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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-11 and 16 in the reply filed on 10/23/2025 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground that “a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to a process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out said process. Here, the Group 1 claims are drawn to a method or process for "producing a three-dimensional object..." " Group II claims are drawn to a system, or an apparatus/means, for "producing a three-dimensional object...' The Group II claims are thus drawn to a system that can carry out the method of Group I, so Groups I and II have unity of invention” (Remarks, Pg 2). However, this is not found persuasive because although are identified groups are related a priori¸ the identified groups lack unity of invention a posteriori.
Applicant further traverses that “Das does not disclose that the compensation for deceleration should be computed from "a predicted three-dimensional light dose distribution in the photo responsive material and a function describing an alteration response of the photoresponsive material to light dose"” (Remarks, Pg 2-3). However, this is not found persuasive.
Das teaches that photopolymerization may be described in three phases, which are initiation, propagation and termination: initially, at low exposure times, the degree of conversion slowly increases, which is due primarily to the limited mobility of initiated radical species; after initiation, the monomer is rapidly converted to increase the molecular weight and form a cross-linked polymer network, which occurs during the propagation stage; and the termination stage experiences autodeceleration, where chain propagation becomes diffusion controlled and the mobility of propagating radical chains is reduced, which prevents the final conversion from reaching 100% (¶0509). Das further teaches that each additional layer induces incremental polymerization in the previous layers due to print-through; wherein since, the degree of conversion from a single layer is below the gel point, the material is within the autoacceleration stage of polymerization, which causes the degree of conversion to rapidly increase with minimal energy dose (¶0528).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the step of defining said sequence of patterns of light (spatial light modulators (SLMs) project a two-dimensional image from a CAD file thereon) disclosed in DAS such that the step involves a compensation of an expected light intensity of said patterns of light for any deviations of an alteration rate in said photoresponsive material caused by auto-acceleration or auto-deceleration, so as to obtain a constant alteration rate throughout said photoresponsive material with a reasonable expectation of success in order to avoid autodeceleration that prevents the final conversion from reaching 100% and to avoid autoacceleration that causes the degree of conversion to rapidly increase with minimal energy dose (¶0509,0528).
Das does not explicitly teach wherein said compensation is computed from a predicted three-dimensional light dose distribution in the photoresponsive material and a function describing an alteration response of the photoresponsive material to light dose.
However, Das teaches that photopolymerization may be described in three phases, which are initiation, propagation and termination: initially, at low exposure times, the degree of conversion slowly increases, which is due primarily to the limited mobility of initiated radical species; after initiation, the monomer is rapidly converted to increase the molecular weight and form a cross-linked polymer network, which occurs during the propagation stage; and the termination stage experiences autodeceleration, where chain propagation becomes diffusion controlled and the mobility of propagating radical chains is reduced, which prevents the final conversion from reaching 100% (a function describing an alteration response of the photoresponsive material to light dose) (¶0509).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the compensation of an expected light intensity of said patterns of light disclosed in DAS such that the compensation is computed from a predicted three-dimensional light dose distribution in the photoresponsive material and a function describing an alteration response of the photoresponsive material to light dose with predictable results in order to provide a quantifiable reference point for light dose and exposure time for optimization of the consistent polymerization during the three phases of photopolymerization process (¶0509).
The restriction requirement mailed 08/27/2025 is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 12-15 and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 5-6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the predicted alteration distribution more closely matches said target alteration distribution” in lines 5-7. The claim indefinite because of the use of relative terminology in claim language and the scope of the term is not understood when read in light of the specification. MPEP 2173.05(b)(I). Claim 6 which depends from claim 5 is similarly rejected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly (US 2018/0326666 A1) in view of Das (US 2016/0221262 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kelley teaches a method of forming a three dimensional (3D) object (method for producing a three-dimensional object) (¶0008-0043). Kelly teaches a method that accomplishes volumetric fabrication by applying computed tomography (CT) techniques in reverse, that is, by fabricating structures by exposing a photopolymer resin volume with a 3D light field from multiple angles, and updating the light field at each angle (¶0021).
Kelly teaches a method comprising providing a volume of photo-curable resin contained within an optically transparent resin container, and simultaneously directing optical projections from an optical subsystem at a plurality of angles θ through the volume of photo-curable resin; wherein the optical projections may further be directed about a z axis extending through the volume of photo-curable resin; and wherein each of the optical projections may be provided with a calculated three-dimensional intensity distribution acting over a fixed temporal exposure period; wherein over a fixed time period, during which projections from one or multiple angles are provided, the net exposure dose is sufficient to cure selected portions of the volume of photo-curable resin, and leave other portions uncured, to form a desired 3D part (providing a digital model of said three-dimensional object; defining a sequence of patterns of light from said digital model; irradiating with each of said patterns of light according to the defined sequence a photoresponsive material that is capable of alteration of its material phase upon irradiation by light, thereby creating a three-dimensional distribution of alterations within the photoresponsive material which physically reproduces said three-dimensional object, thereby creating the three-dimensional object) (¶0008,0021-0022,0026-0032,0034-0038).
Kelly teaches a method further comprising an optimization procedure takes as its starting point a forward process model that relates resin monomer crosslinking to the received light energy dose wherein by comparing the modeled degree of cure induced by the summed dose distribution from all angles to the desired part geometry, an error function is generated, which is reverse-transformed and used to modify the initial dose estimate; wherein this cycle is iterated for a number of cycles sufficient to meet a particular error criterion, such as edge sharpness, contrast, or total error over the build volume; and wherein the optimization procedure provides a means for process non-linearities such as intensity absorption to be accurately modeled and accounted for in the image generation (wherein the step of defining said sequence of patterns of light involves a compensation of an expected light intensity of said patterns of light for any deviations of an alteration rate in said photoresponsive material… so as to obtain a constant alteration rate throughout said photoresponsive material, wherein said compensation is computed from a predicted three-dimensional light dose distribution in the photoresponsive material and a function describing an alteration response of the photoresponsive material to light dose) (¶0031).
While Kelly discloses a method wherein the step of defining said sequence of patterns of light involves a compensation of an expected light intensity of said patterns of light for any deviations of an alteration rate in said photoresponsive material, Kelly does not explicitly discloses a compensation of an expected light intensity of said patterns of light for any deviations of an alteration rate in said photoresponsive material caused by auto-acceleration or auto-deceleration.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (deviations of an alteration rate in said photoresponsive material caused by auto-acceleration or auto-deceleration; see MPEP 2141.01(a)), Das teaches that photopolymerization may be described in three phases, which are initiation, propagation and termination: initially, at low exposure times, the degree of conversion slowly increases, which is due primarily to the limited mobility of initiated radical species; after initiation, the monomer is rapidly converted to increase the molecular weight and form a cross-linked polymer network, which occurs during the propagation stage; and the termination stage experiences autodeceleration, where chain propagation becomes diffusion controlled and the mobility of propagating radical chains is reduced, which prevents the final conversion from reaching 100% (¶0509). Das further teaches an autoacceleration stage of polymerization that causes the degree of conversion to rapidly increase with minimal energy dose (¶0528).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Kelly such that the step of defining said sequence of patterns of light involves a compensation of an expected light intensity of said patterns of light for any deviations of an alteration rate in said photoresponsive material caused by auto-acceleration or auto-deceleration with predictable results in order to control the exposure dose due to the increase in the degree of conversion in an auto-acceleration stage and to control the exposure time to avoid final conversion from reaching 100% in an auto-deceleration stage (¶0509,0528).
Regarding claims 4 and 7, as applied to claim 1, Kelly in view of Das does not explicitly teach wherein said predicted three-dimensional light dose distribution in the photoresponsive material is obtained by the following steps: defining a target alteration distribution in said photoresponsive material from said digital model of said three-dimensional object; defining an input alteration distribution in said photoresponsive material using said target alteration distribution; defining said sequence of patterns of light from said input alteration distribution in said photoresponsive material; and deriving from said sequence of patterns of light said predicted three-dimensional light dose distribution within said photoresponsive material nor wherein said compensation is repeated until a predetermined threshold for a reduction of distortion of alteration between the predicted alteration distribution and the target alteration distribution has been reached.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Kelly such that said predicted three-dimensional light dose distribution in the photoresponsive material is obtained by the following steps: defining a target alteration distribution in said photoresponsive material from said digital model of said three-dimensional object; defining an input alteration distribution in said photoresponsive material using said target alteration distribution; defining said sequence of patterns of light from said input alteration distribution in said photoresponsive material; and deriving from said sequence of patterns of light said predicted three-dimensional light dose distribution within said photoresponsive material and wherein compensation is repeated until a predetermined threshold for a reduction of distortion of alteration between the predicted alteration distribution and the target alteration distribution has been reached with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide an optimization procedure for comparing the modeled degree of cure induced by the summed dose distribution from all angles to the desired part geometry, wherein an error function is generated, which is reverse-transformed and used to modify the dose estimate that provides a means for process non-linearities such as intensity absorption to be accurately modeled and accounted for in the image generation (Kelly, ¶0031).
Regarding claim 11, as applied to claim 1, Kelly in view of Das teaches a method wherein said sequence of patterns of light is provided by computing a sequence of back-projections describing the three-dimensional object to be formed from different orientation angles of said object, or alternatively from different layers of said object (Fourier-domain methods such as filtered back-projection (FBP) or iterative optimization-based techniques) (Kelly, ¶0023).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das (US 2016/0221262 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Das teaches a method for producing a three-dimensional object, the method comprising using SLMs that scan at least a portion of the surface of a photopolymer (¶0012). In scanning a surface of the photopolymer, spatial light modulators (SLMs) project a two-dimensional image from a CAD file thereon; wherein the two-dimensional image comprises a cross-section of a three-dimensional object to be formed within the various layers of the photopolymer, once cured; wherein an optical imaging system may use the SLMs to scan a portion of the surface of the photopolymer housed in a container; wherein as the optical imaging system scans the medium, when a light source illuminates a portion of the surface of the medium, the characteristics of the medium change from a liquid or aqueous state to the solid state; and wherein the optical imaging system may be mounted on an XY scanning stage with a large area of travel spanning several hundred millimeters (providing a digital model of said three-dimensional object; defining a sequence of patterns of light from said digital model; and irradiating with each of said patterns of light according to the defined sequence a photoresponsive material that is capable of alteration of its material phase upon irradiation by light, thereby creating a three-dimensional distribution of alterations within the photoresponsive material which physically reproduces said three-dimensional object, thereby creating the three-dimensional object) (¶0012,0166,0180). Examiner notes that the optical imagining system disclosed in Das is capable of moving relative to the container, thereby creating a three-dimensional distribution of alterations within the photoresponsive material which physically reproduces said three-dimensional object as instantly claimed (see ¶0060 of the instant specification).
While Das teaches a method comprising the step of defining said sequence of patterns of light, Das does not explicitly disclose wherein the step of defining said sequence of patterns of light involves a compensation of an expected light intensity of said patterns of light for any deviations of an alteration rate in said photoresponsive material caused by auto-acceleration or auto-deceleration, so as to obtain a constant alteration rate throughout said photoresponsive material.
However, Das teaches that photopolymerization may be described in three phases, which are initiation, propagation and termination: initially, at low exposure times, the degree of conversion slowly increases, which is due primarily to the limited mobility of initiated radical species; after initiation, the monomer is rapidly converted to increase the molecular weight and form a cross-linked polymer network, which occurs during the propagation stage; and the termination stage experiences autodeceleration, where chain propagation becomes diffusion controlled and the mobility of propagating radical chains is reduced, which prevents the final conversion from reaching 100% (¶0509). Das further teaches that each additional layer induces incremental polymerization in the previous layers due to print-through; wherein since, the degree of conversion from a single layer is below the gel point, the material is within the autoacceleration stage of polymerization, which causes the degree of conversion to rapidly increase with minimal energy dose (¶0528).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the step of defining said sequence of patterns of light (spatial light modulators (SLMs) project a two-dimensional image from a CAD file thereon) disclosed in DAS such that the step involves a compensation of an expected light intensity of said patterns of light for any deviations of an alteration rate in said photoresponsive material caused by auto-acceleration or auto-deceleration, so as to obtain a constant alteration rate throughout said photoresponsive material with a reasonable expectation of success in order to avoid autodeceleration that prevents the final conversion from reaching 100% and to avoid autoacceleration that causes the degree of conversion to rapidly increase with minimal energy dose (¶0509,0528).
Das does not explicitly teach wherein said compensation is computed from a predicted three-dimensional light dose distribution in the photoresponsive material and a function describing an alteration response of the photoresponsive material to light dose.
However, Das teaches that photopolymerization may be described in three phases, which are initiation, propagation and termination: initially, at low exposure times, the degree of conversion slowly increases, which is due primarily to the limited mobility of initiated radical species; after initiation, the monomer is rapidly converted to increase the molecular weight and form a cross-linked polymer network, which occurs during the propagation stage; and the termination stage experiences autodeceleration, where chain propagation becomes diffusion controlled and the mobility of propagating radical chains is reduced, which prevents the final conversion from reaching 100% (a function describing an alteration response of the photoresponsive material to light dose) (¶0509).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the compensation of an expected light intensity of said patterns of light disclosed in DAS such that the compensation is computed from a predicted three-dimensional light dose distribution in the photoresponsive material and a function describing an alteration response of the photoresponsive material to light dose with predictable results in order to provide a quantifiable reference point for light dose and exposure time for optimization of the consistent polymerization during the three phases of photopolymerization process (¶0509).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-3, 8-10, and 16 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.
Regarding claims 2, the prior art of record discloses a method for producing a three-dimensional object (see rejection of claim 1). However, the method as claimed is deemed novel and non-obvious because the prior art of record along with a further prior art search do not teach or suggest wherein said computation of said compensation comprises a convolution or deconvolution of said predicted three-dimensional light dose distribution in the photoresponsive material with a function describing an elementary auto-acceleration or auto-deceleration alteration response of the photoresponsive material to an elementary light dose.
Claims 3, 8-10, and 16 are allowable because the claims are dependent upon allowable claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Smith (US 6,500,378 B1) teaches a method and apparatus for creating a three-dimensional object by generating a cross-sectional pattern of energy of an object to be formed at a selected surface of a medium capable of altering its physical state in response to the energy projected or transmitted onto the selected layer; wherein by impinging radiation, particle bombardment, or chemical reaction by a method controlled by a spatial light modulator, successive adjacent cross-sections of the object are rapidly formed and integrated together to provide a step-wise laminar build-up of the desired object creating a three dimensional manifestation from bitmap images of a series of cross-sections of a computer generated model (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JaMel M Nelson whose telephone number is (571)272-8174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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 Hauth can be reached on (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.
/JAMEL M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743