DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/01/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Claims Status
The amendment filed 09/01/2026 has been entered. In the amendment filed 01/02/2026, claim 15 was amended, no claims were canceled, and no claims were newly added. Claims 1-14 and 22-33 remain withdrawn from consideration as being drawing to a non-elected invention. Election was made with traverse in the response filed 06/27/2025. Claims 15-21 are under examination on the merits.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-14 and 22-33 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/27/2025.
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:
“radiation emitting elements” in claim 15-21 interpreted as pixels, micromirrors [0049-0050] and equivalents thereof.
“radiation transmitting elements” in claim 15-21 interpreted as pixels, micromirrors [0049-0050] and equivalents thereof.
“turning mechanism” in claim 21 interpreted as a robotic arm [0048] and equivalents thereof.
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 § 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) 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson (prev. presented US 2004/0204785) in view of Demuth (prev. presented US 2020/0038994) and Marcus (prev. presented US 5306447).
Regarding claim 15, Richardson teaches an additive chemical vapor deposition CVD manufacturing system (abstract, Fig 2), comprising: a deposition chamber (108 Fig 2) [0080] and deposition surface support (stage 20 Fig 2, [0081]), and an energy source capable (light source 100 Fig 2, [0077]) of generating pulsed light [0081] of at least one specified wavelength [0081] and with at least one specified pulse frequency ([0081], [0103]) and direction radiation to result in deposition of a metal compound [0035]. Richardson fails to teach at least a first and a second programable radiation modules capable of directing radiation onto a specified deposition surface and initiating chemical vapor deposition at the deposition surface, wherein each programable radiation module comprises individually addressable radiation emitting and/or transmitting elements capable of being activated with the pulsed light from the energy source, and wherein each of the first programmable radiation module and the second programmable radiation module contains a dynamic mask containing one or more of the following: a liquid crystal display (LCD), a digital light processing (DLP) projector and/or digital micromirror device (DMD); and wherein the first programmable radiation module is positioned in a first direction relative to the deposition surface and the second programmable radiation module is positioned in a second direction relative to the deposition surface, thereby the first programmable radiation module and the second radiation module are positioned to irradiate the deposition surface from two different directions, causing a multidirectional crystal growth on the deposition surface. In the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing using lasers (abstract), Demuth teaches a programmable radiation module (mask 210 Fig 2A) containing a dynamic mask [0056], [0061], [0043] containing a liquid crystal display [0043] to control the irradiation of the substrate with the laser beam as an alternative to scanning with a laser beam because this is more scalable and reduces thermal warpage [0021]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richardson to include the programmable radiation module including a dynamic liquid crystal display mask as taught by Demuth because Demuth teaches this is an improvement over single position scanning by a laser (operation of Richardson). Note that this replacement allows for improved laser position control and does not change the vapor deposition taught by Richardson. Therefore the combination results in the mask with the light source allowing for chemical vapor deposition.
Regarding the inclusion of two programmable radiation modules and the first programmable radiation module is positioned in a first direction relative to the deposition surface and the second programmable radiation module is positioned in a second direction relative to the deposition surface, thereby the first programmable radiation module and the second radiation module are positioned to irradiate the deposition surface from two different directions, causing a multidirectional crystal growth on the deposition surface, in the same field of endeavor of chemical vapor deposition to produce a three dimensional structure (col 1, ln 15-20 and col 2, ln 35-65), Marcus teaches as an alternative to irradiating from one laser source (48 Fig 1), an arrangement in which the structure is built using irradiation from two laser sources that are perpendicular to each other (Fig 4, see 62 and 64). Marcus teaches this enables control of the energy and combination of wavelength to produce the desired material deposition (col 11, ln 64 to col 12, ln 17). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richardson to include two lasers at different directions relative to the deposition surface because Marcus teaches this a functional alternative that allows for increased control of the irradiation (col 11, ln 64 to col 12, ln 17). Note that in the combination because two laser sources are used, there would be two programmable radiation modules (one for each laser source) and they would follow the beam direction positioning of the laser and therefore be positioned to irradiate the substrate at two different directions. The limitation “causing multidirectional crystal growth on the deposition surface” is directed to the intended use of the apparatus; however Marcus demonstrates this result (see Fig 4). In the modification to Richardson, the growth is of metal because Richardson has taught depositing metal [0035].
Regarding claim 16, the combination remains as applied to claim 15 above. Richardson teaches the substrate support is a deposition table (stage 20 Fig 2, [0081]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination remains as applied to claim 15 above. Richardson teaches at least one wall of the deposition chamber comprises one or more radiation transparent windows (107 Fig 2). Further note that Marcus also teaches transparent windows (70, 72 Fig 4) on the chamber walls. Therefore, the position of the transparent window on the chamber wall is an obvious rearrangement of parts assuming arguendo the window of Richardson is not on a chamber wall.
Regarding claim 18, the combination remains as applied to claim 15 above. Richardson teaches the deposition chamber is equipped with at least one gas inlet (23 Fig 2) and at least one gas outlet (line having valve 117, gas scrubber 118, exhaust pump 119, and external port 120 Fig 2 [0082]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination remains as applied to claim 15 above. Demuth as applied in the combination teaches the array of individually addressable radiation-emitting or transmitting elements, is configurable to irradiate individual points of the deposition support surface ([0023]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination remains as applied to claim 15 above. Richardson teaches the energy source is a programmable source of radiation capable of generating impulse light with different frequencies and/or wavelengths ([0081], [0103]).
Regarding claim 21, the combination remains as applied to claim 16 above. Richardson teaches a turning mechanism (21 Fig 2) for relative rotation between the rotatable mandrel or the deposition table and the radiation modules ([0069], note five axis is inclusive of rotation (i.e. rotation around an axis perpendicular to a main surface of the substrate) and that relative rotation is inclusive of tilting of the substrate (i.e. rotation around an axis extending along the bar shown connecting the stage 20 to the turning mechanism 21)).
Claim(s) 16 is/are additionally and/or alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson in view of Demuth and Marcus as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Brown (prev. presented US 2016/0271870).
Regarding claim 21, the combination remains as applied to claim 16 above. This rejection is provided additionally and/or alternatively in the event applicant can persuasively argue that the five axis movement of Richardson is not inclusive of a relative rotation between the deposition table and the radiation module. In the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing [0001], Brown teaches a substrate holding table (224 Fig 8, 10) is able to have relative movement between the substrate holding table and the radiation module(s) (160 Fig 8 or 160, 162, 260 Fig 10) including rotation [0103] or translation [0103]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Richardson including the movement mechanism (21) to use the movement mechanism of Brown because this represents a simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results (movement of the substrate to expose different portions to the irradiation).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/01/2026, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Demuth (reply p10) is not persuasive because Demuth is relied upon to teach the dynamic mask. While the article worked upon in Demuth is different (as applicant argues a powder bed) the article worked upon does not alter the teachings of the mask to shape the laser for spatial control. In response to applicant's argument that Demuth is applied to a powder, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding Richardson (reply p10), it is noted that the reference is directed to CVD and that the motivation to combine is in the improved control of the light application.
In response to applicant's argument (reply p11) that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding Marcus (reply p11-12), examiner notes that the additive power of multiple lasers is used to form the deposit. Therefore, the argument that only one laser is producing the desired deposition is not persuasive. Additionally, Marcus Fig 4 demonstrates the lasers from different directions and therefore teaches the multidirectional arrangement. If applicant believes there is a structural difference in the light power, wavelength, or other characteristic, applicant is kindly requested to amend the claims to incorporate such features into the system.
For these reasons the arguments are not persuasive as to the allowability of the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2005/0175789 teaches energy assisted ALD (Fig 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
