DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is responsive to the applicant’s filling the application on 01/07/2026.
The application has claims 1, 4, 7, 8 and 11-13 present. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9 and 10 have been cancelled. All present claims have been examined.
IDS document and cited references filed 1/19/2026 have been reviewed and considered by the examiner.
This action is made Final.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “creating a section of the virtual model in a z-1 plane identifying,” the word "identifying" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is identifying or if there should have been a limitation after to declare what is been identified. See MPEP § 2173.05(a). For purpose of examination, it will be interpreted as “creating a section of the virtual model in a z-1 plane”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LECOMPERE et al. (EP3756863) as provided on the IDS, view of Greene et al. (US 20170102679).
In regards to claim 1, LECOMPERE teaches a method of controlling a lithography-based additive manufacturing device capable of producing a three-dimensional component from a plurality of volume elements, comprising the following steps:
a) providing a three-dimensional virtual model of the component in a virtual three-dimensional space with a coordinate system comprising an x-, y- and z-axis (see para 80-94: 3D file with x, y, z coordinate), b) dividing the virtual space into a plurality of virtual volume elements, each volume element having an extent in the x-y plane and a height in the z-direction extending from a coordinate z1 to a coordinate z2 (see para 80-94, 126-128: x, y, z position data with dimensions), c) verifying that a volume element is completely within the three-dimensional virtual model, comprising: (see FIG. 6A-C and at least para 98-100, 103-109, 113-120: boundary rules used to determine the object is correctly within the boundaries),
Although LECOMPERE teaches that the purpose is for producing the file to be manufactured using the additive manufacturing process (see abstract), and provides an example of the manufacturing machine used (see Fig. 2), and teaches the rules to enable the boundaries to properly produce the object file to print (see FIG. 6A-C and at least para 80-94, 98-100, 103-105, 113-120, 126-128), it doesn’t specifically mention i) creating a section of the virtual model in a z1-plane (see at least para 109, 113), ii) checking whether the volume element in tis plane is located entirely within the section of the virtual model, and iii) checking whether projections, running in the z direction, of the boundary point of the volume element determined in the z1 plane have at least one intersection point with the outline of the virtual model located within the z1-z2 extension of the volume element; d) only if at least ii) has been positively tested and iii) has been negatively tested: marking the volume element as a volume element to be manufactured, e) repeating steps (c) and (d) for a plurality of volume elements, f) transmitting control data to the manufacturing device which are suitable for effecting the manufacture of the volume elements to be manufactured.
Greene teaches i) creating a section of the virtual model in a z1-plane (see at least para 109, 113), ii) checking whether the volume element in tis plane is located entirely within the section of the virtual model, and iii) checking whether projections, running in the z direction, of the boundary point of the volume element determined in the z1 plane have at least one intersection point with the outline of the virtual model located within the z1-z2 extension of the volume element; d) only if at least ii) has been positively tested and iii) has been negatively tested: marking the volume element as a volume element to be manufactured, e) repeating steps (c) and (d) for a plurality of volume elements, f) transmitting control data to the manufacturing device which are suitable for effecting the manufacture of the volume elements to be manufactured. (see FIG. 4-9, para 34-52 and claim 1: teaches a process that verifies weather elements are within the model. On at least para 43-44: “At 515, the process determines a containment degree of the voxel based on the number of inside points and the number of outside points “and “the process determines a covered volume within a voxel that is contained by the digital model. In some implementations, determining a covered volume can include determining the interception of a model's boundary surface with a voxel to determine a volume covered by the model. In some implementations, determining a covered volume can include determining the interception of a model's boundary line with a cross-section of a voxel to determine an area covered by the model.”. “In some implementations, voxels are sliced into corresponding pixels and containment degrees are computed based on the corresponding pixels and the geometry of the model”. Para 49 discuses boundary lines. the process continues in which determines that the relevant elements for the print are within the model based on a desired degree of containment. Once the process is accomplished in determining and obtaining the desired results based on a desired containment, the graphic file is sent to the printer).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention these teachings of Greene in combination with LECOMPERE in order to make all needed determination to make sure the 3D volume containment checking is as desired in order to send the file to print once meets the requirements, since it enhances the method by making sure the printing parameter on the file are correct before printing it, which prevents material waste from misprints.
In regards to claim 4, LECOMPERE doesn’t specifically mentions characterized in that the first boundary points are identified by creating a first cross-section of the virtual model in an x-y plane with the z1 coordinate of the volume element.
Greene teaches characterized in that the first boundary points are identified by creating a first cross-section of the virtual model in an x-y plane with the z1 coordinate of the volume element (see at least para 32, 43-44, 49: teaches determining the boundary points of a virtual model at a specific elevation. Determines points inside the model).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention these teachings of Greene in combination with LECOMPERE in order to make points determination at certain elevations (z coordinates), since it enhances the method by making sure the printing parameter on the file are correct for the model before printing it, which prevents material waste from misprints.
In regards to claim 8, the claim language is similar to the claim language of claim 1, but in an embodiment as a control apparatus. As such the claim is rejected along the same rationale as claim 1.
In regards to claim 11, LECOMPERE as modified by Greene teach all the limitations on claim 8, but doesn’t specifically teach an apparatus for the lithography-based generative production of a three-dimensional component, comprising a material support for a solidifiable material and an irradiation device which can be controlled for the position-selective irradiation of the solidifiable material with at least one beam, the irradiation device comprising an optical deflection unit in order to focus the at least one beam successively onto focal points within the material, whereby a respective volume element of the material located at the focal point is solidifiable by means of multiphoton absorption; controlling the irradiation device to build up the component from a plurality of solidified volume elements according to the three-dimensional virtual model of the component.
However, LECOMPERE teaches in para 30-31: the additive manufacturing technology used is based on the projection of a light pattern on a curable material. The light pattern is for example an infrared pattern or an ultraviolet pattern. The curable material is for example a photopolymer resin and the optical element is manufactured by a photopolymerization process. As an example, the photopolymer resin comprises (meth)acrylate monomers.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention these teachings of LECOMPERE in order to achieve printing using light emitting device on a solidifiable material and control the printing process, since it provides means for high resolution printing which enhances the printing process with finer resolution and higher surface quality.
In regards to claim 12, LECOMPERE teaches in para 30-31: the additive manufacturing technology used is based on the projection of a light pattern on a curable material. It doesn’t specifically mentions characterized in that the irradiation device is adapted to build up the component layer by layer with layers extending in the x-y plane, and in that an adjusting means is provided for adjusting the material support relative to the irradiation device in the z-direction so that the change from one layer to a next layer is effected by the adjusting means.
Greene teaches characterized in that the irradiation device is adapted to build up the component layer by layer with layers extending in the x-y plane, and in that an adjusting means is provided for adjusting the material support relative to the irradiation device in the z-direction so that the change from one layer to a next layer is effected by the adjusting means (see para 7-8, 23-27: layer by layer control light modulation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention these teachings of Greene with the teachings of LECOMPERE in order to control the printing process layer by layer, since it provides means for high resolution printing which enhances the printing process with finer resolution.
In regards to claim 13, LECOMPERE teaches in para 30-31: the additive manufacturing technology used is based on the projection of a light pattern on a curable material. It doesn’t specifically mentions characterized in that the irradiation device comprises a laser light source and the deflection unit is designed for line-by-line scanning of the solidifiable material.
Greene teaches characterized in that the irradiation device comprises a laser light source and the deflection unit is designed for line-by-line scanning of the solidifiable material (see para 7-8, 23-27: layer by layer control light modulation and printing of solidifiable materials).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention these teachings of Greene with the teachings of LECOMPERE in order to control the printing process layer by layer, since it provides means for high resolution printing which enhances the printing process with finer resolution.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LECOMPERE and Greene, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Voit et al. (US WO2020154703).
In regards to claim 7, LECOMPERE and Greene teach the method of claim 1, however they do not teach characterized in that the volume elements have the shape of a cuboid or an ellipsoid, in particular an ellipsoid of revolution.
Voit teaches characterized in that the volume elements have the shape of a cuboid or an ellipsoid, in particular an ellipsoid of revolution (see FIG. 1J and at least para 37, 42-44, 63: teaches that lithography printing and teaches light emitted by the mirrors may be further directed onto an area of a surface using a suitable one or more optical elements. Optical elements may include lenses, prisms, waveguides, diffraction gratings, apertures of various shape and sizes, a graded index of refraction lenses, mirrors, parabolic reflectors (e.g., reflector 178, as shown in Fig. IF), total internal reflection lenses, movable lenses, shape deforming lenses, optical elements containing fluid, wavelength filters, wavelength selective absorbers, and the like. In an example embodiment, the selected shape of the aperture may be any suitable geometrical shape (e.g., a rectangle, an ellipse, a circle, a triangle, and the like). The optical elements may be configured to focus or diffuse the light over an area of a surface resulting in a desired irradiation of the area).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention these teachings of Voit in combination with LECOMPERE and Greene in order to be able to select the shape of the aperture which includes an ellipse shape, since it enhances the method by providing different types of apertures that can be used in the printing process as suited.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that neither of the prior art of Lecompere and Greene teach the amended language. However as provided on the rejection above, Greene teaches the newly amended limitations. See rejection above.
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 MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7971. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:30am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights