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 .
Status of the application
This is a final rejection in response to the Applicant's remarks and amendment filed on 09/02/2026. Claims 1-9,11-13,15-17 are previously presented, claims 10, 14 and 23-50 are cancelled, and claims 18-22 are withdrawn. Accordingly claims 1-9, 11-13 and 15-17 are examined herein.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8-9,11-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jau (US 2019/0358895 – of record) in view of Panas (US 2021/0146628 – of record).
Regarding claim 1, Jau teaches a method of reducing performance deviation in at least one additive manufacturing apparatus (100) during production of parts, each apparatus having a light source (140) configured for polymerizing a light polymerizable resin (a liquid forming material contained in a tank (120)) with sequential doses of patterned light (L1a) to produce a three-dimensional (3D) part, the light source having assigned nominal emission data and actual emission data (see Figs. 1-2 and 3A; [0021-0023] and [0038]), the method comprising:
determining a change in cure characteristics of the light polymerizable resin across wavelengths (i.e. a light characteristic required for curing the 3D object is determined based on wavelength-absorptivity relationship of the liquid forming material across wavelengths) (see S01 in Fig. 1; [0009] and [0021]);
determining an expected cure-through and overcure (post-curing) for the resin based on wavelengths of the assigned nominal emission data (i.e. determining a light characteristic required for curing the 3D object), wavelengths of the actual emission data of the light source and the cure characteristics of the light polymerizable resin (liquid forming material) across wavelengths (i.e. to determine the output powers of the light-emitting elements according to the wavelength-absorptivity relationship of the liquid forming material) (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 3D; [0009], [0031] and [0039-0043]); adjusting/modifying at least some of said light doses in said at least one apparatus during production of said parts to match the light of the required characteristic (see [0009], [0040] and [0043]).
However, Jau does not explicitly teach modifying at least some of said light doses in said at least one apparatus during production of said parts based on a deviation of wavelengths of said actual light source emission data from said assigned nominal emission data and the cure characteristics of the light polymerizable resin across wavelengths.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing methods, Panas teaches a method for an additive manufacturing using an additive manufacturing system (10) (Abstract; Fig. 1), the method comprises providing a container (20) includes a photocurable resist (18) for making a 3D part, and the resist is responsive to an optical curing beam (16) from a light source (18) (see Fig. 1; [0054]); using a controller (12) has one or more predetermined volumetric resist cure maps (28) (the cure map includes assigned nominal emission data of the light beam) (see Fig. 1; [0025]); providing a cure monitoring control system configured to communicate with the controller for in situ monitoring a curing of the resist and generating data (actual light source emission data) useful for modifying the optical curing beam to help control curing of the 3D component (see [0011]). The cure monitoring control system provide feedback which enables modifying the curing beam (16) in real time to optimize curing of the resist (18) as the 3D part is made (i.e. modifying at least some of said light doses based on the detected optical signals) (see [0028]). The cure monitoring control system includes an optical signal source (32) which generates optical signals (34) having a wavelength selected in relation to a characteristic of the resist (18) (see Figs. 1-2; [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method as taught by Jau in view of Panas by providing a cure monitoring control system configured to monitor a curing of the resist based on a deviation of wavelengths of said actual light source emission data from said assigned nominal emission data and the cure characteristics of the light polymerizable resin across wavelengths and generating data useful for modifying the optical curing beam to help control curing of the 3D component as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Panas above; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would provide in situ monitoring a curing of the resist and generating data useful for modifying the optical curing beam to help control curing of the 3D component and to optimize curing of the resist (see [0011-0012]).
Regarding claim 4, Jau in view of Panas further teaches the method, wherein said actual emission data is predetermined (i.e. the cure map (28) determines volumetric intensity map determines the volumetric curing map within the resist and software (26) include one or more predetermined volumetric resist cure maps (28)) (see Fig. 2;[0025] and [0030] of Panas).
Regarding claim 5, Jau in view of Panas further teaches the method, wherein said actual emission data is periodically determined contemporaneously for manufacturing objects with a specific resin batch with said at least one additive manufacturing apparatus (the controller (12) is in communication with the curing monitoring system for detecting the actual emission data with a specific resin batch with the additive manufacturing apparatus (see [0025], [0028] and [0030] of Panas).
Regarding claim 6, Jau in view of Panas further teaches the method, wherein said apparatus includes at least one light sensor (optical sensing source (32)) operatively associated with said light source (14), and said actual emission data is periodically determined with said at least one light sensor (see Fig. 2; [0027-0029] of Panas).
Regarding claim 8, Jau in view of Panas further teaches the method, wherein said actual emission data and said nominal emission data consists of a single parameter comprising an emission spectra peak value (see Fig. 2 and 3D; [0021-0022] and [0031] of Jau).
Regarding claim 9, Jau in view of Panas further teaches the method, wherein said actual emission data and said nominal emission data comprise multi-parameter data comprising one or more of an emission spectra peak value in combination with a full width at half maximum value; a set of intensity values measured at a plurality of pre-determined wavelength values; an integrated spectral power, and a spectral density distribution (see Fig. 2 and 3D; [0009], [0031] and [0039-0043] of Jau; [0025-0026] and [0030] of Panas).
Regarding claim 11, Jau in view of Panas further teaches the method, wherein said modifying comprises: when the resin photosensitivity is greater at the actual light source emission data than at the nominal data, then the exposure dose is decreased and/or overcure and cure-through compensations are increased (see [0043] of Jau; [0025-0026], [0028] of Panas); and when the resin photosensitivity is less at the actual light source emission data than at the nominal data, then the exposure dose is increased and/or overcure and cure-through compensations are reduced (i.e. the controller 12 uses the error cure map to adjust the curing beam (16), for example by increasing or reducing a power level associated with the curing beam (16), in a manner to help optimize the curing of the resist (18)) (see [0026], [0028] and [0042] of Panas).
Regarding claim 12, Jau in view of Panas further teaches the method, wherein said resin photosensitivity comprises resin total absorption, resin onset of cure (Fc or Dc), or a combination thereof (see Fig. 2;[00008-0010], [0021-0022] and [0031-0035] of Jau).
Regarding claim 15, Jau in view of Panas further teaches the method, wherein: all of said at least one additive manufacturing apparatus (100) are producing a same part (see Fig. 3B;[0009-0010] and [0021] of Jau).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jau (US 2019/0358895 – of record) in view of Panas (US 2021/0146628 – of record) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Tumbleston (US 2020/0276765 – of record).
Regarding claim 2, Jau in view of Panas teaches the method as discussed in claim 1 above.
Jau in view of Panas does not teach wherein said at least one additive manufacturing apparatus comprises a group of individual additive manufacturing apparatus, all assigned the same nominal emission data, and said modifying step comprises: modifying said light doses in each individual apparatus to compensate for a deviation of said actual light source emission data of each individual apparatus from the nominal light source emission data assigned all of said apparatus.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing processes, Tumbleston teaches a method of enhancing at least one performance characteristic of a plurality of additive manufacturing apparatuses during production of an object on each apparatus, each apparatus including a light source and a controller containing operating instructions for production of the object on that apparatus (see [0006]), all assigned the same nominal emission data (see Figs. 1-5; [0025]), and said modifying step comprises modifying operating instructions includers at least one modified process parameter selected from: light intensity; light exposure duration; inter-exposure duration; speed of production (see Fig. 1; [0047])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method as taught by Jau and Panas in view Tumbleston of with at least one additive manufacturing apparatus comprises a group of individual additive manufacturing apparatus, all assigned the same nominal emission data, and said modifying step comprises: modifying said light doses in each individual apparatus to compensate for a deviation of said actual light source emission data of each individual apparatus from the nominal light source emission data assigned all of said apparatus as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Tumbleston above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would enhance a performance characteristic of an additive manufacturing apparatus such as accuracy during additive manufacturing (see [0002-0003] of Tumbleston).
Regarding claim 3, Jau in view of Panas and Tumbleston further teaches the method, wherein all of said apparatus are loaded with a same polymerizable resin for said modifying step (see Fig. 1;[0025] and [0047] of Tumbleston).
Regarding claim 16, Jau in view of Panas teaches the method as discussed in claim 15 above.
Jau in view of Panas does not teach wherein said parts are produced to tolerance of plus or minus (+/-) 100 micrometers or less.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing processes, Tumbleston teaches method of enhancing a performance characteristic of an additive manufacturing apparatus, comprises producing object from the batch of light polymerizable resin on the additive manufacturing apparatus with the modified operating instructions (Abstract), wherein where the object(s) made require production at a high level of accuracy, within close tolerances (see [0131]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method as taught by Jau in view of Tumbleston with wherein said parts are produced to tolerance of plus or minus (+/-) 100 micrometers or less as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Tumbleston above; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so will allow for production of 3D parts at a high level of accuracy.
Regarding claim 17, Jau in view of Panas teaches the method as discussed in claim 1 above.
Jau in view of Panas does not teach wherein said parts comprise an electrical connector, a mechanical connector, a fluid connector, a microelectronic device, a mechanical or micromechanical device, a fluidic or microfluidic device, a dental model, a dental model die, a dental appliance, a dental appliance thermoforming mold, or a surgical guide.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing processes, Tumbleston teaches method of enhancing a performance characteristic of an additive manufacturing apparatus comprising producing the object from the batch of light polymerizable resin on the additive manufacturing apparatus (Abstract), wherein examples of such objects include, but are not limited to: patient-specific forms, guides, aligners, models, or implants (e.g., a dental aligner, a dental model, a dental die, a surgical guide such as for orthopedic surgery, an implantable stent, etc.); connectors, such as electrical connector housings (see [0131]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method as taught by Jau in view of Tumbleston with wherein said parts comprise an electrical connector, a fluid connector, a mechanical or micromechanical device, a dental model, a dental model die, a dental appliance, a dental appliance thermoforming mold, or a surgical guide as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Tumbleston above; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so will allow for production of 3D parts at a high level of accuracy.
Claim(s) 7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jau (US 2019/0358895 – of record) in view of Panas (US 2021/0146628 – of record) as applied to claims 5 and 11 above, and further in view of Luan (US 2021/0247735 – of record).
Regarding claim 7, Jau in view of Panas teaches the method as discussed in claim 5 above.
Jau in view of Panas does not teach wherein said actual emission data is periodically determined with an empirical model, a first principles model, or a combination thereof from:
(i) previously measured light source emission data; and (ii) actual light source use data, and optionally at least one other apparatus use data
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing process, Luan teaches an additive manufacturing process, comprises performing thermal prediction intensity correction with first-principle based models or empirical models (see [0047]). Luan discloses a camera image may be utilized to adjust the thermal image that was predicted based on the intensity correction derived from the measured infrared camera image (see [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method as taught by Jau and i Panas n view of Luan with wherein said actual emission data is periodically determined with an empirical model, a first principles model as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Luan above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would improve a thermal prediction intensity correction.
Regarding claim 13, Jau in view of Panas teaches the method as discussed in claim 11 above.
Jau in view of Panas does not teach wherein exposure dose, overcure compensations, and/or cure-through compensations are increased or decreased based on a first principles model, an empirical model, or a combination thereof.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing process, Luan teaches an additive manufacturing process, comprises performing thermal prediction intensity correction with first-principle based models or empirical models (see [0047]). Luan discloses a camera image may be utilized to adjust the thermal image that was predicted based on the intensity correction derived from the measured infrared camera image (see [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method as taught by Jau and Panas in view of Luan with the exposure dose, overcure compensations, and/or cure-through compensations are increased or decreased based on a first principles model, an empirical model, or a combination thereof as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Luan above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would improve a thermal prediction intensity correction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Panas fails to disclose “modifying at least some of the light doses based on a deviation of wavelengths of said actual light source emission data from the assigned nominal emission data and the cure characteristics of the light polymerizable resin across wavelengths” because Panas’s sensing source (32) which generates sensing signal (34) used to construct the volumetric cure map is distinct from Panas’s curing beam (16) itself. Applicant further argues because Panas’s cure map is based on this separate sensing signal rather that the curing beam’s own frequency, Panas does remedy the deficiency conceded with respect to Jau.
This argument is not persuasive because it attacks Panas individually for a teaching that the rejection relies on the Jau-Panas combination, not Panas alone, to provide. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The relevant deviation and modification teaching is set forth as follow:
Jau already teaches the claimed wavelength-deviation determination.
Jau discloses “determining an expected cure-through and overcure … for the resin based on wavelengths of the assigned nominal emission data, wavelengths of the actual emission data of the light source, and the cure characteristics of the light polymerizable resin across wavelengths” (see [0009], [0031], [0039-0043]), Specifically, Jau determines the output powers required of its light-emitting elements according to the wavelength-absorptivity relationship of the liquid forming material (i.e. Jau’s own light source (140) is the element whose nominal versus actual emission characteristics are compared, and Jau’s own resin absorptivity data is the “cure characteristics … across wavelengths” recited in the claim). This is not disputed by Applicant with respect to Jau; Applicant’s remarks concede only that “Jau does not disclose modifying at least some of said light doses … during production of said parts based on this deviation” see remarks, pages 3-4 – i.e., the dispute is about the timing of the correction (in-process versus static/pre-set), not about whether Jau teaches comparing nominal and actual light source emission wavelength against resin cure characteristics.
Panas is relied upon solely for the in-process, real-time feedback architecture – not to independently re-supply the wavelength-comparison data.
Panas was cited for its teaching of a cure monitoring control system that communicate with a controller useful for modifying the optical curing beam to help control the curing of the 3D component as the part is being made. In real time (Panas at [0011] and [0028]). This is the missing “during production” element conceded as absent form Jau. The office action stated a rationale for the combination “applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results” - is that one of ordinary skill would apply Panas’s real-time monitor- and- adjust architecture to the wavelength-deviation data that Jau’s system already computes, resulting in the deviation-based correction of Jau being performed continuously during the build rather than only as initial calibration. Applicant’s distinction that Panas’s sensing device (32) is a sperate element from Panas’s curing beam (16), and that Panas’s cure map derives from the attenuation of the sensing signal (34) rather than from the curing beam’s own spectral output, is accurate as to Panas in isolation but does not undermine the rejection. The rejection does not map Panas’s sensing source (32) onto the claimed “light source”. The claimed “light source configured for polymerizing a light polymerizable resin … having assigned nominal emission date and actual emission data’ continues to be mapped to Jau’s light source (140) throughout the rejection. Panas is cited only for the general proposition – applicable across additive manufacturing system generally that a curing apparatus can be equipped with monitoring hardware that generates feedback data usable to adjust the curing beam during, rather than only prior to, the build. See MPEP § 2143(I) (D) (a claim is obvious where a known technique that improves one device is applied a similar device in the same way, yielding predictable results); MPEP § 2144.06 (combining prior art elements according to known methods to yielding predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness).
The test is what the combined teachings would have suggested, not whether one reference alone anticipates a limitation.
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). Here, the combined teachings suggest a system in which (1) Jau’s determination of expected cure-through and overcure- based on comparing nominal and actual light source emission wavelengths against resin cure characteristics is used at the basis for dose modification, and (2) that modification is applied during production via the type of real-time feedback loop demonstrated by Panas. One of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in so combining these teachings, as both references are drawn from the same field of endeavor (light-based additive manufacturing employing photopolymerizable resins) and address the same general problem of accuracy in curing.
Applicant’s characterization of Panas does not amount to teaching away.
To the extent Applicant’s Remarks could be read as suggesting that Panas teaches away from correlating dose modification to the curing beam’s own emission characteristics (by instead using an independent sensing signal), this not persuasive. A reference does not teach away merely because it discloses an alternative or additional mechanism; teaching a way requires that the reference criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed combination; MPEP § 2145 (X) (D). Panas does not criticize or discourage correlating light dose modification to the curing beam’s own actual versus nominal emission wavelength deviation; it simply discloses one particular implementation (an independent sensing modality) of in-process monitoring. Panas is relied upon here only for its teaching that in-process of feedback-based dose modification is a known, workable technique in this field, a teaching that is not diminished by the specific sensing mechanism Panas happens to use to generate that feedback.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lea (US5,051,762) teaches an apparatus and imaging method in which an LED exposure apparatus having an array of light emitting diodes stationed in a light exposing relationship to a photosensitive material to be imaged is calibrated to consider the wavelength difference between light emitting diode emissions and the spectral sensitivity of the photosensitive medium (Abstract).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AHMED ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-0347. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM-7:30 PM.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/MOHAMED K AHMED ALI/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
