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 1-19 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SMAKMAN (US 10712669 B2).
Re 1, SMAKMAN teaches of a calibration method (see Col. 32, lines 42-60) of an apparatus for a layer-by-layer additive manufacturing of a number of objects (see Col. 4, line 67; see plurality of “IC’s” are manufactured in parallel), the apparatus comprising:
a control device (“controller” is provided, see Col. 10, lines 19-42, see specifically line 30) for controlling the layer-by-layer additive manufacturing process,
a layer application device (Fig. 15; 1520; Col. 31, line 47 to Col. 32, line 45) which is adapted to provide a layer of a shapeless building material within a building field on a building base or on an already manufactured layer, and
an energy supply device (see 1540; Col. 32, line 46 to Col. 33, line 17) which is adapted to solidify predetermined positions of the provided layer that are assigned to cross sections of the number of objects in this layer by supplying electromagnetic radiation,
wherein the energy supply device is adapted to be moved over the building field for supplying electromagnetic radiation to the predetermined positions and a predefined target direction (Col. 50, lines 14-41; see specific mention of “position” as in lines 19-22) is specified for the energy supply device for this movement, and
wherein the energy supply device comprises a number of radiation emitters which are arranged along an arrangement direction transverse to the predefined target direction (Col. 50, lines 14-41; see specific mention of “position” as in lines 19-22), and the control device specifies for the radiation emitters emission locations over the building field at which radiation is to be emitted, depending on the predetermined positions,
wherein in the calibration method it is determined, whether a deviation of a movement direction of the energy supply device from the predefined target direction occurs in the movement of the energy supply device, and
wherein the control device is caused to specify other emission locations for radiation emitters depending on a determined deviation (see col. 50, lines 14-41).
Re 10, SMAKMAN teaches of an apparatus for a layer-by-layer additive manufacturing of a number of objects that can be calibrated according to a calibration method according to claim 1 (see teaching by the SMAKMAN reference in claim 1 above), with the same elements concerning the control device, layer application device, energy supply device. The difference being of the additional statement concerning “wherein the control device is adapted to specify other emission locations for radiation emitters at positions in the target direction at which a deviation is determined during the calibration method.”, and wherein this can be seen in col. 50, lines 14-41.
Re 11 (upon 10), comprising a linear guide by which the energy supply device is guided during its movement over the building field, see teaching by positioning device 116 of SMAKMAN and also the modules, see Col. 5, lines 14-18, that encompasses the claimed linear guide, see Figs. 1-3.
Re 12 (upon 11), wherein the linear guide comprises two parallel rails spaced from each other, on which the movement of the energy supply device is guided by means of two slides, see teaching of positioning device 116 of SMAKMAN, see figs. 1-3, which are equivalent to the claimed rails, and see teaching of the energy supply device guided by the two slides on the rails, see Figs. 1-3, see teaching of the modules, see Col. 5, lines 14-18.
Re 13 (upon 12), wherein the energy supply device is arranged between rails arranged on two sides of the building field, see SMAKMAN, see Figs. 1-3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3-6, 7-8, 14-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SMAKMAN, as applied to claims 1, 10, and 12 above, and further in view of MATTES (US 2021/0146624 A1).
Re 3 (upon 1), SMAKMAN does not specifically teach of wherein for determining deviations, the energy supply device is moved over the building field with or without supplying electromagnetic radiation to the predetermined positions.
See in MATTES measuring device 40 for the measuring and position of the image of the laser array, that allows for determining deviations, see [0074].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process of SMAKMAN with determining deviations as taught by MATTES for improved operations, see KSR rationale, MPEP2143, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Re 4 (upon 3), wherein information about positions in the target direction at which a deviation was determined is stored in a memory device and the information stored in the memory device is accessed for specifying the other emission locations of the radiation emitters.
See also [0074-0076] in MATTES of the deviations and of the measurement results and correction if necessary.
Re 5 (upon 4), wherein the apparatus for layer- by-layer additive manufacturing comprises an interface for receiving control data for controlling the procedure of a layer-by-layer additive manufacturing process, wherein the control data comprise at least one data model of the number of objects to be manufactured, in which data model it is specified for the radiation emitters at which emission locations over the building field radiation is to be emitted for supplying electromagnetic radiation to predetermined positions of a provided layer that are assigned to cross sections of the number of objects in this layer, wherein the control device specifies other emission locations for radiation emitters by making changes in a received data model.
See teaching by MATTES of calibration, adjustment, documentation, and maintenance, see [0080], which would encompass the claimed control data and for data model.
Re 6 (upon 1), SMAKMAN does not further teach of wherein the control device is caused to specify during an additive manufacturing process, during a movement of the energy supply device over the building field, other emission locations for radiation emitters.
See in MATTES of teaching in [0078] of not only in irradiation during manufacturing of the 3D object.
Re 7 (upon 1), wherein a deviation is determined only at a predetermined number of positions in the target direction.
Re 8 (upon 1), wherein a deviation is determined at positions in the target direction that have a predetermined distance to one another.
Regarding the deviation determination, see teaching above for claim 3 by MATTES. Regarding the positions and distance, these would be seen as being obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to the particular manner of measuring that is applied to the modified SMAKMAN in view of MATTES regarding the desired measuring manner of the measurement device.
Re 14 (upon 10), SMAKMAN does not teach of further comprising:
a position detector adapted to determine whether a deviation of a movement direction of the energy supply device from the predefined target direction occurs during the movement of the energy supply device.
See teaching by MATTES of measuring device 40 that includes camera 41, distance sensor 42, and power measuring device 43, see [0054], and with measuring head holder 44, see [0056], and with the measuring device, able to measure and determine the laser array 31 and also deviations of the positions, see [0074].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process of SMAKMAN to further include the detectors as taught by MATTES for improved operations via determining of deviations, see KSR rationale, MPEP2143, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Re 15 (upon 12), further comprising:
a position detector adapted to determine whether a deviation of a movement direction of the energy supply device from the predefined target direction occurs during the movement of the energy supply device,
wherein the position detector comprises two position measuring units, each of which is attached to one of the two rails and is adapted to determine the position of the respective slide on the rail.
See teaching by MATTES, of position detector, see also teaching above in claim 14.
Re 17 (upon 14), wherein the position detector is a camera arranged above the energy supply device. See in MATTES, Fig. 3, see camera 41.
Re 19, regarding a method for a layer-by-layer additive manufacturing of a number of objects comprising a calibration method according to claim 1.
See teaching by SMAKMAN concerning calibration, see Fig. 25, and also see Col. 50, lines 14-41, particularly in forming “IC’s”, and wherein in regards to the specific terminology of forming of a 3D object, see teaching of forming 3D object in MATTES, see [0080].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the process of SMAKMAN with the calibration and forming a 3D object as taught by MATTES, see KSR rationale, MPEP2143, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SMAKMAN as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of MATTES (US 2021/0146624 A1) and SEKINE (US 2018/0370148 A1).
Re 9 (upon 1), SMAKMAN does not further teach of: wherein it is additionally determined whether during the movement of the energy supply device there occurs a change in the distance of radiation emitters from the building field and, if this is the case, the control device is caused to change the focal position of the radiation emitted by radiation emitters.
See in MATTES measuring device 40 for the measuring and position of the image of the laser array, that allows for determining deviations, see [0074].
In the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing, SEKINE, see [0149, 0174, 0190] teaches of adjustment of the focal length of the radiation emitters (see transmitting member 12) based upon the readings from distance sensors 66, which is applicable to the
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process of SMAKMAN with determining deviations as taught by MATTES for improved operations, and further of changing the focal position as taught by SEKINE for performing autofocusing, see KSR rationale, MPEP2143, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 16, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach the additional features of the dependent claims 2, 16, and/or 18.
Re 2 (upon 1), wherein the angle between the predefined target direction and the movement direction is detected for determining the deviation and it is decided that a deviation exists if this angle exceeds a specified tolerance angle. It is noted that MATTES teaches of measurement and adjustment, see [0073], but does not teach of determining of the angle and for use in determining the deviation.
Re 16 (upon 14), wherein the position detector is adapted to determine an angle between the predefined target direction and the movement direction. It is noted that MATTES teaches of measurement and adjustment, see [0073], but does not teach of determining of the angle.
Re 18 (upon 14), further comprising: a testing unit adapted to determine the presence of a deviation if the angle detected by the position detector exceeds a specified tolerance angle. It is noted that MATTES teaches of measurement and adjustment, see [0073], but does not teach of determining the deviation of the angle when it exceeds a tolerance angle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 5.
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, Xiao S Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights