DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 10 August 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6 and 8-16 remain pending in the application. Claim 7 has been canceled. No new claims have been added.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 21 December 2023 and 20 January 2026 were considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2019160704A1 of Goodman in view of JP2020525314A (machine translation) of Koopmans further in view of KR20190004419A (machine translation) of Jee.
Claim 1 claims a mirror fabrication method having a step of constructing said mirrors by 3D printing on a mold arranged on a tray of a 3D printer using a printing technology by deposition of fused material (FFF), said mold including a free surface complementary to an optical surface of a mirror to be fabricated, said construction further comprising the steps of: depositing on the mold successive layers of a polymer filament loaded with a powder of a fused ceramic and/or metal material, said deposit starting on the optical surface of the mirror on said free surface of the mold; disassembling the mirror and the mold;) debinding the ceramic and/or metallic powder; and sintering the ceramic and/or metallic powder in order to solidify the mirror, wherein the machine control software is configured to move the head on increasing level lines starting from the lowest point or surface of the mold and for which the machine is programmed to deposit the filament on concentric circles of increasingly reduced diameter for a mold whose upper face is circularly convex or circles of increasing diameter for a mold whose upper face is circularly concave and wherein the 3D printer is programmed for depositing the filament on the mold on a series of constant level lines by starting from the lower surface of the mold for a concave mirror and wherein the 3D printer is programmed for depositing the filament on the series of constant level lines starting from the highest part of the mold for a convex mirror.
Goodman claims 3D printing of silicon carbide structures in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Goodman discloses the three-dimensional (3D) printing of ultralightweight, low density silicon carbide structures, and to replicated nanocomposite first surfaces for 3D printed and additively manufactured silicon carbide mirrors, Para[0003]. Goodman teaches combining a first preceramic polymer with a nanopowder to form a mixture; extruding the mixture through a nozzle; depositing the mixture on a mandrel; curing the mixture to form a green body; removing the green body from the mandrel; and pyrolyzing the green body to form a ceramic matrix composite article, Para[0005]. The mandrel is equivalent to the claimed mold, and pyrolyzing is equivalent to the claimed debinding. Goodman also teaches sintering, Para[0022]. While Goodman does not specifically teach increasing level lines of the deposited material, one of ordinary skill in the art considering Goodman’s teaching of convex and concave surfaces, Para[0019], and Goodman’s teaching that the master mandrel is preferably shaped to be the inverse or “mirror image” of the replicated first surface of the mirror, Para[0034], would understand that Goodman’s nozzle must increase its level in order to print the disclosed shape. Goodman does not specifically teach Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) or concentric circles.
Koopmans teaches an FDM-Printed Lighting Fixture with Surface Texture in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Koopmans teaches that FDM (Fused Deposition Modeling) is a rapid prototyping technique. Another representation of FDM is "Fused Filament Fabrication" (FFF) or "Filament 3D Printing" (FDP), which are considered equivalent to FDM. Generally, FDM printers use thermoplastic filaments that are heated to the melting point and then extruded layer by layer (or, in fact, filaments one after the other) to produce a three-dimensional Create an object. FDM printers are relatively fast and can be used to print complex objects, Para[0006]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) as taught by Koopmans in the mirror fabrication method taught by Goodman in order to print complex objects, like the mirror, relatively fast.
Jee teaches a 3-dimensional printing apparatus and 3 dimensional printing method using spherical deposition model in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Jee discloses a dimensional sphere lamination (spherical area layer) model corresponding to a shape to be printed and formed of a plurality of concentric spherical spherically curved layers and a controller configured to control movement of the nozzle such that the interface between the nozzle and the work table corresponds to a portion of the concentric spherical curved layer, Para[0014]. Jee also discloses that the control section controls the stereolithograph model of the shape to be printed and the stacking information on the concentric spherical curved layer on each spherical surface from an intersection between the plurality of concentric spherical surfaces having different radii (Spherical area layer) model by repeating the step of creating the concentric spherical surface layer of each of the concentric spherical curved surfaces, wherein each concentric spherical curved surface layer is formed according to different radii of the concentric spheres, Para[0018]. Jee discloses that the translation drive is configured to move the nozzle in an axial direction perpendicular to the surface of the work table, Para[0044]. This is equivalent to the claimed increasing level lines. Jee teaches that printing can be performed based on concentric spherical curved surface-based lamination technology which inherently prevents the nozzle from causing physical interference with the work table or the stack on the work table, Para[0033]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the concentrical spherical layers with increasing level lines taught by Jee in the mirror fabrication of Goodman in order to prevent the nozzle from physically interfering with the work table or previous printed portion.
Thus, Goodman in view of Koopmans and Jee covers all limitations of claim 1.
Claim 2 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the ceramic comprises silicon carbide SiC and/or silicon nitride Si3N4 and/or alumina and/or cordierite.
Goodman teaches silicon carbide, Para[0003]. Therefore, Goodman in view of Koopmans and Jee covers all limitations of claim 2.
Claim 5 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the debinding step eliminates the polymer that constitutes a binding for the ceramic and/or metal material, which comprises a step of chemical debinding and/or a thermal treatment in a furnace at a suitable temperature for eliminating the polymer.
Goodman teaches polymer infiltration pyrolysis, Para[0006], equivalent to chemical debinding. Goodman also teaches that the pyrolyzing step is preferably performed from about 800° C. to about 1700° C., thereby producing a CMC article comprising beta-SiC, Para[0005]. Therefore, Goodman teaches both chemical debinding and a thermal treatment.
Koopmans teaches that the green preform is sintered to remove the polymer and bond the particulates to form an object, Para[0003]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the thermal treatment taught by Koopmans in the method disclosed by Goodman in order to remove the polymer from the green preform. Thus, Goodman in view of Koopmans and Jee covers all limitations of claim 5.
Claim 8 further limits claim 1 by claiming that prior to the construction of said mirror, a step of positioning the mold made by previously printing an imprint on the tray of the machine in order to receive a base of the mold or by using a tool whose position is referenced relative to the coordinates of the machine.
Goodman teaches a “master mandrel” which is preferably shaped to be the inverse or “mirror image” of the replicated first surface of the mirror so that once the replicant is removed from the mandrel it has the desired mirror optical prescription to within a tolerance that allows for some minor shrinkage during subsequent processing, Para[0034]. This is equivalent to positioning the mold by previously printing an imprint on the tray of the machine, as recited in the claim. Therefore, Goodman teaches the additional limitation of claim 8. Thus, Goodman in view of Koopmans and Jee covers all limitations of claim 8.
Claim 11 further limits claim 1 by claiming one or several steps for fabrication of a mold for which the geometry of the mold and the shape of the complementary surface are determined in order to take account of the bias of the fabrication chain like a shrinkage produced by the printing of the mirror and/or shrinkage produced by sintering of the mirror.
Goodman teaches a “master mandrel” which is preferably shaped to be the inverse or “mirror image” of the replicated first surface of the mirror so that once the replicant is removed from the mandrel it has the desired mirror optical prescription to within a tolerance that allows for some minor shrinkage during subsequent processing, Para[0034]. Thus, Goodman teaches the additional limitation of claim 11. Therefore, Goodman in view of Koopmans and Jee covers all limitations of claim 11.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2019160704A1 of Goodman in view of JP2020525314A (machine translation) of Koopmans further in view of KR20190004419A (machine translation) of Jee, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20140247512A1 of Scheiding.
Claim 3 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the metal is aluminum.
Goodman and Koopmans do not specifically teach aluminum as the metal.
Scheiding teaches a method for manufacturing a mirror comprising at least one cavity and optical mirror in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Sheiding discloses that in order to reduce the weight of an optical mirror it is known from the prior art to manufacture the optical mirror from a material featuring a low density and thus a low weight while at the same time providing a sufficient degree of mechanical rigidity and stiffness, such as e.g. aluminium and beryllium, Para[0003]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use aluminum as the metal in the method taught by Goodman in view of Koopmans in order to achieve low weight and mechanical rigidity. Thus, Goodman in view of Koopmans, Jee and Scheiding covers all limitations of claim 3.
Claim 10 further limits claim 1 by claiming a step of depositing a finishing layer and polishing thereof on an optical surface of the mirror after sintering.
Goodman teaches depositing layers sufficient for subsequent polishing, Para[0023].
Scheiding discloses that producing the mirror surface can be carried out with high accuracy, fast and flexibly if it comprises one of polishing, grinding, turning, diamond turning, milling, diamond milling and ion beam figuring (IBF), Para[0048].
Therefore, based on the teachings of Goodman and Scheiding, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to polish the deposited finish layer in order to produce the mirror with high accuracy and flexibility. Thus, Goodman, Koopmans, Jee and Scheiding cover all limitations of claim 10.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2019160704A1 of Goodman in view of JP2020525314A (machine translation) of Koopmans further in view of KR20190004419A (machine translation) of Jee, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JPH03146901A (machine translation) of Jitendora.
Claim 4 further limits claim 1 by claiming a step of removing the mirror and mold assembly from the machine and a step of separating the mold and mirror.
Goodman teaches removing the green body from the mandrel, Para[0005]. Goodman does not specifically teach removing the mirror and mold assembly from the machine.
Jitendora discloses the making of light ceramic mirror by chemical vapor deposition in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Jitendora teaches molding the negative surface of the actual shape required on the mirror to be fabricated on a mandrel, and forming a ceramic on the surface and removing the mandrel from the faceplate and support structure, Para[0001]. Jitendora discloses that it is an object of the present invention to provide a chemical vapor deposition method for rapidly fabricating lightweight ceramic mirrors, Para[0001]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove the mirror and mandrel from the machine as taught by Jitendora in the method disclosed by Goodman and Koopmans in order to rapidly fabricate the mirror. Thus, Goodman in view of Koopmans, Jee and Jitendora covers all limitations of claim 4.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2019160704A1 of Goodman in view of JP2020525314A (machine translation) of Koopmans, KR20190004419A (machine translation) of Jee and of JPH03146901A (machine translation) of Jitendora, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of WO2020048889A1 of Hikmet.
Claim 6 further limits claim 4 by claiming that the polymer binder comprises a polyolefin.
Goodman does not specifically teach a polyolefin.
Hikmet discloses a printing method for FDM printing smooth surfaces of items in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Hikmet teaches that elastomers, especially thermoplastic elastomers, are especially interesting as they are flexible and may help obtaining relatively more flexible filaments comprising the thermally conductive material. A thermoplastic elastomer may comprise one or more of styrenic block copolymers thermoplastic polyolefin elastomers, Para[0038]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a polyolefin in the polymer binder as taught by Hikmet in the method disclosed by Goodman, Koopmans, Jee and Jitendora in order to obtain relatively more flexible filaments. Thus, Goodman, Koopmans, Jee, Jitendora, and Hikmet cover all limitations of claim 6.
Claim 15 further limits claim 6 by claiming that the debinding step may comprise a chemical debinding by soaking the mirror in an acetone bath followed by said thermal treatment.
Goodman does not specifically teach an acetone bath.
Hikmet teaches that suitable liquids are those that have a larger solubility for the shell material than for the core material and that the liquid comprises one or more of acetone and methyl ethyl ketone, Pg[14]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an acetone bath in the chemical debinding step as taught by Hikmet in the mirror fabrication method disclosed in Goodman, Koopmans, Jee and Jitendora as it is a suitable liquid due to its solubility. Thus, Goodman, Koopmans, Jee, Jitendora, and Hikmet cover all limitations of claim 15.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2019160704A1 of Goodman in view of JP2020525314A (machine translation) of Koopmans further in view of KR20190004419A (machine translation) of Jee, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO2020200426 of Duate.
Claim 9 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the depositing step comprises, at least before the depositing of a first filament layer, heating the mold to a temperature between 30°C and 80°C suited to adhering the first layer of filament onto the mold and the reproduction of the surface state of the mold by said first layer.
Goodman does not teach heating the mold in the claimed temperature range.
Duate teaches sinterable feedstock for use in 3D printing devices in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Duate discloses extruding the filament onto a printing bed having a temperature of 30°C to 70°C, Pg[6]. This overlaps with the claimed range for temperature. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Duate discloses that it was an object of the invention to provide a novel feedstock material suitable for 3D printing devices which can be easily converted into sintered material, Para[0015]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat the mold to the temperature taught by Duate in the method disclosed by Goodman, Koopmans and Jee so that the filament can easily be turned into sintered material. Thus, Goodman, Koopmans, Jee and Duate cover all limitations of claim 9.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2019160704A1 of Goodman in view of JP2020525314A (machine translation) of Koopmans further in view of KR20190004419A (machine translation) of Jee, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of WO2017106341A1 of Solgaard.
Claim 12 further limits claim 11 by claiming a polishing of the mold for achieving a roughness below 5 nm RMS.
Goodman does not teach a specific surface roughness.
Solgaard discloses device fabrication using 3D printing in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Solgaard teaches that this smoothing process can yield a surface roughness (e.g., measured via Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM)) down to about 2 nm in terms of a root mean square (rms) value (e.g., from a commercially available printer that is rated at a resolution of about 50.8 microns). This process in general can be used to form glossy, robust, tough, smooth-finished 3D printed devices from commercially available 3D printers and filament materials, 3D printed parts can have surfaces that are rough, particulate, fibrous, or porous, and a gel can cover this rough surface and render resulting objects as safe, water-proof, and highly smooth, Para[0046]. The value taught by Solgaard overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to polish the mirror to achieve a surface roughness down to about 2 nm RMS, as taught by Solgaard in the method disclosed by Goodman, Koopmans and Jee in order to obtain a surface with the desired finish. Thus, Goodman, Koopmans, Jee and Solgaard cover all limitations of claim 12.
Claim 13 further limits claim 11 by claiming that the mold is made of vitroceramic glass, aluminum, ceramic, silicon carbide, cordierite, alumina Si3N4 or any other material resistant to the temperature of depositing the filament and having a roughness below 5 nm RMS.
Goodman teaches ceramic, silicon carbide, and Si3N4. Goodman does not teach a specific surface roughness.
Solgaard discloses device fabrication using 3D printing in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Solgaard teaches that this smoothing process can yield a surface roughness (e.g., measured via Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM)) down to about 2 nm in terms of a root mean square (rms) value (e.g., from a commercially available printer that is rated at a resolution of about 50.8 microns). This process in general can be used to form glossy, robust, tough, smooth-finished 3D printed devices from commercially available 3D printers and filament materials, 3D printed parts can have surfaces that are rough, particulate, fibrous, or porous, and a gel can cover this rough surface and render resulting objects as safe, water-proof, and highly smooth, Para[0046]. The value taught by Solgaard overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to polish the mirror to achieve a surface roughness down to about 2 nm RMS, as taught by Solgaard in the method disclosed by Goodman, Koopmans, and Jee in order to obtain a surface with the desired finish. Thus, Goodman, Koopmans, Jee and Solgaard cover all limitations of claim 13.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2019160704A1 of Goodman in view of JP2020525314A (machine translation) of Koopmans further in view of KR20190004419A (machine translation) of Jee, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US10359603 of Reardon.
Claim 14 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the mirror comprising on a first side an optical surface and on a second side an attachment profile.
Goodman teaches a first side optical surface, Para[0019]. Goodman does not teach an attachment profile.
Reardon teaches lightweight adaptive metal cooled mirrors in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Reardon teaches mounting brackets, equivalent to the claimed attachment profile, that may be utilized to secure the mirror to a mounting surface (not shown), Para[0023]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include mounting brackets as taught by Reardon to the mirror disclosed by Goodman, Koopmans and Jee in order to secure the mirror to a mounting surface. Thus, Goodman, Koopmans, Jee and Reardon cover all limitations of claim 14.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2019160704A1 of Goodman in view of JP2020525314A (machine translation) of Koopmans further in view of KR20190004419A (machine translation) of Jee, as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of US7073561 of Henn.
Claim 16 further limits claim 11 by claiming that the mold is reusable.
Goodman discloses a “master mandrel” used as a template for starting the 3D printing of the mirror, Para[0034]. The term “master” implies that the mandrel is meant to be reused.
Henn teaches a solid freeform fabrication system and method in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Henn teaches that reusable molds are more cost effective than investment casting because the mold is not destroyed during the creation of the part, Para[0005]. Therefore, based on the teachings of Goodman and Henn, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the mirror disclosed in Goodman Koopmans, and Jee with a reusable mold to decrease cost. Thus, Goodman, Koopmans, Jee and Henn cover all limitations of claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that (remarks, page 8 of 10) Goodman and Koopmans, alone or in theoretical combination, fail to teach each and every limitation of amended claim 1. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Additional reference Jee is relied upon for its teaching of nozzle control for increasing level lines and concentric circles.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has attached previously-cited foreign references with their original documents that were inadvertently omitted in the non-final action. Reference Included herein: JP2020525314A (machine translation) and JPH03146901A (machine translation)
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 JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/ Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights