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 .
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.
Claims 18 and 19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 18 and 19 recites the limitation "The alignment system" in the preambles. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in any of the claims; no previous claim mentions an alignment system (in those words). For examination purposes the preambles of claims 18 and 19 will be treated as if they had the same preamble as the other dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Syao (US PGPub 2015/0064298). Regarding claim 1, Syao teaches:
A tank containing a liquid photopolymer resin (Figure 1, tank 2a)
A guide rail mounted externally of the tank (Figure 1, vertically moving module 4b)
An arm moveable connected to the guide rail, the arm being configured to be movable relative to the tank along the guide rail (Figure 1, cantilever 40)
A rigid base connected to the arm (Figure 1, build platform 3)
A light source configured to emit light to the tank to form an object on the rigid base (Figure 1, digital light pattern generator 23)
Regarding claim 2, Syao teaches:
Wherein the arm is configured to move linearly along the guide rail (As seen in Figure 1 the cantilever 40 moves linearly along the Z axis)
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dunne et al (US PGPub 2017/0274601; herein Dunne). Regarding claim 1, Dunne teaches:
A tank containing a liquid photopolymer resin (Figures 1-4, material tray 18)
A guide rail mounted externally of the tank (Figures 1-4, vertical stage 12)
An arm moveable connected to the guide rail, the arm being configured to be movable relative to the tank along the guide rail (Figures 1-4, the structure connecting the platform 16 to the vertical stage 12)
A rigid base connected to the arm (Figures 1-4, platform 16)
A light source configured to emit light to the tank to form an object on the rigid base (Figures 1-4, actinic radiation source 20)
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by El-Siblani et al (US PGPub 2012/0195994; herein El-Siblani). Regarding claim 1, El-Siblani teaches:
A tank containing a liquid photopolymer resin (Figure 37, solidifiable material container assembly 730)
A guide rail mounted externally of the tank (Figures 37, z axis drive assembly 723)
An arm moveable connected to the guide rail, the arm being configured to be movable relative to the tank along the guide rail (Figure 37, bracket 728)
A rigid base connected to the arm (Figure 37, build platform 724)
A light source configured to emit light to the tank to form an object on the rigid base (Figure 38, solidification device 768b)
Regarding claim 2, El-Siblani teaches:
Wherein the arm is configured to move linearly along the guide rail (As seen in Figure 37, the vertical double arrow showing the movement of the bracket 728 along the z axis drive assembly 723).
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al (WO 2022/046729; herein Huang), in view of Newell (US PGPub 2019/0210287). Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches:
A tank containing a liquid photopolymer resin (Figures 1C and 1D, multi-materials resin vat)
An arm, the arm being configured to be movable relative to the tank (Figure 1C, 6-DOF robotic arm)
A rigid base connected to the arm (Figure 12 paragraph 113, print receiving platform)
A light source configured to emit light to the tank to form an object on the rigid base (Figure 1C, DMD light engine)
Huang is silent to:
A guide rail mounted externally of the tank, or that the arm is movably connected to the guide rail, and moves along the guide rail.
In the same field of endeavor Newell teaches that when using a robotic arm in 3D printing that one can but the robotic arm on rails to extend the range of motion of the arm (paragraph 0042).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the robotic arm of Huang on the rails of Newell, since it will increase the range of motion of the robotic arm.
Regarding claim 2:
Wherein the arm is configured to move linearly along the guide rail
As previously discussed Newell shows arms on rails as obvious, but does not explicitly state that the rail is linear. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a linear rail, since shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV B).
Regarding claim 3:
Wherein the arm has six degrees of freedom (As previously discussed, the robotic arm of Huang has 6-DOF)
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang and Newell as applied above, and further in view of Viellerobe et al (US PGPub 2021/0354381; herein Viellerobe). Regarding claim 4, Huang and Newell are silent to:
A tool adapter is connected to the arm
A rigid base station is disposed proximate to the tank, the rigid base station including a plurality of rigid bases, each of the rigid bases being configured to be removably connected to the tool adapter, each of the rigid bases being configured to be automatically connected to and removed from the tool adapter to print a part thereon
In the same field of 3D printing with robotic arms, Viellerobe teaches a robotic arm with a clamp 9 for gripping a target 6 (e.g. Figures 2-5 and paragraph 0059). The target being the claimed rigid base (paragraph 0058). As seen in Figures 2-5 there is a support 30 loaded with blank targets (paragraph 0061), which is the claimed rigid base station. The targets 6 are automatically connected to and removed from the clamp 9.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the tool adapter, rigid base, and rigid base station of Viellerobe, since having such structures allows for the apparatus to have a ready supply of bases to print on, and allows for using multiple bases with one apparatus.
Regarding claim 5, Viellerobe further teaches:
Each of the rigid bases is configured to be removed from the tool adapter with the printed object attached to the rigid base (paragraphs 0030 and 0058)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang and Newell as applied above, and further in view of Lee et al (KR 101776509; herein Lee with machine translation). Regarding claim 6, Huang and Newell are silent to:
Wherein an alignment actuator is connected to the tank, the alignment actuator being configured to adjust a position of the tank
In the same field of stereolithography, Lee teaches adjusting the inclination of the tank based on the inclination of a build plate (page 3, last paragraph)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to level the tank, since it allows for correcting the tank position when needed (page 5, first paragraph)
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang and Newell as applied above, and further in view of El-Siblani). Regarding claim 7-11:
Huang and Newell are silent to the first and second stations, their use, and the order of the stations.
In the same field of endeavor El-Siblani teaches four separate embodiments where a cleaning station is between two resin tanks (Figures 1-4, Figures 11-14, Figures 18-23, and Figure 37), as required by claims 7-11.
In Figures 1-4 the tank is solidifiable material container assembly 30, the cleaning station is 32, the curing station is solidifiable material container assembly 34.
In Figures 11-14 the tank is solidifiable material container assembly 130, the cleaning station is 132, the curing station is solidifiable material container assembly 134.
In Figures 18-23 the tank is solidifiable material container assembly 34, the cleaning station is 32, the curing station is solidifiable material container assembly 30.
In Figure 37, the tank is solidifiable material container assembly 730, the cleaning station is 732 a or 732b, and the curing station is solidifiable material container assembly 734.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the cleaning station of additional curing station as taught by El-Siblani since use of a cleaning station facilitates the creation of a smooth interface between solidified object regions of two materials (paragraph 0088).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang and Newell as applied above, and further in view of Joyce (US PGPub 2013/0292862). Regarding claim 12, Huang and Newell are silent to:
Wherein a refuel tank is fluidly connected to the tank, the refuel tank containing liquid photopolymer resin to be supplied to the tank
In the same field of endeavor Joyce teaches a refill reservoir to resupply as needed (paragraphs 0080-0081, and Figures 6 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the refill reservoirs of Joyce, since it helps maintain the needed amount of resin in the main tank.
Claims 13-16 and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang and Newell as applied above, and further in view of Greer et al (WO 9936216; herein Greer). Regarding claim 13, Huang and Newell are silent to:
Wherein a calibration plate is connected to the tank
In the same field of using robotic arms, Greer teaches (page 3, lines 10-12):
“By placing the target structures in known locations, the robot, with sensor in gripper, discovers each target in its field of measurement and is thereby calibrated in different states of arm extension.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the targets of Greer in the apparatus of Huang and Newell in order to know the location of different parts in relation to the arm. Since the arm needs to know the location of the tank to start a print job, the target being at the tank would be obvious to a skilled artisan.
Regarding claim 14, Greer further teaches:
Wherein a calibration support member is removably connected to the arm (the sensor is in the gripper of the robot, page 3, line 11)
Regarding claim 15, Greer further teaches:
Wherein the calibration support member is moved with respect to the calibration plate to detect a position of the calibration support member to calibrate the arm (As previously discussed with regards to claim 13)
Regarding claim 16, Greer further teaches:
Wherein the calibration plate is attachable to the tank in a plurality of positions to increase a number of positions of the calibration support member measurable with respect to the calibration plate (As previously discussed with regards to claim 13)
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, Newell, and Greer as applied above, and further in view of Mori et al (US PGPub 2018/0065181; herein Mori). Regarding claims 17 and 20, Huang, Newell, and Greer are silent to:
Wherein the calibration support member is automatically removed from the tool adapter and returned to a tool station, and another tool is automatically connected to the tool adapter; and
Wherein one of the plurality of rigid bases is automatically connected to the tool adapter after automatically removing the calibration support member
In the same field of endeavor, Mori teaches tools at the end of robotic arms can be automatically exchanged (paragraph 0067).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the automatic exchanger of Mori, since it allows for different end affecters to be used on the same robotic arm.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, Newell, and Greer as applied above, and further in view of McMurtry et al (US Patent 7127825; herein McMurtry). Regarding claim 18, Huang, Newell, and Greer are silent to:
Wherein the calibration support member includes a plurality of datum balls
In the same field of robotic calibration, McMurtry teaches using a tool with a plurality of datum balls (Figure 9, 12b and Figure 11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use datum balls, since the end result and process of measuring (column 1, lines 7-13) is the same as that of the sensor of Greer. It has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
Regarding claim 19:
The combination of Greer and McMurtry would teach such detection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, 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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743