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
In view of the amendment filed 12/08/2025:
Claims 21, 22, 25, 29-33, 35, 36, 38, and 40 are pending.
Claims 1-20, 23, 26-28, 34, 37, 39, and 40 are cancelled.
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 35 is 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.
Claim 35 recites the limitation “a surface quality of the workpiece along the build axis” in line 3-4. It is unclear whether the surface quality recited in claim 35 is the same or different from the surface quality recited in claim 29, which claim 35 depends from. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret the surface quality of claim 35 to be equivalent to the surface quality of claim 29. However, clarification and correction is required.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 21, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Gardiner et al. (US20170217100), and further in view of Smith et al. (US6391245).
Regarding claim 21, Gardiner teaches an apparatus (computer-controlled apparatus 20;
Figure 1A- Figure 1D) for making a workpiece, comprising:
a platform (platform 27; Figure 1A- Figure 1D) movable along a build axis ([0020]
platform 27 having at least one planar support surface for supporting the object 20 is
connected to a second robotic arm 28 disposed in the reservoir 24. Each robotic arm 23, 28 has
a number of sections rotatably and/or slidably connected to each other to allow movement of
the activation head 22 and platform 27 in all three dimensions);
a projector (activation head 22 in Figure 1A- Figure 1D) operable to project a patterned
image of radiant along a surface of a resin ([0021] the activation head 22 includes a projector
(not shown) and projects a cross-section of the object 21 geometry onto the top surface 26, thereby fabricating an entire layer of the object 21 from a single projection),
wherein the projector comprises: a radiant energy source including an ultraviolet flash
lamp ([0020] activation head 22 is in communication with an energy source (not shown), such
as an ultraviolet laser or lamp, which is suitable for curing the curable material 25);
a first actuator (second robotic arm 28; Figure 1A- Figure 1D) coupled to the platform
([0022] the controller directs the second robotic arm 28 to adjust the orientation and position
of the platform 27 relative to the top surface 26 and/or the activation head 22); and
a second actuator (robotic arm 23; Figure 1A- Figure 1D) coupled to the projector
([0020] apparatus 20 has an activation head 22 connected to a first robotic arm 23 arranged
above a reservoir 24),
wherein the first actuator and the second actuator are configured to change a relative
angular orientation of the platform and the projector about the build axis ([0020] Each robotic
arm 23, 28 has a number of sections rotatably and/or slidably connected to each other to allow
movement of the activation head 22 and platform 27 in all three dimensions; see change in
activation head 22 angle relative to platform 27 in Figure 1C and Figure 1D) from a nominal
orientation for a first layer of the workpiece (nominal orientation is interpreted as when the
activation head 22 and platform 27 have not undergone any rotation) to an off-nominal
orientation for a second layer of the workpiece (off-nominal orientation is interpreted as when
the activation head 22 and platform 27 have undergone rotation); and
a controller operably coupled with the projector, the first actuator, and the second
actuator, the controller configured to determine the relative angular orientation of the
platform and the projector about the build axis from the nominal orientation ([0020] The activation head 22 and platform 27 are movable relative to the top surface 26 and/or each
other by a controller (not shown), responsive to computer instructions relating to the object 21
geometry provided to the apparatus 20. The computer instructions are typically derived from a
digital three-dimensional (3D) model of the object 21 and define the object 20 geometry and
[0022]),
wherein the relative angular orientation of the first layer and the second layer are selected based on a surface quality of the workpiece along the build axis ([0025]- [0026]; In Figure 1C, first layers 32 are formed in a first orientation generally parallel to the platform 27. Platform 27 is then rotated to form second layers 33 generally perpendicular to the first orientation and at least partially enclosing the first layers 32. Forming the second layers 33 perpendicular to the first orientation reduces or eliminates steps between first layers 32 in the first orientation along the build axis shown in annotated Figure 1C below and [0005] discusses how the apparatus allows an object to be fabricated from non-planar layers or which reduces or eliminates steps between layers. Also see “Response to Arguments” below).
While Gardiner teaches the projector may focus the energy source ([0020] When
operated, the activation head 22 exposes and may also focus the energy source on the
reservoir 24), Gardiner fails to explicitly teach the projector comprises an image forming
apparatus configured to receive a source beam from the radiant energy source, generate the
patterned image, and focus optics.
Further, while Gardiner teaches the projector projects a cross-section of the object 21
geometry onto the top surface 26 in [0021], Gardiner fails to explicitly teach the patterned
image of radiant energy comprises rows and columns of pixels.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to additive manufacturing apparatuses, Smith
teaches a projector (see annotated Figure 1 in the rejection of claim 21 in the Office Action mailed 09/16/2025) comprising:
a radiant energy source (an energy source 8 in Figure 1; col 6 line 18-20); and
an image forming apparatus (spatial light modulator 4 and lenses 6 in Figure 1) and
configured to receive a source beam from the radiant energy source, generate the patterned
image, and focus optics (col 6 line 34-40).
Further, Smith teaches the patterned image of radiant energy comprises rows and
columns of pixels (col 6 line 6-16).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the projector of Gardiner comprise an image
forming apparatus configured to receive a source beam from the radiant energy source,
generate the patterned image, and focus optics, as taught by Smith, to achieve the predictable
result of focusing the energy source on the material reservoir, as Gardiner notes in [0020].
There would have been a reasonable expectation of success for the projector of Gardiner to
comprise the image forming apparatus of Smith, since both Gardiner and Smith are directed to
using a focused energy source that projects an image corresponding to a workpiece layer onto a
resin that is subsequently cured according to the projected imaged to form a workpiece in a
layer-wise manner.
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the projected cross-section image
of Gardiner comprise rows and columns of pixels, as taught by Smith, to achieve the predictable
result of selectively hardening resin that form a workpiece layer corresponding to the projected
image. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success for the projector of
Gardiner to use a projected cross-section image comprising rows and columns of pixels to form
a workpiece layer, since both Gardiner and Smith are directed to forming a workpiece in a
layer-wise manner by an additive manufacturing apparatus that projects an image corresponding to a workpiece layer onto a resin that is subsequently cured according to the projected imaged.
PNG
media_image1.png
648
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Gardiner modified with Smith teaches the apparatus of claim 21.
Further, Gardiner teaches the platform can move downward along the build ([0020] Each
robotic arm 23, 28 has a number of sections rotatably and/or slidably connected to each other
to allow movement of the activation head 22 and platform 27 in all three dimensions), and
where multiple layers are formed as shown in Figure 1A- Figure 1D, the apparatus of Gardiner is
capable of moving the platform downward along the build axis between the first layer and the
second layer.
Regarding claim 25, Gardiner modified with Smith teaches the apparatus of claim 21.
Further, Gardiner teaches wherein the second actuator is positioned above the projector along the build axis (see robotic arm 23 above activation head 22 in Figure 1A- Figure 1D).
Claim(s) 29-33, 35, 36, 38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Gardiner et al. (US20170217100) and Smith et al. (US6391245), and further
in view of Shkolnik et al. (US20050248062).
Regarding claim 29, Gardiner teaches an apparatus (computer-controlled apparatus 20;
Figure 1A- Figure 1D) for making a workpiece, comprising:
a platform (platform 27; Figure 1A- Figure 1D) movable along a build axis ([0020]
platform 27 having at least one planar support surface for supporting the object 20 is
connected to a second robotic arm 28 disposed in the reservoir 24. Each robotic arm 23, 28 has
a number of sections rotatably and/or slidably connected to each other to allow movement of
the activation head 22 and platform 27 in all three dimensions);
a projector (activation head 22 in Figure 1A- Figure 1D) operable to project a patterned
image of radiant energy along a surface of a resin ([0021] the activation head 22 includes a
projector (not shown) and projects a cross-section of the object 21 geometry onto the top
surface 26, thereby fabricating an entire layer of the object 21 from a single projection),
wherein the projector comprises an ultraviolet flash lamp ([0020] activation head 22 is in
communication with an energy source (not shown), such as an ultraviolet laser or lamp, which is suitable for curing the curable material 25);
a first actuator (second robotic arm 28; Figure 1A- Figure 1D) coupled to the platform
([0022] the controller directs the second robotic arm 28 to adjust the orientation and position
of the platform 27 relative to the top surface 26 and/or the activation head 22);
a second actuator (robotic arm 23; Figure 1A- Figure 1D) coupled to the projector
([0020] apparatus 20 has an activation head 22 connected to a first robotic arm 23 arranged
above a reservoir 24),
wherein the first actuator and the second actuator are configured to change a relative
angular orientation of the platform and the projector about the build axis ([0020] Each robotic
arm 23, 28 has a number of sections rotatably and/or slidably connected to each other to allow
movement of the activation head 22 and platform 27 in all three dimensions; see change in
activation head 22 angle relative to platform 27 in Figure 1C and Figure 1D) from a nominal
orientation for a first layer of the workpiece (nominal orientation is interpreted as when the
activation head 22 and platform 27 have not undergone any rotation) to an off-nominal
orientation for a second layer of the workpiece (off-nominal orientation is interpreted as when
the activation head 22 and platform 27 have undergone rotation); and
a controller operably coupled with the projector, the first actuator, and the second
actuator ([0020] The activation head 22 and platform 27 are movable relative to the top surface
26 and/or each other by a controller (not shown), responsive to computer instructions relating
to the object 21 geometry provided to the apparatus 20),
wherein the relative angular orientation of the first layer and the second layer are selected based on a surface quality of the workpiece along the build axis ([0025]- [0026]; In Figure 1C, first layers 32 are formed in a first orientation generally parallel to the platform 27. Platform 27 is then rotated to form second layers 33 generally perpendicular to the first orientation and at least partially enclosing the first layers 32. Forming the second layers 33 perpendicular to the first orientation reduces or eliminates steps between first layers 32 in the first orientation along the build axis shown in annotated Figure 1C in the rejection of claim 21 above and [0005] discusses how the apparatus allows an object to be fabricated from non-planar layers or which reduces or eliminates steps between layers. Also see “Response to Arguments” below).
While Gardiner teaches the projector may focus the energy source ([0020] When
operated, the activation head 22 exposes and may also focus the energy source on the reservoir 24), Gardiner fails to explicitly teach the projector comprises an image forming
apparatus configured to receive a source beam from the radiant energy source, generate the
patterned image, and focus optics.
Further, while Gardiner teaches the projector projects a cross-section of the object 21
geometry onto the top surface 26 in [0021], Gardiner fails to explicitly teach the patterned
image of radiant energy comprises rows and columns of pixels.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to additive manufacturing apparatuses, Smith
teaches a projector (see annotated Figure 1 in the rejection of claim 21 above) comprising:
a radiant energy source (an energy source 8 in Figure 1; col 6 line 18-20); and
an image forming apparatus (spatial light modulator 4 and lenses 6 in Figure 1) and
configured to receive a source beam from the radiant energy source, generate the patterned
image, and focus optics (col 6 line 34-40).
Further, Smith teaches the patterned image of radiant energy comprises rows and
columns of pixels (col 6 line 6-16).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the projector of Gardiner comprise an image
forming apparatus configured to receive a source beam from the radiant energy source,
generate the patterned image, and focus optics, as taught by Smith, to achieve the predictable
result of focusing the energy source on the material reservoir, as Gardiner notes in [0020].
There would have been a reasonable expectation of success for the projector of Gardiner to
comprise the image forming apparatus of Smith, since both Gardiner and Smith are directed to
using a focused energy source that projects an image corresponding to a workpiece layer onto a resin that is subsequently cured according to the projected imaged to form a workpiece in a
layer-wise manner.
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the projected cross-section image
of Gardiner comprise rows and columns of pixels, as taught by Smith, to achieve the predictable
result of selectively hardening resin that form a workpiece layer corresponding to the projected
image. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success for the projector of
Gardiner to use a projected cross-section image comprising rows and columns of pixels to form
a workpiece layer, since both Gardiner and Smith are directed to forming a workpiece in a
layer-wise manner by an additive manufacturing apparatus that projects an image corresponding to a workpiece layer onto a resin that is subsequently cured according to the projected imaged. While Smith teaches the image forming apparatus is directed by suitable algorithms from controllers to tilt specific mirrors that causes an image stored within a data storage to be ultimately reflected on the resin surface (col 6 line 21-30), Gardiner modified with Smith fails to explicitly teach the controller is configured to implement an optimization algorithm to minimize a number or area of the pixels crossing a periphery of an edge of the first layer of the workpiece.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to additive manufacturing apparatuses, Shkolnik teaches an algorithm that calculates the cross-sectional area of active pixels such that the cross-sectional area exactly corresponds to the resolution of the pixels within the projected image ([0041]). Having the cross-section area of active pixels correspond to pixel resolution refines the rastering of the outer and inner contours in the sectional planes of the object to enhance resolution in the construction plane while maintaining a large construction area ([0025] It is an object of the invention to provide a process or a device which can enhance the resolution in the construction plane, while maintaining the same large construction area, many times in the sub- pixel range, i.e. to refine the rastering of the outer and inner contours in the sectional planes of the object).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the controller of Gardiner modified
with Smith be configured to implement an optimization algorithm to minimize a number or
area of the pixels crossing a periphery of an edge of the first layer of the workpiece, as
suggested by Shkolnik, for the benefit of enhancing resolution in the construction plane while
maintaining a large construction area.
Regarding claim 30, Gardiner modified with Smith and Shkolnik teaches the apparatus
of claim 29. While Gardiner teaches the projector projects a cross-section of the object 21
geometry onto the top surface 26 in [0021], Gardiner fails to teach the patterned image of
radiant energy is configured as a two-dimensional grid array of the pixels.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to additive manufacturing apparatuses, Smith
teaches a projector that projects a patterned image of radiant energy configured as a two-
dimensional grid array of the pixels (col 6 line 6-16).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the projected cross-section image of Gardiner
modified with Smith and Shkolnik be configured as a two-dimensional grid array of the pixels,
as taught by Smith, to achieve the predictable result of selectively hardening resin that form a workpiece layer corresponding to the projected image. There would have been a reasonable
expectation of success for the projector of Gardiner to use a projected cross-section image
comprising a two-dimensional grid array of pixels to form a workpiece layer, since both
Gardiner and Smith are directed to forming a workpiece in a layer-wise manner by an additive manufacturing apparatus that projects an image corresponding to a workpiece layer onto a
resin that is subsequently cured according to the projected imaged.
Regarding claim 31, Gardiner modified with Smith and Shkolnik teaches the apparatus
of claim 29. Further, Gardiner teaches wherein the resin (curable material 25; Figure 1A- Figure
1D) is a photopolymer ([0020] activation head 22 is in communication with an
energy source (not shown), such as an ultraviolet laser or lamp, which is suitable for curing the
curable material 25) and the patterned image is projected using ultraviolet light ([0020] activation head 22 is in communication with an energy source (not shown), such as an ultraviolet laser or lamp, which is suitable for curing the curable material 25).
Regarding claim 32, Gardiner modified with Smith and Shkolnik teaches the apparatus
of claim 29. Further, Gardiner teaches the projector rotates via first robotic arm 23 to rotate a
projection about the build axis (see different angles of activation head 22 relative to build axis
in Figure 1A- Figure 1D), and Shkolnik modifies Gardiner such that the projection is a grid array
of one or more pixels about the build axis, as noted in the rejection of claim 29 above. Further,
Gardiner teaches that the build axis may extend perpendicular to the second layer from the first layer of the workpiece (see second layers 33 perpendicular to first layer 32 in Figure 1D).
Therefore, the controller is capable of determining a preferred angular orientation of a grid
array of one or more pixels about the build axis extending perpendicular to the second layer
from the first layer of the workpiece, wherein the preferred angular orientation is selected to
align an edge of the one or more pixels with an edge of the second layer of the workpiece being
built.
Regarding claim 33, Gardiner modified with Smith and Shkolnik teaches the apparatus
of claim 32. Further, Gardiner teaches the controller is configured to orient the patterned
image of radiant energy to the preferred angular orientation by rotating the projector (see
different angles of activation head 22 due to rotation by robotic arm 23 relative to build axis in
Figure 1A- Figure 1D). The activation head 22 is capable of moving before and after solidifying a
portion of the resin that forms the first layer of the workpiece.
Regarding claim 35, Gardiner modified with Smith and Shkolnik teaches the apparatus
of claim 32. Further, Gardiner teaches wherein at least the second layer is stacked on the first
layer along the build axis (see second layers 33 perpendicular to first layer 32, and top second
layer 33 stacked on first layer 32 in Figure 1C), and the preferred angular orientation of the first
layer and the second layer are selected based at least partially on a surface quality of the
workpiece along the build axis ([0025]- [0026]; In Figure 1C, first layers 32 are formed in a first orientation generally parallel to the platform 27. Platform 27 is then rotated to form second layers 33 generally perpendicular to the first orientation and at least partially enclosing the first layers 32. Forming the second layers 33 perpendicular to the first orientation reduces or eliminates steps between first layers 32 in the first orientation along the build axis shown in annotated Figure 1C in the rejection of claim 21 above and [0005] discusses how the apparatus allows an object to be fabricated from non-planar layers or which reduces or eliminates steps between layers. Also see “Response to Arguments” below).
Regarding claim 36, Gardiner teaches an apparatus (computer-controlled apparatus 20;
Figure 1A- Figure 1D) for making a workpiece, comprising:
a platform (platform 27; Figure 1A- Figure 1D) movable along a build axis ([0020]
platform 27 having at least one planar support surface for supporting the object 20 is connected to a second robotic arm 28 disposed in the reservoir 24. Each robotic arm 23, 28 has
a number of sections rotatably and/or slidably connected to each other to allow movement of
the activation head 22 and platform 27 in all three dimensions);
a projector (activation head 22 in Figure 1A- Figure 1D) operable to project a patterned
image of radiant energy along a surface of a resin ([0021] the activation head 22 includes a
projector (not shown) and projects a cross-section of the object 21 geometry onto the top
surface 26, thereby fabricating an entire layer of the object 21 from a single projection);
a first actuator (second robotic arm 28; Figure 1A- Figure 1D) coupled to the platform
([0022] the controller directs the second robotic arm 28 to adjust the orientation and position
of the platform 27 relative to the top surface 26 and/or the activation head 22); and
a second actuator (robotic arm 23; Figure 1A- Figure 1D) coupled to the projector
([0020] apparatus 20 has an activation head 22 connected to a first robotic arm 23 arranged
above a reservoir 24),
wherein the first actuator and the second actuator are configured to change a relative
angular orientation of the platform and the projector about the build axis ([0020] Each robotic
arm 23, 28 has a number of sections rotatably and/or slidably connected to each other to allow
movement of the activation head 22 and platform 27 in all three dimensions; see change in
activation head 22 angle relative to platform 27 in Figure 1C and Figure 1D) from a nominal
orientation for a first layer of the workpiece (nominal orientation is interpreted as when the
activation head 22 and platform 27 have not undergone any rotation) to an off-nominal
orientation for a second layer of the workpiece (off-nominal orientation is interpreted as when
the activation head 22 and platform 27 have undergone rotation); and
a controller operably coupled with the projector, the first actuator, and the second
actuator ([0020] The activation head 22 and platform 27 are movable relative to the top surface
26 and/or each other by a controller (not shown), responsive to computer instructions relating
to the object 21 geometry provided to the apparatus 20. The computer instructions are
typically derived from a digital three-dimensional (3D) model of the object 21 and define the
object 20 geometry and [0022]),
wherein the relative angular orientation of the first layer and the second layer are selected based on a surface quality of the workpiece along the build axis ([0025]- [0026]; In Figure 1C, first layers 32 are formed in a first orientation generally parallel to the platform 27. Platform 27 is then rotated to form second layers 33 generally perpendicular to the first orientation and at least partially enclosing the first layers 32. Forming the second layers 33 perpendicular to the first orientation reduces or eliminates steps between first layers 32 in the first orientation along the build axis shown in annotated Figure 1C in the rejection of claim 21 above and [0005] discusses how the apparatus allows an object to be fabricated from non-planar layers or which reduces or eliminates steps between layers. Also see “Response to Arguments” below).
While Gardiner teaches the projector may focus the energy source ([0020] When
operated, the activation head 22 exposes and may also focus the energy source on the
reservoir 24), Gardiner fails to explicitly teach the projector comprises an image forming
apparatus configured to receive a source beam from the radiant energy source, generate the
patterned image, and focus optics.
Further, while Gardiner teaches the projector projects a cross-section of the object 21
geometry onto the top surface 26 in [0021], Gardiner fails to explicitly teach the patterned
image of radiant energy comprises rows and columns of pixels.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to additive manufacturing apparatuses, Smith
teaches a projector (see annotated Figure 1 in the rejection of claim 21 above) comprising:
a radiant energy source (an energy source 8 in Figure 1; col 6 line 18-20); and
an image forming apparatus (spatial light modulator 4 and lenses 6 in Figure 1) and
configured to receive a source beam from the radiant energy source, generate the patterned
image, and focus optics (col 6 line 34-40).
Further, Smith teaches the patterned image of radiant energy comprises rows and
columns of pixels (col 6 line 6-16).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the projector of Gardiner comprise an image
forming apparatus configured to receive a source beam from the radiant energy source,
generate the patterned image, and focus optics, as taught by Smith, to achieve the predictable
result of focusing the energy source on the material reservoir, as Gardiner notes in [0020].
There would have been a reasonable expectation of success for the projector of Gardiner to
comprise the image forming apparatus of Smith, since both Gardiner and Smith are directed to
using a focused energy source that projects an image corresponding to a workpiece layer onto a
resin that is subsequently cured according to the projected imaged to form a workpiece in a
layer-wise manner.
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the projected cross-section image
of Gardiner comprise rows and columns of pixels, as taught by Smith, to achieve the predictable
result of selectively hardening resin that form a workpiece layer corresponding to the projected
image. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success for the projector of
Gardiner to use a projected cross-section image comprising rows and columns of pixels to form
a workpiece layer, since both Gardiner and Smith are directed to forming a workpiece in a
layer-wise manner by an additive manufacturing apparatus that projects an image corresponding to a workpiece layer onto a resin that is subsequently cured according to the projected imaged.
While Smith teaches the image forming apparatus is directed by suitable algorithms
from controllers to tilt specific mirrors that causes an image stored within a data storage to be
ultimately reflected on the resin surface (col 6 line 21-30), Gardiner modified with Smith fails to explicitly teach the controller is configured to implement an optimization algorithm to minimize
a number or area of the pixels crossing a periphery of an edge of the first layer of the
workpiece.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to additive manufacturing apparatuses, Shkolnik teaches an algorithm that calculates the cross-sectional area of active pixels such that the cross- sectional area exactly corresponds to the resolution of the pixels within the projected image ([0041]). Having the cross-section area of active pixels correspond to pixel resolution refines the rastering of the outer and inner contours in the sectional planes of the object to enhance resolution in the construction plane while maintaining a large construction area ([0025] It is an object of the invention to provide a process or a device which can enhance the resolution in the construction plane, while maintaining the same large construction area, many times in the sub- pixel range, i.e. to refine the rastering of the outer and inner contours in the sectional planes of the object).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the controller of Gardiner modified
with Smith be configured to implement an optimization algorithm to minimize a number or
area of the pixels crossing a periphery of an edge of the first layer of the workpiece, as
suggested by Shkolnik, for the benefit of enhancing resolution in the construction plane while
maintaining a large construction area.
Regarding claim 38, Gardiner modified with Smith and Shkolnik teaches the apparatus
of claim 36. Further, Gardiner teaches the platform can move downward along the build ([0020]
Each robotic arm 23, 28 has a number of sections rotatably and/or slidably connected to each
other to allow movement of the activation head 22 and platform 27 in all three dimensions),
and where multiple layers are formed as shown in Figure 1A- Figure 1D, the apparatus of
Gardiner is capable of moving the platform downward along the build axis between the first
layer and the second layer.
Regarding claim 40, Gardiner modified with Smith and Shkolnik teaches the apparatus
of claim 36. Further, Gardiner teaches wherein the radiant energy source comprises an
ultraviolet flash lamp ([0020] activation head 22 is in communication with an energy source
(not shown), such as an ultraviolet laser or lamp, which is suitable for curing the curable
material 25).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Gardiner does not teach using a projector operable to emit a grid of pixels (see pg. 7-8 of Remarks). However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted on pg. 3-4 of the Office Action mailed 09/16/2025, Gardiner teaches the activation head includes a projector that projects a cross-section of the object geometry onto the top surface such that an entire layer of the object is fabricated from a single projection ([0021] the activation head 22 includes a projector (not shown) and projects a cross-section of the object 21 geometry onto the top surface 26, thereby fabricating an entire layer of the object 21 from a single projection). While Gardiner fails to teach the projector provides a patterned image of radiant energy comprising rows and columns of pixels (see pg. 5 of Office Action mailed 09/16/2025), one of ordinary skill would be prompted to look to Smith who teaches a patterned image of radiant energy comprising rows and columns of pixels (see pg. 5 of Office Action mailed 09/16/2025) to project a cross-section of the object geometry onto the top surface such that an entire layer of the object is fabricated from a single projection.
Further, Applicant argues that Gardiner advocates moving away from stereolithography in favor of alternative manufacturing methods to address surface roughness on curved surfaces. While claim 21 does not currently recite for a stereolithography apparatus for making a workpiece, the teaching in [0005] of Gardiner does not necessarily preclude the apparatus of Gardiner from being a stereolithography apparatus. Gardiner teaches the components of a stereolithography apparatus (a reservoir 24 containing a light curable material that is cured by an energy source in a layer-by-layer fashion as shown in Figure 1A- Figure 1D), and further teaches in [0004]-[0005] that a method or apparatus alternative to one that solidifies a plurality of parallel layers in a stack where the geometry of objects fabricated are formed from flat, planar layers would be useful to form objects with non-planar layers or objects without steps between the layers.
Further, Applicant argues Gardiner's method does not teach surface roughness of curved surfaces is addressed by way of judicious pixel arrangement (see pg. 9 of Remarks). In the Office Action mailed 09/16/2025, Examiner relies on [0025]-[0026] of Gardiner to teach the limitation “wherein the relative angular orientation of the first layer and the second layer are selected based on a surface quality of the workpiece along the build axis”. To clarify, [0025]-[0026] discuss rotating platform 27 relative to the top surface 26 to form layers with varying angular orientation. In Figure 1C, first layers 32 are formed in a first orientation generally parallel to the platform 27. Platform 27 is then rotated to form second layers 33 generally perpendicular to the first orientation and at least partially enclosing the first layers 32. Forming the second layers 33 perpendicular to the first orientation reduces or eliminates steps between first layers 32 in the first orientation along the build axis (see annotated Figure 1C in the rejection of claim 21 above where second layers 33 eliminate steps between steps between first layers 32 and [0005] discusses how the apparatus allows an object to be fabricated from non-planar layers or which reduces or eliminates steps between layers). Given that Gardiner teaches an embodiment where the activation head includes a projector that projects a cross-section of the object geometry onto the top surface such that an entire layer of the object is fabricated from a single projection, as noted above, then the apparatus of Gardiner teaches using patterned images to form a first and second layer, and selecting the relative angular orientation of the first layer and the second layer based on a surface quality of the workpiece along the build axis.
Conclusion
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 ARIELLA MACHNESS whose telephone number is (408)918-7587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30-2:30 PT.
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.
/ARIELLA MACHNESS/ Examiner, Art Unit 1743