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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/03/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The Amendment filed 02/03/206 has been entered. Claims 8-21 were previously canceled. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 23, 24-29, and 31-35 have been amended. No new claims have been added. Claims 1-7 and 22-35 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 103. Applicant's remarks regarding the rejection of claim 1-3 and 5-7 under 35 USC 103 as being obvious are moot as they rely upon amended claim limitations not previously considered. The rejection of amended claims 1-3 and 5-7 is provided below.
Applicant’s arguments that prior art cited in the rejection of dependent claim 4 do not make up for the deficiencies of the prior art cited in the rejection of independent claim 1 is not persuasive. However, the rejection of claim 1 is not considered to be deficient as argued above. The rejection of amended claim 4 is provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler (US 2018/0207865 A1) in view of Hambelton (US 2024/0308142 A1) and in further view of Chen (US 2013/0313756 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tyler discloses a method (printing apparatus method) comprising: causing, by a printing apparatus (system 10), addition of resin to a vat (vat 14) via an opening in a side wall at a bottom portion of the vat, wherein the causing the addition of the resin to the vat comprises adding to the vat…a quantity of resin that submerses a first cured layer of an object that is disposed on a bottom surface of the vat with enough resin to create a first layer of resin above the first cured layer without moving the object within the vat; an image projector positioned above the first layer or resin (energy source 20); and curing, by the printing apparatus, via the image projector positioned above the first layer of resin, and while the object maintains a position relative to the image projector, at least a portion of the first layer of resin (see Fig 1 and ¶0011-0023).
While Tyler discloses a method comprising filling the vat with a quantity of resin (base method), Tyler does not disclose a method comprising monitoring, via a sensor, a height of the resin in the vat nor adding to the vat and at a flow rate based on the height of the resin in the vat, a quantity of resin.
However, in the same field of endeavor, level sensors in 3D printing methods and apparatus, Hambelton teaches known technique applicable to base method of a resin monitoring system 50 comprising a resin reservoir that is operatively coupled to processor 12 and fluidly coupled to resin container 20, the resin reservoir holding additional resin (¶0138). In turn, processor 12 may be coupled to receive the image or output from visual sensor 54 and be configured to process the image or the output to determine the level of resin in resin container 20 (monitoring, via a sensor, a height of the resin in the vat) (¶0138). This may be done through a known image processing process (¶0138). Having determined the level of resin in resin container 260 in real-time, processor 12 may then monitor the level of resin in resin container 20 in real-time during a printing process, identify when the level of resin falls below a predetermined level, and when processor 12 identifies that the level of resin has fallen below the predetermined level, it may then control the resin reservoir to transfer at least a portion of the additional resin therein to resin container 20 (adding to the vat and at a flow rate based on the height of the resin in the vat, a quantity of resin) (¶0138-0139).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Tyler by applying the known technique of monitoring, via a sensor, a height of the resin in the vat nor adding to the vat and at a flow rate based on the height of the resin in the vat, a quantity of resin in Hambelton to the method disclosed in Tyler to provide a quantity of resin that submerses a first cured layer of an object that is disposed on a bottom surface of the vat with enough resin to create a first layer of resin above the first cured layer without moving the object within the vat with predictable results and resulting in an improved method. MPEP 2143(D).
While Tyler in view of Hambelton discloses a method comprising curing via an image projector positioned above the first layer of resin (base method), Tyler in view of Hambelton does not explicitly disclose modifying, by the printing apparatus and based on the flow rate, a focus distance of the image projector positioned above the first layer of resin by changing a focus of light emitted by the image projector from a first position corresponding to the first cured layer to a second position corresponding to the first layer of resin above the first cured layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, varying projection settings of projection device in 3D printing, Chen teaches a method wherein a Z elevator is used for lifting the build platform (¶0109). Chen teaches that the use of a commercial projector may significantly reduce the prototype cost and simplify the system design (¶0109). The optical lenses of the projector were modified to reduce the projection distance (¶0109). Chen teaches that various projection settings including focus, key stone rectification, brightness and contrast were adjusted to achieve a sharp projection image on the designed projection plane (¶0109).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Tyler in view of Hambelton by applying the known technique of adjusting the focus of the optical lens of the projector to reduce the projection distance and to achieve a sharp projection image on the designed projection plane as disclosed in Chen to the method disclosed in Tyler in view of Hambelton to modify, by the printing apparatus and based on the flow rate, a focus distance of the image projector positioned above the first layer of resin by changing a focus of light emitted by the image projector from a first position corresponding to the first cured layer to a second position corresponding to the first layer of resin above the first cured layer with predictable results and resulting in an improved method. MPEP 2143(D).
Regarding claims 2-3, as applied to claim 1, Tyler in view of Hambelton and Chen does not disclose wherein the causing the addition of the resin comprises: determining the quantity of resin based on dimensions of the vat nor wherein the causing the addition of the resin comprises: determining the quantity of resin based on a thickness of the first layer of resin, wherein the modifying the focus distance is based on the thickness of the first layer of resin.
However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05(II). It would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success since Tyler teaches a controller 34 may be provided and communicatively coupled valve 26 and may include a means for controlling an operation of system 10 (causing the addition of the resin) (¶0022). One or more maps may be stored in the memory of controller 34 and used during fabrication of structure 12, wherein the maps are used by controller 34 determine desired characteristics of the associated matrix and resin (dimensions of the vat) (¶0023). The characteristics may include a quantity of resin to be discharged and/or a thickness of any surface coatings to be generated by energy source (thickness of the first layer of resin), and wherein controller 34 may then correlate operation of the operation of valve 26 (determining the quantity of resin), such that structure 12 is produced in a desired manner (¶0023). Further, Chen teaches that various projection settings including focus, key stone rectification, brightness and contrast were adjusted to achieve a sharp projection image on the designed projection plane (¶0109).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Tyler in view of Hambelton and Chen such that causing the addition of the resin comprises determining the quantity of resin based on dimensions of the vat and determining the quantity of resin based on a thickness of the first layer of resin, wherein the modifying the focus distance is based on the thickness of the first layer of resin with a reasonable expectation of success since in order to control the operation of the operation of valve such that structure is produced in a desired manner and to achieve a sharp projection image on the designed projection plane (Tyler, ¶0022-0023 and Chen, ¶0109).
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 1, Tyler in view of Hambelton and Chen do not explicitly disclose a method wherein the height of the resin in the vat corresponds to an initial height of the resin in the vat, wherein the flow rate is a constant flow rate configured to add the resin to the vat at a predetermined rate, and wherein the modifying the focus distance of the image projector comprise modifying the focus distance based on the constant flow rate.
However, Tyler in view of Hambelton and Chen teaches that a method wherein controller 34 may then correlate operation of support 16 (e.g., the location and/or orientation of head 18), the discharge of material from head 18 (a type of material, desired performance of the material, cross-linking requirements of the material, a discharge rate, etc.), the operation of energy source 20, the operation of cure enhancers 24, and/or the operation of valve 26, such that structure 12 is produced in a desired manner (Tyler, ¶0023).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Tyler in view of Hambelton and Chen such that the height of the resin in the vat corresponds to an initial height of the resin in the vat, wherein the flow rate is a constant flow rate configured to add the resin to the vat at a predetermined rate, and wherein the modifying the focus distance of the image projector comprise modifying the focus distance based on the constant flow rate with a reasonable expectation of success in order to correlate operation of the energy source and the operation of valve, such that structure is produced in a desired manner (Tyler, ¶0023).
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 1, Tyler in view of Hambelton and Chen teaches a method wherein the object maintains the position relative to the image projector until all layers are cured (Tyler, ¶0011-0023).
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 1, Tyler in view of Hambelton and Chen teaches a method wherein the cured at least a portion of the first layer of resin comprises a second cured layer; wherein causing, by the printing apparatus, addition of additional resin to the vat via the opening in the side wall at the bottom portion of the vat, wherein the causing the addition of the additional resin to the vat comprises adding, to the vat, a second quantity of resin that submerses the second cured layer of the object with enough resin to create a second layer of resin above the second cured layer without moving the object within the vat, and curing, via the image projector, at least a portion of the second layer of resin to create a third cured layer of the object (Tyler, Fig 1 and ¶0011-0023).
Tyler in view of Hambelton and Chen do not explicitly teach a method wherein modifying, by the printing apparatus and based on the flow rate, the focus distance of an image projector by changing the focus of the light emitted by the image projector from the second position to a third position corresponding to the second layer of resin above the second cured layer.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Tyler in view of Hambelton and Chen to modify, by the printing apparatus and based on the flow rate, the focus distance of an image projector by changing the focus of the light emitted by the image projector from the second position to a third position corresponding to the second layer of resin above the second cured layer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to control the operation of the operation of valve such that structure is produced in a desired manner and to achieve a sharp projection image on the designed projection plane (Tyler, ¶0022-0023 and Chen, ¶0109).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler (US 2018/0207865 A1) in view of Hambelton (US 2024/0308142 A1) and in further view of Chen (US 2013/0313756 A1), as applied to claim 1, and in view of Dubelman (US 2023/0012168 A1).
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 1, Tyler in view of Hambelton and Chen do not explicitly disclose wherein the adding the resin comprising causing a dosing pump to begin adding resin to the vat and based on receiving, from a sensor, a signal indicating that a height of resin in the vat has increased by a thickness of the first layer of resin, stopping the dosing pump from adding resin to the vat, wherein the modifying the focus distance is further based on the signal.
However, in the same field of endeavor, a resin management system for the additive manufacturing apparatus (¶0001), Dubelman discloses that apparatus 10 may include a resin management system 44, which may include a material deposition assembly 46 and/or a reclamation system 48 (¶0049). The material deposition assembly 46 may be any device or combination of devices that is operable to apply a layer of the resin Ron the resin support 28 (¶0049). The material deposition assembly 46 may optionally include a device or combination of devices to define a height of the resin R on the resin support 28 and/or to level the resin R on the resin support 28 (¶0049). Nonlimiting examples of suitable material deposition assemblies include pumps (adding the resin comprising causing a dosing pump to begin adding resin to the vat) (comparable method improved in the same way as the claimed invention) (¶0049).
Dubelman discloses a thickness sensor 170 configured to determine a thickness 168 of the deposited material layer 140 (Fig 6, ¶0085-0086). As a result, the deposited material layer 140 has the thickness 168 as it passes from the material deposition assembly 46 into and through a build zone 42 as shown in FIG. 1(Fig 1 and 6, ¶0085-0086). As represented in FIG. 6, the thickness sensor 170 is configured to generate monitoring signals indicative of the thickness 168 of the deposited material layer 140 and to transmit such signals to the computing system 72 (Fig 1 and 6, ¶0085-0086). The computing system 72 is configured to receive the monitoring signals and process such signals using predetermined algorithms to generate control signals for controlling the thickness of the deposited material layer 140; in this manner, closed loop control of the thickness 168 of the deposited material layer 140 can be achieved. (based on receiving, from a sensor, a signal indicating that a height of resin in the vat has increased by a thickness of the first layer of resin, stopping the dosing pump from adding resin to the vat) (comparable method improved in the same way as the claimed invention) (¶0085-0086).
Dubelman discloses that it may be beneficial for the additive manufacturing apparatus to include a resin management system that manages the deposition of the resin onto the resin support (¶0004).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Tyler in view of Hambelton and Chen by applying the known technique of causing a dosing pump to begin adding resin to the vat and based on receiving, from a sensor, a signal indicating that a height of resin in the vat has increased by a thickness of the first layer of resin, stopping the dosing pump from adding resin to the vat as disclosed in Dubelman to the similar method disclosed in Tyler in view of Hambelton and Chen with a reasonable expectation of success since the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. MPEP 2143(C).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Tyler in view of Hambelton, Chen, and Dubelman such that modifying the focus distance is further based on the signal with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce the projection distance and to achieve a sharp projection image on the designed projection plane as disclosed in Chen (¶0109).
Double Patenting
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,794,405 B2 (reference patent) in view of Tyler (US 2018/0207865 A1) in view of Hambelton (US 2024/0308142 A1) and in further view of Chen (US 2013/0313756 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 5-7, the limitations recited in claims 1-6 of the reference patent in view of Tyler, Hambelton, and Chen disclose a similar method.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,794,405 B2 (reference patent) in view of Tyler (US 2018/0207865 A1) in view of Hambelton (US 2024/0308142 A1) and in further view of Chen (US 2013/0313756 A1) and in further view of Dubelman (US 2023/0012168 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 1, the limitations recited in claims 1-6 of the reference patent in view of Tyler, Hambelton, Chen, and Dubelman disclose a similar method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JaMel M Nelson whose telephone number is (571)272-8174. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM ET - 5:00 PM ET.
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 on (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.
/JAMEL M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743