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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 12/10/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is based on a contention that there is no undue search and examination burden.
This is not found persuasive for the following reasons. First, the different inventions would require different text and class search queries. In the restriction mailed 10/08/2025, separate classifications for the different inventions were identified, demonstrating that each of the inventions has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort and accompanying search/examination burden. See MPEP § 808.02. Secondly, the different inventions would likely require use of different prior art references, which further increases the examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/10/2025.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 6 recites "a plurality of pixels comprising a respective micro-LED". It is unclear whether each pixel must comprise a micro-LED or not. For the purpose of examination, claim 1, line 6 reads on "a plurality of pixels, each pixel comprising a respective micro-LED". Dependent claims fall herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by van Steen (US PG Pub 2023/0415414).
Regarding claim 1, van Steen teaches an additive fabrication device (Figs. 3-4 and 6 along with other citations below) comprising:
a build platform (222 in Fig. 3 and para. 0022);
a vessel configured to hold a liquid photopolymer (resin tank 224 in para. 0022); and
an optical system comprising a micro-LED panel (308 in paras. 0022, 0024) configured to emit actinic radiation onto the liquid photopolymer held by the vessel (para. 0029) according to a mask pattern (para. 0022),
wherein the micro-LED panel comprises a plurality of pixels (paras. 0003, 0024, 0040), each pixel comprising a respective micro-LED configured to be independently operated to emit actinic radiation (paras. 0003, 0040).
Regarding claim 2, van Steen teaches one or more intermediate optics or apertures arranged between the micro-LED panel and a bottom surface of the vessel (any of the collimating optics 448 of para. 0033 and Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, van Steen teaches the intermediate optics are refractive optics (lenses of para. 0033 are refractive).
Regarding claim 4, van Steen teaches the plurality of pixels of the micro-LED panel are configured to independently emit actinic radiation with a wavelength between 365nm and 415nm (paras. 0024, 0029e).
Regarding claim 7, van Steen teaches the micro-LED panel is arranged below the vessel (as shown in Fig. 3).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Steen, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Jou (US PG Pub 2022/0152928).
Regarding claim 5, van Steen teaches the vessel includes a bottom surface that is transparent to at least some wavelengths of the actinic radiation projected by the micro-LED panel (para. 0019).
Van Steen does not explicitly teach the micro-LED panel is arranged in contact with the bottom surface of the vessel.
However, Jou teaches a very similar additive fabrication device (Fig. 1B) wherein the LED panel (26) is arranged in contact with the bottom surface of the vessel (as shown in Fig. 1B).
In view of Jou’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to position van Steen’s micro-LED panel in contact with the bottom surface of the vessel, as suggested by Jou’s teachings, to predictably ensure good transmission of light from the micro-LED panel to the vessel and help ensure no dirt, dust, or contaminants which could adversely decrease light transmission can get in between the panel and the vessel.
Regarding claim 6, van Steen does not explicitly teach this feature.
However, Jou teaches a protective glass (16 which may be glass per para. 0028) arranged between the micro-LED panel and the vessel (para. 0031).
In view of Jou’s teachings, it would have been obvious to modify van Steen’s apparatus to include a protective glass arranged between the micro-LED panel and the vessel to predictably cover the top surface of the micro-LED panel and help ensure no dirt, dust, or contaminants which could adversely decrease light transmission can get in between the panel and the vessel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM R SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9-6 MST.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached on 571-272-1095. 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.
/JIMMY R SMITH JR./Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745