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
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 10 are pending. Claims 1 and 6 have been amended. Claims 3 and 7-9 have been cancelled. Claim 10 has been withdrawn. The prior art rejection is revised in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 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.
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(s) 1 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyckfeldt (US 2019/0308370) in view of El-Siblani (US 2013/0001834).
Regarding claim 1, Lyckfeldt discloses a three-dimensional modeling apparatus for forming a three-dimensional model in material layers layered in a modeling space by repeating formation of a material layer of a powdery or pasty modeling material and irradiation of light onto said material layer (abstract, [0071-72]), comprising: a layer formation mechanism for forming a material layer in said modeling space (slot die deposits pasty material M, [0152-55], Fig. 1); an optical head for irradiating said material layer with light (projection unit 160 with illumination source 162, [0108] [0179], Figs. 1, 7); and a head moving mechanism for moving said optical head in a head moving direction parallel to said material layer (Y-drive carriage 194 and X-drive carriage 193, [0108-15], Figs. 1-2, 5-6); and a controller for controlling said layer formation mechanism, said optical head, and said head moving mechanism ([0016] [0027]), wherein said optical head comprises: a light source (illumination source 162, [0179], Fig. 7); a diffractive optical modulator having a plurality of modulation elements which are linearly arranged (matrix of special light modulator 164, [0180]; matrix arrangement is linear in two directions); an illumination optical system for guiding light emitted from said light source to said optical modulator (shaping lens 163, [0179]); and a projection optical system for forming a projection image of said optical modulator on said material layer (projection element 166, [0180-81]) and moving said projection image in a scan direction crossing a direction corresponding to an arrangement direction of said plurality of modulation elements and crossing said head moving direction by changing an orientation of a mirror (radiation is easily patterned by a spatial light modulator comprising movable mirrors, [0184]; the projection image can be moved accordingly, and therefore can cross a direction corresponding to the arrangement direction of said plurality of modulation elements which are in a matrix arrangement).
Lyckfeldt teaches an apparatus substantially as claimed. While the system is capable of moving said optical head continuously in said head moving direction by said head moving mechanism while said optical head is irradiated said material layer with light (Y-drive carriage 194 and X-drive carriage 193 capable of moving continuously, could move in only one axis; nothing requires a stoppage while the light beam is irradiating, [0108-15], Figs. 1-2, 5-6), Lyckfeldt does not disclose said controller continuously moves said optical head in said head moving direction by said head moving mechanism while said optical head is irradiating said material layer with light.
However, in the same field of endeavor of a three-dimensional modeling apparatus for forming a three-dimensional model in material layers by irradiation of light onto said material layer (abstract), El-Siblani teaches said controller continuously moves said optical head in said head moving direction by said head moving mechanism while said optical head is irradiating said material layer with light (linear solidification device (or plurality thereof) is wide enough to cover an entire axis and irradiation involves moving in the other axis continuously, [0165-67]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Lyckfeldt to reshape the irradiation source in the form of the linear solidification devices of El-Siblani because [0005] of El-Siblani teaches that using a linear solidification process to reduce the number of small moving parts for more simpler and more affordable additive manufacturing.
Regarding claim 4, Lyckfeldt as modified teaches wherein said layer formation mechanism forms a material layer toward said head moving direction (slot die deposits pasty material M ahead of irradiation, Lyckfeldt [0152-55], Fig. 1), and before finishing irradiation of light onto one material layer by said optical head, said layer formation mechanism starts formation of a next material layer (apparatus capable of so functioning, could operate finishing a layer and begin slot die depositing pasty material M ahead of next irradiation, Lyckfeldt [0152-55]).
Regarding claim 5, Lyckfeldt as modified teaches wherein time from when said optical head starts irradiation of light onto said one material layer until when said layer formation mechanism starts formation of said next material layer is variable (method steps are interpreted as a question of capability, nothing in operation requires a particular timing).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyckfeldt (US 2019/0308370) in view of El-Siblani (US 2013/0001834) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Korol (US 2020/0016824).
Regarding claim 2, Lyckfeldt as modified teaches an apparatus substantially as claimed. Lyckfeldt does not disclose wherein said optical modulator is a planar light valve or a grating light valve.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical arrangements for additive manufacturing (abstract) Korol teaches wherein said optical modulator is a planar light valve or a grating light valve ([0015] [0030]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus of Lyckfeldt such that the spatial light modulator which is a matrix in [0180] of Lyckfeldt that has been reconfigured as linear solidification devices of El-Siblani to a grating light valve because [0030] of Korol teaches a grating light valve as a spatial light modulator which is in an array pattern. Accordingly, a grating light valve is an art recognized equivalent spatial light modulator which is known to operate in a predictable way in the same technical context.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 allowed.
Claim 6 recites, “[a] three-dimensional modeling apparatus for forming a three-dimensional model in material layers layered in a modeling space by repeating formation of a material layer of a powdery or pasty modeling material and irradiation of light onto said material layer, comprising: a layer formation mechanism for forming a material layer in said modeling space; an optical head for irradiating said material layer with light; and a head moving mechanism for moving said optical head in a head moving direction parallel to said material layer, wherein said optical head comprises: a light source; a diffractive optical modulator having a plurality of modulation elements which are linearly arranged; an illumination optical system for guiding light emitted from said light source to said optical modulator; and a projection optical system for forming a projection image of said optical modulator on said material layer and moving said projection image in a scan direction crossing a direction corresponding to an arrangement direction of said plurality of modulation elements and crossing said head moving direction by changing an orientation of a mirror, said layer formation mechanism forms a material layer toward said head moving direction, and before finishing irradiation of light onto one material layer by said optical head, said layer formation mechanism starts formation of a next material layer, wherein said head moving direction of said optical head is reversible, said layer formation mechanism forms a material layer toward a reversed head moving direction which is a reversed direction of said head moving direction when said optical head moves in said reversed head moving direction, and before said optical head finishes irradiation of light onto one material layer while moving in said reversed head moving direction, said layer formation mechanism starts formation of a next material layer toward said reversed head moving direction.”
Lyckfeldt (US 2019/0308370) does not operate in a way such that “said layer formation mechanism forms a material layer toward a reversed head moving direction which is a reversed direction of said head moving direction when said optical head moves in said reversed head moving direction.” Instead, the mechanism operates with slot die head of the radiation target to deposit material ahead and cannot be reversed and function as claimed, particularly with the next layer being formed trailing the optical head. Lyckfeldt could not be so modified without so thoroughly changing the operation of Lyckfeldt as to constitute hindsight bias.
The available prior art does not provide an alternative rationale for rejecting claim 6.
The pertinent prior arts, when taken alone or in combination cannot be reasonably construed as teaching or suggesting all of the elements and features of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed or provided in the manner as recited in claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. El-Siblani (US 9,079,355) teaches subject matter similar to El-Siblani (US 2013/0001834), cited above.
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 NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744