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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0197487 ("Ge").
Regarding claim 1, Ge discloses a system for optical droplet analysis for a 3D printhead, the system comprising,
a light emission unit (120, Fig. 1A) configured to emit a collimated light beam (122, Fig. 1A, paragraph [0018]), wherein the light beam (122, Fig. 1A) is directed to essentially cross a flight path (116, Fig. 1A) of a droplet (112, Fig. 1A, paragraph [0018]) ejected from the 3D printhead (106, Fig. 1A);
a light detection unit (124, Fig. 1A) positioned in the light beam (Fig. 1A) at a position opposite to the light emission unit (120, Fig. 1A) with regard to the flight path of the droplet (112, Fig. 1A, paragraph [0019]),
wherein the light detection unit (124, Fig. 1A) is configured to directly detect an interference pattern (paragraph [0020]) caused by the droplet (112, Fig. 1A) passing through the light beam (122, Fig. 1A) in an area essentially corresponding to the cross-section of the light beam (122, Fig. 1A); and
a processing unit (130, Fig. 1A) configured to process the detected interference pattern (paragraph [0021]) in order to estimate at least one parameter of the droplet (112, Fig. 1A, paragraph [0021], volume, composition).
Regarding claim 18, Ge discloses a method for optical droplet analysis comprising the steps of:
operating a light emission unit (120, Fig. 1A) to emit a collimated light beam (122, Fig. 1A, paragraph [0018]), wherein the light beam (122, Fig. 1A) is directed to essentially cross a flight path (116, Fig. 1A) of a droplet (112, Fig. 1A, paragraph [0018]) ejected from the 3D printhead (106, Fig. 1A);
directly detecting with a light detection unit (124, Fig. 1A) an interference pattern (paragraph [0020]) caused by the droplet (112, Fig. 1A) passing through the light beam (122, Fig. 1A) in an area essentially corresponding to the cross-section of the light beam (122, Fig. 1A),
wherein the light detection unit (124, Fig. 1A) is positioned in the light beam (Fig. 1A) at a position opposite to the light emission unit (120, Fig. 1A) with regard to the flight path of the droplet (112, Fig. 1A, paragraph [0019]); and
processing with a processing unit (130, Fig. 1A) the detected interference pattern (paragraph [0021]) in order to estimate at least one parameter of the droplet (112, Fig. 1A, paragraph [0021], volume, composition).
Regarding claim 19, Ge discloses a 3D Printer with a system according to claim 1 and configured to perform a method for optical droplet analysis comprising the steps of:
operating a light emission unit (120, Fig. 1A) to emit a collimated light beam (122, Fig. 1A, paragraph [0018]), wherein the light beam (122, Fig. 1A) is directed to essentially cross a flight path (116, Fig. 1A) of a droplet (112, Fig. 1A, paragraph [0018]) ejected from the 3D printhead (106, Fig. 1A);
directly detecting with a light detection unit (124, Fig. 1A) an interference pattern (paragraph [0020]) caused by the droplet (112, Fig. 1A) passing through the light beam (122, Fig. 1A) in an area essentially corresponding to the cross-section of the light beam (122, Fig. 1A),
wherein the light detection unit (124, Fig. 1A) is positioned in the light beam (Fig. 1A) at a position opposite to the light emission unit (120, Fig. 1A) with regard to the flight path of the droplet (112, Fig. 1A, paragraph [0019]); and
processing with a processing unit (130, Fig. 1A) the detected interference pattern (paragraph [0021]) in order to estimate at least one parameter of the droplet (112, Fig. 1A, paragraph [0021], volume, composition).
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 1-4, 9-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0152193 ("Ko") in view of Ge.
Regarding claim 1, Ko discloses a system for optical droplet analysis for a 3D printhead, the system comprising,
a light emission unit (120, Fig. 1) configured to emit a collimated light beam (Fig. 1, paragraph [0066], straight radiation, interpreted to mean collimated), wherein the light beam (Fig. 2) is directed to essentially cross a flight path of a droplet (FD, Fig. 1, paragraph [0067]) ejected from the printhead (HD, Fig. 1);
a light detection unit (130, Fig. 1) positioned in the light beam (Fig. 1) at a position opposite to the light emission unit (120, Fig. 1) with regard to the flight path of the droplet (FD, Fig. 1),
wherein the light detection unit (130, Fig. 1) is configured to directly detect an interference pattern (paragraphs [0068]-[0071]) caused by the droplet (FD, Fig. 1) passing through the light beam (Fig. 1) in an area essentially corresponding to the cross-section of the light beam (SF, Fig. 1); and
a processing unit (140, Fig. 1, and see Fig. 2) configured to process the detected interference pattern (Figs. 3A-3B, paragraph [0086]) in order to estimate at least one parameter of the droplet (FD, Figs. 1-3, paragraphs [0086]-[0088], [0090]).
Ko does not explicitly state that the printhead is a 3D printhead.
However, Ge discloses a 3D printhead (paragraph [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a 3D printhead as disclosed by Ge in the device of Ko in order to print 3D objects.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Ko in view of Ge discloses the system according to claim 1, and Ko further discloses that the processing unit (140, Fig. 1, and see Fig. 2) is configured to estimate a center of the droplet based on a center of the central dark area of the interference pattern (see Figs. 3A-B, paragraph [0091], diameters of center portions);
wherein the processing unit (140, Fig. 1, and see Fig. 2) is configured to estimate a diameter of the droplet based on a diameter of the central dark area of the interference pattern (paragraph [0091], diameter of edge of droplet is larger than diameter of center portion); and/or
wherein the processing unit is configured to estimate a shape of the droplet based on a shape of the central dark area of the interference pattern (paragraph [0091]-[0094]).
Regarding claim 4, Ko in view of Ge discloses the system according to claim 2, but does not disclose that the processing unit is configured to estimate of at least one of the center position, the diameter, and the shape based on an analysis of higher order interference effects.
However, Ge discloses using a plurality of detectors (paragraphs [0019], [0030]), which allows for analysis of higher order interference effects.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a higher order interference effects as disclosed by Ge in the device of Ko in order to provide a more accurate analysis.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Ko in view of Ge discloses the system according to claim 1, and Ko further discloses that the light source (120, Fig. 1A) and/or the light detection unit are operated in a pulsed mode (paragraph [0060]-[0063], [0065]) and are synchronized to the droplet ejection (paragraphs [0060]-[0063]) and/or to each other (paragraphs [0070], [0084]). Ge discloses capturing an image of a single droplet (paragraph [0022], either one droplet or multiple droplets).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to capture a single droplet as disclosed by Ge in the device of Ko in order to check individual nozzles for malfunction.
Regarding claim 13, Ko in view of Ge discloses the system according to claim 1, and Ko further discloses that the processing unit (140, Fig. 1) is configured to detect at least a central dark region in the detected interference pattern (Figs. 3A-3B) and to determine at least one of the center position, a diameter, and a shape of the central dark region (Figs. 3A-3B, paragraph [0091]).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Ge further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0259753 ("Shepherd").
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Ko in view of Ge discloses the system according to claim 1, but does not disclose that the laser beam has a wavelength between 550nm to 750nm, preferably between 600 nm and 690 nm; wherein the laser beam has a diameter between 8 times and 170 times the droplet diameter; and/or wherein the laser beam has a beam parameter product between 0.22 and 0.31 mm mrad with a respective M2 value between 1 and 1.3.
However, Shepherd discloses that light beam is a laser beam (VCSEL, paragraph [0016]); wherein the laser beam has a wavelength between 550nm to 750nm, preferably between 600 nm and 690 nm (paragraph [0016], specific wavelength is design choice); wherein the laser beam has a diameter between 8 times and 170 times the droplet diameter (paragraph [0016], 2 mm laser diameter and 20 µm water drops); and/or wherein the laser beam has a beam parameter product between 0.22 and 0.31 mm mrad with a respective M2 value between 1 and 1.3 (design choice).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a laser beam with specific parameters as disclosed by Shepherd in the device of Ko in view of Ge in order to ensure adequate detection and characterization of droplets.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Ge further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0024658 ("Diol").
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Ko in view of Ge discloses the system according to claim 1, and Ko further discloses that the light detection unit (130, Fig. 1) is an array image sensor, preferably a CMOS image sensor (paragraph [0069]), having a sensor area (inherent).
Ko in view of Ge does not disclose that the light detection unit has dimensions essentially corresponding to the dimensions of the light beam at the position of the light detection unit, and/or wherein the light detection unit is configured to resolve a droplet in the size of an area of at least 0.015% of the sensor area.
However, Diol discloses a light detection unit (12, Fig. 1-2, or 34/36, Fig. 4, or 52, Fig. 5) has dimensions essentially corresponding to the dimensions of the light beam at the position of the light detection unit (paragraph [0036]: “Such detectors would be matched with similar dimensional light sources to provide the necessary detection zone.”), and/or wherein the light detection unit is configured to resolve a droplet in the size of an area of at least 0.015% of the sensor area (design choice, see for example using apertures of different sizes).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have detectors that match light sources and have a specific sensor area as disclosed by Diol in the device of Ko in view of Ge in order to increase an optical signal-to-noise ratio of the detector.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Ge further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0198715 ("Garay").
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Ko in view of Ge discloses the system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose that at least one of the light emission unit and the light detection unit are mechanically referenceable against the 3D printhead; and/or wherein the processing unit is configured to calculate a position of the 3D printhead relative to the light beam center.
However, Garay discloses at least one of the light emission unit and the light detection unit (drop detector 22, Fig. 1A-B, includes light emission unit and light detection unit) are mechanically referenceable (encoder is a mechanical reference, Fig. 1B, paragraph [0062]) against the 3D printhead (38, Fig. 1A-B); and/or wherein the processing unit (46, Fig. 1A) is configured to calculate a position of the 3D printhead relative to the light beam center (paragraphs [0062]-[0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to mechanically reference the drop detector again the printhead as disclosed by Garay in the device of Ko in view of Ge in order to ensure that the drop detector is properly aligned with the printhead.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Ge further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0259560 ("Sreenivasan").
Regarding claim 14, Ko in view of Ge discloses the system according to claim 1, but does not disclose that the detection is based on an edge detection algorithm.
However, Sreenivasan discloses detection is based on a canny edge detection operator (paragraph [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use edge detection as disclosed by Sreenivasan in the device of Ko in view of Ge in order to estimate best droplet silhouette.
Regarding claim 15, Ko in view of Ge discloses the system according to claim 1, but does not disclose that the detection is based on a canny edge detection operator.
However, Sreenivasan discloses detection is based on a canny edge detection operator (paragraph [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use canny edge detection as disclosed by Sreenivasan in the device of Ko in view of Ge in order to estimate best droplet silhouette.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Ge further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0105721 ("Vinets").
Regarding claim 16, Ko in view of Ge discloses a system for optimization of a 3D printhead, and Ko further comprises comprising the system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose a 3D printhead with at least one adjustable ejection parameter and a controller unit, wherein the controller unit is configured to optimize the ejection parameter for a next droplet, based on the determined droplet parameter of a past droplet.
However, Vinets discloses a printhead (100, Fig. 1) with at least one adjustable ejection parameter (paragraph [0044], [0064]) and a controller unit (105, Fig. 1), wherein the controller unit (105, Fig. 1) is configured to optimize the ejection parameter for a next droplet, based on the determined droplet parameter of a past droplet (paragraph [0044], [0064], [0068]-[0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust the parameters for a next droplet as disclosed by Vinets in the device of Ko in view of Ge in order to correct possible defects.
Regarding claim 17, Ko in view of Ge and Vinets discloses the system according to claim 16, and Vinets further discloses that the controller unit (105, Fig. 1) is configured to optimize the ejection parameter for a next droplet, based on a predetermined target point (threshold, paragraph [0028]), based on the determined droplet parameter of a past droplet (paragraphs [0064],[0068]-[0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust the parameters for a next droplet as disclosed by Vinets in the device of Ko in view of Ge in order to correct possible defects.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA T. TABA whose telephone number is (571)272-1583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 6 pm.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/MONICA T TABA/Examiner, Art Unit 2878