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 11/12/2025. Claims 1 and 9 are currently amended, claims 2-8, 11-13, 15-17 are previously presented, claims 10, 14, and 23-50 are cancelled and claims 18-22 are withdrawn.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, 9,11-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wettstein (US 2020/0269492 – of record ) in view of Lecompere (US 2024/0042683).
Regarding claim 1, Wettstein 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 (101) configured for polymerizing a light polymerizable resin (121) with sequential doses of patterned light (123) to produce a three-dimensional (3D) part, the light source having assigned nominal emission data and actual emission data (see Fig. 1;[0002], [0030-0032] and [0038]), the method comprising:
modifying at least some of said light doses in said at least one apparatus during production of said parts to compensate for a deviation of wavelengths of said actual light source emission data from said assigned nominal emission data (see [0036-0037] and [0039-0040] of Wettstein). However, Wettstein does not explicitly teach the method comprising determining a change in cure characteristics of the light polymerizable resin across wavelengths; determining an expected cure-through and overcure for the resin based on wavelengths of the actual emission data of the light source.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing methods, Lecompere teaches a method for the production of an optical element from a curable material by using an additive manufacturing technology (Abstract), the method comprises a prior step (S0) of determining at least part of an absorption spectrum of the curable material with regard to a determined wavelength range in the ultraviolet (200-450 nm) (see Figs. 3-4; [0075-0076]); determining the corresponding light depth penetration values within the curable material as function of the wavelength for at least two different wavelengths (see [0077]); and controlling a degree of curing by adjusting the cure surface energy (E1 and E2) based on the light depth penetration values (see [0053-0054]). Lecompere teaches that the method determines the absorption spectrum and penetration depth (Dp) for different wavelengths which enables to easily manage both the constraints of printing accuracy during the building process and of getting a homogeneous optical volume (see [0022] and [0032-0033] of Lecompere).
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 Wettstein with determining a change in cure characteristics of the light polymerizable resin across wavelengths; determining an expected cure-through and overcure for the resin based on wavelengths of the actual emission data of the light source as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Lecompere 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 to easily manage both the constraints of printing accuracy during the building process and of getting a homogeneous optical volume (see [0022] and [0032-0033]).
Regarding claim 4, Wettstein in view of Lecompere further teaches the method, wherein said actual emission data is predetermined (i.e. determining an actual value of the light intensity of the emitted light) (see [0011],[0020] and [0025] of Wettstein).
Regarding claim 5, Wettstein in view of Lecompere 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 electronic PID controller 119 is used for controlling the light intensity to the required desired value by means of a current control for the light source 101. In this way, ageing compensation and a calibration procedure can be performed rapidly and efficiently via the PID controller (119) (see [0011], [0036-0037], [0039] and [0041] of Wettstein).
Regarding claim 6, Wettstein in view of Lecompere further teaches the method, wherein said apparatus includes at least one light sensor (103) operatively associated with said light source (101), and said actual emission data is periodically determined with said at least one light sensor (see Fig. 1; [0032-0035] of Wettstein).
Regarding claim 9, Wettstein in view of Lecompere 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 [0031] and [0036] of Wettstein; [0042], [0076-0080], [0149] and [0332] of Lecompere).
Regarding claim 11, Wettstein in view of Lecompere teaches the method as discussed in claim 1 above.
Wettstein does not teach 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; 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. However, Wettstein discloses that the electric current through the light source (101) can be increased or decreased based on the deviation between the actual value and the desired value and the light source (101) can be increased or decreased for as long as until the actual value of the light intensity corresponds to the stored desired value (see [0038]). Wettstein further teaches a controller (119) is used for controlling the light intensity to the required desired value by means of a current control for the light source (101). In this way, ageing compensation and a calibration procedure can be performed rapidly and efficiently via the PID controller (119) (see Fig. 1; [0039-0040]).
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 Wettstein with 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; 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 as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Wettstein 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 ageing compensation and a calibration procedure can be performed rapidly and efficiently.
Regarding claim 12, Wettstein in view of Lecompere further teaches the method, wherein said resin (121) photosensitivity comprises resin total absorption, resin onset of cure (Fc or Dc), or a combination thereof (see [0012], [0030-0032] and [0041]).
Regarding claim 13, Wettstein in view of Lecompere further teaches the method, 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 (Lecompere discloses that a minimum surface energy (i.e. Jacobs energy Ej) to provide to polymerize the expected thickness with a minimum conversion rate empirically determined (see [0053-0054] and [0197-0198] of Lecompere).
Regarding claim 15, Wettstein in view of Lecompere further teaches the method, wherein: all of said at least one additive manufacturing apparatus (100) are producing a same part (see Fig. 1;[0030] of Wettstein).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wettstein (US 2020/0269492 – of record) in view of Lecompere (US 2024/0042683) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Tumbleston (US 2020/0276765 – of record ).
Regarding claim 2, Wettstein in view of Lecompere teaches the method as discussed in claim 1 above.
Wettstein 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 Wettstein 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, Wettstein in view of Lecompere 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, Wettstein in view of Lecompere teaches the method as discussed in claim 15 above.
Wettstein 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 Wettstein 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, Wettstein in view of Lecompere teaches the method as discussed in claim 1 above.
Wettstein 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 Wettstein 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wettstein (US 2020/0269492 – of record) in view of Lecompere (US 2024/0042683) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Luan (US 2021/0247735 – of record).
Regarding claim 7, Wettstein in view of Lecompere teaches the method as discussed in claims 5 and 5 above.
Wettstein further teaches the method, wherein said actual emission data is periodically determined from: (i) previously measured light source emission data; and (ii) actual light source use data, and optionally at least one other apparatus use data (see [0036-0037] and [0039-0040]). Lecompere discloses that a minimum surface energy (i.e. Jacobs energy Ej) to provide to polymerize the expected thickness with a minimum conversion rate empirically determined (see [0197-0198]). However, Wettstein does not explicitly teach wherein said actual emission data is periodically determined with an empirical model, a first principles 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 Wettstein in 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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wettstein (US 2020/0269492 – of record) in view of Lecompere (US 2024/0042683) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Das (US 2016/0221262 – of record).
Regarding claim 8, Wettstein in view of Lecompere teaches the method as discussed in claim 1 above teaches the method as discussed in claim 1 above.
Wettstein does not teach wherein said actual emission data and said nominal emission data consists of a single parameter comprising an emission spectra peak value.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing process, Das teaches a method for fabricating three-dimensional objects, comprises an optical imaging system providing a light source; a photosensitive medium adapted to change states upon exposure to a portion of the light source (Abstract), wherein emission spectrum of the light source has emission spectra peak value (see 0457]); and a modeling cure depth in stereolithography use the peak intensity of the laser to predict the cure depth (see [0464] and [0494]).
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 Wettstein in view of Das with said actual emission data and said nominal emission data consists of a single parameter comprising an emission spectra peak value as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Das above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so to predict the cure depth.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102, Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s) has/have overcome the claim rejection(s). Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Lecompere (US 2024/0042683). Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 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