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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/29/2025 has been entered.
Priority
While the instant application is identified by Applicant as a Continuation-In-Part (CIP), it appears that the subject matter amended into the independent claim 1 (first and second light valves with high and low fluence patterned beams to melt and pre-heat powder, respectively) does not have basis for support in any of the Parents / Siblings and / or Provisional applications that have earlier effective filing dates.
As a result, (i) the instant application has been accorded an earliest effective filing date of its filing date - 5/27/2022 - ; and (ii) should Applicant intend to get an earlier effective filing date than that date: Applicant is requested to kindly demonstrate support for the claimed subject matter of independent claim 1 with regards to which specific family member gives it an effective filing date of a certain date.
Applicant failed to provide a detailed explanation as to why applicant will prevail on priority. See 37 CFR 41.202(a)(4), (a)(6), (d) and MPEP § 2304.02(c).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/29/2025, with respect to the newly amended limitation of “wherein the first and second two-dimensional gray scale patterns are used to control material properties of the melted portion of the powder correspond to each pixel position of the pattern” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 8 recites limitations already recited in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 8, 10-12 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shkolnik (US 2010/0125356), in view of Burris (US 2014/0271328) and further in view of Vaidya (US 2017/0189965).
Regarding claim 1, Shkolnik discloses a method (see methods of [0078]) comprising:
depositing (See depositing of [0096] – reactive material 118 is deposited in a layer as a powder) a layer of powder (see photo-powder of [0080]) on a print plane (see Fig. 1A – the print plane is the horizontal section of the perspective shot shown where the illuminations 152 and 154 are projected to – see build plane of [0148], [0283] – also shown in Figs. 14A-B);
with multiple pattern generators (see multiple pattern generators of [0106] & Fig. 1A – pattern generators 102 and 104 are interpreted as meeting the BRI of light valves - see [0089]) with multiple light sources.
Shkolnik recognized that multiple intensities within the patterned region are present for each of the pattern generators to create bitmaps (see intensity range scaling of [0099]; grayscale value of voxel data for exposure time of [0085], expressed as two-dimensional information as detailed in [0086]). [0105] indicates that various intensities may be utilized to control the relative solidification of the reactive material. [0247] discloses that the power generators may have different colors associated therewith, and wherein there is an overlap region (see 420 of [0247]) of the two pattern generators 102 and 104 (see Fig. 7A which has a line over overlapping pattern generation). [0252] specifically discloses that multiple pattern generators may be used with multiple greyscale patterns (see image pattern 712 for each pattern generator of Fig. 7a).
PNG
media_image1.png
770
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
804
559
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Since the two fluence beams are applied contemporaneously / simultaneously, it cannot be ascertained which one is causing the elevation to near melting point and which one causes melting. Therefore, Shkolnik fails to disclose wherein the low fluence patterned beam is applied to raise a temperature of the powder near its melting point and a high fluence patterned beam is applied to melt the powder according to the first two-dimensional gray scale pattern.
While the powder is clearly melted / cured in Shkolnik (see [0104]), the reference does not clearly disclose / meet the limitation wherein the fluence patterned beams are steered to overlap to obtain a cured / melted portion. Shkolnik does disclose an overlap between the patterns ([0247] – see overlap region 420 with respect to image generators 102, 104) but fails to recite that the overlap of the first and second patterns from the first and second patterns correspond to high and low fluence patterns.
Therefore, Shkolnik fails to teach multiple overlapping, different fluences to each pattern generator.
The Shkolnik fails to disclose wherein two different projectors / DLPs / SLMs have different intensity fluence patterns, one for preheating and another for melting the powder.
Burris discloses an additive manufacturing apparatus (see title, abs, Fig. 1) wherein there are a plurality of laser diodes (see laser diodes of [0044]) each of which can take on its own intensity (see high power density of a layer of the powder material, and low density of the layer of the powder material; abs, [0032], [0044] & [0067] each indicate the multiple energy diodes can send low and high fluence beams to the powder for preheating and melting). Burris discloses that the multiple laser diodes / output optics can simultaneously preheat, melt and / or anneal multiple overlapping regions of the material ([0019]; see also claims 16-17 which disclose a first energy beam preheating the powder at a first power density and a second energy beam melting / fusing the powder at a second powder density higher than the first beam, where the first beam is then treated as a preheating beam).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the preheating fluence and melting fluence of the respective laser diodes / DLPs / SLMs of the overlapping regions of Burris to the additive manufacturing method of Shkolnik to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so was an exercise in applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. KSR Rationale D. The improvement was the increased efficiency of the absorption of the energy beam of the powdered material ([0043]). The predictable result was the increase in the printing rate for the preheated powder as compared to a non-preheated powder with a single laser beam ([0069] – the processor adjusted the power density of the lasers to achieve a target preheat temperature and melt temperature).
Shkolnik/Burris do not teach that the first and second two-dimensional gray scale patterns are used to control material properties of the melted portion of the powder corresponding to each pixel position of the patterns wherein the high fluence patterned beam comprises one or more first pulses and the low fluence patterned beam comprises one or more second pulses, each of the one or more second pulses being longer than each of the one or more first pulses.
Vaidya teaches a method of three-dimensional printing comprising using laser beam to heat powder for fusion into the object (see title and abstract, [0012]). Vaidya further teaches that the parameters of the laser source (e.g. power density, exposure time and pulse duration) used to achieve fusion may be modified in order to achieve desired properties including controlled porosity, crystallinity, grain size and grain orientation in the 3D-part ([0078]).
Given Vadiya’s teaching, since the gray scale patterns in Shkolnik/Burris are used to direct and create laser patterns into the powder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the gray scale patterns in order to manipulate the laser beam parameters for each pixel region for the benefit of achieving a desired property of the 3D-part in various regions to accommodate different manufacturing demands and designs.
With regards to the high fluence patterned beams comprising one or more first pulses and low fluence patterned beam comprises one or more second pulses, each of the one or more second pulses being longer than each of the one or more first pulses, it is recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art that power density and pulse duration affects how much laser is applied to a certain area for a given time. As further explained by Vaidya, these are result-effective variables which affect the properties of the 3D-part. It is well established that the optimization of result-effective variables only require ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to have optimized the pulse duration for each respective high and low fluence patterned beam in order to achieve the desired material property.
Regarding claim 2, the combination Shkolnik/Burris/Vaidya discloses wherein the first two-dimensional gray scale pattern has at least 3 intensity levels (Shkolnik [0099] indicates that there are 255 intensity levels of both pattern generators and therefore both two-dimensional gray scale patterns).
Regarding claim 3, the combination Shkolnik/Burris/Vaidya discloses wherein the first two-dimensional gray scale pattern has at least three intensity levels selected from a range of at least 128 levels ([0099] indicates that there are 255 intensity levels of both pattern generators and therefore both two-dimensional gray scale patterns).
Regarding claim 8, see rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 10-12, see rejection of claim 1 which teaches that the material properties include porosity, grain size and crystallinity.
Regarding claim 23, see rejection of claim 1 which established that the material properties can be optimized depending on the laser parameters. Since the gray scale pattern controls the final 3D-part that is formed, it creates a laser pattern that affects how the powder is sintered. Therefore, the melted portions can be optimized to have different/varying material properties based on the two-dimensional gray scale pattern.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shkolnik (US 2010/0125356), in view of Burris (US 2014/0271328), Vaidya (US 2017/0189965) and further in view of Shibazaki (US 2017/0304946).
Regarding claim 4, the combination Shkolnik/Burris/Vaidya fails to disclose wherein the light valve modulates an amplitude of the original light beam to obtain the patterned beam (the DLP of the embodiment utilized in the rejection necessarily modulates the intensity but is silent as to the specific wave property / amplitude of the original light beam to obtain the patterned beam).
Shibazaki discloses a shaping apparatus (title, abs) wherein the light valve (the analogous structure to the light valve of Shkolnik’s light valve is the spatial light modulator of [0092] of Shibazaki) modulates an amplitude (see intensity / amplitude, Id.) of the original light beam (see light source system 510 and beam irradiation section 520, Id.) to obtain the patterned beam (the modulated beam is the patterned beam necessarily).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the spatial light modulator of Shibazaki in the additive manufacturing method’s spatial light modulator of the Shkolnik reference to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so was a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results – KSR Rationale B. The substitution of the spatial light modulator of Shkolnik with the spatial light modulator of Shibazaki had the predictable result that it allowed for the patterning of the incoming beam to become the amplitude-modulated beam.
Regarding claim 5, the combination Shkolnik/Burris/Vaidya fails to disclose wherein the light valve modulates a phase of the original light beam to obtain the patterned beam (the DLP of the embodiment utilized in the rejection necessarily modulates the phase but is silent as to the specific wave property / phase of the original light beam to obtain the patterned beam).
Shibazaki discloses a shaping apparatus (title, abs) wherein the light valve (the analogous structure to the light valve of Shkolnik’s light valve is the spatial light modulator of [0092] of Shibazaki) modulates an phase (see intensity / amplitude, Id.) of the original light beam (see light source system 510 and beam irradiation section 520, Id.) to obtain the patterned beam (the modulated beam is the patterned beam necessarily).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the spatial light modulator of Shibazaki in the additive manufacturing method’s spatial light modulator of the combination Shkolnik/Burris/Vaidya to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so was a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results – KSR Rationale B. The substitution of the spatial light modulator of Shkolnik with the spatial light modulator of Shibazaki had the predictable result that it allowed for the patterning of the incoming beam to become the phase-modulated beam.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shkolnik (US 2010/0125356), in view of Burris (US 2014/0271328), Vaidya (US 2017/0189965), and further in view of Shibazaki (US 2017/0304946), with evidence from op ’t Root (US 2018/0203248).
Regarding claim 6, the combination Shkolnik/Burris/Vaidya fails to disclose wherein the light valve modulates a phase of the original light beam to obtain the patterned beam (the DLP of the embodiment utilized in the rejection necessarily modulates the phase but is silent as to the specific wave property / phase of the original light beam to obtain the patterned beam).
Shibazaki discloses a shaping apparatus (title, abs) wherein the light valve (the analogous structure to the light valve of Shkolnik’s light valve is the spatial light modulator of [0092] of Shibazaki) modulates an phase (see intensity / amplitude, Id.) of the original light beam (see light source system 510 and beam irradiation section 520, Id.) to obtain the patterned beam (the modulated beam is the patterned beam necessarily).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the spatial light modulator of Shibazaki in the additive manufacturing method’s spatial light modulator of the combination Shkolnik/Burris/Vaidya to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so was a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results – KSR Rationale B. The substitution of the spatial light modulator of Shkolnik with the spatial light modulator of Shibazaki had the predictable result that it allowed for the patterning of the incoming beam to become the phase-modulated beam.
The combination Shkolnik/Burris/Vaidya/op ’t Root meets the limitation wherein the light valve modulates coherence of the original light valve to obtain the pattern beam ([0020] of op ’t Root discloses that phase modulators reduce the spatial coherence of a pulsed light source such as a beam).
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shkolnik (US 2010/0125356), in view of Burris (US 2014/0271328), Vaidya (US 2017/0189965), and further in view of Tow (US 2015/0165690).
Regarding claim 9, the combination Shkolnik/Burris/Vaidya fails to disclose wherein the material properties include Young’s modulus.
Tow discloses an additive manufacturing method ([0054] method associated with 3D printer to provide custom orthotics) wherein the optimized material properties include the stiffness / Young’s modulus ([0056] & [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the optimization of the stiffness / Young’s modulus as in Tow in the method for treating powder with a two-dimensional gray-scale pattern of Shkolnik to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so was an exercise in application of a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results – KSR Rationale D. The known technique was optimization of the stiffness / Young’s modulus of the component manufactured; the improvement being improved stiffness. Further, since Shkolnik/Burris/Vadiya discloses a 3D-printing method for forming an object, it would have been obvious to have used the method to form 3D-printed custom orthotics as taught by Tow with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Since Young’s modulus is a property that should be changed in orthotics, it would have been further obvious to modify the laser parameters in order to achieve the desired Young’s modulus depending on the custom orthotics desired.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shkolnik (US 2010/0125356), in view of Burris (US 2014/0271328), Vaidya (US 2017/0189965), and further in view of MacKinnon (US 2002/0135763).
Regarding claim 21, the combination Shkolnik/Burris/Vaidya fails to disclose wherein the first and second two-dimensional gray-scale patterns are the same.
MacKinnon discloses a lighting system apparatus (see title, abs; [0050] and Fig. 2) wherein two SLMs (see first reflective pixelated SLM 16 and second reflective pixelated SLM 20, Id.) are set to have a substantially similar / identical pattern (Id.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the identical patterns of the optical lighting system of MacKinnon to the method of Shkolnik/Burris/Vaidya to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so had the benefit that it allowed for the attenuation of the overall power of the light beam, and thereby creating a very high resolution, high contrast, spectrally selected beam projected at the target (Id.). KSR Rationale G – teaching, suggestion, motivation.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shkolnik (US 2010/0125356), in view of Burris (US 2014/0271328), Vaidya (US 2017/0189965), and further in view of Morovic (US 2017/0364316).
Regarding claim 22, the combination Shkolnik/Burris/Vaidya fails to disclose wherein the first and second two-dimensional gray scale patterns are different.
Morovic discloses additive manufacturing methods (see methods of [0045]) wherein multiple different halftone patterns are formed in two-dimensions to form 3D objects from a matrix material ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the different halftone patterns formed from two dimensions as in Morovic in the additive manufacturing method of Shkolnik/Burris/Vaidya to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so had the benefit that it allowed for the creation of the same object with less memory use ([0041]). KSR Rationale G – teaching, suggestion, motivation.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shkolnik (US 2010/0125356), in view of Burris (US 2014/0271328), Vaidya (US 2017/0189965), and further in view of Sutton (US 2014/0314896).
Regarding claim 23, the combination Shkolnik/Burris/Vaidya fails to disclose wherein the melted portion has two-dimensionally varying material properties in correspondence with the first two-dimensional gray-scale pattern.
Sutton discloses an additive manufacturing method (see [0068]) wherein a density of the final cured droplets (Id.) is controlled by altering the two-dimensional image of the grayscale values / patterning (Id.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the altering of the two-dimensional image of the grayscale value patterning of Sutton to the additive manufacturing method of Shkolnik/Burris/Vaidya to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so had the benefit that it allowed for the use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way – KSR Rationale C. The control of the density of the object was considered an improvement over existing methods which could not control the density of the object formed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAO SI ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-5343. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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.
/XIAO S ZHAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights