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 .
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 1 and 11 are independent.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1, the claim recites a method comprising “calculating…” and “generates…” is a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “calculating an energy input for a spatial region of the component based on optical parameters of a light-curable material…” and “… generates the calculated energy input in the material.” This limitation recites a mathematical concept - that is a mathematical relationship, mathematical formula or equations, mathematical calculation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).) These claims may also be a recitation of a mathematical concept, i.e. a mathematical calculation.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “calculating an energy input for a spatial region of the component based on optical parameters of a light-curable material…” and “… generates the calculated energy input in the material.” Does not recite limitations that reflect an improvement to the functioning of the curing or additive-manufacturing technology; rather, the calculation is merely applied in the context of curing a light-curable material (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Further, limiting the calculation and its application to curing a light-curable material merely links the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and therefor does not integrate the exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “…and curing the spatial region of the component by light which generates the calculated energy input in the material.” is a nominal addition that is expressed but does not correspond to a real value. Therefore, it is an insignificant extra solution activity. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea (see 2106.05(g)).
Considering the additional elements individually and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 11 has similar limitations also rejected by the same rational.
Claim 2, recites the limitations “calculation based on geometry of the component” is a mathematical concept and is an insignificant extra solution activity. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea (see 2106.04(a)(2)).
Claim 3, recites the limitations “time course of the energy input is calculated.” is a mathematical concept. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea (see 2106.04(a)(2)).
Claim 4, recites the limitations “time course is calculated based on a temporal or spatial polymerization of the region.” Spatial control and temporal control as part of the curing process is a well understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field of polymerization (see 2106.05(d)). Furthermore, it is a mathematical concept. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea (see 2106.04(a)(2)).
Claim 5, recites the limitations “intensity of an exposure is changed based on the time course of the energy input.” is an insignificant extra solution activity. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea (see 2106.05(g)).
Claim 6, recites the limitations “area of the exposure is changed based on the time course of the energy input.” is an insignificant extra solution activity. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea (see 2106.05(g)).
Claim 7, recites the limitations “repetition frequency of a periodic exposure is changed based on the time course.” is an insignificant extra solution activity. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea (see 2106.05(g)).
Claim 8, recites the limitations “optical parameters of the light-curable material are measured.” is a pre solution activity (data gathering). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea (see 2106.05(g)). Claim 9, recites the limitations “light is produced by a laser or a micromirror array.” Using a laser or micromirror array as part of the curing process is a well understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field of polymerization (see 2106.05(d)). Furthermore, it is an insignificant extra solution activity. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea (see 2106.05(g)).
Claim 10, recites the limitations “spatial region is a voxel.” is described in a high level of generality and is an insignificant extra solution activity. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea (see 2106.05(g)).
Claim 12, recites the limitations “calculator is configured to calculate a time course of the energy input.” This is a mathematical concept that can be done with pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea (see 2106.04(a)(2)).
Claim 13, recites the limitations “calculator is configured to perform the calculation based on a geometry of the component.” is a mathematical concept, that can be performed on pen and paper (see 2106.04(a)(2)).
Claim 14, recites the limitations “printing device comprises a measuring device for measuring the optical parameters.” is a pre solution activity (data gathering). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea (see 2106.05(g)).
Claim 15, recites the limitations “exposure device comprises a laser or a micromirror array.” is a well understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field of polymerization (see 2106.05(d)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jariwala et al. US20130123988A1 (hereinafter “Jariwala”).
As to claim 1, Jariwala teaches a printing method for producing a component (paragraph [0006] “The systems and methods described in this specification provide for a highly flexible process for fabricating parts with micron shaped features on flat, stepped or curved substrates.” Furthermore, paragraph [0020] “The proposed fabrication process realizes accurate control over the growing curing front resulting from photopolymerization.” Examiner interpreted “fabricating parts” as printing, because the method of photopolymerization is an additive manufacturing method, that builds objects layer by layer from liquid resin.) , comprising
calculating an energy input for a spatial region of the component (paragraph [0039] “The data processing apparatus 212 utilizes several models and performs calculations based on the model outputs to generate exposure data for fabricating a part from the photopolymer resin.” Furthermore, paragraph [0075] “the process 600 calculates the energy required at the base of each voxel (or at the base of the substrate and as attenuated at the base of the voxel) to cure the resin”. Examiner interpreted “voxel” to be spatial region of the component.) based on optical parameters of a light-curable material (paragraph [0056] “For a point pri, the exposure E(pri) is given by E(pri)=H(pri)×t, where t is the exposure time at this point. A resin point is cured if the exposure received by this point is greater than the threshold exposure of polymerization Ec. Thus, the variation in exposure with depth in the resin follows the Beer Lambert law of absorption” The Beer Lambert Law of Absorption relates the absorbance of the material with its molar absorptivity and its concentration, which are both optical parameters of a light-curable material. And examiner interpreted the exposure at a point to be the energy input.) ; and
curing the spatial region of the component by light (paragraph [0075] “the process 600 calculates the energy required at the base of each voxel (or at the base of the substrate and as attenuated at the base of the voxel) to cure the resin”. Examiner interpreted “voxel” to be spatial region of the component.) which generates the calculated energy input in the material (paragraph [0075] “the data processing apparatus 212 calculates, based on the voxel, and based on the cure curve data 615, the amount of irradiation energy required at the base of each voxel (or at the base of the substrate and as attenuated at the base of the voxel) to cure the resin”).
As to claim 2, Jariwala teaches wherein the calculation is based on the geometry of the component (paragraph [0073] “The process 600 accesses target geometry data defining a target geometry of an apparatus to be generated from a photopolymer resin” Furthermore, paragraph [0074] “the data processing apparatus 212 generates the voxels based on the adjusted target geometry data and the shape of the substrate.” Finally, paragraph [0075] describes the energy calculation is performed on a per voxel basis “Using the resin curing curve 615, the process 600 calculates the energy required at the base of each voxel.”)
As to claim 9, Jariwala teaches wherein the light is produced by a laser (paragraph [0027] “In one example implementation, the beam conditioning system 254 includes an ultra-violet (UV) laser light source that emits 38.5 mW at a wavelength of 325 nm at a diameter of 1.5 mm and that is provided to a beam expander.”) or a micromirror array (paragraph [0059] “Accordingly, given a geometry of a part Z=G(x, y), and resin properties of penetration depths for solid and liquid portions, and critical exposure Ec, the exposure time for every micro-mirror Tkl can be optimized using an optimization process.”)
As to claim 10, Jariwala teaches wherein the spatial region is a voxel (paragraph [0075] “the data processing apparatus 212 calculates, based on the voxel, and based on the cure curve data 615, the amount of irradiation energy required at the base of each voxel (or at the base of the substrate and as attenuated at the base of the voxel) to cure the resin”).
As to claim 11, Jariwala teaches a printing device for producing a component (paragraph [0006] “The systems and methods described in this specification provide for a highly flexible process for fabricating parts with micron shaped features on flat, stepped or curved substrates.” Furthermore, paragraph [0020] “The proposed fabrication process realizes accurate control over the growing curing front resulting from photopolymerization.” Examiner interpreted “fabricating parts” as printing, because the method of photopolymerization is an additive manufacturing method, that builds objects layer by layer from liquid resin. Examiner interpreted “system” as device. And Fig. 2A depicts a system diagram of a projection lithography apparatus.) , comprising: a calculator (paragraph [0091] “The operations described in this specification can be implemented as operations performed by a data processing apparatus on data stored on one or more computer-readable storage devices or received from other sources.” Furthermore, paragraph [0092] “[0092] “The term “data processing apparatus” encompasses all kinds of apparatus, devices, and machines for processing data, including by way of example a programmable processor, a computer, a system on a chip, or multiple ones, or combinations, of the foregoing The apparatus can include special purpose logic circuitry, e.g., an FPGA (field programmable gate array) or an ASIC (application-specific integrated circuit).”) for calculating an energy input for a spatial region of the component (paragraph [0039] “The data processing apparatus 212 utilizes several models and performs calculations based on the model outputs to generate exposure data for fabricating a part from the photopolymer resin.” Furthermore, paragraph [0075] “the process 600 calculates the energy required at the base of each voxel.” Examiner interpreted “voxel” to be spatial region of the component.) based on optical parameters of a light-curable material (paragraph [0056] “For a point pri, the exposure E(pri) is given by E(pri)=H(pri)×t, where t is the exposure time at this point. A resin point is cured if the exposure received by this point is greater than the threshold exposure of polymerization Ec. Thus, the variation in exposure with depth in the resin follows the Beer Lambert law of absorption” The Beer Lambert Law of Absorption relates the absorbance of the material with its molar absorptivity and its concentration, which are both optical parameters of a light-curable material. And examiner interpreted the exposure at a point to be the energy input.) ; and an exposure device for curing the region of the component by light (paragraph [0027] “The apparatus 200 includes a diffuser 202 that diffuses irradiation energy (e.g., the output from a laser) for a collimating lens 204. The lens 204 focuses the irradiation energy onto a mirror 206, which, in turn, reflects the energy to a digital micro-mirror device (DMD) 208.” Furthermore the exposure of light is used to cure the resin, paragraph [0056] “For a point pri, the exposure E(pri) is given by E(pri)=H(pri)×t, where t is the exposure time at this point. A resin point is cured if the exposure received by this point is greater than the threshold exposure of polymerization Ec.”) which generates the calculated energy input in the material (paragraph [0075] “the data processing apparatus 212 calculates, based on the voxel, and based on the cure curve data 615, the amount of irradiation energy required at the base of each voxel (or at the base of the substrate and as attenuated at the base of the voxel) to cure the resin”).
As to claim 13, Jariwala teaches wherein the calculator is configured to perform the calculation based on a geometry of the component (paragraph [0073] “The process 600 accesses target geometry data defining a target geometry of an apparatus to be generated from a photopolymer resin” Furthermore, paragraph [0074] “the data processing apparatus 212 generates the voxels based on the adjusted target geometry data and the shape of the substrate.” Finally, paragraph [0075] describes the energy calculation is performed on a per voxel basis “Using the resin curing curve 615, the process 600 calculates the energy required at the base of each voxel.”)
As to claim 15, Jariwala teaches all limitations of the base claim as outlined above.
Jariwala teaches wherein the exposure device comprises a laser (paragraph [0027] “In one example implementation, the beam conditioning system 254 includes an ultra-violet (UV) laser light source that emits 38.5 mW at a wavelength of 325 nm at a diameter of 1.5 mm and that is provided to a beam expander.” Examiner interpreted the “beam conditioning system” as the exposure device.) or a micromirror array (paragraph [0059] “Accordingly, given a geometry of a part Z=G(x, y), and resin properties of penetration depths for solid and liquid portions, and critical exposure Ec, the exposure time for every micro-mirror Tkl can be optimized using an optimization process.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 3-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jariwala et al. US20130123988A1 (hereinafter “Jariwala”) in further view of Stampfl et al. US9764513B2 (hereinafter “Stampfl”).
As to claim 3, Jariwala teaches all limitations of the base claim as outlined above.
Jariwala further teaches wherein the energy input is calculated (paragraph [0075] “Using the resin curing curve 615, the process 600 calculates the energy required at the base of each voxel. For example, the data processing apparatus 212 calculates, based on the voxel, and based on the cure curve data 615, the amount of irradiation energy required at the base of each voxel (or at the base of the substrate and as attenuated at the base of the voxel) to cure the resin can be computed.”)
But Jariwala does not explicitly teach a time course.
However, Stampfl teaches a time course (Column 3, lines 46-49 “by controlled adjustment of the intensity , it is possible to influence the polymerization kinetics differentially with respect to position and / or time so as to expediently reduce defects in the polymerized layer” Furthermore, column 9, lines 1-8 “By the exposure sequence controlled as a function of time, the polymerization progresses from the inside outward in the region to be exposed. This makes it possible for shrinkages possibly occurring during the polymerization of an inner-lying region still to be compensated for by liquid photopolymerizable material flowing inward from a region lying further out, in which polymerization has not yet started because of the lack of exposure.” Stampfl does not merely disclose a specific exposure duration; it defines how the exposure intensity changes over time and expressly links that time-dependent exposure to the progression and kinetics of polymerization. Thus, the reference describes a time course, the dynamic evolution of polymerization over time, rather than merely using time as a parameter for determining how long to expose the material.) Jariwala and Stampfl are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to methods of additive manufacturing using lithography-based generative production. Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the printing method for producing a component, as taught by Jariwala, and incorporate the time course, as taught by Stampfl.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce defects in the finished shaped body of a fabricated component, such as internal stresses, cracks and geometrical inaccuracies, as suggested by Stampfl (Column 3, lines 29-34).
As to claim 4, Jariwala teaches all limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Jariwala further teaches wherein calculated based on a temporal or spatial polymerization of the region (paragraph [0082] “the data processing apparatus 212 discretizes the exposure time into time increments that are sub-portions of the total exposure time… For each of the time increments, and for each location on the surface of the simulated cured geometry, the data processing apparatus 212 determines an instantaneous height z of the surface of the simulated cured geometry at the location and at a time corresponding to the time increment.” Then the intensity of irradiation energy at that location is determined through successive time increments, paragraph [0081] “The surface 702 for a small region 704 is shown in detail during a curing process at various heights Zn, Zn+1, and Zn+2. As the part cures, for every differential change in height Z the angle at which the light is incident with the surface and the intensity of the light likewise changes by a differential amount.” The reference discretizes the total exposure time into successive time increments and, for each time increment and each location on the simulated cured geometry determines the instantaneous height of the cured surface and the intensity of irradiation energy at that location. Thus, the reference determines the progression of the cured region over time and uses that temporal/ spatial curing information in determining the exposure parameters, including exposure time.). But Jariwala does not explicitly teach the time course.
However, Stampfl teaches the time course (Column 3, lines 46-49 “by controlled adjustment of the intensity , it is possible to influence the polymerization kinetics differentially with respect to position and / or time so as to expediently reduce defects in the polymerized layer” Furthermore, column 9, lines 1-8 “By the exposure sequence controlled as a function of time, the polymerization progresses from the inside outward in the region to be exposed. This makes it possible for shrinkages possibly occurring during the polymerization of an inner-lying region still to be compensated for by liquid photopolymerizable material flowing inward from a region lying further out, in which polymerization has not yet started because of the lack of exposure.” Stampfl does not merely disclose a specific exposure duration; it defines how the exposure intensity changes over time and expressly links that time-dependent exposure to the progression and kinetics of polymerization. Thus, the reference describes a time course, the dynamic evolution of polymerization over time, rather than merely using time as a parameter for determining how long to expose the material.) Jariwala and Stampfl are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to methods of additive manufacturing using lithography-based generative production. Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the printing method for producing a component, as taught by Jariwala, and incorporate the time course, as taught by Stampfl.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce defects in the finished shaped body of a fabricated component, such as internal stresses, cracks and geometrical inaccuracies, as suggested by Stampfl (Column 3, lines 29-34).
As to claim 5, Jariwala teaches all limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Jariwala further teaches wherein an intensity of an exposure is changed (paragraph [0082] ”the data processing apparatus 212 discretizes the exposure time into time increments that are sub-portions of the total exposure time… For each of the time increments, and for each location on the surface of the simulated cured geometry, the data processing apparatus 212 determines an instantaneous height z of the surface of the simulated cured geometry at the location and at a time corresponding to the time increment.” Then the intensity of irradiation energy at that location is determined through successive time increments, paragraph [0081] “The surface 702 for a small region 704 is shown in detail during a curing process at various heights Zn, Zn+1, and Zn+2. As the part cures, for every differential change in height Z the angle at which the light is incident with the surface and the intensity of the light likewise changes by a differential amount.”)
But Jariwala does not explicitly teach based on the time course of the energy input.
However, Stampfl teaches based on the time course of the energy input (Column 3, lines 46-49 “by controlled adjustment of the intensity , it is possible to influence the polymerization kinetics differentially with respect to position and / or time so as to expediently reduce defects in the polymerized layer” Furthermore, column 9, lines 1-8 “By the exposure sequence controlled as a function of time, the polymerization progresses from the inside outward in the region to be exposed. This makes it possible for shrinkages possibly occurring during the polymerization of an inner-lying region still to be compensated for by liquid photopolymerizable material flowing inward from a region lying further out, in which polymerization has not yet started because of the lack of exposure.” Stampfl does not merely disclose a specific exposure duration; it defines how the exposure intensity changes over time and expressly links that time-dependent exposure to the progression and kinetics of polymerization. Thus, the reference describes a time course, the dynamic evolution of polymerization over time, rather than merely using time as a parameter for determining how long to expose the material.) Jariwala and Stampfl are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to methods of additive manufacturing using lithography-based generative production. Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the printing method for producing a component, as taught by Jariwala, and incorporate the time course, as taught by Stampfl.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce defects in the finished shaped body of a fabricated component, such as internal stresses, cracks and geometrical inaccuracies, as suggested by Stampfl (Column 3, lines 29-34).
As to claim 6, Jariwala teaches all limitations of the base claims as outlined
above.
Jariwala further teaches wherein an area of the exposure is changed (paragraph [0066] “the aggregated exposure gradient 450 of FIG. 4B can be used. In FIG. 4B, the example gradient is viewed from the top, with the largest radius R1 having an exposure time of T1, and the smallest radius Rn having an exposure time of Tn. In this example, the value of Tn is greater than T1, which will result in concave shaped part having an apex at its center.”)
But Jariwala does not explicitly teach based on the time course of the energy input.
However, Stampfl teaches based on the time course of the energy input (Column 3, lines 46-49 “by controlled adjustment of the intensity , it is possible to influence the polymerization kinetics differentially with respect to position and / or time so as to expediently reduce defects in the polymerized layer” Furthermore, column 9, lines 1-8 “By the exposure sequence controlled as a function of time, the polymerization progresses from the inside outward in the region to be exposed. This makes it possible for shrinkages possibly occurring during the polymerization of an inner-lying region still to be compensated for by liquid photopolymerizable material flowing inward from a region lying further out, in which polymerization has not yet started because of the lack of exposure.” Stampfl does not merely disclose a specific exposure duration; it defines how the exposure intensity changes over time and expressly links that time-dependent exposure to the progression and kinetics of polymerization. Thus, the reference describes a time course, the dynamic evolution of polymerization over time, rather than merely using time as a parameter for determining how long to expose the material.) Jariwala and Stampfl are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to methods of additive manufacturing using lithography-based generative production. Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the printing method for producing a component, as taught by Jariwala, and incorporate the time course, as taught by Stampfl.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce defects in the finished shaped body of a fabricated component, such as internal stresses, cracks and geometrical inaccuracies, as suggested by Stampfl (Column 3, lines 29-34).
As to claim 7, the combination of Jariwala and Stampfl teaches all limitations of the base claims, as outlined above.
Stampfl further teaches wherein a repetition frequency of a periodic exposure is changed based on the time course (Column 3, lines 43-54 “… obtained in the form of a time dependent function which individually establishes the intensity profile of the radiation of the exposure element over the exposure step… The time-dependent functions for defining the intensity profile may be continuous uninterrupted functions or functions in the form of pulse sequences, in which the intensity is controlled by varying the pulse duration and / or pulse frequency” The intensity of light being controlled in a fixed, periodic pulse frequency directly relates the exposure to a period of time. Examiner interpreted “time-dependent functions for defining intensity profile” to be time course.)
Jariwala and Stampfl are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to methods of additive manufacturing using lithography-based generative production. Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the printing method for producing a component, as taught by Jariwala, and incorporate the time course, as taught by Stampfl.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce defects in the finished shaped body of a fabricated component, such as internal stresses, cracks and geometrical inaccuracies, as suggested by Stampfl (Column 3, lines 29-34).
As to claim 12, Jariwala teaches all limitations of the base claim as outlined above.
Jariwala further teaches wherein the calculator is configured to calculate the energy input (paragraph [0039] “The data processing apparatus 212 utilizes several models and performs calculations based on the model outputs to generate exposure data for fabricating a part from the photopolymer resin.” Examiner interpreted “processing apparatus” to be calculator. Furthermore, paragraph [0075] “the process 600 calculates the energy required at the base of each voxel.”)
But Jariwala does not explicitly teach the time course. However, Stampfl teaches the time course (Column 3, lines 46-49 “by controlled adjustment of the intensity , it is possible to influence the polymerization kinetics differentially with respect to position and / or time so as to expediently reduce defects in the polymerized layer” Furthermore, column 9, lines 1-8 “By the exposure sequence controlled as a function of time, the polymerization progresses from the inside outward in the region to be exposed. This makes it possible for shrinkages possibly occurring during the polymerization of an inner-lying region still to be compensated for by liquid photopolymerizable material flowing inward from a region lying further out, in which polymerization has not yet started because of the lack of exposure.” Stampfl does not merely disclose a specific exposure duration; it defines how the exposure intensity changes over time and expressly links that time-dependent exposure to the progression and kinetics of polymerization. Thus, the reference describes a time course, the dynamic evolution of polymerization over time, rather than merely using time as a parameter for determining how long to expose the material.) Jariwala and Stampfl are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to methods of additive manufacturing using lithography-based generative production. Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the printing method for producing a component, as taught by Jariwala, and incorporate the time course, as taught by Stampfl.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce defects in the finished shaped body of a fabricated component, such as internal stresses, cracks and geometrical inaccuracies, as suggested by Stampfl (Column 3, lines 29-34).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jariwala et al. US20130123988A1 (hereinafter “Jariwala”) in further view of Stampfl et al. US9764513B2 (hereinafter “Stampfl”) in further view of Shusteff et al. WO2020232083A1 (hereinafter “Shusteff”).
As to claim 8, the combination of Jariwala and Stampfl teaches all limitations of the base claims, as outlined above.
But the combination of Jariwala and Stampfl does not explicitly teach wherein the optical parameters of the light curable material are measured.
However, Shusteff teaches wherein the optical parameters of the light curable material are measured (paragraph [0054] “absorbance values for the 3:1 BPAGDA/PEGDA and GelMA photoinitiator-resin mixtures may be measured using UV-VIS spectrophotometry (Shimadzu UV-1280).” Examiner interpreted “absorbance values” to be optical parameters, because the absorbance describes how the material interacts with light. Examiner interpreted “resin mixtures” to be light curable material.)
Jariwala, Stampfl, and Shusteff are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They all relate to methods of additive manufacturing using lithography-based generative production.
Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the printing method for producing a component, as taught by Jariwala, and incorporate the time course, as taught by Stampfl, and incorporate the optical parameter measurement device, as taught by Shusteff.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce defects in the finished shaped body of a fabricated component, such as internal stresses, cracks and geometrical inaccuracies, as suggested by Stampfl (Column 3, lines 29-34), and to improve quality of generation, by accounting for process non-linearities such as intensity absorption, as suggested by Shusteff (paragraph [0068]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jariwala et al. US20130123988A1 (hereinafter “Jariwala”) in further view of Shusteff et al. WO2020232083A1 (hereinafter “Shusteff”).
As to claim 14, Jariwala teaches all limitations of the base claim, as outlined above.
Jariwala further teaches wherein the printing device (paragraph [0006] “The systems and methods described in this specification provide for a highly flexible process for fabricating parts with micron shaped features on flat, stepped or curved substrates.” Furthermore, paragraph [0020] “The proposed fabrication process realizes accurate control over the growing curing front resulting from photopolymerization.” Examiner interpreted “fabricating parts” as printing, because the method of photopolymerization is an additive manufacturing method, that builds objects layer by layer from liquid resin. Examiner interpreted “system” as device. And Fig. 2A depicts a system diagram of a projection lithography apparatus.)
But Jariwala does not explicitly teach comprises a measuring device for measuring the optical parameters.
However, Shusteff teaches comprises a measuring device for measuring the optical parameters (paragraph [0054] “absorbance values for the 3:1 BPAGDA/PEGDA and GelMA photoinitiator-resin mixtures may be measured using UV-VIS spectrophotometry (Shimadzu UV-1280).” Examiner interpreted “absorbance values” to be optical parameters. Furthermore, the Shimadzu UV-1280 is a spectrophotometer.)
Jariwala and Shusteff are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to methods of additive manufacturing using lithography-based generative production.
Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the printing method for producing a component, as taught by Jariwala, and incorporate the optical parameter measurement device, as taught by Shusteff.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve quality of generation, by accounting for process non-linearities such as intensity absorption, as suggested by Shusteff (paragraph [0068]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kerekes et al. US20080054531A1 teaches a solid imaging apparatus, controlling exposure levels by adjusting time of exposure, and controlling exposure levels by adjusting intensity of exposure (paragraph [0043], paragraph [0014], paragraph [0014]).
Hull et al. US8703037B2 teaches an apparatus for high resolution imaging in three dimensional objects, using an ultraviolet light to cure the photocurable liquid medium, and varying the light with respect to a spatial region of the image (Column 2 lines 61-64, Column 6 lines 49-52, Column 2 lines 66-67 and Column 4 lines 1-3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW DILLON ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)270-1582. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30am to 5:00pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/A.D.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights