DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 of invention and/or species, and corresponding claims (5-8) is acknowledged. The election has been made without traverse. Non-elected claims are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“overlapping mechanism” in claim 7
“timing control mechanism” in claim 8
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
In claim 5, “the first LCD light source” is understood to refer to the “LCD panel 1”. A person of skill would find it obvious that “the LCD light source” refers to the “LCD Panel”. However, the LCD light source should be introduced more clearly (e.g., --the Primary Photonic… is a first LCD light source--).
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(s) 5-8 is/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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The rejections below are not exhaustive. See MPEP 608.01(m).
In reference to claim 6 and 8, the claims contain multiple sentences.
In reference to claim 5, the limitation “specialized” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In reference to claim 5, the limitation “precisely” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In reference to claim 5, the limitation “desired” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In reference to claim 5, the limitation “high-resolution” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In reference to claim 5, the term “specifically” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In reference to claim 5, the term “accurately” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In reference to claim 5, the limitation “Secondary Photonic Energy Emitter or Emitters” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
In reference to claim 5, the limitation ““visible and secondary light patterns”” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
In reference to claim 5, the limitation “Primary and Secondary Auxiliary Photonic Energy Emitters” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
In reference to claim 6, the term “more complex” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In reference to claim 7, Claim limitation “overlapping mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is disclosed corresponding structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
In reference to claim 7, Claim limitation “timing control mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is disclosed corresponding structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Note: Claims 6-8 are also rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 5.
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 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.
Claim 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regehly (NPL 20201) and in view of Bosnvak (US 20230202108 A1).
In reference to claim 5, Regehly discloses a method for 3D printing utilizing multiple photonic energy emitters (Fig 1) for photopolymerization, comprising:
providing a photopolymerizable resin within a build area (Fig 1);
employing a Primary Photonic Energy Emitter (LCD Panel 1) coupled with a specialized light source capable of emitting a broad spectrum of light wavelengths, including ultraviolet (UV), infrared (IR), and visible light, thereby initiating activation of the resin when the Primary Photonic Energy Emitter or emitters and Secondary Photonic Energy Emitter or Emitters cross paths to solidify the resin while simultaneously projecting a second light pattern from one or more Secondary Auxiliary Photonic Energy Emitters (105, 110, and 115), which may include individually or in combination, DLP projectors, lasers, and LEDs designed to intersect with the emission from the first LCD light source, ensuring that polymerization occurs specifically at the points of intersection between the two light patterns (“A light sheet of a first wavelength excites a thin layer of photoinitiator molecules from the initial dormant state to a latent state with a finite lifetime (Fig. 1a). An orthogonally arranged projector generates light of a second wavelength and focuses sectional images of the three-dimensional (3D) model to be manufactured into the plane of the light sheet. Only the initiator molecules in the latent state absorb the light of the projector and cause the current layer to polymerize. By projecting a sequence of images during synchronized movement of the resin volume through the fixed optical setup, the desired object is continuously fabricated (Supplementary Video 1). The crossing (X) light beams generate the entire (holos) object using this printing process, hence the term xolography.” [“Xolography” section beginning on page 620]; also see extended data Fig 5, copied below
PNG
media_image1.png
776
1432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
precisely controlling the relative intensities and spatial distribution of the visible and secondary light patterns from the Primary and Secondary Auxiliary Photonic Energy Emitters to accurately construct a polymerized item with the desired three-dimensional shape and high-resolution features (“The laser, linear axis and projector are controlled” [“The printer system” section]. See figures.).
Like the claimed invention, Regehly provides a combination of first and second light sources, which cross paths to form a part from a photoresin in a build area at the location where said light sources intersect..
Regehly provides a primary light source that is a “digital light projector with 3,840 × 2,160 pixels (ultrahigh definition) and limit its output spectrum to the transient absorption bands of the activated photoinitiator molecules” whereas the claim requires the primary light source to be an LCD that can output in the UV, IR, and visible spectra.
In the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, additive manufacturing and vat photopolymerization (abstract and [P0092]), Bosnvak discloses with regards to “Vat Photopolymerization used to fabricate parts in a layer-by-layer fashion using a liquid radiation curable … In some embodiments several types of energy sources used in Vat Photopolymerization: lasers, light emitting diodes (LEDs), Digital Light Processing (DLP), and Liquid Crystal Displays (LCDs). Radiation for Vat Photopolymerization can be UV (190-400 nm), visible (400-700 nm), or IR (700-1000 nm).” (P0092) and that “sufficient energy must be supplied to the radiation curable resin to generate the initiating species quickly and in sufficient concentration at a given layer thickness” (P0094).
In other words, Bosnvak shows that a person of skill in the art would recognize that an LCD is an art recognized alternative to a DLP. The selection of specific wavelengths applied would depend on the specific resin used.
The combination would be achievable by configuring the projector of Bosnvak to be a LCD capable of projecting in multiple spectrums as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure projector of Bosnvak to be a LCD capable of projecting in multiple spectrums as claimed in order to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; achieve the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; and/or choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In reference to claim 6 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 5.
See figure 1 of Regehly. The light sources are shown as overlapping as claimed. And see abstract at “polymerization inside a confined monomer volume upon linear excitation by intersecting light beams of different wavelengths”.
In reference to claim 7 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 5.
See figure 1 of Regehly and Fig 5 of the supplemental data which shows an overlapping of the light sources. If the light sources overlap then there much be a mechanism for overlapping.
In reference to claim 8 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 5.
See figure 1 of Regehly. And see abstract at “polymerization inside a confined monomer volume upon linear excitation by intersecting light beams of different wavelengths”. If the light beams intersect then they must be timed to occur together.
Conclusion
Any prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See Fig 40 of US 20220212407 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-5pm.
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, Xiao Zhao can be reached on 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-3029-7 and extended data (fig 5 uploaded herein)