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
By way of the amendment filed 4/9/2026: claims 1, 14, 18, and 19 are amended, claims 2, 3, 6, and 13 are cancelled, claims 4, 5, 7-12, 15-17, and 20 are original, and claims 21-24 are new.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claims 1, 4, 5, 7-12, and 14-24 are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions. The material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus is viewed as recitation of intended use and is given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (Please see MPEP 2112.01 I and 2114-2115 for further details).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections under this heading are withdrawn due to the amendments.
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.
Claim 1, 14-16, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al (WO 2022/046729; herein Huang, already of record), in view of Newell (US PGPub 2019/0210287, already of record), Lee et al (KR 101776509; herein Lee with machine translation, already of record), and Greer et al (WO 9936216; herein Greer, already of record). 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, the arm having six degrees of freedom (Figure 1C, 6-DOF robotic arm)
A rigid base connected to the arm (Figure 12 paragraph 113, print receiving platform)
In a first configuration a light source configured to emit light to the tank to form an object on the rigid base (Figure 1C, DMD light engine)
Regarding the base being removable connected to the arm, see MPEP 2144.04 V C.
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 linearly relative to the tank 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.
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).
Further regarding claim 1, Huang and Newell are silent to:
A calibration plate removably 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 the removable nature of the plate, see MPEP 2144.04 V C.
Further regarding claim 1, Huang, Newell, and Greer are silent to:
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)
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 the teachings of Greer)
Regarding claim 21:
See remarks regarding claims 14, 15, and 16.
Regarding claim 22:
Wherein the alignment actuator and the calibration plate are connected to opposite sides of the tank at the same time
Since the prior art teaches the alignment actuator, calibration plate, and tank the locations thereof would have been obvious to a skilled artisan. 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). Additionally, it has been held shifting the location of known parts in a known system is obvious, MPEP 2133.03 VI C.
Regarding claim 23:
See remarks regarding claims 1, 21, and 22.
Regarding claim 24:
See remarks regarding claim 1 with respect to the teachings of Lee. If one adjusts the position of the tank in a stereolithography process this would be done in relation to the light source.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, Newell, Greer, and Lee as applied above, and further in view of Viellerobe et al (US PGPub 2021/0354381; herein Viellerobe, already of record). Regarding claim 4, Huang, Newell, Greer, and Lee 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)
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, Newell, Greer, and Lee as applied above, and further in view of El-Siblani). Regarding claim 7-11:
Huang, Newell, Greer, and Lee 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, Newell, Greer, and Lee as applied above, and further in view of Joyce (US PGPub 2013/0292862; already of record). Regarding claim 12, Huang, Newell, Greer, and Lee 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 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, Newell, Greer, and Lee as applied above, and further in view of Mori et al (US PGPub 2018/0065181; herein Mori, already of record). Regarding claims 17 and 20, Huang, Newell, Greer, and Lee 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, Greer, and Lee as applied above, and further in view of McMurtry et al (US Patent 7127825; herein McMurtry, already of record). Regarding claim 18, Huang, Newell, Greer, and Lee 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues various points regarding the use of Greer in the 103 rejection above.
The Applicant argues that the robotic arm of Huang would hold the platform of Huang and the sensor 20 of Greer at the same time creating a system that does not function. The Examiner disagrees. The claim limitation is directed to calibration plates on the tank. Greer teaches placing calibration plates in various locations where a robot arm is active in order to teach the control system where the robot arm can go. This in no way involves attaching the sensor of Greer to the arm of Huang while the arm of Huang holds a platform.
The Applicant argues that attaching the target structure 40 of Greer to the upper surface of the solvent bath of the Huang would require the target structure 40 of Greer to be removed from the upper surface of the solvent bath of the Huang before the system of Huang could "emit light to the tank to form an object on the rigid base". The Examiner disagrees. Why would anyone place the calibration target of Greer in such a manner. The tank of Huang has multiple sides, any skilled artisan would clearly see this is where such targets would go. Why would anyone with any skill in the art place the target as Applicant stated?
The Applicant argues that adding the target structure 40 of Greer to the solvent bath of Huang would not allow the system to determine the location of the robot in a fixed coordinate system (like a coordinate system based off of a fixed object). Instead, adding Greer to Huang would create a system that determines the location of the robot relative to a movable tank without calculating how the movable tank is positioned relative to the light and the rail. The Examiner disagrees. Nowhere in Huang or the claims (beyond tank alignment which is clearly tilting on a fixed frame as shown by Lee) is the tank movable. Thus Applicant argument regarding this point is moot. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Overall the arguments presented by the Applicant involve attacking the reference alone without consideration for the combination in view of the abilities of a skilled artisan; the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Applicant argues that Greer is not in an analogous field of endeavor to Huang. The Examiner disagrees. Huang uses robotic arms in a 3D printer. Greer teaches using calibration plates to train robotic arm travel. The problem needed to be solved is a 3D printer using a robotic arm with calibration plates. The common field of endeavor is the use of robotic arms. Thus Huang and Greer have a common field of endeavor. T has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Applicant argues at various points that Greer teaches non-contact calibration. Calibration is calibration whether it is done via contact or non-contact. Additionally, this feature is not claimed until claim 18 and is made obvious over McMurty. A skilled artisan can use contact or non-contact means to calibrate a robotic arm movement, thus a skilled artisan could easily determine the best one for the job. Additionally, the Applicant is fixated on the sensor used by Greer, this is irrelevant tot eh limitation, which is a calibration plate, which can work the same whether or not it is contact based or non-contact based.
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 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
Prosecution Insights