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 .
Status of Claims
The Amendment filed 12/05/2025 has been entered. Claims 13-18 were previously withdrawn. Claims 1, 7, and 12 have been amended. Claims 2-3 and 8-9 have been canceled. No new claims have been added. Claims 1, 4-7, and 10-18 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
35 USC 112(b). The amendments to claim 12 have overcome the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) as being indefinite set forth in the Office Action mailed 09/24/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 102. Applicant's remarks regarding the rejection of 1-3, 5, 7-9, and 11 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shkolnik (US 2010/0125356 A1) have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that “Shkolnik teaches that a pattern generator correction map is generated using the differences determined in step 1240 by mapping the differences of pattern generator calibration pattern 412, 414 and the captured image of step 1240. The mapping may provide a mesh mapping (e.g., particular data-points that represent the 2-dimensional surface) or a pixel-by-pixel mapping. Choice of the mapping method (e.g., mesh or pixel-by-pixel) may depend on the level of inaccuracy or distortion between the ideal calibration template and the captured image. Where large inaccuracies are determined in the differencing, a pixel-by-pixel mapping approach may be appropriate. Where more acceptable differences are determined, a mesh approach may be more appropriate. In an example of a mesh-type correction map above, the original bitmap location (0, 0) are one and two, respectively. Thus, the pixel located in the original bitmap at position (0, 0) is shifted by one on the x axis, and two on the y axis. At point (0, 100) in the original bitmap, the point is shifted by two and minus five (x, y) respectively. At point (100, 0) in the original bitmap, the point is shifted by zero and two (x, y) respectively. Finally, in the simplified correction map, the point (100, 100) in the original bitmap is shifted by minus two and minus four (x, y) respectively.” This is not persuasive has Applicant’s remarks are drawn to Shkolnik’s disclosure of mesh mapping method instead of the pixel-by-pixel method relied upon in the rejection of record.
Applicant further asserts that “[t]here is no teaching or suggestion in Shkolnik of establishing absolute location of pixels in an x/y plane of a digital light projector of the digital light processing printer or aligning a respective corner of a model of pixelized slices with the absolute location of the pixel of the digital light projector. In the present invention, there is no software algorithms applying scaling, antialiasing or pixel shifting unevenly to models across the build area” (Remarks, Pg 6).
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 (no software algorithms applying scaling, antialiasing or pixel shifting unevenly to models across the build area) 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).
Accordingly, based upon the reasons stated above, the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, and 11 under 35 USC 102 set forth in the Office Action mailed 09/24/2025 is maintained. The rejection of amended claims 1, 5, 7, and 11 is provided below.
Applicant’s arguments that prior art cited in the rejection of dependent claims 4, 6, 10, and 12 do not make up for the deficiencies of the prior art cited in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 7 is not persuasive. However, the rejection of claims 1 and 7 is not considered to be deficient as argued above. The rejection of amended claims 4, 6, 10, and 12 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, 4-7, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shkolnik (US 2010/0125356 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Shkolnik teaches a method wherein when patterns 132, 134 are configured as digital bitmap information and pattern generators 102, 104 are configured as digital light processing “DLP” devices, the pattern is projected as electromagnetic radiation (e.g., light) from sources 142, 144 that are selectively reflected by micro-mirrors in pattern generators 102, 104, wherein pattern generators 102, 104 may directly or indirectly generate the patterns to reactive material 118, e.g., using mirrors and/or lenses or other optical elements to modify the output path; and wherein during regular operation, controller 120 of machine 100 receives and sends patterns 132, 134 to pattern generators 102, 104 that selectively produce patterns 132, 134 to produce a work piece 114 in a voxelized construction process (a digital light projector of the digital light processing printer, the digital light projector being the lights source for the digital light processing printer; printing the part using digital light processing) (¶0094,0108).
While Shkolnik teaches a digital light projector of the digital light processing printer, Shkolnik does not explicitly disclose establishing an absolute location of a pixel in an x/y plane, deriving a pixel boundary from the absolute location; aligning a respective corner of a three dimensional model of the part with the absolute location of the pixel of the digital light projector; and aligning the three dimensional model with the pixel boundary across a build area of the printer.
However, Shkolnik ¶0126 teaches that in step 1120, an image of calibration template 310 is captured using imager 106 and transferred to controller 120. The image may be taken as a bitmap or other format (e.g., TIFF, GIF, JPEG, BMP, PNG, etc.) and may include pixel information as black & white, grayscale, or color. Additional information such as the time and date of the image captured may also be stored as metadata for use by controller 120. The metadata for the current image may be used in relation to stored information to determine drift over time, or to provide real-time performance information relative to established norms based on historical data or a theoretical model of imager 106, and/or pattern generators 102, 104, or the apparatus as a whole.
Shkolnik ¶0127 teaches that in step 1130, controller 120 determines the differences between the image taken of calibration template 310 with respect to the known dimensions and pattern of calibration template 310. This process allows controller 120 to determine the variations between calibration template 310 and the image taken of calibration template 310. For example, the determination can be used to generate data regarding the differences in the expected image to the actual image taken by imager 106.
Shkolnik ¶0129 teaches that differencing may be a pixel-by-pixel comparison, or it may take into account feature analysis and comparison. For feature analysis, the corners of black & white squares may be used to generate a 2-dimensional grid for both calibration template 310 and the captured image. In another example, a starting-point may be determined to begin calculating pixel-by-pixel comparisons to detect edges. In either event, comparison of calibration template 310 and the captured image may be performed to detect differences, where the lack thereof may be considered similarities. For example, if a portion of a captured image matches calibration template 310 perfectly, then the difference may be zero.
Shkolnik ¶0131 teaches that in step 1140, an imager correction map is generated by mapping the differences of calibration template 310 and the captured image of step 1130. Choice of the mapping method may depend on the level of inaccuracy or distortion between the ideal calibration template and the captured image. Where large inaccuracies are determined in the differencing, a pixel-by-pixel mapping approach may be appropriate.
Shkolnik ¶0132 teaches that calibration template 310 may include a printed checker board with a large number of black and white squares (e.g., over 500 squares). The corner of each square may be detected and captured for image processing where the coordinates of each corner are related to real dimensions and locations (e.g., the printed location). The size and shape of each square may also be used as an input for the mapping procedure. The correction mapping may then be considered a reference map, where the ideal location and the actual location are used to correct or “fix” the image. The correction mapping may then be used as a reference map to provide real coordinates (e.g., inches or millimeter) dimensions and locations for every pixel of the device (e.g., imager 106).
Shkolnik ¶0131 teaches that a method for generating a mapping may be to create lookup tables for each x/y pair. Each particular “x” table entry may include an x ordinate for the ideal calibration template 310 mapping and a corresponding x′ ordinate corresponding to the same pixel in the captured image. Similarly, each particular “y” table entry may include a “y” ordinate for the ideal calibration template 310 mapping and a corresponding y′ ordinate corresponding to the same pixel in the captured image. Thus, the tables provide a mapping of the ideal calibration template to the captured image. When a pixel-by-pixel mapping is chosen, each pixel in the imager is mapped to an ideal set of coordinates (x/y) of the ideal calibration template.
Shkolnik ¶0134-0135 teaches that each time an image is used from imager 106, each pixel may be adjusted for position by the offsets contained in the imager correction map and the imager correction map may be stored to controller 120, imager 106 (where persistent storage is available), or another device that communicates with machine 100 or controller 106.
Shkolnik ¶0084 teaches that calibration/correction system and methods may be applied to manufacturing systems that include voxel data which include an intensity for each pixel or they may be applied to slice-data files or bitmaps that may be derived from slice-data files.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the pixel-by-pixel mapping method disclosed in Shkolnik to include establishing an absolute location of a pixel in an x/y plane, deriving a pixel boundary from the absolute location; aligning a respective corner of a three dimensional model of the part with the absolute location of the pixel of the digital light projector; and aligning the three dimensional model with the pixel boundary across a build area of the printer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a correction mapping tha may then be considered a reference map, where the ideal location and the actual location are used to correct or fix the image (¶0123-0135).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, as applied to claims 1 and 7, respectively, while Shkolnik teaches a method wherein the part is aligned with the pixel boundary across the build area of the printer, Shkolnik does not explicitly teach wherein one or more additional parts are aligned with the pixel boundary across the build area of the printer nor wherein multiple layers for multiple parts are aligned with the pixel boundaries across the build area of the printer.
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 Shkolnik such that one or more additional parts are aligned with the pixel boundary across the build area of the printer and wherein multiple layers for multiple parts are aligned with the pixel boundaries across the build area of the printer, since it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claims 5 and 11, as applied to claims 1 and 7, respectively, Shkolnik teaches a method wherein a pair of pattern generators 102, 104 are used to configure a building surface of a container of reactive material 118 into solid form (wherein the part is printed from a photo curable material) (¶0096).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, as applied to claims 1 and 7, respectively, while Shkolnik teaches a method of aligning a part and a method of aligning layers of respective parts in digital light processing printer, Shkolnik does not explicitly teach wherein the part is an electrical connector nor wherein the slices form one or more electrical connectors.
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 Shkolnik such that the part is an electrical connector and the layers form one or more electrical connectors, since it has been held that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)-(B).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights