Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/711,260

LIGHT SOURCE DEVICE AND 3D PRINTER

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
May 17, 2024
Examiner
ROBITAILLE, JOHN P
Art Unit
1743
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Shenzhen Creality 3D Technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
320 granted / 509 resolved
-2.1% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
554
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.1%
-36.9% vs TC avg
§103
47.3%
+7.3% vs TC avg
§102
30.3%
-9.7% vs TC avg
§112
13.5%
-26.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 509 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Status of Claims and Application This non-final action on the merits is in response to the election of invention received by the office 12 November 2025. Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 1-9 are withdrawn as non-elected. Election/Restrictions Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12 November 2025. Drawings Figure 3, 6, 8, and 12 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 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 12-18 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. Claim 12 recites the limitation "lamp pane" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, examiner will regard this limitation as arising due to scrivener’s error and regard the limitation as referring to the previously recited “lamp panel.” 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. Claim(s) 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0129175 to Zitelli et al. (‘175 hereafter) in view of CN 211345207 U to Zhang A-rong (‘207 hereafter). Regarding claim 10, ‘175 teaches a 3D printer, comprising a light source device, the light source device comprising: lamp beads, a lens assembly, and a display screen, wherein the lens assembly comprises a plurality of lenses, the display screen is arranged above and spaced apart from the lamp panel (Fig 10, items 46, 47, 48 and 33); each lens of the plurality of lenses is provided above each lamp bead plurality of lamp beads (paragraph 0057 and Fig 10 items 46 and 48); the plurality of lenses are configured for refracting dispersed light of the plurality of lamp beads to form parallel light and projecting the parallel light to the display screen (paragraph 0057). ‘175 does not teach the spacing of the lamp beads or that the lamp beads are located on a panel. In the related art of flat panel lamp fixtures, ‘207 teaches the plurality of lamp beads are arranged on the lamp panel (Fig 4 items 1 and 2); a distance between any adjacent lamp beads of the plurality of lamp beads is d; any three lamp beads of the plurality of lamp beads adjacent to each other and having a spacing of the distance d define an equilateral triangle area, a side length of the equilateral triangle area is the distance d (Abstract Fig 10 items 2) for the benefit of producing even, consistent light across the panel. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘175 with those of ‘207 for the benefit of producing a consistent solidifying light in a 3-D printing apparatus. Regarding claim 11, ‘207 teaches the apparatus wherein, the any three lamp beads defining the equilateral triangle area project three light spots on corresponding lenses of the plurality of lenses, ranges of the three light spots intersect at one point in that the ‘520 reference expresses to minimize the unlit area (labelled “S” in Fig. 10 - “In the actual use process, as shown in FIG. 10, three LED light source body 2 of regular triangle distribution, the dark area S is further reduced, the side length of the regular triangle is two adjacent lamp distance of the LED lamp bead 3 power.” ) for the benefit of reducing power consumption, and promoting even lighting. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘175 with those of ‘207 for the benefit of producing a consistent solidifying light in a 3-D printing apparatus. Regarding claim 12, ‘175 teaches the 3D printer wherein, the light source device comprises an isolation base, the isolation base is arranged between the lamp pane[l] and the lens assembly; a plurality of isolation cavities is provided on the isolation base, the plurality of isolation cavities is provided in one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of lamp beads (Fig 10 items 46 and 48). Regarding claim 13, ‘175 teaches that the isolation chambers are capped by a lens in a 1 to 1 correspondence (Fig 10 items 47 and 48). ‘175 does not teach the shape of the isolation chamber. ‘207 teaches that the panels can be formed in a number of different shapes, including hexagonal (Fig 6, item 1). It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of effective filing to select a hexagonal isolation chamber since it has been held that a mere change of shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change of shape is not significant to the function of the combination. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time would have been motivated to select the hexagonal shape in order to make the isolation chamber array congruent with the shape of the hexagonal lamp array. Regarding claim 14, ‘175 does not disclose the physical configuration of the collimating lens. In the related art, ‘207 teaches the apparatus wherein, each lens of the plurality of lenses is a plano-convex lens (Fig. 11 item 4) for the benefit of collimating the light. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘175 with those of ‘207 for the benefit of producing a consistent solidifying light in a 3-D printing apparatus. Regarding claim 15, ‘175 teaches the 3D printer as claimed wherein, each lamp bead of the plurality of lamp beads is located at a focal point of the collimating lens paragraph (0011) while ‘207 teaches plano-convex collimating lenses for the reasons state above. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘175 in view of ‘207 as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of JP 2013243033 A to Hanyuda et al. (‘033 hereafter). Regarding claim 16, ‘175 in view of ’207 does not teach a heat dissipation plate. In the related art of lamp fixture assembly, ‘033 teaches a heat dissipation plate below the lamp panel (Fig. 7 items 1, 21 and 12) for the benefit of maintaining the lamp assembly at an operably cool temperature. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘175 in view of ‘207 with those of ‘033 for the benefit of maintaining the operating temperature of a 3-D printer’s lamp assembly. Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘175 in view of ‘207 in view of ‘033 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of CN 202419178 U to Liu et al. (‘178 hereafter). Regarding claim 17, over ‘175 in view of ‘207 in view of ‘033 does not teach a focusing assembly. In the related art of flat panel lamp assembly, ‘178 teaches the apparatus wherein, the light source device further comprises an adjusting assembly, one end of the adjusting assembly is connected to the display screen, and another end of the adjusting assembly is movably connected to the heat dissipation plate, the adjusting assembly is configured to adjust a distance between the lens assembly and the display screen (Fig 1 items 101, 104, and 108) for the benefit of adjusting the light panel. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of over ‘175 in view of ‘207 in view of ‘033 with those of ‘178 for the benefit of adjusting the lighting panel of a 3-D printing apparatus. Regarding claim 18, over ‘175 in view of ‘207 in view of ‘033 does not teach positioning. In the related art of lamp assembly, ‘178 teaches the apparatus wherein, the adjusting assembly comprises one or more adjusting rod and one or more positioning member, a sidewall of the adjusting rod has an abutment surface, one end of the adjusting rod is connected to the display screen, and another end of the adjusting rod is connected to the heat dissipation plate, the heat dissipation plate defines one or more limiting hole, the positioning member passes through the limiting hole and abuts against the abutment surface (Fig 1 items 101, 104, 106 and 108) for the benefit of adjusting the light panel. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of over ‘175 in view of ‘207 in view of ‘033 with those of ‘178 for the benefit of adjusting the lighting panel of a 3-D printing apparatus. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John P Robitaille whose telephone number is (571)270-7006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:00PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Galen 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. /JPR/Examiner, Art Unit 1743 /GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 17, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594715
3D PRINTING DEVICE, AND METHOD FOR PREPARING 3D PRINTED STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584252
APPARATUS FOR THE CONTINUOUS PRODUCTION OF A MATTRESS COMPRISING AGGLOMERATED MINERAL FIBRES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570031
A MOLD TOOL FOR INJECTION MOLDING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12552105
ALIGNMENT OF ENERGY BEAMS IN ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS AND MACHINES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12552099
ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING SYSTEM WITH A SEALED BUILD CHAMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+22.0%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 509 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month