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 .
The amendment to the claims overcame the objections to the claims made in the previous Office Action.
Applicant’s argument overcame the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, made in the previous Office Action.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument is directed to prior art of record not teaching “non-transforming energy beam is configured to have a power insufficient to transform a pre-transformed material to a transformed material from which the at least one three-dimensional object is printed”. Examiner respectfully disagree. In paragraph [0196] of Milstein, it recites: " In some embodiments, the energy beam effectuates formation of the alignment marker without binding the impinged material. For example, the alignment marker may comprise material that is unbound (e.g., not fused).” This teaches “non-transforming energy beam is configured to have a power insufficient to transform a pre-transformed material to a transformed material from which the at least one three-dimensional object is printed”. “not fused” material is not transformed material.
Applicant’s argument is directed to prior art of record not teaching “the location of the calibration mark is sensed in real-time as the calibration mark is generate on the surface”. Examiner respectfully disagree. In page 57, paragraph [0048] of Milstein, it recites:
“In some embodiments, the closed loop control scheme considers a signal from the sensor. In some embodiments, the signal comprises a sensed property of the calibration mark.”
“In some embodiments, the one or more controllers are further configured to direct the guidance system to guide the transforming agent in (b), and to direct the sensor to sense the calibration mark in (c), at least until a threshold value of the sensed property of the calibration mark is sensed by the sensor.”
“In some embodiments, the closed loop control is in real time, wherein real time
comprises during printing of at least a portion of a three-dimensional object and/or the calibration mark.”
This teaches the sensor senses the calibration mark in real time during print the calibration mark.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2 – 4, 8, 10, 15, 21, 24 – 26, 47, 52 – 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Milstein et al. WO 2019/173000 (hereinafter Milstein).
Regarding claim 1, Milstein teaches: an apparatus for calibration in printing of at least one three-dimensional object (Fig. 1), the apparatus comprising at least one controller configured to:
(a) couple to an electrical power source, and operatively coupled to at least one sensor configured to sense a calibration mark, and to a guidance system configured to guide a transforming energy beam (Fig. 1, [0048] - - sensor to sense the calibration mark);
(b) direct the guidance system to project a non-transforming energy beam onto a surface to generate the calibration mark on the surface, which non-transforming energy beam is configured to have a power insufficient to transform a pre-transformed material to a transformed material from which the at least one three-dimensional object is printed ([0196] - - the energy beam impinge upon a pre-transformed material to generate the erasable alignment marker; the energy beam effectuates formation of the alignment marker without binding the impinged material, “not fused” material is not transformed material);
(c) direct the at least one sensor to sense a location of the calibration mark, ([00202] - - capturing the first and second alignment markers), wherein the location of the calibration mark is sensed in real-time as the calibration mark is generated on the surface ([0048] - - the sensor senses the calibration mark in real time during print the calibration mark, see more details in “Response to Amendment” above),and
(d) calibrate, or direct calibration of, the guidance system of a transforming energy beam based at least in part on a location of the calibration mark sensed by the at least one sensor, the transforming energy beam being configured for printing the at least one three-dimensional object ([00180], [00205] - - calibrate energy beam guidance system using alignment marker).
Claim 52 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Claim 53 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 2, Milstein teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Milstein further teaches: (I) the non-transforming energy beam and the transforming energy beam originate from the same energy source and/or (II) the non- transforming energy beam is directed by the guidance system of the transforming energy beam ([0014] - - same energy source and same guidance).
Regarding claim 3, Milstein teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Milstein further teaches: (I) the surface is of an exposed surface of a material bed utilized in the printing (Fig. 1) and/or
(II) the at least one three-dimensional object comprises elemental metal, metal alloy, ceramic, or an allotrope of elemental carbon ([0010] - - “the pre-transformed material comprises an elemental metal, metal alloy, ceramic, an allotrope of elemental carbon”) .
Regarding claim 4, Milstein teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Milstein further teaches: the at least one controller is configured to direct sensing the location of the calibration mark at least in part by locating, or by direction location of, a first center of the calibration mark in a first coordinate system on the surface to determine a second center of the non-transforming energy beam ([00194] - - form markers at XYZ position; [00223] - - correction of the energy beam positioning is determined based on the measured position of alignment marker); and optionally wherein the guidance system utilizes a second coordinate system, and the at least one controller utilizes, or direct utilization of, a coordinate translation system to direct the transforming energy beam using the guidance system, the coordinate translation system comprising a linked parameter set that is estimated and corroborated using detection of the calibration mark ([00181] - - the energy beam is controlled according to a spherical coordinate system, the processing area is defined according to Cartesian coordinate system; [001863] - - transformation of a position in a Cartesian coordinate to a position in a spherical coordinate).
Regarding claim 8, Milstein teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Milstein further teaches: the at least one controller is configured to calibrate, or direct calibration of, the guidance system at least in part by compensating for thermal lensing caused at least in part by the transforming energy beam ([00270] - - compensation for thermal lensing); and optionally wherein the thermal lensing is caused at least in part by the transforming energy beam as it interacts with an optical window through which the transforming energy beam enters into an enclosure in which the at least one three-dimensional object is generated (Fig. 1, [00120] - - the energy flux travels through an optical window to heat a target surface; [00271] - - thermal lensing caused by optical window).
Regarding claim 10, Milstein teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Milstein further teaches: the at least one controller is configured to direct the non-transforming energy beam to generate the calibration mark, the non-transforming energy beam comprising electromagnetic radiation in a visible light spectrum visible to an average human ([00163] - - the energy beam includes electromagnetic beam comprising visible radiation; [0196] - - the energy beam impinge upon a pre-transformed material to generate the erasable alignment marker).
Regarding claim 15, Milstein teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Milstein further teaches: the at least one controller is operatively coupled to the at least one sensor configured to detect the location of the calibration mark at least once without detectable damage to the at least one sensor; and optionally wherein the at least one sensor is configured to detect the calibration mark with an accuracy of at least about 20 micrometers or with a higher accuracy ([0009] - - direct the detector to detect a position of the marker; [0010] - - the calibrated detector is calibrated to a dimensional accuracy of about 8 microns or higher accuracy).
Regarding claim 21, Milstein teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Milstein further teaches: printing the at least one three-dimensional object is in an enclosure configured for accommodating (i) an internal atmosphere more inert than an ambient atmosphere outside of the enclosure ([0010] - - the enclosure comprises an inert atmosphere), (ii) an internal pressure above ambient pressure outside of the processing chamber of the ambient atmosphere ([0010] - - the enclosure comprises an atmosphere maintained at a pressure above ambient pressure), and/or (iii) the internal atmosphere having a lower concentration of a reactive agent as compared to a concentration of the reactive agent in the ambient atmosphere; and optionally wherein the reactive agent comprises oxygen or water and the at least one three-dimensional object comprises an elemental metal or a metal alloy ([00121] - - the interior volume of the enclosure comprise an oxygen or humidity reduced atmosphere; [0003] - - metal, metal alloy).
Regarding claim 24, Milstein teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Milstein further teaches: the at least one controller is configured to project the calibration mark as a closed continuous shape comprises at least one diagonal line with respect to (i) an edge of the surface of a material bed in which the at least one three-dimensional object is printed (ii) an edge of a floor of a processing chamber comprising the surface, and/or (iii) a wall of the processing chamber; optionally wherein the closed continuous shape being polygonal (Fig. 14B [00214] - - a calibration target is a closed continuous shape; [00189] - - alignment markers comprise an octagon, a square, a hexagon & etc. these are polygonal).
Regarding claim 25, Milstein teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Milstein further teaches: the first calibration mark and/or the second calibration mark is detectable by at least one camera, the at least one sensor comprising the at least one camera; and optionally wherein (a)the first calibration mark is detectable by a first camera and (b)the second calibration mark is detectable by a second camera, the at least one camera comprising the first camera and the second camera ([00177] - - a camera system, CCD detector array, thus there are a first and a second camera; [00202] - - the markers are detected by camera, thus markers are detectable by camera).
Regarding claim 26, Milstein teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Milstein further teaches: calibration mark is an ephemeral mark that excludes a residual footprint once the non-transforming energy beam progresses beyond the calibration mark ([0196] - - erasable alignment marker is ephemeral mark) and optionally wherein the at least one controller is configured to (I) direct the at least one sensor to sense the calibration mark in real time as the calibration mark is generated ([00202] - - direct the sensor to detect the marker) and/or (II) direct generation of the calibration mark having a uniform light density or a substantially uniform light density ([00116] - - the energy source generate a substantially uniform energy beam).
Regarding claim 47, Milstein teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Milstein further teaches: the at least one sensor comprises a camera, and wherein an exposure time of the camera is synchronized with generating the calibration mark ([00202] - - after the marker is formed, image of the marker is taken by a camera; thus the exposure time of the camera is synchronized with generating the marker).
Regarding claim 54, Milstein teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Milstein further teaches: the calibration mark is a first calibration mark and the surface is a first exposed surface of a first layer of a material bed from which the at least one three- dimensional object is printed, and wherein the at least one controller is configured to direct projection of a second calibration mark on a second exposed surface of a second layer of the material bed generated layerwise during the printing, the material bed comprising successively deposited layers (Figs. 29A-29H, [00202] - - a first marker and a second marker).
Regarding claim 55, Milstein teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Milstein further teaches: the at least one controller is configured to direct projection of the first calibration mark and/or of the second calibration mark such that their projection occurs during printing at least about 30% of the successively deposited layers ([00178] - - calibration is performed during the 3D printing, e.g. every nth layer of a 3D object).
Regarding claim 56, Milstein teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Milstein further teaches: the at least one controller is configured to (A) operatively couple to a layer dispenser, and (B) direct the layer dispenser to dispense a layer during a time window and project the calibration mark on the surface of the layer during a layer dispensing operation and during the time window, the at least one three-dimensional object being printed from a material bed that is generated by layerwise deposition, the layer dispenser dispensing the layer in the layer dispensing operation, the layer being a portion of the material bed (Fig. 1, [0010] - - controller is coupled with a layer dispenser; direct the dispenser to dispense a layer; controller direct formation of markers).
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.
Claims 46, 49, 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milstein et al. WO 2019/173000 (hereinafter Milstein) in view of Cheverton et al. US 10,500,675 (hereinafter Cheverton).
Regarding claim 46, Milstein teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Milstein does not explicitly teach: the at least one sensor comprises a camera, and wherein an exposure time of the camera is proportional to a time it takes to generate the calibration mark; and optionally wherein the exposure time of the camera is proportional to the time it takes to generate at least 2 calibration marks.
However, Cheverton teaches: the at least one sensor comprises a camera, and wherein an exposure time of the camera is proportional to a time it takes to generate the calibration mark; and optionally wherein the exposure time of the camera is proportional to the time it takes to generate at least 2 calibration marks (Claim 1, C7, L35-58 - - trigger to position camera shutter in open position at the commencement of a layer build and position the shutter in closed position at the completion of the layer build; it is a design choice to set the exposure time to the time of generating 1 mark or 2 marks).
Milstein and Cheverton are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above apparatus, as taught by Milstein, and incorporating set camera exposure time according to time to generate a mark, as taught by Cheverton.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve additive manufacturing process and reduce errors, as suggested by Cheverton (C4, L26-27).
Regarding claim 49, Milstein teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Milstein does not explicitly teach: the at least one controller is configured to synchronize, or direct synchronization of, sensing the calibration mark by the camera with generation of the calibration mark at least in part by the sensing being electronically triggered by operation of (a)the non-transforming energy beam and/or (b)an energy source for the non-transforming energy beam.
However, Cheverton teaches: the at least one controller is configured to synchronize, or direct synchronization of, sensing the calibration mark by the camera with generation of the calibration mark at least in part by the sensing being electronically triggered by operation of (a)the non-transforming energy beam and/or (b)an energy source for the non-transforming energy beam (Claim 1, C7, L35-58 - - trigger to position camera shutter in open or closed position; triggering component receives a signal relating to an operating characteristic of energy source).
Milstein and Cheverton are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above apparatus, as taught by Milstein, and incorporating triggering camera according to operation of energy beam, as taught by Cheverton.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve additive manufacturing process and reduce errors, as suggested by Cheverton (C4, L26-27).
Regarding claim 50, Milstein teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Milstein does not explicitly teach: the at least one controller is configured to synchronize, or direct synchronization of, sensing the calibration mark by the camera with generating the calibration mark at least in part by the synchronization comprising clock synchronization, barrier synchronization, count synchronization, or a schedule; and optionally wherein a clock of the clock synchronization comprises an oscillating crystal clock.
However, Cheverton teaches: the at least one controller is configured to synchronize, or direct synchronization of, sensing the calibration mark by the camera with generating the calibration mark at least in part by the synchronization comprising clock synchronization, barrier synchronization, count synchronization, or a schedule; and optionally wherein a clock of the clock synchronization comprises an oscillating crystal clock (C8, L22-25 - - “shutter 146 is moved to the open position after activation of focused energy source 104 and moved to the closed position prior to deactivation of focused energy source 104”; this is a schedule).
Milstein and Cheverton are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above apparatus, as taught by Milstein, and incorporating scheduling camera according to operation of energy beam, as taught by Cheverton.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve additive manufacturing process and reduce errors, as suggested by Cheverton (C4, L26-27).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUHUI R PAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/YUHUI R PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights