DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
In response to the amendments filed 9/11/2025, the previous rejections under 112(b) have been withdrawn however other amendments to the claim necessitated further rejections under 112(a) or 112(b). Additionally, the terms previously interpreted under 112(f) no longer invoke 112(f) subsequent to the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not describe a wavefront shape of a processing light that is controlled by a three-dimensional data set. Examiner disagrees. With respect to claim 1, the claim requires a phase control signal generated based on a data set and then a wavefront shape corresponding to the shape of a three-dimensional body. The claim does not link the waveform shape to the data set specifically, just that the phase control signal controls the wavefront shape which if the phase control signal generates a wave, it has inherently controlled the shape. Claim 8 has similar requirements. Examiner suggests further limiting the claim to link the wavefront shape to the data set or explain more particularly how the wavefront shape is controlled based on the data set.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-7 recite an apparatus, however many of the claim limitations recite the intended use of the apparatus or recite limitations regarding the materials being worked with/upon by the apparatus. In apparatus claims, only the structure of the apparatus itself is patentably distinct, see MPEP §2144(II) and §2115. Such limitations include, among others, the structure of the molded object and the location of the molded object. These limitations are being interpreted such that the apparatus should be capable of performing them.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim is amended to recite “circuitry” which receives the processing light from the spatial light modulator (SLM) but the specification does not describe any structure as circuitry or having circuitry which receives the light from the SLM.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “the specific three-dimensional molded object includes a laminated structure body and at least one three-dimensional surface-shaped body a plurality of three-dimensional surface shaped bodies” which appears to contain a typographical error. Examiner suggests “and” or “or” should precede “a plurality of three-dimensional surface shaped bodies” and it is not clear which elements are required in the claim. Additionally, claim 1 already refers to “a first three-dimensional surface-shaped body” and it is not clear if “at least one three-dimensional surface-shaped body” refers to the first body or an additional body. Given that the following limitations in the claim further specify the plurality of bodies, this claim is being interpreted as though a plurality of bodies are required.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi (US 2017/0291356) modified by Watanabe (US 2018/0243994).
Regarding claim 1, Adachi meets the claimed, A three-dimensional molding apparatus, (Adachi [0016] describes a stereolithography apparatus) comprising: a laser light source configured to emit processing light; (Adachi [0020] light source 8) a phase control unit configured to generate, based on a specific three-dimensional data set, a phase control signal (Adachi [0018]-[0019] and [0024]-[0025] describe controllers 5 which controls spatial light modulator (SLM) 30, [0019] in particular describes setting the positions, i.e., a three dimensional data set) wherein the generated phase control signal controls a wavefront shape of the processing light (Adachi [0024]-[0025] describe controlling the SLM 30 which produces a light wave, a light wave has a wavefront shape so therefore the controller is also controlling the wavefront shape) at a specific processing position in a photocurable resin bath (Adachi [0019] describes the specific positions P) the wavefront shape corresponds to a shape of a first three-dimensional surface-shaped body (Adachi [0019] and [0024]-[0025] describe the light is directed to specific positions thereby forming the formed object FO) the first three-dimensional surface-shaped body constitutes a surface of a specific three-dimensional molded object corresponding to the data set; (Adachi [0019] describes locations of positions P where the additive manufacturing occurs, see also Figures 3 and 4) and a spatial light modulator is configured to receive the processing light, perform phase modulation of the received processing light based on the generated phase control signal, and emit the phase modulated to a side of the photocurable resin bath (Adachi [0024]-[0025] describe a spatial light modulator 30 is controlled by the controller 5 to modulate the phase of light where the light eventually is incident on a liquid tank 2 of photocurable material M.)
Adachi [0019] describes positions which are set but does not describe the positions are part of a larger three-dimensional data set and does not meet the claimed, specific three-dimensional data set.
Analogous in the field of 3D molding apparatus, Watanabe meets the claimed, specific three-dimensional data set. (Watanabe [0128] describes controlling a spatial light modulator to modulate the phase of light based on coordinate data. Since the spatial light modulator produces a light wave, the wavefront shape is also produced/controlled.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method described in Adachi with the method generating a control signal for the wavefront shape based on that data as described in Watanabe in order to apply light to the desired portions without applying light to undesired sources, see Watanabe [0084].
Regarding claim 4, Adachi meets the claimed, The three-dimensional molding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the wavefront shape of the processing light is a shape at least partially overlapping along a surface of the first three-dimensional surface-shaped body relative to a second three-dimensional surface-shaped body and the second three-dimensional surface shaped body is adjacent to the first three-dimensional surface-shaped body corresponding to the wavefront shape (Adachi Figure 4 shows the area 31 where the light is irradiated overlaps the manufactured object FO with multiple layers. Since the shape of wavefront of the light is not an actual structural limitation of the apparatus itself, this limitation is being interpreted as the apparatus is capable of producing a light that overlaps a 3D body, see MPEP §2115.)
Regarding claim 5, Adachi meets the claimed, The three-dimensional molding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the specific three-dimensional molded object includes a laminated structure body and at least one three-dimensional surface-shaped body a plurality of three-dimensional surface-shaped bodies the plurality of three-dimensional surface-shaped bodies includes the first three-dimensional surface-shaped body, and the plurality of three-dimensional surface shaped-bodies covers the laminated structure body (Claim 5 relates to the object being worked upon by the apparatus and the limitations therein are not patentably distinct from the prior art, however Adachi Figure 4 shows the manufactured object FO having multiple layers (laminated) with a plurality of bodies (layers) on the body.)
Regarding claim 6, Adachi meets the claimed, The three-dimensional molding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the specific three-dimensional molded object includes a laminated structure body and a plurality of three-dimensional surface-shaped bodies the plurality of three-dimensional surface-shaped bodies includes the first three-dimensional surface-shaped body, the plurality of three-dimensional surface-shaped bodies covers the laminated structure body, (Adachi Figure 4 shows layers covering one another, this limitation is relevant to the object being worked upon by the apparatus and is not patentably distinct from the prior art) the phase control unit is further configured to set a boundary of adjacent three-dimensional surface-shaped bodies of the plurality of three-dimensional surface-shaped bodies, to a region where an inclination of surfaces of the adjacent three-dimensional surface-shaped bodies does not change abruptly (Adachi[0025] describes the controller 5 sets the area 31, Figure 4 shows the area overlaps the surface of the object FO in at least one location where the inclination does not change abruptly.)
Regarding claim 7, Adachi meets the claimed, The three-dimensional molding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the specific three-dimensional molded object includes a laminated structure body and a plurality of three-dimensional surface-shaped bodies, the plurality of three-dimensional surface-shaped bodies covers the laminated structure body, (Figure 4 shows a layered object) the phase control unit is further configured to set, based on a non-effective region that does not effectively function as the three-dimensional molded object is included in an exposable region exposed by one irradiation of the processing light, a boundary of a specific three-dimensional surface-shaped body that is adjacent to the non-effective region (Adachi [0025] describes the controller 5 sets the area 31 where the tank is illuminated and thereby being capable of setting the boundary of the body next to non-irradiated regions.)
Regarding claim 8, Adachi meets the claimed, A three-dimensional molding method executed by a three-dimensional molding apparatus the three-dimensional molding method comprising: receiving processing light, (Adachi [0020] describe receiving light from the light sources 8) the wavefront shape corresponds to a shape of a three-dimensional surface-body, (Adachi [0019] and [0024]-[0025] describe the light is directed to specific positions thereby forming the formed object FO) and emitting the phase modulated processing light to a side of the photocurable resin bath.
Adachi [0019] and [0025] describe operating on control instructions or positions but Adachi does not explicitly describe a step of inputting the data and does not meet the claimed, inputting a specific three-dimensional data set corresponding to a specific three-dimensional molded object; and generating, based on the specific three dimensional data set, a phase control signal, wherein the generated phase control signal controls a wavefront shape of the processing light at a specific processing position in a photocurable resin bath,
Analogous in the field of 3D molding apparatus, Watanabe meets the claimed, inputting a specific three-dimensional data set corresponding to a specific three-dimensional molded object (Watanabe [0131] describes inputting treatment instructions for curing a photosensitive resin to form an object) and generating, based on the specific three dimensional data set, a phase control signal, wherein the generated phase control signal controls a wavefront shape of the processing light at a specific processing position in a photocurable resin bath, (Watanabe [0128] describes controlling a spatial light modulator to modulate the phase of light based on coordinate data. Since the spatial light modulator produces a light wave, the wavefront shape is also produced/controlled) the three-dimensional surface-shaped body constitutes a surface of the specific three-dimensional molded object corresponding to the specific three-dimensional data set, (Watanabe [0131] describes inputting treatment instructions for curing a photosensitive resin to form an object) performing the phase modulated processing light based on the generated phase control signal (Watanabe [0128] describes controlling a spatial light modulator to modulate the phase of light based on coordinate data.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method described in Adachi with the method of inputting data and generating a control signal for the wavefront shape based on that data as described in Watanabe in order to apply light to the desired portions without applying light to undesired sources, see Watanabe [0084].
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi as modified by Takushima as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Takushima (US 2021/0370409.)
Regarding claim 2, Adachi [0024] describes two lenses but does not describe a condensing and reducing lens and does not meet the claimed, The three-dimensional molding apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a reduction optical system that includes a first lens, and a second lens, wherein the first lens condenses the processing light to obtain an intermediate image, and the second lens forms a reduced image from the intermediate image.
Analogous in the field of 3D printing, Takushima meets the claimed, The three-dimensional molding apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a reduction optical system that includes a first lens, and a second lens, wherein the first lens condenses the processing light to obtain an intermediate image, and the second lens forms a reduced image from the intermediate image (Takushima [0036] describes an optical system for a 3D printer which includes a condenser lens 15 set having both a convex (condensing) lens and a concave (reducing) lens.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the two lenses in Adachi with the convex and concave lenses described in Takushima because they are a known set-up for appropriately focusing the light, see Takushima [0036].
Regarding claim 3, Adachi meets the claimed, The three-dimensional molding apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising a light receiving circuitry configured to receive a part of the processing light emitted from the spatial light modulator (Adachi [0024] describe a wavelength plate 17 that receives the light after it has been modulated by the area setter 16.)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA BARTLETT whose telephone number is (571)272-4953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
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 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.
/V.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744