CTNF 18/446,931 CTNF 93126 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 Information Disclosure Statements, filed 09 August 2023, 21 February 2024, 29 October 2025, and 31 December 2025, have been fully considered by the examiner. Signed copies are attached. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected, grounds follow. Information Disclosure Statement Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s duty to disclose relevant information to the office under 37 CFR 1.56(a). 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 provide a mechanism by which applicants may comply with that duty. The rules do not require applicant to file unreviewed or irrelevant documentation. IDS submissions, like other submissions, are subject to the provisions of 37 CFR 10.18 which requires that an IDS be reviewed to assure its submission does not cause unnecessary delay or needlessly increase the cost of examination. This would be considered in bad faith. Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 1184, 33 USPQ2nd 1823, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“burying a particularly material reference in a prior art statement containing a multiplicity of other references can be probative of bad faith”). See MPEP 2001. It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information should be eliminated. If a long list is submitted, those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant's attention and/or are known to be of most significance should be highlighted. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff'd, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995). See MPEP 2004.13. Applicant's duty of disclosure of material and information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with a mountain of largely irrelevant [material] from which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have found the critical [material]. It ignores the real world conditions under which examiners work. See Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chemical Co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573 [220 USPQ 289] (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). Applicant has a duty not just to disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such way as not to “bury” it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art; See Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 USPQ2d 1801 (N.D. Ind. 1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 26 USPQ2d 1889, at 1899 (D.Del 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc. et al., 175 USPQ 260, at 272 (S.D. Fl. 1972). The Examiner further notes that the Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS), fail(s) to indicate the relevance of each item listed. Given the large number of items listed on the IDS document(s), the Office respectfully requests the cooperation of the Applicant in providing a concise explanation of relevance of each corresponding reference listed on the IDS document(s) relating to examination of the instant application (e.g. pertinent paragraphs, columns, line numbers, drawings, etc.). Doing so would help ensure that information relevant to the validity of any issued patent is not overlooked. It is noted that it is impractical for the Examiner to review the references thoroughly in view of the number of references cited. By signing the accompanying IDS document(s), the examiner is acknowledging the submission of the document(s) and indicating that only a cursory review has been made of the cited references. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation A “flash” from a projector has been interpreted as standard projector-based SLA (see e.g. specification [0003], [0061]). SLA systems use photopolymerization of resin to create an object on a stage or platform using iterative layer formation, followed by object separation from the stage or platform. (see e.g. US 5,247,180). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuzusako et al., US Pg-Pub 2009/0140466 in view of Shkolnik et al., US Pg-Pub 2005/0248062 . Regarding Claim 1, Kuzusako teaches: A method, comprising: determining a number of tiles of a grid projected by an additive manufacturing apparatus needed to cover an area of a layer to be printed, (Kuzusako [0055] “multiple work small areas disposed in a tiled manner are sequentially exposed, whereby a unit area can be miniaturized as compared to a case wherein the work entire area is exposed at a time.”;) wherein the number of tiles needed to cover the area of the layer to be printed is at least two tiles; (see e.g. fig. 2, small work areas are each ~1 square centimeter and there are multiple depicted. See [0053]-[0055].) executing using a first tile of the grid: a) moving a grid (see figs. 2-6, particularly 6a-6c) projected by an additive manufacturing apparatus (fig. 1, [0008] “stereo lithography” [0009] “optical shaping apparatus”) so that a border of the first tile aligns with a boundary of the layer to be printed; (see fig. 6a, as depicted.) b) flashing, ([0055] “a range where light is irradiated… is reduced, and multiple work small areas disposed in a tiled manner are sequentially exposed”. E.g. by a DMD, see [0096] “a digital micromirror device (DMD) made up of multiple minute reflection mirrors”) with the grid positioned so that the border of the first tile aligns with the boundary of the layer to be printed, pixels of the first tile that are positioned substantially within a perimeter of the layer to be printed; (see fig. 6a as depicted; and [0075] “Accordingly, when the work small area T.sub.1 is subjected to the second offset based on these flags, processing is performed wherein a border line between the work small area T.sub.1 and work small area T.sub.2 is offset to the right side, and a border line between the work small area T.sub.1 and work small area T.sub.4 is offset to the upper side.”) and executing, using a subsequent tile of the number of tiles for each tile needed to cover the area of the layer to be printed: a) the moving, b) the flashing, c) the determining, and d) the iterating. (see fig. 7 step S17 “one layer worth of all work small areas exposed?” and S18 “Move stage to the next work small area” nb. in combination with the secondary reference for steps c) and d).) Kuzusako differs from the claimed invention in that: Kuzusako does not appear to clearly articulate c) determining whether further tile movement and flashing is needed using the first tile based at least in part on whether any unflashed areas are within an area of the first tile are present, each of the unflashed areas having an area that is equal to or greater than a predetermined percentage of an area of a given pixel of the first tile; d) iterating, until there are no further unflashed areas present within the area of the first tile: moving the grid so that a subsequent border of the first tile aligns with a subsequent boundary of the layer to be printed; flashing, with the grid positioned so that the subsequent border of the first tile aligns with the subsequent boundary of the layer to be printed, the pixels of the first tile that are positioned substantially within the perimeter of the layer to be printed; However, Shkolnik teaches a stereolithographic additive manufacturing system ( ) which performs multiple exposures of a working area using sub-pixel offsets to improve the resolution of the resulting part including determining whether further tile movement and flashing is needed using the first tile (Shkolnik [0047] Depending on the resolution improvement desired for each object layer, a multiple (at least twice) of masks or bitmaps having different sub-pixel shifts can be generated and superimposed.) based at least in part on whether any unflashed areas are within an area of the first tile are present, (see e.g. fig. 8, showing unflashed pixels mostly on the left side of the shape; and subsequent figs. 9-12; particularly fig. 12 showing the superimposition of the multiple exposures.) each of the unflashed areas having an area that is equal to or greater than a predetermined percentage of an area of a given pixel of the first tile; (see e.g. [0041] “The sectional area, i.e. the outer and inner contours, are prescribed by a sectorial trail 11, which is superimposed by a rastered area (bitmap) 12, the solution of which exactly corresponds to the resolution of the discrete elements (pixels) within the projected image 8 which is formed by the image forming matrix. Vectorial trail 11 and bitmap 12 thus exist within a superior-ordered XY-coordinate system 10. FIG. 8 shows the bitmap in its starting position. By means of a specific algorithm, the active pixels 13 which describe the sectional area within the bitmap 12 in its starting position are calculated.”) including iterating until there are no more unflashed areas ([0048] “By means of a differently shifted and superimposed illumination of each object/material layer (here by means of bitmaps 12, 14, 16, 18), a resolution improvement in XY in the portion of outer and inner contours is achieved.” See fig. 12 showing the super-imposition of the multiple exposures.) moving the grid ([0042] “the bitmap 14 is shifted within the sub-pixel range relative to the sectional area by delta X, whereby a new distribution of active pixels 15 is produced” e.g. by adjusting optics to redirect the exposable area, see [0049]-[0053].) so that a subsequent border of the first tile aligns with a subsequent boundary of the layer to be printed; (see figs. 8 and 9. See also alternative embodiment [0046] “A simplified process for resolution improvement is achieved by the measure that only bitmap 12 of the started position (FIG. 8) and bitmap 18 of the diagonal shift (FIG. 11) are superimposed. In this case, the bitmap or the image does only have to be shifted in one direction along the diagonal of the pixels.”) and flashing, ([0039] “the irradiation necessary for hardening is projected into the image/construction plane 7. The illumination is carried out by means of a rastered image forming unit, which is formed in the form of a matrix.”) with the grid positioned so that the second border of the tile aligns with the second boundary of the layer to be printed, pixels of the tile that are positioned substantially within the perimeter of the layer to be printed; (see figs. 8-12 and [0045] “[0045] In FIG. 12, all bitmaps 12, 14, 16 and 18 with their active pixels 13, 15, 17 and 19 are shown superimposed, whereby a resolution improvement in the (outer) contour portion of the sectional area is clearly noticeable.”) Shkolnik is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of stereolithography and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each subjects a photocurable resin to irradiation to selective harden portions of the resin, each repeats this process multiple times in order to fabricate a three dimensional object. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Kuzusako to iteratively expose sub-areas of the small working area of Kuzusako, based on sub-pixel coverage of the contour of the layers of the 3-dimensional shape to be produces, as suggested by Shkolnik. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the resolution of the resulting part as suggested Shkolnik ([0029] “[0029] By means of the process of the invention or the device of the invention, the resolution in the image/construction plane is improved in the sub-pixel range by means of "pixel-shift".” And “[0048] By means of a differently shifted and superimposed illumination of each object/material layer (here by means of bitmaps 12, 14, 16, 18), a resolution improvement in XY in the portion of outer and inner contours is achieved.”) Regarding Claims 16 and 17, Kuzusako also teaches the additional limitation of a radiant energy device (see e.g. fig. 1, and [0050] “The control unit 21 controls the light source 12 to turn on/off irradiation of light from the light source 12, controls the shutter 13 to turn on/off exposure of the ultraviolet hardening resin 31”) and the computing system comprising one or more processors ([0104] “Also, the above-mentioned series of processing performed by the control unit 21 can be executed by … a general-purpose personal computer or the like capable of executing various types of function by various types of program being installed.”). These claims otherwise recite substantively the same subject matter, except embodied as an apparatus and a non-transitory computer readable medium, respectively. Mutatis Mutandis, these claims are likewise obvious over the teachings of Kuzusako in view of Shkolnik for the same reasons articulated with respect to claim 1. Regarding Claims 2 and 18, Kuzusako in view of Shkolnik teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 1 and 17, respectively; Kuzusako further teaches: (Claim 2 representative) wherein when moving the grid so that the border of the first tile of the grid aligns with the boundary of the layer to be printed, at least one side border of the first tile is aligned with a side boundary of the layer. (see figs 2-3 and figs. 6A, 6B, the to be irradiated small working region is depicted as aligned with a side boundary of the layer when the working region is one of the edge regions.) Examiner notes for completeness of the record that Shkolnik also discloses this feature; see Shkolnik fig. 8 (bitmap raster area 12) is aligned with a layer boundary of the object to be printed (see [0041].). Regarding Claims 3 and 19, Kuzusako in view of Shkolnik teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 1 and 17, respectively. Shkolnik further teaches: (Claim 3 representative) wherein a given pixel of the pixels of the first tile is positioned substantially within the perimeter of the layer to be printed when at least a predetermined area percentage of the given pixel is within the perimeter of the layer to be printed. (see fig. 8, shaded areas 13 and [0041] “ By means of a specific algorithm, the active pixels 13 which describe the sectional area within the bitmap 12 in its starting position are calculated.”) Regarding Claims 4-7 and 20; Kuzusako in view of Shkolnik teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 3 and 19, respectively; Shkolnik further teaches: As can be seen in the depicted figures: PNG media_image1.png 770 588 media_image1.png Greyscale Shkolnik discloses selecting pixels with variable amounts of coverage including examples of at least 75% to 100% coverage and therefore anticipates the various percentages of the claims 4-7. E.g. Claims 4, 20, “wherein the predetermined area percentage is seventy-five percent (75%), Claim 5 (85%), Claim 6 (95%), Claim 7 (100%). (See MPEP 2131.03) One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Kuzusako to iteratively expose sub-areas of the small working area of Kuzusako, based on sub-pixel coverage of the contour of the layers of the 3-dimensional shape to be produces, as suggested by Shkolnik. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the resolution of the resulting part as suggested Shkolnik ([0029] “[0029] By means of the process of the invention or the device of the invention, the resolution in the image/construction plane is improved in the sub-pixel range by means of "pixel-shift".” And “[0048] By means of a differently shifted and superimposed illumination of each object/material layer (here by means of bitmaps 12, 14, 16, 18), a resolution improvement in XY in the portion of outer and inner contours is achieved.”) Regarding Claim 8, Kuzusako in view of Shkolnik teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1, Shkolnik further teaches: wherein the unflashed areas considered at d) each have an area that is equal to or greater than a predetermined percentage of an area of a given pixel of the tile are flashed. ([0061] “The projected light output per pixel can be varied by "grey scaling" within a projection mask, in order to selectively influence the hardening level in one layer thereby. This is particularly meaningful in order to raise the light output of the pixels of the contour because only partial superimposition of the respective pixels of the contour are produced here due to the sub-pixel shift over individual bitmaps (in the areas within the contours a complete superimposition of the pixels of each individual bitmap is ensured).”) Regarding Claims 9-12, Kuzusako in view of Shkolnik teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 8, As can be seen from the depicted figures 10 and 11 of Shkolnik, the subsequent pixels activated after moving the grid include (see particularly fig 9 bottom left region) pixels with unflashed areas which correspond to coverage differences between 10% and 30% and therefore anticipates the various percentages of the claims 9-12; E.g. Claim 9 “wherein the predetermined percentage is ten percent (10%)”, Claim 10 (20%), Claim 11 (30%), Claim 12 (less than about 25%). (See MPEP 2131.03) One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Kuzusako to iteratively expose sub-areas of the small working area of Kuzusako, based on sub-pixel coverage of the contour of the layers of the 3-dimensional shape to be produces, as suggested by Shkolnik. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the resolution of the resulting part as suggested Shkolnik ([0029] “[0029] By means of the process of the invention or the device of the invention, the resolution in the image/construction plane is improved in the sub-pixel range by means of "pixel-shift".” And “[0048] By means of a differently shifted and superimposed illumination of each object/material layer (here by means of bitmaps 12, 14, 16, 18), a resolution improvement in XY in the portion of outer and inner contours is achieved.”) Regarding Claim 13, Kuzusako in view of Shkolnik teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1, Kuzusako further teaches: determining whether the layer to be printed is complete, (see fig. 7, step S17 “One layer worth of all work small areas exposed?” ) wherein when the layer to be printed is determined to be complete, the method iterates the method of claim 1 for subsequent layers to build up a component. (see fig. 7, step S19 “Has exposure based on all cross-sectional shape data been performed?” and [0092] “In a case wherein in step S19 the control unit 21 has determined that exposure based on all of the cross-sectional shape data has not been performed, the processing returns to step S13, where the same processing is repeated with the cross-sectional shape data of the next layer”) Examiner notes for completeness of the record that Shkolnik also discloses this feature; see ([0058]). Regarding Claim 14, Kuzusako in view of Shkolnik teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1, Kuzusako further teaches: wherein each tile of the grid has a same number of rows of pixels as columns. ([0054] “for example, if we say that the pixels of the spatial light modulator 17 are disposed in 1000 pixels by 1000 pixels , as shown in B in FIG. 2, a work small area is divided into 1000 by 1000 unit areas according to a pixel of the spatial light modulator 17 (i.e., areas corresponding to one pixel of the spatial light modulator 17).) 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuzusako in view of Shkolnik, further in view of Mitcham, US 5247180 . Regarding Claim 15, Kuzusako in view of Shkolnik teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1, Kuzusako in view of Shkolnik differs from the claimed invention in that: Neither reference clearly articulates wherein the grid has four tiles. However, Mitcham teaches a DMD projector array for Stereolithography which uses a 2x2 arrangement of DMD comprising a projected grid having four tiles (see Mitcham, col. 4 line 30: “FIG. 4 depicts how multiple exposure heads 20 may be combined or "tiled" to cover an area of, for instance, 8.times.16 square inch. This allows the user to maintain the same high degree of resolution described in connection with FIG. 3. In such a tiled configuration, each exposure head 20 cures one quadrant of the film resin. Each quadrant exposes a 4.times.8 square inch area. Any number of exposure heads 20 can be combined to increase maximum model size.”) Mitcham is analogous art is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of stereolithography and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities; each subjects a photocurable resin to irradiation to selective harden portions of the resin, each repeats this process multiple times in order to fabricate a three dimensional object. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date could have modified the teachings of Kuzusako to use a multiple projection array to project a grid of at least four tiles, as suggested by Mitcham. One of ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the addressable exposure area while maintaining a high resolution, as suggested by Mitcham (col 4, line 30: “…multiple exposure heads 20 may be combined or "tiled" to cover an area of, for instance, 8.times.16 square inch. This allows the user to maintain the same high degree of resolution described in connection with FIG. 3… Any number of exposure heads 20 can be combined to increase maximum model size.”) Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-2, 4-12, 15, 16, 19 of copending application No. 18/446,850 (reference application) in view of Kuzusako and Mitcham. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as illustrated in the table below, the reference application in view of Kuzusako and Mitcham, teaches or fairly suggests the claims at issue in the instant application. Instant Application 18/446,850 (as amended 21 January 2026) 1. A method, comprising: 1. A method, comprising: determining a number of tiles of a grid projected by an additive manufacturing apparatus needed to cover an area of a layer to be printed, wherein the number of tiles needed to cover the area of the layer to be printed is at least two tiles; Executing using a first tile of the grid: (in view of Kuzusako: Kuzusako [0055] “multiple work small areas disposed in a tiled manner are sequentially exposed, whereby a unit area can be miniaturized as compared to a case wherein the work entire area is exposed at a time.”;) a) moving a grid projected by an additive manufacturing apparatus so that a border of the first tile aligns with a boundary of the layer to be printed; Claim 1… moving a grid projected by an additive manufacturing apparatus so that a first border of a tile of the grid aligns with a first boundary of a layer to be printed; b) flashing, with the grid positioned so that the border of the first tile aligns with the boundary of the layer to be printed, pixels of the first tile that are positioned substantially within a perimeter of the layer to be printed; flashing, with the grid positioned so that the first border of the tile aligns with the first boundary of the layer to be printed, pixels of the tile that are positioned substantially within a perimeter of the layer to be printed; c) determining whether further tile movement and flashing is needed using the first tile based at least in part on whether any unflashed areas are within an area of the first tile are present, each of the unflashed areas having an area that is equal to or greater than a predetermined percentage of an area of a given pixel of the first tile; Claim 14… determining whether the layer to be printed is complete, wherein when the layer to be printed is determined not to be complete, the method further comprises iteratively: d) iterating until there are no further unflashed areas present within the area of the first tile: moving the grid so that a subsequent border of the first tile aligns with a subsequent boundary of the layer to be printed; (Claim 1) moving the grid so that a second border of the tile aligns with a second boundary of the layer to be printed; and flashing, with the grid positioned so that the subsequent border of the first tile aligns with the subsequent boundary of the layer to be printed, the pixels of the first tile that are positioned substantially within the perimeter of the layer to be printed; and flashing, with the grid positioned so that the second border of the tile aligns with the second boundary of the layer to be printed, pixels of the tile that are i) positioned substantially within the perimeter of the layer to be printed; and ii) aligned at least in part with an unflashed area of the layer. 2. The method of claim 1 , wherein when moving the grid so that the border of the first tile of the grid aligns with the boundary of the layer to be printed, at least one side border of the first tile is aligned with a side boundary of the layer. 2. The method of claim 1, wherein when moving the grid so that the first border of the tile of the grid aligns with the first boundary of the layer to be printed, at least one side border of the tile is aligned with a side boundary of the layer. 3. The method of claim 1 , wherein a given pixel of the pixels of the first tile is positioned substantially within the perimeter of the layer to be printed when at least a predetermined area percentage of the given pixel is within the perimeter of the layer to be printed. Claim 1 ...wherein a given pixel of the pixels of the tile is positioned substantially within the perimeter of the layer to be printed when at least a predetermined area percentage of the given pixel is within the perimeter of the layer to be printed. 4. The method of claim 3, wherein the predetermined area percentage is seventy-five percent (75%). 4. The method of claim 3, wherein the predetermined area percentage is seventy-five percent (75%). 5. The method of claim 3, wherein the predetermined area percentage is eighty-five percent (85%). 5. The method of claim 3, wherein the predetermined area percentage is eighty-five percent (85%). 6. The method of claim 3, wherein the predetermined area percentage is ninety-five percent (95%). 6. The method of claim 3, wherein the predetermined area percentage is ninety-five percent (95%). 7. The method of claim 3, wherein the predetermined area percentage is one hundred percent (100%). 7. The method of claim 3, wherein the predetermined area percentage is one hundred percent (100%). 8. The method of claim 1 , wherein the unflashed areas considered at d) each have an area that is equal to or greater than a predetermined percentage of an area of a given pixel of the tile are flashed. 8. The method of claim 1, wherein in flashing, with the grid positioned so that the second border of the tile aligns with the second boundary of the layer to be printed, only the pixels of the tile that are i) positioned substantially within the boundary of the layer to be printed; and ii) aligned at least in part with an unflashed areas of the layer, wherein the unflashed area has an area that is equal to or greater than a predetermined percentage of an area of a given pixel of the tile are flashed. 9. The method of claim 8, wherein the predetermined percentage is ten percent (10%). 9. The method of claim 8, wherein the predetermined percentage is ten percent (10%). 10. The method of claim 8, wherein the predetermined percentage is twenty percent (20%). 10. The method of claim 8, wherein the predetermined percentage is twenty percent (20%). 11. The method of claim 8, wherein the predetermined percentage is thirty percent (30%). 11. The method of claim 8, wherein the predetermined percentage is thirty percent (30%). 12. The method of claim 8, wherein the predetermined percentage is less than about twenty-five percent (25%). 12. The method of claim 8, wherein the predetermined percentage is less than about twenty-five percent (25%). 13. The method of claim 1 , further comprising: 15. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining whether the layer to be printed is complete, determining whether the layer to be printed is complete, wherein when the layer to be printed is determined to be complete, the method iterates the method of claim 1 for subsequent layers to build up a component. wherein when the layer to be printed is determined to be complete, the method iterates the method of claim 1 for subsequent layers to build up a component. 14. the method of claim 1, wherein each tile of the gride has a same number of rows of pixels as columns. (Obvious in view of Kuzusako, see [0054] "the pixels of the spatial light modulator 17 are disposed in 1000 pixels by 1000 pixels") 15. The method of claim 1, wherein the grid has four tiles. (Obvious in view of Mitcham, see fig. 4 and col. 4 line 30) 16. An additive manufacturing apparatus, comprising: 16. An additive manufacturing apparatus, comprising: a radiant energy device; a radiant energy device; and a computing system having one or more processors, the one or more processors being configured to: a computing system having one or more processors, the one or more processors being configured to: a) cause the grid to move so that a border of the first tile aligns with a boundary of the layer to be printed; cause a grid projected by the radiant energy device to move so that a first border of a tile of the grid aligns with a first boundary of a layer to be printed; b) cause the radiant energy device to flash, with the grid positioned so that the border of the first tile aligns with the boundary of the layer to be printed, pixels of the tile that are positioned substantially within a perimeter of the layer to be printed; cause the radiant energy device to flash, with the grid positioned so that the first border of the tile aligns with the first boundary of a layer to be printed, pixels of the tile that are positioned substantially within a perimeter of the layer to be printed; causing the grid to move so that a subsequent border of the first tile aligns with a subsequent boundary of the layer to be printed; cause the grid to move so that a second border of the tile aligns with a second boundary of the layer to be printed; and flashing, with the grid positioned so that the subsequent border of the first tile aligns with the subsequent boundary of the layer to be printed, the pixels of the first tile that are positioned substantially within the perimeter of the layer to be printed; cause the radiant energy device to flash, with the grid positioned so that the second border of the tile aligns with the second boundary of the layer to be printed, the pixels of the tile that are i) positioned substantially within the perimeter of the layer to be printed; and ii) aligned at least in part with an unflashed area of the layer. 17. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions, which, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system associated with an additive manufacturing apparatus, cause the one or more processors to: 19. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions, which, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system associated with an additive manufacturing apparatus, cause the one or more processors to: a) cause the grid to move so that a border of the first tile aligns with a boundary of the layer to be printed; cause a grid projected by a radiant energy device of the additive manufacturing apparatus to move so that a first border of a tile of the grid aligns with a first boundary of a layer to be printed; b) cause a radiant energy device to flash, with the grid positioned so that the border of the first tile aligns with the boundary of the layer to be printed, pixels of the tile that are positioned substantially within a perimeter of the layer to be printed; cause the radiant energy device to flash, with the grid positioned so that the first border of the tile aligns with the first boundary of a layer to be printed, pixels of the tile that are positioned substantially within a perimeter of the layer to be printed; causing the grid to move so that a subsequent border of the first tile aligns with a subsequent boundary of the layer to be printed; cause the grid to move so that a second border of the tile aligns with a second boundary of the layer to be printed; and flashing, with the grid positioned so that the subsequent border of the first tile aligns with the subsequent boundary of the layer to be printed, the pixels of the first tile that are positioned substantially within the perimeter of the layer to be printed; and cause the radiant energy device to flash, with the grid positioned so that the second border of the tile aligns with the second boundary of the layer to be printed, the pixels of the tile that are i) positioned substantially within the perimeter of the layer to be printed; and ii) aligned at least in part with an unflashed area of the layer. 18. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 17, wherein when causing the grid to move so that the border of the first tile of the grid aligns with the boundary of the layer to be printed, at least one side border of the first tile is aligned with a side boundary of the layer. (obvious over Claim 19 in view of Claim 2; The method of claim 1, wherein when moving the grid so that the first border of the tile of the grid aligns with the first boundary of the layer to be printed, at least one side border of the tile is aligned with a side boundary of the layer.) 19. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 17, wherein a given pixel of the pixels of the first tile is positioned substantially within the perimeter of the layer to be printed when at least a predetermined area percentage of the given pixel is within the perimeter of the layer to be printed. Claim 19… ...wherein a given pixel of the pixels of the tile is positioned substantially within the perimeter of the layer to be printed when at least a predetermined area percentage of the given pixel is within the perimeter of the layer to be printed. 20. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 19, wherein the predetermined area percentage is seventy-five percent (75%). (obvious over Claim 19 in view of Claim 4: The method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined area percentage is seventy-five percent (75%).) Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Steege, US Pg-Pub 2018/0141270 – particularly figures 15 and 16, depicting the choice of whether to slightly over-expose or under-expose the boundaries of an irregular shape in a stereolithographic type 3D printing apparatus. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA T SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5591. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday through Friday. 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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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. /J.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2119 /MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/446,931 Page 2 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/446,931 Page 3 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/446,931 Page 4 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/446,931 Page 5 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/446,931 Page 6 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/446,931 Page 7 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/446,931 Page 8 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/446,931 Page 9 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/446,931 Page 10 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/446,931 Page 11 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/446,931 Page 12 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/446,931 Page 13 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/446,931 Page 14 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/446,931 Page 15 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/446,931 Page 16 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/446,931 Page 17 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/446,931 Page 18 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/446,931 Page 19 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/446,931 Page 20 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/446,931 Page 21 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/446,931 Page 22 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/446,931 Page 23 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/446,931 Page 24 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/446,931 Page 25 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/446,931 Page 26 Art Unit: 2119