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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made that the instant application is a national stage entry of application PCT/EP2021/086474, filed on 12/17/2021, which claims priority from NL2027144, filed on 12/17/2020.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because line 9 uses the legal terminology “said.” See MPEP 608.01(b), subsection I(C). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 15, 21, 24, and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, lines 2-3, “a first exposure period,” should be changed to --the first exposure period-- to correct antecedence from claim 1.
Claim 15, line 9, “period (Te1 > Te2 > Te2’ + Tne2);” should be changed to -- period;-- to remove the reference characters in accordance with the removal of reference characters in lines 3-5 of the claim.
Claim 15, line 12, “step (Te2 > Te1 and Te2’>Te1);” should be changed to --step;-- to remove the reference characters in accordance with the removal of reference characters in lines 3-5 of the claim.
Claim 15, line 19-20, “period (Te2 < Te1 < Ted + Ted’ + Tne2 or Te2’ < Te1 < Te2 + Te2’ + Tne2).” should be changed to --period.-- to remove the reference characters in accordance with the removal of reference characters in lines 3-5 of the claim.
Claim 21, line 4, “0,01 to” is suggested to be changed to --0.01 to-- format the decimal separator for readability.
Claim 24, line 5, “0,5 to” is suggested to be changed to --0.5 to-- format the decimal separator for readability.
Claim 30, line 3, “a first exposure period,” should be changed to --the first exposure period-- to correct antecedence from claim 28.
Appropriate correction is required to place claims in better form.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 32 recites “a computer program comprising computer-executable instructions to perform the method, when the program is run on a computer, of claim 1.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of “a computer program” covers software per se, which is an idea without any physical embodiment. An intangible product does not fall within any statutory category of invention. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation a computer program on a computer readable medium covers forms of non-transitory tangible media as well as transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media (see MPEP 2106.03). To overcome the rejection, the claim may be amended to narrow the claim to physically embody the instructions in a non-transitory computer-readable medium such that only statutory embodiments are covered, such as by amending the language to recite “a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a computer program product having computer-executable instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the steps of claim 1.” Thus, claim 32 is rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 11, 13, 15, 17, 20, 21, 24, 28-31, and 33 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 11, the limitation “wherein each second exposure step comprises a forward movement and a backward movement, wherein optionally the second light source exposes the second side during the forward movement during the second exposure period, and wherein the second light source does not expose the second side during the backward movement” in lines 1-5 is vague and indefinite. The limitation includes the language “optionally” in line 3, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim requires the method to also perform “the second light source exposes the second side during the forward movement during the second exposure period, and wherein the second light source does not expose the second side during the backward movement” as part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as meaning the method only requires wherein each second exposure step comprises a forward movement and a backward movement. Thus, claim 11 is rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “wherein the one or more second exposure steps comprise at least two second exposure steps, wherein optionally the at least two second exposure steps comprise two different second exposure steps and wherein the step of receiving comprises receiving a second characteristic for each different second exposure step” in lines 1-5 is vague and indefinite. The limitation includes the language “optionally” in line 3, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim requires the method to perform “the at least two second exposure steps comprise two different second exposure steps and wherein the step of receiving comprises receiving a second characteristic for each different second exposure step” as part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as meaning the method only requires wherein the one or more second exposure steps comprise at least two second exposure steps. Thus, claim 13 and all claims depending therefrom are rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations “wherein the step of determining a sequence comprises: comparing the sum of the second exposure periods and an optional intermediate non-exposure period of two second exposure steps of the at least two exposure steps with the first exposure period; if the sum of the second exposure periods and the optional intermediate non-exposure period is smaller than the first exposure period, determining that said two exposure steps are performed such that said two second exposure periods both overlap with the first exposure period (Tel > Te2 + Te2' + Tne2); if each second exposure period is larger than the first exposure period, determining that said two second exposure steps are performed before and/or after the first exposure step (Te2 > Tel and Te2'>Tel); if the second exposure period is smaller than the first exposure period and the sum of the second exposure periods and the optional intermediate non- exposure period is larger than the first exposure period, determining that one of said two second exposure steps is performed such that the second exposure period thereof overlaps with the first exposure period, and another one is performed such that the second exposure period thereof does not overlap with the first exposure period (Te2 <Tel< Te2+ Te2' + Tne2 or Te2'<Tel< Te2+ Te2'+ Tne2)” in lines 1-20 are vague and indefinite. The limitations include the language “optional” in reference to “an optional intermediate non-exposure period” in lines 3-4, 6-7, and 14-15, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim requires the method to perform an intermediate non-exposure period as part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination, the limitations are being interpreted as meaning the method only requires comparing the sum of the second exposure periods of two second exposure steps of the at least two exposure steps with the first exposure period, if the sum of the second exposure periods is smaller than the first exposure period, determining that said two exposure steps are performed such that said two second exposure periods both overlap with the first exposure period (Tel > Te2 + Te2' + Tne2); if each second exposure period is larger than the first exposure period, determining that said two second exposure steps are performed before and/or after the first exposure step (Te2 > Tel and Te2'>Tel); if the second exposure period is smaller than the first exposure period and the sum of the second exposure periods is larger than the first exposure period, determining that one of said two second exposure steps is performed such that the second exposure period thereof overlaps with the first exposure period, and another one is performed such that the second exposure period thereof does not overlap with the first exposure period (Te2 <Tel< Te2+ Te2' + Tne2 or Te2'<Tel< Te2+ Te2'+ Tne2). Thus, claim 15 is rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “prior to the step of determining, and optionally prior to the step of receiving, receiving through the operator interface an operation mode out of one or more operation modes, wherein said one or more operation modes comprise at least a first operation mode indicating that the determining step is to be performed to determine the sequence and a second operation mode indicating that a different predetermined sequence is to be performed; wherein preferably the second operation mode indicates that the one or more second exposure steps need to be performed before the first exposure step, and wherein preferably said one or more operation modes comprise a third operation mode indicating that the one or more second exposure steps need to be performed after the first exposure step” in lines 1-10 are vague and indefinite. The limitations include the language “optionally” in line 2, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim requires the method to also perform “prior to the step of receiving, receiving through the operator interface an operation mode out of one or more operation modes, wherein said one or more operation modes comprise at least a first operation mode indicating that the determining step is to be performed to determine the sequence and a second operation mode indicating that a different predetermined sequence is to be performed” as part of the claimed invention. Additionally, the limitations include the language “preferably” in lines 7 and 9, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim requires the method to also perform “the second operation mode indicates that he one or more second exposure steps need to be performed before the exposure step” and “said one or more operation modes comprise a third operation mode indicating that the one or more second exposure step need to be performed after the first exposure step” as part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination, the limitations are being interpreted as meaning the method only requires prior to the step of determining, receiving through the operator interface an operation mode out of one or more operation modes, wherein said one or more operation modes comprise at least a first operation mode indicating that the determining step is to be performed to determine the sequence and a second operation mode indicating that a different predetermined sequence is to be performed. Thus, claim 17 is rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites the limitation "the shadow plate" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as meaning a shadow plate. Claim 20 is rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 21, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 21 recites the broad recitation “wherein the first exposure step is performed such that the intensity at the surface of the first side of the precursor is in the range of 1 to 200 mW/cm2,” and the claim also recites “preferably 1 to 100 mW/cm2,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation in lines 2-3. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as meaning wherein the first exposure step is performed such that the intensity at the surface of the first side of the precursor is in the range of 1 to 200 mW/cm2. Thus, claim 21 is rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 24, the limitations “wherein the first light source, preferably a stationary light source, comprises a plurality of LEDs or a plurality of light tubes, or a plurality of laser diodes or combinations thereof; and/or wherein the second light source comprises a plurality of LEDs, wherein preferably the illuminated area from the first light source covers an area of 0,5 to 90% of the surface area of the precursor” in lines 2-6 are vague and indefinite. The limitations include the language “preferably” in lines 2 and 5, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim requires the method to include “a stationary light source” as the first light source and “wherein the illuminated area from the first light source covers an area of 0.5 to 90% of the surface area of the precursor” as part of the claimed invention. The metes and bounds of the claimed invention are unclear. For the purpose of examination, the limitations are being interpreted as only requiring wherein the first light source comprises a plurality of LEDs or a plurality of light tubes, or a plurality of laser diodes or combinations thereof; and/or wherein the second light source comprises a plurality of LEDs. Therefore, claim 24 is rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 28, the claim limitation “control means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The recited “control means” uses the term “means,” which is modified by functional language and is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the claimed functions. Although the specification describes a “control means 5” (see Figs. 1 and 2, and paras. [0065], [0068], [0073]-[0075], [0102], [0105], of US PGPub 2024/0061341 of the published instant application), the specification fails to disclose the structure of the control means that can perform the functions of receiving through an operator interface at least one first characteristic representative for the first exposure period and/or at least one second characteristic representative for the one or more second exposure periods; determining a sequence of operation for the first light source and the second light source based on the at least one first and/or second characteristic, said sequence being such that each of said one or more second exposure periods either fully overlaps with the first exposure period or does not overlap with the first exposure period; and controlling the first and second light source in accordance with the determined sequence. See MPEP 2181, subsection III. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Thus, claim 28 and all claims depending therefrom are rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 33, the claim limitation “moving means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The recited “moving means” uses the term “means,” which is modified by functional language and is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the claimed functions. Although the specification describes a “moving means 8” (see Figs. 1 and 2, and paras. [0065], [0068], [0074], [0077] of US PGPub 2024/0061341 of the published instant application), the specification fails to disclose the structure of the moving means that can perform the function of moving the second light source. See MPEP 2181, subsection III. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Additionally regarding claim 33, the limitation “a control means of claim 28, said control means configured to control the first light source, the second light source and the moving means in accordance with the determined sequence, wherein preferably the first light source is a stationary light source” in lines 8-11 is vague and indefinite. The limitation includes the language “preferably” in line 11, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim requires exposure apparatus to include “a stationary light source” as the first light source as part of the claimed invention. The metes and bounds of the claimed invention are unclear. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as only requiring a control means of claim 28, said control means configured to control the first light source, the second light source and the moving means in accordance with the determined sequence. Therefore, claim 33 is rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 28-31 and 33 are 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 28 recites “a control means” which invokes 112(f) interpretation as the recited “control means” uses the term “means,” which is modified by functional language and is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. As discussed above, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function, and the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Although the specification describes a “control means 5” (see Figs. 1 and 2, and paras. [0065], [0068], [0073]-[0075], [0102], [0105], of US PGPub 2024/0061341 of the published instant application), the specification fails to disclose the structure of the control means that can perform the recited functions such that one of ordinary skill would have been reasonably apprised that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention as of the filing date. See MPEP 2181, subsection IV. Therefore, claim 28 and all claims depending therefrom are rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 33 recites “a moving means” which invokes 112(f) interpretation as the recited “moving means” uses the term “means,” which is modified by functional language and is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. As discussed above, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function, and the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Although the specification describes a “moving means 8” (see Figs. 1 and 2, and paras. [0065], [0068], [0074], [0077] of US PGPub 2024/0061341 of the published instant application), the specification fails to disclose the structure of the moving means that can perform the function of moving the second light source such that one of ordinary skill would have been reasonably apprised that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention as of the filing date. See MPEP 2181, subsection IV. Therefore, claim 33 is rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, 21, 24, 28, and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolterink et al. (US PGPub 2018/0210345, Wolterink hereinafter) in view of De Caria (US PGPub 2016/0368260).
Regarding claim 1, Wolterink discloses method for exposing a relief precursor, using a first light source configured to expose a first side of a relief precursor during a first exposure period of a first exposure step, a movable second light source configured to expose a second side of the relief precursor opposite the first side during one or more second exposure periods of one or more second exposure steps (Figs. 1-2, 7-8, 11-13, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0048]-[0049], [0056], a first light source exposes a first side of a plate 130 and a second source of radiation exposes the second side of the plate), said method comprising the steps of:
receiving at least one first characteristic representative for the first exposure period and/or at least one second characteristic representative for the one or more second exposure periods (Figs. 1-2, 7, 11-13, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0046], [0048]-[0050], [0055]-[0056], [0071]-[0073], [0075], [0082]-[0083], the control system 140, 2140 adjusts the speed of the sources, energy density, irradiance of the sources, or distance between the sources during the scan process to adjust the back exposure and the main exposure);
determining a sequence of operation for the first light source and the second light source based on the at least one first and/or second characteristic (Figs. 1-2, 7, 11-13, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0048]-[0050], [0054]-[0056], [0071], the control system 140, 2140 controls the delay time between back exposure and main exposure in the processing);
exposing the relief precursor according to the determined sequence (Figs. 1-2, 7, 11-13, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0048]-[0050], [0055]-[0056], [0071], the plate is exposed by the first and second light sources in the process with sequential steps). The first embodiment of Wolterink does not appear to explicitly describe an operator interface and the sequence being such that each of said one or more second exposure periods either fully overlaps with the first exposure period or does not overlap with the first exposure period.
A further embodiment of Wolterink discloses determining a sequence of operation for the first light source and the second light source based on the at least one first and/or second characteristic, said sequence being such that each of said one or more second exposure periods either fully overlaps with the first exposure period or does not overlap with the first exposure period (Fig. 8, paras. [0049]-[0051], [0057]-[0058], the controller controls the sequence of the back side radiation source 820 and the front side radiation source 810 such that the sources never irradiate the plate at the same time or simultaneously irradiate the plate);
exposing the relief precursor according to the determined sequence (Fig. 8, paras. [0049]-[0051], [0057]-[0058], the controller controls the sequence of the back side radiation source 820 and the front side radiation source 810).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included determining a sequence of operation for the first light source and the second light source based on the at least one first and/or second characteristic, said sequence being such that each of said one or more second exposure periods either fully overlaps with the first exposure period or does not overlap with the first exposure period as taught by the further embodiment of Wolterink in determining the sequence of operation of the method as taught by the first embodiment of Wolterink since including determining a sequence of operation for the first light source and the second light source based on the at least one first and/or second characteristic, said sequence being such that each of said one or more second exposure periods either fully overlaps with the first exposure period or does not overlap with the first exposure period is commonly used to control radiation of both sides of the plate as desired to provide optimal polymerization reactions (Wolterink, paras. [0030]-[0031], [0049]).
The first embodiment of Wolterink as modified by the further embodiment of Wolterink does not appear to explicitly describe an operator interface.
De Caria discloses receiving through an operator interface at least one first characteristic representative for the first exposure period and/or at least one second characteristic representative for the one or more second exposure periods (Figs. 1, 4, paras. [0021], [0033], [0035]-[0036], [0042], user interface means 91 permits an operator to modify operating parameters of the photo-polymerization means 21, 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included an operator interface as taught by De Caria to receive the characteristic representative of the exposure in the method as taught by the first embodiment of Wolterink as modified by the further embodiment of Wolterink since including receiving through an operator interface at least one first characteristic representative for the first exposure period and/or at least one second characteristic representative for the one or more second exposure periods is commonly used to permit an operator to control setting in the exposure process to provide autonomous operation of the apparatus (De Caria, paras. [0009], [0011], [0042], [0046]).
Regarding claim 2, the first embodiment of Wolterink as modified by the further embodiment of Wolterink and De Caria discloses wherein the step of determining a sequence comprises, if the first exposure period is shorter than any of one of the second exposure periods of the one or more second exposure steps, selecting a sequential sequence to operate only the first light source or only the second light source at a time (the limitation “wherein the step of determining a sequence comprises, if the first exposure period is shorter than any of one of the second exposure periods of the one or more second exposure steps, selecting a sequential sequence to operate only the first light source or only the second light source at a time” recites a contingent limitation in a method claim based on determining if the first exposure period is shorter than any one of the second exposure periods, which is a condition that is not required to occur for practice of the method; therefore, the step of selecting a sequential sequence to operate only the first light source or only the second light source at a time is not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. see MPEP 2111.04, subsection II. The further embodiment of Wolterink, Fig. 8, paras. [0049]-[0051], [0057]-[0058], the controller controls the sequence of the back side radiation source 820 and the front side radiation source 810 such that the sources never irradiate the plate at the same time).
Regarding claim 3, the first embodiment of Wolterink as modified by the further embodiment of Wolterink in view of De Caria discloses wherein the step of determining a sequence comprises, if the first exposure period is longer than one of the second exposure periods, selecting said second exposure period for overlapping with the first exposure period (the limitation “wherein the step of determining a sequence comprises, if the first exposure period is longer than one of the second exposure periods, selecting said second exposure period for overlapping with the first exposure period” recites a contingent limitation in a method claim based on determining if the first exposure period is longer than one of the second exposure periods, which is a condition that is not required to occur for practice of the method; therefore, the step of selecting said second exposure period for overlapping with the first exposure period is not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. see MPEP 2111.04, subsection II. The further embodiment of Wolterink, Fig. 8, paras. [0049]-[0051], [0057]-[0058], the controller controls the sequence of the back side radiation source 820 and the front side radiation source 810 such that the simultaneously irradiate the plate).
Regarding claim 6, the first embodiment of Wolterink as modified by the further embodiment of Wolterink in view of De Caria discloses wherein the at least one first characteristic comprises a characteristic representative for the duration of the first exposure period and/or wherein the at least one second characteristic comprises at least one characteristic representative for the duration of the one or more second exposure periods (the first embodiment of Wolterink, Figs. 1-2, 7, 11-13, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0048]-[0050], [0055]-[0056], [0071]-[0072], [0075], [0082]-[0083], the control system 140, 2140 adjusts the speed of the sources, energy density, or irradiance of the sources during the scan process).
Regarding claim 8, the first embodiment of Wolterink as modified by the further embodiment of Wolterink in view of De Caria discloses wherein the at least one second characteristic comprises any one of the following or a combination thereof: a speed value for the speed of the movement of the second light source during the one or more second exposure steps (the first embodiment of Wolterink, Figs. 1-2, 7, 11-13, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0048]-[0050], [0055]-[0056], [0071]-[0072], the control system 140, 2140 adjusts the speed of the sources), a number of times the same second exposure step is repeated, a duration of a second exposure period of said one or more exposure periods, a duration of a non-exposure period of a second exposure step of said one or more second exposure steps, a value representative for a light intensity used during the one or more second exposure periods (the first embodiment of Wolterink, Figs. 1-2, 7, 11-13, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0046], [0048]-[0050], [0055]-[0056], [0071]-[0073], [0075], [0082]-[0083], the control system 140, 2140 adjusts the speed of the sources, energy density, irradiance of the sources, or distance between the sources during the scan process to adjust the back exposure and the main exposure); and/or wherein the at least one first characteristic comprises any one of the following or a combination thereof: a duration of the first exposure period, a duration of a non-exposure period of the first exposure step, a value representative for a light intensity used during the first exposure period (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase “and/or” is being interpreted as meaning “or.” See MPEP 2111. The first embodiment of Wolterink, Figs. 1-2, 7, 11-13, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0046], [0048]-[0050], [0055]-[0056], [0071]-[0073], [0075], [0082]-[0083], the control system 140, 2140 adjusts the speed of the sources, energy density, irradiance of the sources, or distance between the sources during the scan process to adjust the back exposure and the main exposure).
Regarding claim 10, the first embodiment of Wolterink as modified by the further embodiment of Wolterink in view of De Caria discloses wherein each second exposure step comprises a second non-exposure period following the second exposure period, and wherein the step of determining takes into account the second non-exposure period (the further embodiment of Wolterink, Fig. 8, paras. [0049]-[0051], [0057]-[0058], the controller controls the operation of the back side radiation source 820 and the front side radiation source 810 to irradiate the plate in multiple pulses, producing non-exposure periods between exposure periods, and the controller controls coordinates the sources such that the sources never irradiate the plate at the same time or simultaneously irradiate the plate).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, the first embodiment of Wolterink as modified by the further embodiment of Wolterink in view of De Caria discloses wherein each second exposure step comprises a forward movement and a backward movement, wherein optionally the second light source exposes the second side during the forward movement during the second exposure period, and wherein the second light source does not expose the second side during the backward movement (the first embodiment of Wolterink, Figs. 1-2, 7, 11-13, para. [0038], the control system and drive mechanism provide back and forth motion between the radiation sources and the plate).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, the first embodiment of Wolterink as modified by the further embodiment of Wolterink in view of De Caria discloses wherein the one or more second exposure steps comprise at least two second exposure steps, wherein optionally the at least two second exposure steps comprise two different second exposure steps and wherein the step of receiving comprises receiving a second characteristic for each different second exposure step (the further embodiment of Wolterink, Fig. 8, paras. [0049]-[0051], [0057]-[0058], the controller controls the operation of the back side radiation source 820 and the front side radiation source 810 to irradiate the plate in multiple pulses).
Regarding claim 16, the first embodiment of Wolterink as modified by the further embodiment of Wolterink in view of De Caria discloses wherein the step of receiving comprises presenting the operator with an input interface allowing the user to enter the at least one first and/or second characteristic (De Caria, Figs. 1, 4, paras. [0021], [0033], [0035]-[0036], [0042], user interface means 91 permits an operator to modify operating parameters of the photo-polymerization means 21, 22).
Regarding claim 21, as best understood, the first embodiment of Wolterink as modified by the further embodiment of Wolterink in view of De Caria discloses wherein the first exposure step is performed such that the intensity at the surface of the first side of the precursor is in the range of 1 to 200 mW/cm2, preferably 1 to 100 mW/cm2; and/or such that a dose at the surface of the first side of the precursor is in the range of 0,01 to 30 J/cm2 (the first embodiment of Wolterink, Figs. 1-2, 7-8, 11-13, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0048]-[0049], [0056], [0079], Table 1, the first source of radiation exposes the first side of the plate with energy of 9019 mJ/cm2); and/or wherein each second exposure step is performed such that the intensity emitted on the second side of the precursor is in the range of 20 to 2000 mW/cm2 (the first embodiment of Wolterink, Figs. 1-2, 7-8, 11-13, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0048]-[0049], [0056], [0079], Table 1, the second source of radiation exposes the second side of the plate with an irradiance of 136 mW/cm2 or 150 mW/cm2); and/or such that a dose at the surface of the second side of the precursor is in the range of 1 to 100 J/cm2 (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase “and/or” is being interpreted as meaning “or.” See MPEP 2111. the first embodiment of Wolterink, Figs. 1-2, 7-8, 11-13, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0048]-[0049], [0056], [0079], Table 1, the second source of radiation exposes the second side of the plate with energy of 3944 mJ/cm2 or 4350 mJ/cm2).
Regarding claim 24, as best understood, the first embodiment of Wolterink as modified by the further embodiment of Wolterink in view of De Caria discloses wherein the first light source, preferably a stationary light source, comprises a plurality of LEDs or a plurality of light tubes, or a plurality of laser diodes or combinations thereof (the first embodiment of Wolterink, Figs. 1-2, 7-8, 11-13, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0040], [0048]-[0049], [0056], the linear source 1120 comprises a plurality of LEDs, and as modified by the further embodiment of Wolterink, Fig. 8, paras. [0049]-[0051], [0057]-[0058], each source 810, 820 comprises fluorescent tubes or LED point sources that are individually controllable); and/or wherein the second light source comprises a plurality of LEDs, wherein preferably the illuminated area from the first light source covers an area of 0,5 to 90% of the surface area of the precursor (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase “and/or” is being interpreted as meaning “or.” See MPEP 2111. The first embodiment of Wolterink, Figs. 1-2, 7-8, 11-13, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0040], [0048]-[0049], [0056], the linear source 1122 comprises a plurality of LEDs, and as modified by the further embodiment of Wolterink, Fig. 8, paras. [0049]-[0051], [0057]-[0058], each source 810, 820 comprises fluorescent tubes or LED point sources that are individually controllable).
Regarding claim 28, as best understood, a first embodiment of Wolterink discloses a control means (Figs. 1-2, 7, 11-13, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0048]-[0050], [0054]-[0056], [0071], [0084], the control system 140, 2140) for controlling a first light source configured to expose a first side of a relief precursor during a first exposure period of a first exposure step and a movable second light source configured to expose a second side of the relief precursor opposite the first side during one or more second exposure periods of one or more second exposure steps (Figs. 1-2, 7-8, 11-13, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0048]-[0050], 0054]-[0056], [0071], [0084], the control system 140, 2140 controls a first light source to expose a first side of a plate 130 and a second source of radiation to expose the second side of the plate), said control means being configured to perform the following steps:
receiving at least one first characteristic representative for the first exposure period and/or at least one second characteristic representative for the one or more second exposure periods (Figs. 1-2, 7, 11-13, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0046], [0048]-[0050], [0055]-[0056], [0071]-[0073], [0075], [0082]-[0083], the control system 140, 2140 adjusts the speed of the sources, energy density, irradiance of the sources, or distance between the sources during the scan process to adjust the back exposure and the main exposure);
determining a sequence of operation for the first light source and the second light source based on the at least one first and/or second characteristic (Figs. 1-2, 7, 11-13, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0048]-[0050], [0054]-[0056], [0071], the control system 140, 2140 controls the delay time between back exposure and main exposure in the processing); and
controlling the first and second light source in accordance with the determined sequence (Figs. 1-2, 7, 11-13, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0048]-[0050], [0055]-[0056], [0071], [0084], the controller 140, 2140 controls the system such that the plate is exposed by the first and second light sources in the process with sequential steps). The first embodiment of Wolterink does not appear to explicitly describe an operator interface and said sequence being such that each of said one or more second exposure periods either fully overlaps with the first exposure period or does not overlap with the first exposure period.
A further embodiment of Wolterink discloses determining a sequence of operation for the first light source and the second light source based on the at least one first and/or second characteristic, said sequence being such that each of said one or more second exposure periods either fully overlaps with the first exposure period or does not overlap with the first exposure period (Fig. 8, paras. [0049]-[0051], [0057]-[0058], the controller controls the sequence of the back side radiation source 820 and the front side radiation source 810 such that the sources never irradiate the plate at the same time or simultaneously irradiate the plate); and
controlling the first and second light source in accordance with the determined sequence (Fig. 8, paras. [0049]-[0051], [0057]-[0058], the controller controls the sequence of the back side radiation source 820 and the front side radiation source 810).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included determining a sequence of operation for the first light source and the second light source based on the at least one first and/or second characteristic, said sequence being such that each of said one or more second exposure periods either fully overlaps with the first exposure period or does not overlap with the first exposure period as taught by the further embodiment of Wolterink in determining the sequence of operation of the control means as taught by the first embodiment of Wolterink since including determining a sequence of operation for the first light source and the second light source based on the at least one first and/or second characteristic, said sequence being such that each of said one or more second exposure periods either fully overlaps with the first exposure period or does not overlap with the first exposure period is commonly used to control radiation of both sides of the plate as desired to provide optimal polymerization reactions (Wolterink, paras. [0030]-[0031], [0049]).
The first embodiment of Wolterink as modified by the further embodiment of Wolterink does not appear to explicitly describe an operator interface.
De Caria discloses receiving through an operator interface at least one first characteristic representative for the first exposure period and/or at least one second characteristic representative for the one or more second exposure periods (Figs. 1, 4, paras. [0021], [0033], [0035]-[0036], [0042], user interface means 91 permits an operator to modify operating parameters of the photo-polymerization means 21, 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included an operator interface as taught by De Caria to receive the characteristic representative of the exposure in the control means as taught by the first embodiment of Wolterink as modified by the further embodiment of Wolterink since including receiving through an operator interface at least one first characteristic representative for the first exposure period and/or at least one second characteristic representative for the one or more second exposure periods is commonly used to permit an operator to control setting in the exposure process to provide autonomous operation of the apparatus (De Caria, paras. [0009], [0011], [0042], [0046]).
Regarding claim 31, the first embodiment of Wolterink as modified by the further embodiment of Wolterink in view of De Caria discloses wherein each second exposure step comprises a second non-exposure period following the second exposure period, and wherein the step of determining takes into account the second non-exposure period (the further embodiment of Wolterink, Fig. 8, paras. [0049]-[0051], [0057]-[0058], the controller controls the operation of the back side radiation source 820 and the front side radiation source 810 to irradiate the plate in multiple pulses, producing non-exposure periods between exposure periods, and the controller controls coordinates the sources such that the sources never irradiate the plate at the same time or simultaneously irradiate the plate).
Regarding claim 32, the first embodiment of Wolterink as modified by the further embodiment of Wolterink in view of De Caria discloses a computer program comprising computer-executable instructions to perform the method, when the program is run on a computer, of claim 1 (the first embodiment of Wolterink, Figs. 1-2, 7-8, 11-13, para. [0084], the apparatus controller is in the form of a computer hardware programmed with software instructions to control the apparatus).
Regarding claim 33, as best understood, the first embodiment of Wolterink as modified by the further embodiment of Wolterink in view of De Caria discloses an exposure apparatus (the first embodiment of Wolterink, Figs. 1-2, 7-8, 11-13, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0048]-[0049], [0056], a first light source exposes a first side of a plate 130 and a second source of radiation exposes the second side of the plate), comprising;
a first light source configured to expose a first side of a relief precursor during a first exposure period of a first exposure step (the first embodiment of Wolterink, Figs. 1-2, 7-8, 11-13, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0048]-[0049], [0056], a first light source exposes a first side of a plate 130 and a second source of radiation exposes the second side of the plate, and as modified by a further embodiment of Wolterink, Fig. 8, paras. [0049]-[0051], [0057]-[0058], the controller controls the exposure sequence of the back side radiation source 820 and the front side radiation source 810),
a movable second light source configured to expose a second side of the relief precursor opposite the first side during one or more second exposure of one or more second exposure steps (the first embodiment of Wolterink, Figs. 1-2, 7-8, 11-13, [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0048]-[0050], [0055]-[0056], [0071]-[0072], the second light source of two light sources 110, 120, or 2120, 2110, or 1120, 1122, or 1310, 1312 is scanned to expose the second surface of the plate during second exposure steps);
a moving means (the first embodiment of Wolterink, Figs. 1-2, 7-8, 11-13, [0032]-[0038], [0048]-[0050], [0055]-[0056], [0071]-[0072], the radiation sources are moved relative to the plate with a movement mechanism) configured to move the second light source (the first embodiment of Wolterink, Figs. 1-2, 7-8, 11-13, [0032]-[0038], [0048]-[0050], [0055]-[0056], [0071]-[0072], the radiation sources, including the second of sources 110, 120, or 2120, 2110, or 1120, 1122, or 1310, 1312, are moved relative to the plate with a movement mechanism), and
a control means of claim 28 (see claim 28 rejection above, Figs. 1-2, 7, 11-13, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0048]-[0050], [0054]-[0056], [0071], [0084], the control system 140, 2140) said control means configured to control the first light source, the second light source and the moving means in accordance with the determined sequence, wherein preferably the first light source is a stationary light source (Figs. 1-2, 7, 11-13, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0048]-[0050], [0055]-[0056], [0071], [0084], the controller 140, 2140 controls the system such that the plate is exposed by the first and second light sources in the process with sequential steps, and as modified by the further embodiment of Wolterink, Fig. 8, paras. [0049]-[0051], [0057]-[0058], the front side radiation source 810 is stationary).
Claims 5 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolterink as modified by De Caria as applied to claims 1 and 28 above, and further in view of Struewe et al. (US PGPub 2014/0315132, Struewe hereinafter).
Regarding claim 5, the first embodiment of Wolterink as modified by the further embodiment of Wolterink in view of De Caria discloses wherein during each second period which overlaps with a first exposure period (second embodiment of Wolterink, Fig. 8, paras. [0049]-[0051], [0057]-[0058], the controller controls the sequence of the back side radiation source 820 and the front side radiation source 810 such that the simultaneously irradiate the plate), but the first embodiment of Wolterink as modified by the further embodiment of Wolterink in view of De Caria does not appear to explicitly describe wherein a light intensity emitted by the first light source is substantially constant.
Struewe discloses a light intensity emitted by the first light source is substantially constant (Figs. 1-4, paras. [0080]-[0081], [0100], the lamps are maintained at a constant irradiance for each exposure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a light intensity emitted by the first light source is substantially constant as taught by Struewe during each second period which overlaps with a first exposure period in the method as taught by the first embodiment of Wolterink as modified by the further embodiment of Wolterink in view of De Caria since including wherein during each second exposure period which overlaps with a first exposure period, a light intensity emitted by the first light source is substantially constant is commonly used to maintain consistent exposure quality over time (Struewe, para. [0080]).
Regarding claim 30, the first embodiment of Wolterink as modified by the further embodiment of Wolterink in view of De Caria discloses wherein the step of determining is such that during each second period which overlaps with a first exposure period (second embodiment of Wolterink, Fig. 8, paras. [0049]-[0051], [0057]-[0058], the controller controls the sequence of the back side radiation source 820 and the front side radiation source 810 such that the simultaneously irradiate the plate), but the first embodiment of Wolterink as modified by the further embodiment of Wolterink in view of De Caria does not appear to explicitly describe wherein a light intensity emitted by the first light source is substantially constant.
Struewe discloses a light intensity emitted by the first light source is substantially constant (Figs. 1-4, paras. [0080]-[0081], [0100], the lamps are maintained at a constant irradiance for each exposure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a light intensity emitted by the first light source is substantially constant as taught by Struewe during each second period which overlaps with a first exposure period in the determining in the control means as taught by the first embodiment of Wolterink as modified by the further embodiment of Wolterink in view of De Caria since including wherein during each second exposure period which overlaps with a first exposure period, a light intensity emitted by the first light source is substantially constant is commonly used to maintain consistent exposure quality over time (Struewe, para. [0080]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolterink as modified by De Caria as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of De Rauw et al. (WO 2021/148354, De Rauw hereinafter).
Regarding claim 19, the first embodiment of Wolterink as modified by the further embodiment of Wolterink in view of De Caria does not appear to explicitly describe wherein a movable shield is moved between the first light source and the relief precursor as the second light source is moved.
De Rauw discloses wherein a movable shield is moved between the first light source and the relief precursor as the second light source is moved (Figs. 1-4, abstract, p. 10, lines 31-36, p. 11, lines 1-19, movable shield 3 is between the first light source 1 and the relief precursor P. The second light source 2 is moved).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein a movable shield is moved between the first light source and the relief precursor as the second light source is moved as taught by De Rauw in the method as taught by the first embodiment of Wolterink as modified by the further embodiment of Wolterink in view of De Caria since including wherein a movable shield is moved between the first light source and the relief precursor as the second light source is moved is commonly used to prevent ghost images generated by reflected light and is used to limit heating of the first light source from the second light source (De Rauw, p. 2, lines 15-35, p. 3, lines 1-2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 15, 17, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 29 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious wherein the step of determining a sequence comprises: determining for at least one of said one or more second exposure steps if the second exposure period thereof is smaller than the first exposure period; and if yes, determining the sequence such that the second exposure period of said one second exposure step fully overlaps with the first exposure period; and if no, determining the sequence such that the second exposure period of said one second exposure step does not overlap with the first exposure period. These limitations in combination with all of the other limitations of the parent claim would render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record if rewritten.
Wolterink discloses determining a sequence of operation for the first light source and the second light source based on the at least one first and/or second characteristic (Figs. 1-2, 7, 11-13, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0048]-[0050], [0054]-[0056], [0071], the control system 140, 2140 controls the delay time between back exposure and main exposure in the processing); exposing the relief precursor according to the determined sequence (Figs. 1-2, 7, 11-13, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0048]-[0050], [0055]-[0056], [0071], the plate is exposed by the first and second light sources in the process with sequential steps), but Wolterink fails to describe or suggest determining a sequence comprises: determining for at least one of said one or more second exposure steps if the second exposure period thereof is smaller than the first exposure period. Therefore, Wolterink also fails to describe or render obvious if yes, determining the sequence such that the second exposure period of said one second exposure step fully overlaps with the first exposure period; and if no, determining the sequence such that the second exposure period of said one second exposure step does not overlap with the first exposure period.
De Caria discloses exposing the relief precursor according to the determined sequence (Figs. 1, 4, 5, paras. [0021], [0033], [0035]-[0036], [0042], user interface means 91 permits an operator to modify operating parameters of the photo-polymerization means 21, 22), but De Caria fails to describe or render obvious wherein the step of determining a sequence comprises: determining for at least one of said one or more second exposure steps if the second exposure period thereof is smaller than the first exposure period; and if yes, determining the sequence such that the second exposure period of said one second exposure step fully overlaps with the first exposure period; and if no, determining the sequence such that the second exposure period of said one second exposure step does not overlap with the first exposure period.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious wherein the step of determining a sequence comprises: comparing the sum of the second exposure periods and an optional intermediate non-exposure period of two second exposure steps of the at least two exposure steps with the first exposure period; if the sum of the second exposure periods and the optional intermediate non-exposure period is smaller than the first exposure period, determining that said two exposure steps are performed such that said two second exposure periods both overlap with the first exposure period (Tel > Te2 + Te2' + Tne2); if each second exposure period is larger than the first exposure period, determining that said two second exposure steps are performed before and/or after the first exposure step (Te2 > Tel and Te2'>Tel); if the second exposure period is smaller than the first exposure period and the sum of the second exposure periods and the optional intermediate non- exposure period is larger than the first exposure period, determining that one of said two second exposure steps is performed such that the second exposure period thereof overlaps with the first exposure period, and another one is performed such that the second exposure period thereof does not overlap with the first exposure period (Te2 <Tel< Te2+ Te2' + Tne2 or Te2'<Tel< Te2+ Te2'+ Tne2). These limitations in combination with all of the other limitations of the parent claim would render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record if rewritten.
Wolterink discloses determining a sequence of operation for the first light source and the second light source based on the at least one first and/or second characteristic (Figs. 1-2, 7, 11-13, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0048]-[0050], [0054]-[0056], [0071], the control system 140, 2140 controls the delay time between back exposure and main exposure in the processing); exposing the relief precursor according to the determined sequence (Figs. 1-2, 7, 11-13, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0048]-[0050], [0055]-[0056], [0071], the plate is exposed by the first and second light sources in the process with sequential steps), but Wolterink fails to describe or suggest wherein the step of determining a sequence comprises: comparing the sum of the second exposure periods and an optional intermediate non-exposure period of two second exposure steps of the at least two exposure steps with the first exposure period; if the sum of the second exposure periods and the optional intermediate non-exposure period is smaller than the first exposure period, determining that said two exposure steps are performed such that said two second exposure periods both overlap with the first exposure period (Tel > Te2 + Te2' + Tne2); if each second exposure period is larger than the first exposure period, determining that said two second exposure steps are performed before and/or after the first exposure step (Te2 > Tel and Te2'>Tel); if the second exposure period is smaller than the first exposure period and the sum of the second exposure periods and the optional intermediate non- exposure period is larger than the first exposure period, determining that one of said two second exposure steps is performed such that the second exposure period thereof overlaps with the first exposure period, and another one is performed such that the second exposure period thereof does not overlap with the first exposure period (Te2 <Tel< Te2+ Te2' + Tne2 or Te2'<Tel< Te2+ Te2'+ Tne2).
De Caria discloses exposing the relief precursor according to the determined sequence (Figs. 1, 4, 5, paras. [0021], [0033], [0035]-[0036], [0042], user interface means 91 permits an operator to modify operating parameters of the photo-polymerization means 21, 22), but De Caria fails to describe or render obvious wherein the step of determining a sequence comprises: comparing the sum of the second exposure periods and an optional intermediate non-exposure period of two second exposure steps of the at least two exposure steps with the first exposure period; if the sum of the second exposure periods and the optional intermediate non-exposure period is smaller than the first exposure period, determining that said two exposure steps are performed such that said two second exposure periods both overlap with the first exposure period (Tel > Te2 + Te2' + Tne2); if each second exposure period is larger than the first exposure period, determining that said two second exposure steps are performed before and/or after the first exposure step (Te2 > Tel and Te2'>Tel); if the second exposure period is smaller than the first exposure period and the sum of the second exposure periods and the optional intermediate non- exposure period is larger than the first exposure period, determining that one of said two second exposure steps is performed such that the second exposure period thereof overlaps with the first exposure period, and another one is performed such that the second exposure period thereof does not overlap with the first exposure period (Te2 <Tel< Te2+ Te2' + Tne2 or Te2'<Tel< Te2+ Te2'+ Tne2).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious prior to the step of determining, and optionally prior to the step of receiving, receiving through the operator interface an operation mode out of one or more operation modes, wherein said one or more operation modes comprise at least a first operation mode indicating that the determining step is to be performed to determine the sequence and a second operation mode indicating that a different predetermined sequence is to be performed; wherein preferably the second operation mode indicates that the one or more second exposure steps need to be performed before the first exposure step, and wherein preferably said one or more operation modes comprise a third operation mode indicating that the one or more second exposure steps need to be performed after the first exposure step. These limitations in combination with all of the other limitations of the parent claim would render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record if rewritten.
Wolterink discloses determining a sequence of operation for the first light source and the second light source based on the at least one first and/or second characteristic (Figs. 1-2, 7, 11-13, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0048]-[0050], [0054]-[0056], [0071], the control system 140, 2140 controls the delay time between back exposure and main exposure in the processing), but Wolterink fails to describe or suggest receiving, receiving through the operator interface an operation mode out of one or more operation modes, wherein said one or more operation modes comprise at least a first operation mode indicating that the determining step is to be performed to determine the sequence and a second operation mode indicating that a different predetermined sequence is to be performed; wherein preferably the second operation mode indicates that the one or more second exposure steps need to be performed before the first exposure step, and wherein preferably said one or more operation modes comprise a third operation mode indicating that the one or more second exposure steps need to be performed after the first exposure step.
De Caria discloses receiving through an operator interface at least one first characteristic representative for the first exposure period and/or at least one second characteristic representative for the one or more second exposure periods (Figs. 1, 4, paras. [0021], [0033], [0035]-[0036], [0042], user interface means 91 permits an operator to modify operating parameters of the photo-polymerization means 21, 22). De Caria fails to teach ore render obvious receiving, receiving through the operator interface an operation mode out of one or more operation modes, wherein said one or more operation modes comprise at least a first operation mode indicating that the determining step is to be performed to determine the sequence and a second operation mode indicating that a different predetermined sequence is to be performed; wherein preferably the second operation mode indicates that the one or more second exposure steps need to be performed before the first exposure step, and wherein preferably said one or more operation modes comprise a third operation mode indicating that the one or more second exposure steps need to be performed after the first exposure step.
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious wherein the at least one first characteristic comprises a value for the first exposure period which does not take into account that a net dose applied by the first light source will be lower due to the shadow plate, the method further comprising determining a corrected value for the first exposure period taking into account the loss due to the shadow plate, and using this corrected value in the step of determining the sequence. These limitations in combination with all of the other limitations of the parent claim would render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record if rewritten.
Wolterink discloses receiving at least one first characteristic representative for the first exposure period and/or at least one second characteristic representative for the one or more second exposure periods (Figs. 1-2, 7, 11-13, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0048]-[0050], [0055]-[0056], [0071]-[0072], the control system 140, 2140 adjusts the speed of the sources or sets a distance between the sources during the scan process to adjust the time delay between the back exposure and the main exposure), but Wolterink does not describe or render obvious wherein the at least one first characteristic comprises a value for the first exposure period which does not take into account that a net dose applied by the first light source will be lower due to the shadow plate, the method further comprising determining a corrected value for the first exposure period taking into account the loss due to the shadow plate, and using this corrected value in the step of determining the sequence.
De Rauw discloses a movable shadow plate between the first light source and the relief precursor as the second light source is moved (Figs. 1-4, abstract, p. 10, lines 31-36, p. 11, lines 1-19, movable shield 3 is between the first light source 1 and the relief precursor P. The second light source 2 is moved), but De Rauw does not describe or suggest wherein the at least one first characteristic comprises a value for the first exposure period which does not take into account that a net dose applied by the first light source will be lower due to the shadow plate, the method further comprising determining a corrected value for the first exposure period taking into account the loss due to the shadow plate, and using this corrected value in the step of determining the sequence.
Regarding claim 29, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious wherein the step of determining a sequence comprises: determining for at least one of said one or more second exposure steps if the second exposure period thereof is smaller than the first exposure period; and if yes, determining the sequence such that the second exposure period of said one second exposure step fully overlaps with the first exposure period; and if no, determining the sequence such that the second exposure period of said one second exposure step does not overlap with the first exposure period. These limitations in combination with all of the other limitations of the parent claim would render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record if rewritten.
Wolterink discloses determining a sequence of operation for the first light source and the second light source based on the at least one first and/or second characteristic (Figs. 1-2, 7, 11-13, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0048]-[0050], [0054]-[0056], [0071], the control system 140, 2140 controls the delay time between back exposure and main exposure in the processing); exposing the relief precursor according to the determined sequence (Figs. 1-2, 7, 11-13, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0036]-[0038], [0048]-[0050], [0055]-[0056], [0071], the plate is exposed by the first and second light sources in the process with sequential steps), but Wolterink fails to describe or suggest determining a sequence comprises: determining for at least one of said one or more second exposure steps if the second exposure period thereof is smaller than the first exposure period. Therefore, Wolterink also fails to describe or render obvious if yes, determining the sequence such that the second exposure period of said one second exposure step fully overlaps with the first exposure period; and if no, determining the sequence such that the second exposure period of said one second exposure step does not overlap with the first exposure period.
De Caria discloses exposing the relief precursor according to the determined sequence (Figs. 1, 4, 5, paras. [0021], [0033], [0035]-[0036], [0042], user interface means 91 permits an operator to modify operating parameters of the photo-polymerization means 21, 22), but De Caria fails to describe or render obvious wherein the step of determining a sequence comprises: determining for at least one of said one or more second exposure steps if the second exposure period thereof is smaller than the first exposure period; and if yes, determining the sequence such that the second exposure period of said one second exposure step fully overlaps with the first exposure period; and if no, determining the sequence such that the second exposure period of said one second exposure step does not overlap with the first exposure period.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA A. RIDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7538. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30AM-5PM.
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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at (571)272-2303. 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.
/CHRISTINA A RIDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882