DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3-9, 13, 15-19, and 21 are pending. Claims 10-12, 14, and 20 are canceled. Claims 15-19 remain withdrawn. Claim 21 is new.
In view of the amendment, filed 08/13/2025, the following objections and rejections are withdrawn from the previous Office Action mailed 05/14/2025:
Specification and claim objections
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Rejections of canceled claims
Prior art rejections are updated in response to claim amendments.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 7 was amended to recite “the movable punches” prior to reciting that the punches are “movable,” and thus should read “the
Claim Interpretation
Claim interpretation is consistent with the prior Office Action.
The limitation “means of radiation” in claim 1 is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) due to the further recitation of structure capable of performing the radiation function (a radiation source comprising a UV LED radiation source).
Claim 1 recites “a subdevice configured for homogenizing a light quantity distribution.” The terminology of “homogenizing” with respect to “light quantity distribution” is also described as “homogenization of the light intensity” on p. 15 of the filed specification. The specification describes different ways that the “homogenization” can be achieved (by a mask, configuration of micromirrors, see pp. 14-15), and that “the light intensity is reduced in certain areas of the exposure field” (p. 15, first paragraph). As such, the language is interpreted in view of the specification to indicate homogenizing of light intensity across an exposure field.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, 13 and 21 is/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.
Amended claim 1, in lines 1-2 of the preamble, recites “for a layer-by-layer generative production of at least two three-dimensional shaped parts curable composition…” The limitation is generally unclear as to how “curable composition” relates to the at least two shaped parts/production. For further examination, this limitation will be interpreted as not intending to include “curable composition” since “curable compositions” are introduced later.
Amended claim 1, in the next to last clause, recites “wherein unexposed pixels are defined by…” and “the motif is represented in the irradiation field as non-exposed pixels,” where the language is unclear as to whether “unexposed pixels” and “non-exposed pixels” refer to the same or different features.
New claim 21 recites that the device of claim 1 further comprises “a beam deflection device suitable for head-over-head impingement of the curable compositions with beams.” Claim 1 as amended includes at least one radiation source for radiating the compositions from below the process chambers (i.e., for head-over-head impingement of the compositions with light beams) as well as the subdevice including an area light modulator including a micromirror arrangement. The only particular structure that the specification associates with a “deflection device” is “a mirror arrangement” (PGPub [0032]). Claim 1 already includes the micromirror arrangement capable of the recited function, and there are no other types of mirrors disclosed in the specification. Accordingly, claim 21 is unclear as to how it is intended to further limit the device of claim 1, if/how the “beam deflection device” is distinct from any of the structures of claim 1, and what specific structure is required in addition to that defined by claim 1. If the claim is intended to require multiple arrangements of mirrors (a mirror arrangement in addition to the micromirror arrangement), this does not appear to be clearly reflected in the specification. For further examination, this limitation is interpreted to encompass a mirror arrangement capable of the claimed function.
The indicated dependent claims are rejected for the reasons provided above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 13, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson, US 20190232560 A1, in view of Bauer, US 20170157862 A1 (both of record).
Regarding claim 1, Thompson discloses a device (apparatus 10, Fig. 1, [0019]) for a layer-by-layer generative production (the device being for additive manufacturing, [0019]) of at least two three-dimensional shaped parts (capable of additively manufacturing at least two parts), each of the at least two parts being produced from at least one separate composition of curable compositions (capable of additively manufacturing with multiple separate compositions, [0041], [0060]; the chambers can be filled with different resins R, [0060]) that are curable by means of radiation (resin R being radiant-energy curable, [0040]), the device comprising
At least one radiation source (a radiant energy apparatus 18, Fig. 1, [0019]),
At least one pressure trough (vat 210 defining a receptacle 221 for receiving resin R, Figs. 1 and 4-5, [0020]) having at least two process chambers (separated into three chambers 222, Figs. 1 and 4-5) which are open top process chambers (Figs. 1 and 5) and each of the at least two process chambers are configured for receiving in each case [for each of the at least two process chambers] one of the curable compositions (the chambers receiving the resin R, [0020], [0025], [0027]), wherein the at least two process chambers being arrangeable or are arranged above the at least one radiation source (above the radiant energy apparatus 18, Fig. 1; positioned into build zone via turntable 20, [0037]), such that the curable compositions are subjectable to radiation from below in each of the at least two process chambers via the at least one radiation source (Fig. 1, [0023], [0025], [0037]), and
A building platform (stage 14, Fig. 1, [0019]) comprising an underside exposable to radiation from the at least one radiation source (surface 30, Fig. 1, [0024]), wherein the building platform is configured for bonding to at least one three-dimensional shaped part to be formed from at least one of the curable compositions in the at least two process chambers (see surface 30 bonded to the component 74 formed from resin R in Fig. 1),
Wherein a bottom of the at least one pressure trough facing the at least one radiation source with the at least two process chambers comprises at least partially a transparent material (the vat or selected portions of it being transparent, [0023]; the projector 48 projects a patterned image 56 representative of a cross-section of the component 74 through the floor 212 of the vat 210 to the resin R, [0051], Fig. 1), wherein
The device comprises a subdevice having an area light modulator (an image forming apparatus 52 operable to receive a source beam 54 from the radiant energy source 50 and generate a patterned image 56 to be projected onto the surface of the resin R, Fig. 1, [0030], such as a digital micromirror device, [0032]), wherein the at least one radiation source comprises at least one two-dimensionally radiating digitally controlled UV radiation source (radiant energy source 50 such as a UV lamp, Fig. 1, [0030], controlled by a controller, [0038]) such that rays of the at least one two-dimensionally radiating digitally controlled UV radiation source are imaged via an optical system (focusing optics 58, such as one or more lenses, Fig. 1, [0030]) and the irradiation field of the imaged at least one radiation source is imaged on a projection surface (patterned image 56 is to be projected onto the surface of the resin R, [0030], Fig. 1), and
Wherein a machine control system of the device regulates a sequence of movements and the irradiation process (a controller 68 controls the operation of the apparatus, [0038]).
As indicated above, Thompson discloses the comparable device structure which is presently disclosed for achieving the “homogenizing of beam quantity distribution” according to the claim and the specification, i.e., the two-dimensionally radiating radiation source, area light modulator, and optical system including a lens system. Thompson does not specifically disclose the same effect of homogenizing of light quantity distribution of the radiation source is achieved via the device. Thompson discloses the digital micromirror device as a light modulator but is silent as to the device having a plurality of controllable tiltable micromirrors arranged in rows and columns (it is noted that this is a standard/expected feature of a DMD). Thompson does not disclose a number of pixels increasing towards the center of the irradiation field are not exposed such that, in a time integral, a homogenization of the light intensity of all pixels exposed on the projection surface is achieved, wherein unexposed pixels are defined by a programmable mask stored for control of the at least one radiation source, wherein the programmable mask corresponds to a motif of switched-off light points of the at least one radiation source, wherein the motif is represented in the irradiation field as non-exposed pixels. Thompson does not specifically disclose the UV radiation source is a UV LED radiation source.
In the analogous art of producing three-dimensional objects from light-curing liquid plastic material (Abstract, [0012]), Bauer discloses a device including a light source for illuminating the material ([0012]), the light source similarly including a spatially emitting light source, a spatial light modulator, and an optical system which is a lens system ([0015], [0020]). Bauer evidences that a UV LED radiation source was a known type of UV radiation source for performing radiation for curing (e.g., [0043]). Bauer teaches configuring the light source to produce a homogenized distribution of light intensity ([0012], [0036]), e.g., via the configuration of the spatial light modulator ([0036], [0046]-[0047], [0094]). Bauer’s spatial light modulator configuration includes a plurality of controllable tiltable micromirrors arranged in rows and columns (multitude of controllable and tiltable micro-mirrors that are arranged in rows and columns, [0036]), a number of pixels increasing towards the center of the irradiation field are not exposed (via the spatial light modulator configuration, towards the middle of the illuminated field, an increasing number of pixels is not being illuminated, [0036], [0046]-[0047]), such that in a time integral a homogenization of the intensity of all pixels exposed on the projection surface is achieved (such that a homogenization of the light intensity of all pixels that are illuminated on the projection surface is attained in the time integral, [0036], [0047]). Bauer discloses unexposed pixels being defined by a programmable mask stored for control of the at least one radiation source (programmable mask, [0046]), wherein the programmable mask corresponds to a motif of switched-off light points of the at least one radiation source (the mask corresponds to a motif of switched-off light points of the light source, [0046]), wherein the motif is represented in the irradiation field as non-exposed pixels (the motif shows up in the illuminated field as non-illuminated pixels, [0046]) such that it is easy to reduce the light intensity in certain areas and achieve the homogenization ([0047]). Bauer teaches that homogenizing the light intensity of the illuminated field can enable the objects to be built up homogenously ([0067]-[0068]), where a homogenization of the light intensity can be attained to compensate for optical system-related attenuation in intensity of the illuminated field towards the periphery or uneven illumination of the optical system ([0068]-[0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light source arrangement of Thompson to specify that the device including the radiation source, area light modulator, and optical system was configured for homogenizing of light quantity distribution as claimed by adopting the taught configuration of the spatial light modulator and programmable mask of Bauer, in order to enable the homogenous construction of objects and to compensate for optical system-related attenuation in intensity of the illuminated field towards the periphery or uneven illumination of the optical system, as taught by Bauer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the UV radiation source of Thompson to be a UV LED radiation source as a suitable radiation source for providing curing light that could be beneficially homogenized, as taught by Bauer.
Regarding claim 3, modified Thompson discloses the device according to claim 1, and Thompson further discloses the device is configured for photopolymerization (the radiant energy apparatus 18 generates radiant energy to cure the resin, [0030], the resin being a photopolymer resin which is polymerized to solidify the resin, [0040]) for the production of at least one three-dimensional shaped part per process chamber (the device being capable of producing at least one part per process chamber) and/or the device is configured for digital light processing (including a DLP projector, [0030]) of at least one three-dimensional part per process chamber (capable of producing at least one part per process chamber).
Regarding claim 4, modified Thompson discloses the device according to claim 1, and Thompson further discloses the bottom of the pressure trough (the floor 212 defining a build surface 226, Fig. 1, [0021]) facing the at least one radiation source and having the at least two process chambers (Fig. 1) is formed by at least one transparent glass plate, polymer plate, or polymeric film (the floor of the vat being transparent to the radiation such that the light can be projected through the floor, [0051], the transparent portions of the vat being formed from, e.g., glass or polymers, [0023], having a PTFE coating, i.e., film, [0021]-[0022]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Thompson discloses the device according to claim 1, and Thompson further discloses the at least two process chambers are separated from one another by at least one separating plate (dividing walls 216, 217, 218, Fig. 4, [0020]), wherein inner walls of the pressure trough being coated with a fluorine-containing coating and/or silicone (build surfaces 226 having a non-stick coating, such as a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) coating, [0022]), so that the inner walls of the at least two process chambers (the build surfaces 226, Fig. 4) each have a fluorine-containing coating and/or silicone layer (each chamber 222 has a build surface 226, [0021], the build surfaces 226 having the PTFE coating, [0022]).
Thompson does not specifically disclose the at least one separating plate being at least partially coated with a fluorine-containing coating and/or silicone. However, as indicated above, Thompson teaches coating inside surfaces of the vat with a non-stick PTFE coating so as to resist adhesion of cured resin ([0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the at least one separating plate, with its surfaces being inside the vat, was also coated with the PTFE coating in order to prevent adhesion of cured resin to the at least one separating plate adjacent the build region, as taught by Thompson.
Regarding claim 13, modified Thompson discloses the device according to claim 1, and Thompson further discloses the radiation source is equipped with a projection unit based on digital light processing (DLP projector, [0030], [0032]).
Regarding new claim 21, modified Thompson discloses the device according to claim 1, further comprising a beam deflection device suitable for head-over-head impingement of the curable compositions with beams (Thompson: including mirrors/micromirror arrangement, [0032], for radiation of the resin with light from below, Fig. 1, [0029]-[0032]; Bauer: SLM including micromirror arrangement, [0036]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson, US 20190232560 A1, in view of Bauer, US 20170157862 A1, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Stadlmann, US 20170197361 A1 (of record).
Regarding claim 6, modified Thompson discloses the device according to claim 5. Thompson discloses the at least one separating plate (Figs. 4-5, extending from the floor 212 to the top edge 214 of the perimeter wall, [0020]). Thompson is silent as to the at least one separating plate being reversibly locked in the pressure trough and appears to show the at least one separating plate as integrally formed with the pressure trough (Figs. 4-5).
In the analogous art of three dimensional object formation by selective solidification ([0005], [0008]-[0009]), Stadlmann discloses providing an open top trough (see trough 9 in Fig. 4b, [0094]) used for containing the solidifiable material ([0008]-[0009]) with one or more separating webs (see separating web 22 in Fig. 4b, [0094]) used to divide the trough into separate chambers (“partial troughs”) for different materials ([0022]-[0023], [0034]). Stadlmann teaches that, as an alternative to the separating web being integrally connected to the trough, a separating web can be connected to the trough subsequently by means of a substance-to-substance bond, e.g., adhering the separating web to the trough using an adhesive ([0096]-[0097]). A separating plate non-integrally formed with the trough and subsequently adhered to the trough using an adhesive is interpreted to meet reversibly locked, since it is subsequently adhered, i.e., locked, and the adherence can be reversed by overcoming the adhesive joining the separate parts (note that the specification also discloses the use of an adhesive, such as a sealing tape, connecting a separating plate and the pressure trough, p. 10, fourth paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the reversibly locked configuration of the at least one separating plate for the integrally formed configuration as a substitution of one known element for another yielding predictable results of achieving a fixed separating wall(s) dividing the vat into its separate chambers. MPEP 2143 (I)(B). In this case, each configuration of the at least one separating plate achieves the same function in substantially the same manner, by being connected to the corresponding pressure trough and having a sealed engagement such that the chambers remain fluidly separated on either side. Moreover, a removable or non-integrally formed separating plate, such as that taught by Stadlmann, would provide the capability of more easily changing a configuration of the process chambers, e.g., adjusting their size or number to accommodate the building of differently arranged parts. Furthermore, the modification of “making separable” components that were previously not separable has been considered a routine expedient requiring only ordinary skill in the art, particularly if it were considered desirable for any reason to provide such access (MPEP 2144.04 (V)(C)).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson, US 20190232560 A1, in view of Bauer, US 20170157862 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brochier et al., WO 2018143917 A1 (of record).
Regarding claim 7, modified Thompson discloses the device according to claim 1. Thompson does not disclose the building platform is segmented into punches, the punches being movable along their longitudinal axis in the direction of the radiation source.
In the analogous art of build plates for additive manufacturing systems (Abstract), Brochier discloses a topographic build platform configuration (Figs. 1-2) wherein the build platform is segmented into punches (movable blocks, [0015]; see blocks 1-9 with corresponding elevators 21-29, Fig. 1, [0017]), the punches being movable along their longitudinal axis (movable along z-direction, [0019]-[0020], Fig. 1). Brochier teaches the building platform configuration is applicable to vat polymerization-type additive manufacturing systems (i.e., with the build plate as a whole moving in either direction upward or downward, [0011], SLA system, [0028]) and enables the blocks to be used as support structures for the 3D object being fabricated, as opposed to separately forming support structures that cannot be reused, must be discarded, add time and cost to the fabrication process, and can compromise stability of the object during fabrication ([0014]-[0015], e.g., when forming overhangs, [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the building platform of Thompson to adopt the building platform system of Brochier such that it was segmented into punches, the punches being movable along their longitudinal axis, in order to provide an adaptable platform configuration that would facilitate the fabrication of complex geometry such as overhangs without the need for additionally and inefficiently fabricating temporary support structures, as taught by Brochier. In implementing the combination, it would have been obvious to specify the movable punches were movable in the direction of the underlying radiation source since the punches were movable along the z-/vertical direction, and the radiation source was located vertically below the building platform location of Thompson (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Thompson discloses the device according to claim 7. The combination further discloses each or a group of the movable punches being controllable individually by a processor (Brochier: the elevators being coupled to a controller 130 to selectively offset at least one, [0021], or all of the blocks, [0022]; each block can be independently set to a different position along the z-axis from the other blocks, [0019]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Thompson discloses the device according to claim 7, and the combination further discloses each of the movable punches has a motor, actuator, and/or gear drive (Brochier: each elevator 21-29 being implemented by mechanical, electrical, electro-mechanical, and/or pneumatic means, where an elevator 21-29 may be a linear actuator that generates motion in a straight line under control of a rotating motor, for example, or operation of a piston, [0020]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (pp. 11-12) that Thompson does not disclose the light homogenizing configuration of amended claim 1 or the digitally controlled UV LED radiation source and programmable mask. Applicant argues (pp. 12-13) that Bauer discloses the homogenization of light intensity but the 3D printer according to Bauer is based on a significantly different 3D printer system, e.g., Bauer’s radiation source is movable and Bauer does not disclose two process chambers. As such, Applicant argues that one skilled in the art would not look to Bauer because it is contrary to a 3D printer having two process chambers irradiated through the bottom.
Regarding Applicant’s position that Bauer’s 3D printer system is significantly different, the examiner notes that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the prior art is from the same field of endeavor (3D printing by photopolymerization) and reasonably pertinent to the same problem of light homogenizing in a vat polymerization process.
In response to applicant's argument that the skilled person would be deterred by Bauer’s teachings because of the position that Bauer’s device performs a different process and/or that Bauer’s system includes different/other structures, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). As set forth above, Thompson discloses an additive manufacturing system based on light projection to a build plane for selective polymerization. In the same field of additive manufacturing, Bauer teaches for a polymerizing radiation source that homogenizing the light intensity of the illuminated field can enable the objects to be built up homogenously, where a homogenization of the light intensity can compensate for optical system-related attenuation in intensity of the illuminated field towards the periphery or uneven illumination of the optical system. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings from Bauer to the light radiating arrangement of Thompson in order to enable the homogenous construction of objects and to compensate for optical system-related attenuation in intensity of the illuminated field towards the periphery or uneven illumination of the optical system.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments relying on the position that Thompson’s light source is “static” while Bauer’s is movable, the examiner notes that Thompson discloses the parts of the projector 48 being selectively movable ([0033]) and that a DLP projector (Thompson [0032]) is the same type of device disclosed by Bauer (e.g., [0020], [0042]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754