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 filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pg. 2) that “Action appears to improperly combines Holt's ‘top-down’ printing embodiment of Figure 7, which features an externally hinged screen assembly, with the structurally distinct, ‘bottom-up’ embodiment of Figures 1-6, where the light source is embedded within the printer's base. This proposed combination is not only structurally and functionally inoperable but also constitutes impermissible hindsight” but this is not found persuasive. Holt teaches retractable part 356R to allow separation of the display from the membrane, see Fig. 3A-3B, [0068]. Holt teaches by rotating the screen assembly about a hinge (as shown in FIG. 7) or by lifting the screen assembly in the build direction are two acceptable methods of removing separating the screen from the transmission window, see [0093]. Thus, it appears the hinge of Fig. 7 is compatible with the retractable part 356R of Fig. 3B. As stated in the previous and current action, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the hinge axis of Fig. 7 of Holt with the 3D printer of Fig. 1-6 of Holt because it effectively separates the screen from the transmission window, see [0093], which is applicable to the embodiment of Fig. 1-6, see Fig. 3B.
Applicant argues (pg. 3) that "Holt teaches collimation as a desirable feature for controlling light. A person of ordinary skill in the art, reading Holt, would be motivated to include, not omit, collimators." Examiner notes that neither the present claims, nor the teachings of Holt, explicitly include or exclude collimators. The claim language “to be apt to avoid collimators” is interpreted to recite an apparatus capable of not using a collimator. The claims do not explicitly exclude collimators. Holt clearly meets this threshold in teaching the light “may” include a collimator. That is, Holt does not require a collimator to be present for the apparatus to function.
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.),cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Applicant argues (pg. 3) "the claimed invention does not merely seek to optimize thickness for resolution; rather, it deliberately employs a specific thickness D, calculated via the claimed formula". Examiner notes that the formula is only present in the apparatus claim 5. Thus, claim 5 is met by the apparatus of Holt in combination with Yusuf, regardless of the reasons it was determined to be acceptable error, see MPEP 2114.
“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Examiner notes that regarding method claims 7 and 8, the method claims do not positively recite a step of “determined as a function of an acceptable error”. However, even if claimed this appears to be inherent to the method of Holt. Holt teaches vat base 132 should be flexible and desirably have a thickness of 10 mils (254 microns) or less, see [0049]. Thus, Holt appears to meet the claim. Applicant has not provided evidence that 10 mils is not acceptable error given the calculation in the rejection below
Claim Interpretation
Claim 5 recites “emission angle(α) of each LED” but does not define it. The term is given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Examiner notes that the specification does not give examples of the angle or how it is determined. For purposes of examination any angle less than 180 degrees will be understood to meet the claim.
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.
Claim 5, line 9 recites “means for the relative movement of said light source” which is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). Examiner interprets the claim to include the structure disclosed in the specification or equivalents thereof. For example paragraph [0100] recites “the body of the light source 12′ is mounted on a motor which allows the translation of the light source 12′, and in particular of the LCD display 13′, from a first position, in contact with the bottom 11, to a second position, wherein the bottom 11 is free.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt et al. (US 2019/0366635 A1) in view of Yusurf (US 2024/0109251 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Holt meets the claimed a bottom-up, photo-curing 3D printing apparatus, (Fig.1-6, [0043]) comprising an LED matrix (light source 114 emits electromagnetic radiation [0051] light emitting diode (LED) screen comprising an array of pixels, [0053]) LCD light source, (screen 152, Fig. 1, see also screen 352, Fig. 3A-B, the screen is an LCD screen, [0052]) above which a tank is arranged, the tank containing a photo-curing liquid material, (photopolymer vat 130) inside which an extraction plate (print platform 124) is immersed, provided with means of movement with alternating rectilinear motion along a direction perpendicular to the bottom of said tank, (movement control system has a motorized arm 122 supporting a print platform 124, Fig. 1, [0047]) from a position at a distance from the bottom of said tank equal to the thickness of a layer (print platform is spaced apart from the vat base by a layer thickness of the 3D printed object [0057]) obtainable by photo-curing of said photo-curing liquid material, the bottom of said tank made of an elastic membrane transparent to the radiation of said light source, (vat base 132 should be flexible and desirably have a thickness of 10 mils (254 microns) or less, see [0049]) said tank positioned in correspondence with an opening of a support plate, (Fig. 1) said apparatus comprising means for the relative movement of said light source with respect to said elastic membrane, (control system of the third 3D printer is configured to retract the retractable part 356R of the composite screen support assembly 356 from the vat 330, as shown in FIG. 3B, see [0068]) from a position in which the display of said light source is in contact with said elastic membrane, to a position in which the display of said light source is separated from said elastic membrane, (Holt teaches retractable part 356R to allow separation of the display from the membrane, see Fig. 3A-3B, [0068]) wherein the distance between the LEDs of said LED matrix is
PNG
media_image1.png
18
156
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein ETOT is the nominal energy of the LEDs being used and δLED is the set density of energy and the distance between said LED matrix and said display is defined according to the emission diagram of said LEDs, (Holt teaches in the illustrated LCD screen, the pixels in the screen are arranged in an array with a 47 μm pixel pitch in each of the x- and y-directions [0052]. Neither Holt nor the instant specification disclose any values for ETOT or δLED. A value of 47 μm pixel pitch meets the claimed dL value because it is taught by Holt to performed the function of 3D printing, see MPEP 2112.01(I))
“When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
and, in correspondence of the display, given the emission angle (a) of each LED, is
PNG
media_image2.png
15
154
media_image2.png
Greyscale
to be apt to avoid the use of diaphragms and collimators, (Holt teaches a plurality of light sources is shown, each of which may be separately collimated, desirably having an emission angle of 15° or less, see [0054]. Examiner notes a pitch of 47 microns and emission angle of 15° results in a dLCD of 357 microns, see calculation below. The claim language “to be apt to avoid collimators” is interpreted to recite an apparatus capable of not using a collimator. The claims do not explicitly exclude collimators. Holt clearly meets this threshold in teaching the light “may” include a collimator. That is, Holt does not require a collimator to be present for the apparatus to function.)
PNG
media_image3.png
323
425
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and the thickness of said membrane is chosen according to the distance between said LED matrix and said display and is determined as a function of an acceptable error, expressed as a function of the size p of the single pixel of said display and equal to p/2, and is determined by equation
PNG
media_image4.png
15
126
media_image4.png
Greyscale
to introduce a diffusion system, equal to the acceptable error, apt to help compensate the aliasing phenomenon. (Holt teaches in the illustrated LCD screen, the pixels in the screen are arranged in an array with a 47 μm pixel pitch in each of the x- and y-directions [0052]. Given a 15 degree angle, this results in a D value of 178.5 microns. Holt teaches vat base 132 should be flexible and desirably have a thickness of 10 mils (254 microns) or less, see [0049]).
PNG
media_image5.png
338
414
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Holt teaches vat base 132 should be flexible and desirably have a thickness of 10 mils (254 microns) or less, see [0049]. Holt does not explicitly teach
PNG
media_image4.png
15
126
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where D= 178.5 microns or
PNG
media_image2.png
15
154
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where dLCD = 357 microns.
Yusurf teaches [0024] a micro light emitting diode (LED) array of an additive manufacturing device [0046] where5 the film or the encapsulant layer results in radiation beams at the curing layer which have a surface area which is no more than 1.2× the array surface area. This can be achieved by making the irradiation surface very thin. A thickness of under 50 μm may also be used. Typically, a film thickness which is less than or equal to the emitter-to-emitter distance (resolution of the array) is desirable.
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to optimize the film thickness (D) and distance (dLCD) in order to optimize the 3D printing system to minimize divergence of the beam produced by an emitter as the beam undergoes diffusion through the coating, see Yusuf [0046].
Holt does not explicitly teach in a single embodiment wherein said light source is coupled to said support plate and is configured to rotate around a hinge axis.
Holt teaches wherein said light source is coupled to said support plate (Holt meets the claim with the screen 752 mounted to screen assembly 750, Fig. 7) and is configured to rotate around a hinge axis. (Holt teaches rotating the screen assembly 750 about a hinge (as shown in FIG. 7), see [0093])
Holt teaches retractable part 356R to allow separation of the display from the membrane, see Fig. 3A-3B, [0068]. Holt teaches printers shown in Fig. 1-6 may be adapted to promote peeling of a 3D printed object in which the build direction and vat have other orientations, such as Fig. 7, see [0087]. Holt teaches by rotating the screen assembly about a hinge (as shown in FIG. 7) or by lifting the screen assembly in the build direction are two acceptable methods of removing separating the screen from the transmission window, see [0093].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the hinge axis of Fig. 7 of Holt with the 3D printer of Fig. 1-6 of Holt because it effectively separates the screen from the transmission window, see [0093], which is applicable to the embodiment of Fig. 1-6, see Fig. 3B.
Regarding claim 7, Holt as modified by Yusurf meets the 3D printing method of the bottom-up photo-curing type, implemented by the apparatus of claim 5, (see rejection of claim 5 above) comprising the following sequence of steps: a) forming of a solid layer on an extraction plate (a print platform 124, Fig. 1) by photo-curing of a liquid photo- curing material contained within a tank, (vat 130) in the space (print platform 124 is spaced apart from the vat base by a layer thickness of the 3D printed object [0057]) between an extraction plate and an elastic membrane that forms the bottom of said tank, in which an LCD display (screen 152) is in contact with the underside of said elastic membrane; b) distancing said LCD display from said elastic membrane; (control system is also configured to move the screen assembly 750 relative to the transmission window 792, [0092]) c) lifting said extraction plate with progressive detaching of said elastic membrane; (promoting peeling of the 3D printed object 738 from the transmission window 792. Subsequently, the printing platform 724 is moved away from the transmission window 792, e.g. either being moved directly into position for the next stereolithographic exposure, or initially being moved further from the transmission window to induce peeling of the transmission window 792 from the 3D printed object 738 [0093]) d) returning said light source to its initial position, with said LCD display in contact with said elastic membrane; (returned into contact again before the next stereolithographic exposure, [0094]) and e) lowering said extraction plate down to a position in which the last layer of photo- cured material is at a distance of one layer to be formed with respect to said elastic membrane. (print platform 124 is spaced apart from the vat base by a layer thickness of the 3D printed object [0057]).
Regarding claim 8, Holt as modified by Yusurf meets the claimed 3D printing method of the bottom-up photo-curing type, implemented by the apparatus of claim 5, , (see rejection of claim 5 above) comprising the following sequence of steps: a) forming of a solid layer on an extraction plate (a print platform 124, Fig. 1) by photo-curing of a liquid photo-curing material contained within a tank, (print platform 124 is spaced apart from the vat base by a layer thickness of the 3D printed object [0057]) in the space between an extraction plate and an elastic membrane that forms the bottom of said tank, in which an LCD display (screen 152) is in contact with the underside of said elastic membrane; b) distancing said elastic membrane, and said tank, (control system is also configured to move the screen assembly 750 relative to the transmission window 792, [0092]) c) returning said elastic membrane, (returned into contact again before the next stereolithographic exposure, [0094]) and said tank said to their initial positions, in contact with said display, said extraction plate remaining motionless, with progressive detaching of said elastic membrane from the last layer of photo-cured material of the object being formed; (promoting peeling of the 3D printed object 738 from the transmission window 792. Subsequently, the printing platform 724 is moved away from the transmission window 792, [0093]and d) lowering said extraction plate down to a position in which the last layer of photo-cured material is at a distance of one layer to be formed with respect to said elastic membrane. (print platform 124 is spaced apart from the vat base by a layer thickness of the 3D printed object [0057]).
Holt teaches promoting peeling of the 3D printed object by moving the screen assembly 750 followed by moving the printing platform 724, see [0093]. However, Holt does not teach and at the same time of said extraction plate, from said LCD display with progressive detaching of said elastic membrane from said display.
The courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application, see MPEP § 2143(I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effect filing date of the present application to perform the separating steps of Holt simultaneously in place of two sequential steps in order to promote peeling of the 3D printed object [0093] to achieve the predictable result of removing the object in less time.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mansouri (US 2021/0146616 A1) teaches [0086] 330a that is compressed and the non-compressed media layer may create a curvature on the tensioned film 330 having a tangent angle of approximately between 2°-4°.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M. ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0467. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached on (571)270-5343. 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.
/MICHAEL M. ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744