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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because
reference character “1503” and reference character “1504” have been used to designate both “immersion fields are created as layers are build (1502, 1503, 1504)” in paragraph [000122] and “pyramid progressing through the build cycle” as depicted in annotated FIG. 15A provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
328
783
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
(ii) The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
projection plate 510 in paragraph [00050];
pressure control springs 18 and light shroud 17 in paragraph [00053]; and
open shell 3D drinking glass 1412a and threaded plug 1412b in paragraph [000114]; and
the inward flow of resin into each layer completely fills the glass as it is built 1426 in paragraph [000116].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
(iii) The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
FIG. 1A – 1C: reference character 107, reference character 114a, reference character 123, reference character 120, reference character 121, reference character 108, reference character 126, reference character 105 and reference character 133;
FIG. 2A: reference character 212 and reference character 227;
FIG. 4: reference character 403, reference character 405 and reference character 411;
FIG. 5: reference character 501, reference character 512, reference character 513, reference character 504, reference character 503 and reference character 515;
FIG. 6: reference character 602, reference character 603, reference character 604, reference character 609, reference character 612 and reference character 613;
FIG. 7: reference character 701;
FIG. 9: reference character 920 and reference character 914a;
FIG. 10: reference character 1014b;
FIG. 14A-14B: reference character 1412, reference character 1404 and reference character 26;
FIG. 15A: reference character 9;
FIG. 16A- 16D: reference character 1601;
FIG. 18A-18C: reference character 8, reference character 1805 and reference character 38;
FIG. 20: reference character 18 and reference character 2002;
FIG. 22: reference character 2249 and reference character 2250; and
FIG. 23: reference character 2333, reference character 2344 and reference character 2345.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “wherein the positive and the negative pressure” should be corrected to be consistent with claim 2 such that it reads “wherein the positive or the negative pressure”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
[AltContent: rect]
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because of the recitation “stored in a memory” without reciting that the memory is “non-transitory”. As the current specification has no definition for what this “memory” entails, the recitation “stored in a memory” under broadest reasonable, includes both transitory and non-transitory memory. See MPEP § 2106.03 for further details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
[AltContent: rect]Claims 1-11, 21-29, 32-43, 45-45, 51 and 77 are 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 most recent claim set, filed 10/18/2024, includes the recitation “computer-implemented programming, stored in a memory” and upon review, there is no memory in the originally filed claim set of 03/07/2024, nor is there mention of a memory in the specification as filed. Hence, “stored in a memory” is subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed and therefore fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
[AltContent: rect]
Claims 8, 11 and 27 are 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.
Regarding claim 8: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation "the build plate" in line 3. Claim 8 depends from claim 1, which does not include a build plate; therefore, it is not clear what structure is being referred to in the claim. Claim 2 first introduces "a build plate" in line 2, but claim 8 does not depend from claim 2. For the purposes of art rejections, "the build plate" recited in claim 8 is being interpreted to be equivalent to the build plate introduced in claim 2.
Regarding claim 11: the term “low-friction” in line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low-friction” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear to what extent the friction of the projection panel needs to be in order to be considered “low-friction” enough to meet the claim. For the purposes of art rejections, any projection panel having a smooth surface and/or a non-stick surface is considered to read on the claimed “low-friction”.
Regarding claim 27: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation "the build plate" in line 2. Claim 27 depends from claim 1, which does not include a build plate; therefore, it is not clear what structure is being referred to in the claim. Claim 2 first introduces "a build plate" in line 2, but claim 27 does not depend from claim 2. For the purposes of art rejections, "the build plate" recited in claim 27 is being interpreted to be equivalent to the build plate introduced in claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
[AltContent: rect]
Claims 1-3, 6-11, 21, 26-27, 32-36 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sabo (US 2020/0307100; made of record in the 10/18/2024 IDS, herein referred to as Sabo).
As to claim 1: Sabo discloses the claimed 3D printing system (i.e., three-dimensional printing system 2) (Sabo at [0028], FIG. 1), comprising:
a curing energy source (i.e., light engine 40 for selectively irradiating the build plane 37 and hardening layers of photocurable resin 26) (Sabo at [0043], [0044], FIG. 1);
an inlet port for a 3D-printing material (i.e., substructure 18 is configured to contain a photocurable resin 26) (Sabo at [0030], FIG. 1);
a pressure projection panel disposed in a build arena between the curing energy source and the inlet port for the 3D-printing material (i.e., transparent sheet 20, disposed at build plane 37, is positively pressurized and negatively pressurized via a controllable pressure source 32, and the transparent sheet 20 is located between the light engine 40 and the substructure 18 configured to contain photocurable resin 26) (Sabo at [0024], [0033], FIG. 1); and
computer-implemented programming, stored in a memory, configured to selectively cyclically press the pressure projection panel and the 3D-printing material against each other and release from each other in the build arena in coordination with layer-by-layer printing of at least one target object in the build arena (i.e., controller 44 includes a processor coupled to an information storage device, the information storage device including non-volatile or non-transient portion storing software instructions; when executed by the processor, the software instructions operate controllable portions of system 2, specifically the controllable pressure source 32 to apply a negative and positive pressure to the transparent sheet 20 when forming a three-dimensional article 4) (Sabo at [0035], [0044], [0046], FIG. 1, FIG. 5, FIGs. 6A-6F).
As to claim 2: Sabo discloses the 3D printing system of claim 1. Sabo further discloses the claimed wherein the build arena comprises a build plate at an opposing side of the build arena opposite to the pressure projection panel (Sabo at [0034], FIG. 1),
the projection panel or the build plate being controllably selectively movable away from or toward each other in a z-axis in a layer-by-layer fashion (Sabo at [0034], [0043], FIG. 1, FIGs. 6A-6F), and
wherein the projection panel is configured to selectively apply at least one of positive pressure or negative pressure to the 3D-printing material as the 3D-printing material is applied to a layer of the at least one target object being printed in the build arena (Sabo at [0033], [0035], [0044], [0046], FIG. 1).
As to claim 3: Sabo discloses the 3D printing system of claim 2. Sabo further discloses the claimed wherein the projection panel selectively applied both the positive pressure and the negative pressure (Sabo at [0033], [0035], [0044], [0046], FIG. 1).
As to claim 6: Sabo discloses the 3D printing system of claim 1. Sabo further discloses the claimed wherein the computer-implemented programming causes the curing energy source to selectively direct a 3D print pattern from the curing energy source to a top of the 3D-printing material (Sabo at [0003], [0035], [0043], [0044], [0046], FIG. 1).
As to claim 7: Sabo discloses the 3D printing system of claim 6. Sabo further discloses the claimed wherein the computer-implemented programming causes the curing energy source to selectively direct the 3D print pattern from the curing energy source to the top of the 3D-printing material is a step-wise fashion to successively build the target object in a layer-by-layer fashion (Sabo at [0003], [0035], [0043], [0044], [0046], FIG. 1).
As to claim 8: Sabo discloses the 3D printing system of claim 1. Sabo further discloses the claimed wherein the inlet port traverses through the build plate (Sabo at FIGs. 6A-6B).
As to claim 9: Sabo discloses the 3D printing system of claim 1. Sabo further discloses the claimed wherein the pressure projection panel is transparent (Sabo at [0031]).
As to claim 10: Sabo discloses the 3D printing system of claim 1. Sabo further discloses the claimed wherein the pressure projection panel is pliable (Sabo at [0031]).
As to claim 11: Sabo discloses the 3D printing system of claim 1. Sabo further discloses the claimed wherein the pressure projection panel is low-friction (Sabo at [0031]).
As to claim 21: Sabo discloses the 3D printing system of claim 1. Sabo further discloses the claimed wherein the computer-implemented programming contains instructions for controlling pressure applied to the 3D-printing material, layer thickness, energy delivered to uncured 3D-printing material, and timing of build plate release from the pressure projection panel (Sabo at [0035], [0043], [0044], [0046]).
As to claim 26: Sabo discloses the 3D printing system of claim 1. Sabo further discloses the claimed wherein computer-implemented programming causes the pressure projection panel to press against the 3D-printing material after a new layer of the 3D-printing has been introduced into the build arena and before directing curing energy to the new layer of the 3D-printing material (Sabo at [0044], FIG. 5, FIGs. 6A-6F).
As to claim 27: Sabo discloses the 3D printing system of claim 1. Sabo further discloses the claimed wherein the build plate is configured to move toward and away from pressure projection panel as a part of the delivery of the 3D-printing material to the build arena and release of cured 3D-printing material from the pressure projection panel (Sabo at [0034], [0043], FIG. 1, FIGs. 6A-6F).
As to claim 32: Sabo discloses the 3D printing system of claim 1. Sabo further discloses the claimed wherein the computer-implemented programming comprises instructions to print the at least one target object (Sabo at [0035]).
As to claim 33: Sabo discloses the 3D printing system of claim 32. Sabo further discloses the claimed wherein the computer-implemented programming comprises instructions to print the at least one target object and not to print any surrounding structure (Sabo at [0035], FIG. 1, FIGs. 6A-6F).
As to claim 34: Sabo discloses the 3D printing system of claim 33. Sabo further discloses the claimed wherein an outer surface of the at least one target object has no unintended bumps, flashing, or ridges, extending more than 0.1 mm from the outer surface (Sabo at FIG. 1, FIGs. 6A-6F).
As to claim 35: Sabo discloses the 3D printing system of claim 34. Sabo further discloses the claimed wherein an outer surface of the at least one target object has no surface artifact extending more than 0.01 mm from the outer surface (Sabo at FIG. 1, FIGs. 6A-6F).
As to claim 36: Sabo discloses the 3D printing system of claim 35. Sabo further discloses the claimed wherein the surface artifact is at least one of an unintended bump, flashing, or ridge (Sabo at FIG. 1, FIGs. 6A-6F).
As to claim 46: Sabo discloses the 3D printing system of claim 1. Sabo further discloses the claimed wherein the 3D printing material is a photosensitive liquid resin, and the 3D printing system comprises a bottom up stereolithography (SLA) or digital light projection (DLP) system capable of 3D printing the at least one target object from the photosensitive liquid resin (Sabo at FIG. 1, FIGs. 6A-6F).
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.
[AltContent: rect]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.
Claims 4-5, 22-25, 28-29, 37, 40-43, 45, 47-49, 51 and 77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2021/0237350; herein referred to as Choi).
As to claim 4: Sabo discloses the 3D printing system of claim 1. Sabo discloses forming a three-dimensional article 4 (Sabo at [0028], FIG. 1); though, Sabo fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein the computer-implemented programming causes the pressure projection panel to selectively apply pressure to create an immersion field within at least one of the target object or an encircling shell fully encircling the target object, wherein the immersion field contains liquid 3D-printing material up to at least about a top of the target object or encircling shell.
However, Choi teaches an additive printing apparatus and methods employing a liquid bridge to position material for forming an additive printed product layer (Choi at [0001], FIG. 1). Choi further teaches the apparatus and method including step (a) of forming a liquid bridge includes delivering the photopolymerizable material from a photopolymerizable material source to a delivery position proximate the light transmissive substrate and making contact between the light transmissive substrate and the photopolymerizable material at the delivery position; (b) polymerizing the photopolymerizable material of step (a) by directing light through the light transmissive substrate to polymerize the photopolymerizable material at least a portion of the area of contact with the light transmissive substrate, the step of polymerizing creating an additive printed layer; (c) moving the additive printed layer of step (b) a distance away from the light transmissive substrate such that a liquid bridge of the photopolymerizable material is maintained between the carrier substrate and the light transmissive substrate, and an area of contact is maintained with the light transmissive substrate; and (d) polymerizing the photopolymerizable material of step (c) by directing light through the light transmissive substrate to polymerize the photopolymerizable material at least a portion of the area of contact with the light transmissive substrate, the step of polymerizing creating a second additive printed layer on top of the additive printed layer of step (b) (Choi at [0032], [0033], [0034], FIG. 1, FIG. 4 – depicts the liquid bridge wholly encircling the additive printed structures, FIGs. 3-6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate an immersion field within at least one of the target object or an encircling shell fully encircling the target object, wherein the immersion field contains liquid 3D-printing material up to at least about a top of the target object or encircling shell as such is known in the art of stereolithography given the discussion of Choi above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results with the added benefit that the liquid bridge fully encircling the objects being formed enables vat-free additive manufacturing capable of manufacturing devices over several centimeters of surface area and provides for high-resolution micro-structuring without compromising the micron-level resolution (as recognized by Choi at [0005]).
As to claim 5: Sabo and Choi disclose the 3D printing system of claim 4. Sabo, modified by Choi, further reads on the claimed wherein the computer-implemented programming causes the pressure projection panel to selectively apply pressure to create a perimeter bead of the liquid 3D-printing material at a top of the immersion field, the perimeter bead being held in place by surface tension (Sabo at [0035]; Choi at FIG. 1, FIGs. 3-6), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 4.
The claims are directed towards an apparatus (i.e., 3D printing system). The material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus is viewed as recitation of intended use and is given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (see MPEP § 2112.01 I and § 2114-2115 for further details).
It is the Examiner's assessment, absent evidence to the contrary, that the prior art applied would be capable of meeting the recited functionality at the time of the invention. See MPEP 2114 (II) "A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim." (quotes and citation omitted). The burden, therefore, shifts to the Applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on (see MPEP § 2114(I)) (citation omitted).
As to claim 22: Sabo discloses the 3D printing system of claim 1. Sabo discloses forming a three-dimensional article 4 by hardening layers of photocurable resin 26 held within substructure 18 (Sabo at [0028], [0030], FIG. 1); though, Sabo fails to explicitly disclose the claimed 3D printing system further comprising a reversible pump to deliver the 3D-printing material to the build arena.
However, Choi remains as introduced and applied in the rejection of claim 4 above; and Choi further teaches the claimed 3D printing system further comprising a reversible pump to deliver the 3D-printing material to the build arena (Choi at [0020], [0051], [0053], FIG. 1, FIGs. 3-6), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 4 above.
As to claim 23: Sabo and Choi disclose the 3D printing system of claim 22. Choi further teaches the claimed wherein the computer-implemented programming controls the reversible pump to deliver the 3D-printing material at a controlled micrometer level to the build arena (Choi at [0020], [0051], [0053], [0062], FIG. 1, FIG. 5), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 4 above.
As to claim 24: Sabo and Choi disclose the 3D printing system of claim 23. Sabo, modified by Choi, further reads on the claimed wherein the computer-implemented programming controls delivery of the 3D-printing material by the reversible pump to control pressure within the 3D-printing material (Sabo at [0035]; Choi at [0020], [0051], [0053], [0062], FIG. 1, FIG. 5), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 25: Sabo discloses the 3D printing system of claim 1. Sabo discloses forming a three-dimensional article 4 by hardening layers of photocurable resin 26 held within substructure 18 (Sabo at [0028], [0030], FIG. 1); though, Sabo fails to explicitly disclose the claimed 3D printing system further comprising a 3D-printing material catchment system to catch and redeploy unused 3D-printing material.
However, Choi remains as introduced and applied in the rejection of claim 4 above; and Sabo, modified by Choi, further reads on the claimed 3D printing system further comprising a 3D-printing material catchment system to catch and redeploy unused 3D-printing material (Sabo at [0035]; Choi at [0051], [0053], [0062], FIG. 3), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 28: Sabo discloses the 3D printing system of claim 2. Sabo discloses forming a three-dimensional article 4 by hardening layers of photocurable resin 26 held within substructure 18 (Sabo at [0028], [0030], FIG. 1); though, Sabo fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein the positive pressure and the negative pressure are implemented by applying or reversing the direction of flow of the 3D-printing material into the build arena.
However, Choi remains as introduced and applied in the rejection of claim 4 above; and Sabo, modified by Choi, further reads on the claimed wherein the positive pressure and the negative pressure are implemented by applying or reversing the direction of flow of the 3D-printing material into the build arena (Sabo at [0035]; Choi at [0020], [0051], [0053], [0062], FIG. 1, FIG. 3, FIG. 5), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 29: Sabo discloses the 3D printing system of claim 1. Sabo discloses forming a three-dimensional article 4 by hardening layers of photocurable resin 26 held within substructure 18 (Sabo at [0028], [0030], FIG. 1); though, Sabo fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein the system lacks a preexisting vat in the build arena.
However, Choi remains as introduced and applied in the rejection of claim 4 above; and Sabo, modified by Choi, further reads on the claimed wherein the system lacks a preexisting vat in the build arena (Choi at [0024], FIG. 1, FIGs. 3-6), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 37: Sabo discloses the 3D printing system of claim 1. Sabo discloses forming a three-dimensional article 4 by hardening layers of photocurable resin 26 held within substructure 18 (Sabo at [0028], [0030], FIG. 1); though, Sabo fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein the computer-implemented programming comprises instructions to print the at least one target object within an encircling shell fully encircling the target object.
However, Choi remains as introduced and applied in the rejection of claim 4 above; and Sabo, modified by Choi, further reads on the claimed wherein the computer-implemented programming comprises instructions to print the at least one target object within an encircling shell fully encircling the target object (i.e., wine glass-like structures are shown formed wholly within liquid bridge) (Sabo at [0035]; Choi at [0041], [0050], FIG. 4), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 40: Sabo and Choi disclose the 3D printing system of claim 37. Sabo, modified by Choi, further reads on the claimed wherein the encircling shell and the at least one target object are made of a same 3D-printing material (Choi at [0033]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 41: Sabo and Choi disclose the 3D printing system of claim 37. Sabo, modified by Choi, further reads on the claimed wherein the encircling shell and the at least one target object each contain different 3D printing materials (Choi at [0033]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 42: Sabo and Choi disclose the 3D printing system of claim 37. Sabo, modified by Choi, further reads on the claimed wherein the encircling shell further holds at least one dynamically created auxiliary structure (i.e., fluid path 20) (Choi at [0046], [0051], FIG. 1, FIGs. 3-6), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 43: Sabo and Choi disclose the 3D printing system of claim 42. Sabo, modified by Choi, further reads on the claimed wherein the auxiliary structure comprises a plumbing that conducts 3D-printing material from a first location within the encircling shell to a second location within the encircling shell (i.e., fluid path 20 at delivery position 22) (Choi at [0046], [0051], FIG. 1, FIGs. 3-6), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 45: Sabo discloses the 3D printing system of claim 1. Sabo discloses forming a three-dimensional article 4 by hardening layers of photocurable resin 26 held within substructure 18 using a bottom up stereolithography apparatus 2 (i.e., wherein the 3D printing material is a photosensitive liquid resin) (Sabo at [0028], [0030], FIG. 1). Though, Sabo fails to explicitly disclose the claimed 3D printing system comprises a top down stereolithography (SLA) or digital light projection (DLP) system capable of 3D printing the at least one target object from the photosensitive liquid resin.
However, Choi remains as introduced and applied in the rejection of claim 4 above; and Sabo, modified by Choi, further reads on the claimed 3D printing system comprises a top down stereolithography (SLA) or digital light projection (DLP) system capable of 3D printing the at least one target object from the photosensitive liquid resin (Choi at FIG. 4), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 47: Sabo and Choi disclose the 3D printing system of claim 37. Sabo, modified by Choi, further reads on the claimed 3D printing system further comprising a plurality of inlet ports supplying 3D printing material to the encircling shell, each inlet port supplying a different 3D printing material (Choi at [0025], [0026], [0033], [0064], FIG. 6), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 48: Sabo and Choi disclose the 3D printing system of claim 37. Sabo, modified by Choi, further reads on the claimed 3D printing system further comprising a plurality of inlet ports supplying 3D printing material to the encircling shell, each inlet port supplying a same 3D printing material (Choi at [0025], [0026], [0033], [0064], FIG. 6), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 49: Sabo and Choi disclose the 3D printing system of claim 47. Sabo, modified by Choi, further reads on the claimed wherein the different 3D-printing materials are different photosensitive resins (Choi at [0033]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 51: Sabo discloses the 3D printing system of claim 1. Sabo fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein the computer-implemented programming comprises instructions to pump the 3D printing material against the pressure projection panel at a positive pressure of about 70 to 140000 Pascals.
However, Choi remains as introduced and applied in the rejection of claim 4 above; and Choi further teaches the claimed wherein the computer-implemented programming comprises instructions to pump the 3D printing material against the pressure projection panel at a positive pressure of about 70 to 140000 Pascals (Sabo at [0035]; Choi at [0020], [0051], [0053], [0062], FIG. 1, FIG. 3, FIG. 5).
The claims are directed towards an apparatus (i.e., 3D printing system). The material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus is viewed as recitation of intended use and is given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (see MPEP § 2112.01 I and § 2114-2115 for further details).
It is the Examiner's assessment, absent evidence to the contrary, that the prior art applied would be capable of meeting the recited functionality. See MPEP 2114 (II) "A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim." (quotes and citation omitted). The burden, therefore, shifts to the Applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on (see MPEP § 2114(I)) (citation omitted).
As to claim 77: Sabo and Choi disclose the 3D printing system of claim 37. Sabo, modified by Choi, further reads on the claimed wherein the encircling shell includes a dynamically-created auxiliary structure comprising a plumbing configured to conduct 3D printing material from a first location within the encircling shell to a second location within the encircling shell during the printing of the encircling shell and the at least one target object (Choi at [0046], [0051], FIG. 1, FIGs. 3-6), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 4.
[AltContent: rect]Claims 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabo and Choi as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of Clark (US 2009/0039570; herein referred to as Clark).
As to claim 38: Sabo and Choi disclose the 3D printing system of claim 37. Sabo, modified by Choi, fails to disclose the claimed wherein the instructions to print the at least one target object include instructions to dynamically create non-vertical guywires that hold the at least one target object to the encircling shell.
However, Clark teaches support architecture for directly formed structures using additive manufacturing (Clark at [0001]). Clark further teaches a frame 52 or support being built around component 50 to be formed, such that the frame 52 is built integrally with the component using the same method; and the frame 52 includes a series of struts 54 arranged around the perimeter and the struts 54 connect/support component 50 within frame 50 (Clark at [0032], [0033], FIG. 3). Moreover, Clark teaches some of the struts connecting the component and the frame being in tension rather than in compression, and the use of lateral supports acting in a manner analogous to guy ropes assisting in preventing thin frame walls from being deformed (Clark at [0034], FIG. 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the lateral supports acting as guy ropes to connect and support a component being formed within a frame as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Clark above, presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, with the added benefit of the lateral guy rope supports offering the ability to support a greater variation of component form versus vertical scaffolds (as recognized by Clark at [0034]).
As to claim 39: Sabo, Choi and Clark disclose the 3D printing system of claim 38. Clark discloses wherein the instructions to print the at least one target object include instructions to dynamically create non-vertical guywires that hold the at least one target object to the encircling shell (Clark at [0032], [0033], [0034], FIG. 3); though, Clark fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein the dynamically created non-vertical guywires are about 200 µm or less in diameter.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to dynamically create non-vertical guywires of about 200 µm or less in diameter since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. One would have been motivated to scale the size of the dynamically created non-vertical guywires to be of about 200 µm or less in diameter in order to provide the necessary support for an object of a particular geometry being formed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILEIGH K. DARNELL whose telephone number is (469)295-9287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, MST.
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 H. Hauth can be reached at (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.
/BAILEIGH KATE DARNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1743