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
The amendment filed 02/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 16 have been amended. Claims 9-15 remain withdrawn. Claims 2-4, 7 and 17 have been canceled. Claims 20-21 are newly submitted claims. Accordingly, claims 1, 5-6, 8-16 and 18-21 remain pending, with claims 1, 5-6, 8, 16 and 18-21 being the claims addressed and examined below.
Applicant’s remarks and cancellation/amendments to the claims have overcome the 35 USC 112(a) rejections previously set forth in the Office action mailed 11/14/2025.
The non-final action mailed on 11/14/2025 will be vacated with the instant non-final office action replacing the previously mailed non-final action in view of Applicant’s persuasive arguments against previously applied reference(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 1 and 16 under 35 USC 102 and USC 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 in view of newly found prior art references found in an updated search (see Nichols et al., US 2021/0162670, in view of Saha et al., US 2021/0001540, as applied in the rejections below).
Information Disclosure Statement
The foreign references identified in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 01/19/2023 were searched for corresponding English equivalents. Please see below:
EP 3627227 = US 20210394449; and
WO 2020028431 = US 20210394473.
Of the above, US 20210394449 and US 20210394473 are being cited in the attached PTO-892 because they are not already of record.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “wherein the device is configured to control time of emission of the light beams onto the container” should read “wherein the device is configured to control time of emission of the light beams into the container” in order to be consistent with lines 10-11 and 17-18 of claim 1.
Onto emphasizes placement, contact, or reaching a position; whereas, into emphasizes entry, inclusion, or something moving from the outside to the inside of a space (the light beams are moving from outside the container to the inside of the container). 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:
“a modulator configured to modulate” in line 7 of claim 16 (see the published specification, US 2023/0347580, for the corresponding structure for performing the claimed function in paragraphs [0023]-[0024] & [0054]-[0055], and FIGs. 1-2); and
“an irradiator configured to irradiate” in line 9 of claim 16 (see the published specification, US 2023/0347580, for the corresponding function for performing the claimed function in paragraphs [0026]-[0030], [0049] & [0056], and FIG. 2; specifically, the specification makes it clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that the objective lenses 5a, 5b are used as the “irradiating means” in the device for stereolithographic 3D printing).
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 § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 requires “wherein the device is configured to maintain a biological structure and function such that the antibody and/or protein is not denatured after the 3D printing”; however, the published specification (US 2023/0347580) only discloses the polymer optionally comprising living cells, antibodies, proteins or any other kind of biological structures, which would thereby create three dimensional (3D) cell-containing structures in a stereolithographic process ([0057]), and it being known that the low printing speed of the SLA technique impede the correct stacking and viability of the embedded cells, further modifying its mechanical, biochemical and structural properties ([0005]). Thus, there is insufficient disclosure at the time of filing for the claim recitation requiring that the antibody and/or protein is not denatured after the 3D printing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation "said modulator" in line 1. Claim 6 depends from claim 1, which does not include a modulator, and rather only states that “the device is configured to modulate” without providing further structure; therefore, the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a modulator making it unclear as to what element the limitation is making reference. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Regarding claim 16: the recitation “an irradiator configured to irradiate said at least two light sheets in the container containing said photopolymerizable polymer” in lines 9-10 is indefinite as it is not clear how two light sheets, or two modulated light beams, are being irradiated by a single irradiator into the container. Given the disclosure in the instant/published specification, each light sheet/beam requires its own irradiator (i.e., objective lenses 5a, 5b in Figs. 1-2), and the claim is being interpreted consistent with the specification for the purposes of prior art rejections.
Regarding claim 18: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation "said any axis" in line 2. Claim 18 depends from claim 1, which does not include an axis; therefore, the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of an axis making it unclear as to what element the limitation is making reference. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
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, 5-6, 8 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols et al. (US 2021/0162670) in view of Saha et al. (US 2021/0001540).
As to claim 1: Nichols discloses the claimed device for stereolithographic three-dimensional (3D) printing (i.e., additive manufacturing apparatus 10) (Nichols at [0038], FIG. 1), comprising:
a) a container configured to contain a photopolymerizable polymer (i.e., reservoir 26 having a plurality of walls and cuboid in shape, configured to hold a volume of resin 30, where the resin 30 is a liquid material configured to undergo solidification when exposed to light) (Nichols at [0038], FIG. 1);
b) a first laser generator configured to emit a first light beam with a wavelength between 360 nm and 1000 nm (i.e., first light device 14 includes a first light source 34 configured to emit light within a first predetermined range of wavelengths within the visible light spectrum, i.e., approximately 380 nm to 700 nm) (Nichols at [0038], [0039], FIG. 1); and
c) a second laser generator configured to emit a second light beam (i.e., second light device 18 includes a second light source 54 configured to emit light of a second wavelength) (Nichols at [0038], [0042], FIG. 1),
wherein said first and second laser generators are arranged in the device so that said first and second light beams are crossed at the photopolymerizable polymer inside said container, leading to polymerization of the photopolymerizable polymer at the crossing of said first and second light beams (i.e., control module 22 is configured to control the first and second light devices 14, 18 so that the first and second lights intersect within the resin 30 at predetermined X, Y, and Z coordinates, e.g., location of intersection 78 where the resin 30 is configured to solidify) (Nichols at [0047], [0048], [0050], FIG. 1, FIG. 2),
wherein said first and second laser generators are arranged to form an angle greater than 45o between said first and second light beams crossed at the photopolymerizable polymer (i.e., the second beam 62’ emitted by second light source 54’ is perpendicular to the first plane 210 of light emitted by first light source 34’ – where perpendicular is indicative of a 90o angle between the first light source 34’ and the second light source 54’) (Nichols at [0050], FIG. 1, FIG. 2).
Nichols discloses the first light source 34 being mounted to a first positioning device 38, the second light source 54 being mounted to a second positioning device 58, and both the first positioning device 38 and the second positioning device 58 including mirrors and/or lenses and/or motors to adjust and/or focus the angle at which the emitted light enters the reservoir 26 (Nichols at [0040], [0041], [0043], [0044], FIG. 1); and the first light source 34’ being a planar light source that emits the first light as a first plane 210 of light instead of the beam light source (Nichols at [0049], [0050], FIG. 2).
Though, Nichols fails to explicitly disclose the claimed (i) wherein the device is configured to modulate said first light beam into a first light sheet and modulate a second light beam into a second light sheet, said first and second light sheets being matrices of light, (ii) wherein the device is configured to irradiate said first and second light sheets in the container containing said photopolymerizable polymer, and (iii) wherein the device further comprises an imaging system comprising an image capturing element and an objective lens.
However, Saha teaches an apparatus 10 for additive manufacturing including a laser source 12, a tunable mask 26, an objective lens 44 for focusing collimated beam 34 onto an X-Y plane inside a photopolymer resist material sample 48 (i.e., wherein the device is configured to irradiate said first and second light sheets in the container containing said photopolymerizable polymer), a CCD camera 40 and an objective lens 38 (i.e., wherein the device further comprises an imaging system comprising an image capturing element and an objective lens) (Saha at [0034], [0036], [0038], FIG. 1).
Saha further teaches that this device 10 allows for complex structures to be generated by projecting a series of patterned “light sheets” that are dynamically tuned through the tunable mask 26 and the optical system that ensures that the light sheet (i.e., the projected image) is both spatially and temporally focused (i.e., wherein the device is configured to modulate said first light beam into a first light sheet and modulate a second light beam into a second light sheet, said first and second light sheets being matrices of light) (Saha at [0054]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the projection of patterned light sheets via a tunable mask and objective lens for focusing a collimated beam onto an X-Y plane inside a photopolymer resist material sample along with a CCD camera and objective lens as such is known in the art of volumetric three-dimensional printing given the discussion of Saha above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allowing for light sheets which are both spatially and temporally focused resulting in a viable system for high-volume additive manufacturing of functional parts with nanoscale features (as recognized by Saha at [0054]).
As to claim 5: Nichols and Saha disclose the device of claim 1. Nichols further discloses the claimed device further comprising at least two optic modules located downstream of said first and second laser generators, said optic modules comprising a scanning mirror and a scanning lens (Nichols at [0041], [0044]).
As to claim 6: Nichols and Saha disclose the device of claim 1. Saha further discloses the claimed wherein said modulator comprises at least one pattern generation system, said pattern generation system comprising a photomask (i.e., tunable mask 26) (Saha at [0034], [0036], [0039], [0041]), for similar motivation as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 8: Nichols and Saha disclose the device of claim 1. Nichols further discloses the claimed wherein the device is configured to control time of emission of the light beams onto the container (Nichols at [0046], [0047], [0050], [0073]).
As to claim 18: Nichols and Saha disclose the device of claim 1. further discloses the claimed wherein the device is configured to rotate the first and second light sheets by 90o around any said axis (Nichols at [0041], [0044], [0045], [0049], [0050]).
As to claim 19: Nichols and Saha disclose the device of claim 1. Nichols further discloses the claimed wherein the first and second light beams are not coplanar (Nichols at [0049], [0050], FIG. 2).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols and Saha as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matheu et al. (US 2018/0257297).
As to claim 20: Nichols and Saha disclose the device of claim 1. Nichols and Saha fail to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein the photopolymerizable polymer comprises living cells, and wherein the device is configured to maintain a cell viability of the living cells in the photopolymerizable polymer to equal to or higher than 99% after the 3D printing by rotating the first and second light sheets around any axis to adjust an angle of incidence between the first and second light sheets.
However, Matheu teaches a system for printing a three-dimensional (3D) biological material comprising a media chamber configured to contain a medium comprising a plurality of cells and at least one polymer precursor (Matheu at [0035]).
The claims are directed towards an apparatus (i.e., device for stereolithographic 3D printing). The material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus is viewed as recitation of intended use and is given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (see MPEP § 2112.01 I and § 2114-2115 for further details).
Specifically, the recitation “wherein the device is configured to maintain a cell viability of the living cells in the photopolymerizable polymer to equal to or higher than 99% after the 3D printing by rotating the first and second light sheets around any axis to adjust an angle of incidence between the first and second light sheets” is being interpreted as a recitation of intended use given it is related to the material worked upon and process of using the apparatus.
It is the Examiner's assessment, absent evidence to the contrary, that the prior art applied would be capable of meeting the recited functionality. See MPEP 2114 (II) "A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim." (quotes and citation omitted). The burden, therefore, shifts to the Applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on (see MPEP § 2114(I)) (citation omitted).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize photopolymerizable polymer comprising living cells as such is known in the art of volumetric additive manufacturing given the discussion of Matheu above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, which has been held to be within the ordinary skill in the art. One would have been motivated to incorporate photopolymerizable polymer comprising living cells for the purpose of 3D printing biological material.
As to claim 21: Nichols and Saha disclose the device of claim 1. Nichols and Saha fail to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein the photopolymerizable polymer comprises an antibody and/or a protein, wherein the device is configured to maintain a biological structure and function such that the antibody and/or the protein is not denatured after the 3D printing.
However, Matheu remains as introduced and applied in the rejection of claim 20 above, and Matheu further teaches the claimed wherein the photopolymerizable polymer comprises an antibody and/or a protein (Matheu at [0022], [0032]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 20.
Similar to the analysis provided in the rejection of claim 20, the recitation “wherein the device is configured to maintain a biological structure and function such that the antibody and/or protein is not denatured after the 3D printing” is being interpreted as a recitation of intended use given it is related to the material worked upon and process of using the apparatus.
It is the Examiner's assessment, absent evidence to the contrary, that the prior art applied would be capable of meeting the recited functionality. See MPEP 2114 (II) "A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim." (quotes and citation omitted). The burden, therefore, shifts to the Applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on (see MPEP § 2114(I)) (citation omitted).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols et al. (US 2021/0162670) in view of Saha et al. (US 2021/0001540).
As to claim 16: Nichols discloses the claimed device for stereolithographic three-dimensional (3D) printing (i.e., additive manufacturing apparatus 10) (Nichols at [0038], FIG. 1), comprising:
a) a container configured to contain a photopolymerizable polymer (i.e., reservoir 26 having a plurality of walls and cuboid in shape, configured to hold a volume of resin 30, where the resin 30 is a liquid material configured to undergo solidification when exposed to light) (Nichols at [0038], FIG. 1);
b) a laser generator configured to emit a first light beam with a wavelength between 360 nm and 1000 nm (i.e., first light device 14 includes a first light source 34 configured to emit light within a first predetermined range of wavelengths within the visible light spectrum, i.e., approximately 380 nm to 700 nm) (Nichols at [0038], [0039], FIG. 1);
wherein said laser generator is arranged in the device so that said at least two light beams are crossed at the photopolymerizable polymer inside said container, leading to polymerization of the photopolymerizable polymer at the crossing of said at least two light beams (i.e., control module 22 is configured to control the first and second light devices 14, 18 so that the first and second lights intersect within the resin 30 at predetermined X, Y, and Z coordinates, e.g., location of intersection 78 where the resin 30 is configured to solidify) (Nichols at [0047], [0048], [0050], FIG. 1, FIG. 2), and
wherein said laser generator is arranged to form an angle greater than 45o between said at least two light beams crossed at the photopolymerizable polymer (i.e., the second beam 62’ emitted by second light source 54’ is perpendicular to the first plane 210 of light emitted by first light source 34’ – where perpendicular is indicative of a 90o angle between the first light source 34’ and the second light source 54’) (Nichols at [0050], FIG. 1, FIG. 2).
Nichols discloses the first light source 34 being mounted to a first positioning device 38, the second light source 54 being mounted to a second positioning device 58, and both the first positioning device 38 and the second positioning device 58 including mirrors and/or lenses and/or motors to adjust and/or focus the angle at which the emitted light enters the reservoir 26 (Nichols at [0040], [0041], [0043], [0044], FIG. 1); and the first light source 34’ being a planar light source that emits the first light as a first plane 210 of light instead of the beam light source (Nichols at [0049], [0050], FIG. 2).
Though, Nichols fails to explicitly disclose the claimed (i) a splitter configured to generate at least two light beams from said light beam, a modulator configured to modulate said at least two light beams into at least two light sheets which are matrices of light; (ii) an irradiator configured to irradiate said at least two light sheets in the container containing said photopolymerizable polymer, and (iii) wherein the device further comprises an imaging system comprising an image capturing element and an objective lens.
However, Saha teaches an apparatus 10 for additive manufacturing including a laser source 12, a beam splitter 106 (i.e., a splitter configured to generate at least two light beams from said light beam), a tunable mask 26/210, an objective lens 44/128 for focusing beams onto an X-Y plane inside a photopolymer resist material sample 48/132 (i.e., an irradiator configured to irradiate said at least two light sheets in the container containing said photopolymerizable polymer), a CCD camera 40 and an objective lens 38 (i.e., wherein the device further comprises an imaging system comprising an image capturing element and an objective lens) (Saha at [0034], [0036], [0038], [0047], FIG. 1, FIG. 2).
Saha further teaches that this device 10 allows for complex structures to be generated by projecting a series of patterned “light sheets” that are dynamically tuned through the tunable mask 26 and the optical system that ensures that the light sheet (i.e., the projected image) is both spatially and temporally focused (i.e., a modulator configured to modulate said at least two light beams into at least two light sheets which are matrices of light) (Saha at [0054]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the projection of patterned light sheets via a splitter, tunable mask and objective lens for focusing a beam onto an X-Y plane inside a photopolymer resist material sample along with a CCD camera and objective lens as such is known in the art of volumetric three-dimensional printing given the discussion of Saha above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allowing for light sheets which are both spatially and temporally focused resulting in a viable system for high-volume additive manufacturing of functional parts with nanoscale features (as recognized by Saha at [0054]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILEIGH K. DARNELL whose telephone number is (469)295-9287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, MST.
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, Galen H. Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/BAILEIGH KATE DARNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights