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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities “beam impinges on,” in line 6 should be “beam impinges on”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 3-4, 12-14, 16-18, 20, 24, 28-29, 33, 39, 42, 50-51, and 60 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 1 recites the limitation the extensive maneuvering being with respect to an other device in which a tilting mirror is used instead of the optical prisms. It is unclear if the tilting mirrors is part of the three-dimensional printing or it is referring to a different 3d printer that has tilting mirrors. Examiner is interpreting the tilting mirrors as part of another device and not the one applicant is claiming.
Claim 1 also recites “optical prism configured to alter a direction of electromagnetic radiation emitted from a target surface on which an energy beam impinges on .. the electromagnetic radiation being configured to travel through the optical prisms to a designated location, the optical prisms being configured to be maneuvered with respect to each other.” It is unclear if the electromagnetic radiation is alter before it enters the optical prisms or after it. Clarification is required. Applicant is interpreting it as the electromagnetic radiation is altered after the energy hits the optical prisms.
Claims 3-4, 12-14, 16-18, 20, 24, 28-29, 33, 39, 42, 50-51, and 60 indirectly/directly depend on claim 1 and therefore are also rejected under 112b.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 16-18, 42, and 67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lentz (US 2022/0212406 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lentz discloses a device for three-dimensional printing (abstract), the device comprising: one or more optical elements (506a b) having an optical converter (526) configured to alter a type of an energy beam profile during the three-dimensional printing [0026],
and optical prisms ([006-007] optical elements and prisms can be the same) configured to alter a direction of electromagnetic radiation emitted from a target surface on which an energy beam impinges on (see figure 6);
the energy beam (510) being generated by an energy source and having the energy beam profile [0024],
the electromagnetic radiation being configured to travel through the optical prisms to a designated location, the optical prisms being configured to be maneuvered with respect to each other (step 608 in figure 6);
As for the limitation the optical prisms being configured to require more extensive maneuvering for altering the direction of a path of the electromagnetic radiation, the extensive maneuvering being with respect to another device in which a tilting mirror is used instead of the optical prisms, applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities and have the same results.
Regarding claim 3, Lentz discloses wherein the optical prisms comprises optical wedges [0022].
Regarding claim 4, Lentz discloses wherein the optical prisms comprises a Risley prism set [0021].
Regarding claims 16-18, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Nonetheless figure 6, 610 discloses the Risley elements can rotate longitudinally.
Regarding claim 42, Lentz teaches the device operatively coupled to at least one actuator (522a, 522b) configured to maneuver the optical prisms [0023].
Regarding claim 67, Lentz discloses an apparatus for three-dimensional printing (abstract), the apparatus comprising: an optical converter (526) configured to alter a type of an energy beam profile during the three-dimensional printing; a plurality of optical prisms [006-007] configured to alter a direction of electromagnetic radiation emitted from a target surface on which an energy beam impinges on (figure 6), the energy beam (510) being generated by an energy source and having the energy beam profile, the electromagnetic radiation being configured to travel through the optical prisms to a designated location, the optical prisms being configured to be maneuvered with respect to each other (step 608 in figure 6).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lentz (US 2022/0212406 A1) in view of Shah (US2020/0156310 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Lentz doe not explicitly disclose wherein the energy beam comprises an infrared beam. However, one ordinary skill in the art would look to conventional art to determine the different types of energy beams used with Risley lens. Analogous art, Shah, discloses infrared energy [0037]. KSR states "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized an infrared beam since it is within the skillset of one ordinary skilled in the art.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lentz (US 2022/0212406 A1) in view of Reese (US2018/0117837 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Lentz does not explicitly disclose wherein the designated location comprises a thermal detection system. However, analogous 3d printing art, Reese, discloses sensors can be used to determine if adequate energy for the pattern [0078]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a thermal detection system as taught by Reese into the device taught by Lenz for the benefit of determining if adequate energy for the pattern has be achieved to ensure the right sintering temperature is reached.
Claim(s) 13-14, 24, 28-29, 33, 39, 50-51, and 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lentz (US 2022/0212406 A1) in view of Buller (US 2019/0143412 A1).
Regarding claims 13-14, Applicant is reminded a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, Lentz uses electromagnetic radiation and analogous art, Buller, discloses the use of electromagnetic radiation with a first wavelength that is different from a second wavelength of the transforming energy beam [0050]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim use of electromagnetic radiation with a first wavelength that is different from a second wavelength of the transforming energy beam since it is conventionally well known. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 24, Lentz does not explicitly disclose wherein the target surface is disposed in a processing chamber and wherein the device is disposed within an interior of an optical system enclosure operatively coupled to the processing chamber. Analogous 3d printer art, Buller, depicts wherein the target surface is disposed in a processing chamber and wherein the device is disposed within an interior of an optical system enclosure operatively coupled to the processing chamber in figure 1 and 3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the target surface is disposed in a processing chamber and wherein the device is disposed within an interior of an optical system enclosure operatively coupled to the processing chamber as taught by Buller into the device taught by Lentz for the benefit of controlling the temperature and pressure of the printed product [0198].
Regarding claims 28, Applicant is reminded a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, Lentz and Buller’s device is capable of being the at least one optical element is configured to be adjusted from an exterior of the optical system enclosure (figure 6 in Lentz, and Buller [0293, 0382]).
Regarding claim 29, Lentz discloses wherein the at least one optical element is adjusted based at least in part by a remotely controlled adjustment module [0023].
Regarding claim 33, Lentz doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the designated location comprises a detector. However, analogous art, Buller, discloses a detector to measure any deformations in the resulted product [0019]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a detector [0019] as taught by Buller into the device taught by Lentz in order to check for any deformity in the resultant product.
Regarding claim 39, Lentz does not explicitly disclose wherein the designated location comprises a detection system configured to track the electromagnetic radiation emanating from the beam footprint on the target surface. However, Buller discloses using sensors to sense the electromagnetic radiation [0279] for the benefit of ensuring the right amount of electromagnetic radiation hits the melt pool and the forms the product. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated using sensors to sense the electromagnetic radiation as taught by Buller into the device taught by Lentz in order to ensure the right amount of electromagnetic radiation hits the melt pool and the forms the product.
Regarding claim 50, Lentz does not explicitly disclose wherein alteration of the beam profile comprises alteration of a type of the beam profile but Buller discloses controller may direct alteration in the energy beam according to the detection by the sensors [0030]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wherein alteration of the beam profile comprises alteration of a type of the beam profile, as taught by Buller into the device taught by Lentz, for the benefit of regulating the energy beam in order to produce a product with no defects.
Regarding claim 51, Lentz does not explicitly disclose the shape of the energy beam. One ordinary skill in the art would look to conventional art to determine the standard energy beams used. Analogous 3d printing art, Buller, discloses where the energy beam can be Gaussian [0195, 0246]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a Gaussian beam as taught by Buller, into the device taught by Lenz based on the design needs of the final product.
Regarding claim 60, Lentz does not explicitly disclose wherein the device is configured to be hermetically sealed. However, analogous art, Buller, discloses the enclosure can be sealed [0344] in order to prevent gas leaks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the device is configured to be hermetically sealed as taught by Buller into the device taught by Lentz in order to prevent gas leaks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754