, 0054). While Kelkar teaches that these sensors may be used in conjunction with known prior art non-contact sensors usable for determining a height (¶ 0046), Kelkar does not explicitly discuss a sensor comprising a beam source and beam detector placed on opposite sides of the recoating element as claimed.
Reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventors in determining the height of a material deposition means in a non-contact manner and in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing, Takakusa teaches a non-contact height sensor used to determine the height difference between the 3D printed object (15) and the material deposition means (26) (Fig. 2, Fig. 18-22). Takakusa teaches that the non-contact height sensor comprises emitting a number of directed beams (L1, L2) using a number of beam sources (56a, 57a) (¶ 0167-0169). The beams are detected using at least a first detector (56b, 57b) placed on an opposite side of the recoating element from the beam emitter (¶ 0170). The emitters and sensors can be moved in the z-axis direction so that beams in the gap between the deposition means (26) and the build surface (15) traverse laterally in the gap (Fig. 20A-C). Takakusa teaches determining the distance between the deposition means and the build surface based on the signal generated from at least the first detector using an evaluation unit (5) (¶ 0180-192).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized the non-contact distance determining means of Takakusa in the process of Kelkar as both relate to measuring the height between a material deposition device and a build surface in an additive manufacturing process presenting a reasonable expectation of success. Kelkar teaches that additional known non-contact height sensors can be used prompting one of ordinary skill to look to related art. Doing so utilizes a known prior art height sensor to improve a similar device in the same way yielding predictable results as discussed in MPEP 2143.I.D.
With regards to claim 2, as seen in Figures 21-26 of Takakusa height determinations include comparing the measure height curve to the previous reference height curve.
With regards to claim 3, Kelkar and Takakusa both teach adjusting the height of the recoater/material deposition unit as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
With regards to claim 4, as seen in Figure 1 of Kelkar the build system includes a movable piston on which the build material is provided. Takakusa likewise as seen in Figure 18 and 20A-C discuses relative movement of the sensors and the build material with multiple measurement points. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to move the base as relative movement requires one of the two objects to move presenting a finite number of predictable options. Additionally, both teach adjusting the height of the recoating element which can also be achieved by adjusting the height of the bed in the alternative as the bed also has the ability to adjust height without further modification.
With regards to claim 5, as seen in Figure 4B of Kelkar and Figure 1 of Takakusa, build chambers include a depth dimension. While Kelkar is silent with respect to a second array of sensing elements along the longitudinal length of the recoating device the mere duplication of parts has been held to present a case of prima facie obviousness in the absence of new or unexpected results as discussed in MPEP 2144.04.IV. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to duplicate the sensors along the longitudinal extension of the recoater to increase accuracy of the height in the additional dimension that already exists.
With regards to claim 6, Takakusa teaches capturing height at a plurality of positions (Fig. 18-26).
With regards to claim 7, Takakusa does not explicitly teach including a number and spacing of beams such that the cross-section of the beams is greater than the gap between the recoater and the build surface; however, this presents a case of obviousness as it is controlled by the known variables of the number of the beams and the desired gap between the recoater and the build base. Barring a showing of unexpected results it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to include a number of beams necessary to provide the desired span of measurement.
With regards to claim 8, Takakusa teaches a monotonic determination in that the signal is either blocked or not blocked in order to determine distance between the recoating means and the build plate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 and 18 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.
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 GALEN H HAUTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM to 6 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
